This is a series of blog post I've started recently and thought might generate some discussion here.
You don't have to go to the blog if you don't want to (it has better formatting, however); I'll paste the whole text here and keep posting the rest of the series as long as there is interest in discussing it.
(If there is no discussion here I'll keep posting in the blog anyway).
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-i-pages-1-9.html
---
PREFACE
What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee. As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game, this work is written as one Dungeon Master equal to another. Pronouncements there may be, but they are not from "on high" as respects your game. Dictums are given for the sake of the game only, for if ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is to survive and grow, it must have some degree of uniformity, a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign within the whole.
- Dungeon Master's Guide (1e), page 7
Why I'm writing this
I have written extensively about why I love B/X. It is my favorite format of D&D, but mostly because it's very easy, simple, manageable, streamlined.
However, there is something about the original DMG that makes me feel it is the ultimate DM's book. While B/X is quick and effective, the DMG manages to be both wide and deep: it includes a wide range of relevant information while also maintaining a certain quality throughout. This is the work of people that have deep actual experience with D&D.
The writing is not particularly clear or elegant, and the art is not impressive, but there is a quality of truth to the whole thing that I can hardly find in other games.
This is all a bit vague and abstract, I know. So I have decided to read the DMG cover to cover (instead of looking up relevant bits as I usually do) to see if these impressions remain true. I tried reading the PHB, but it isn't as enticing for me; maybe I'll do that next.
Anyway, here are some concrete examples why, when comparing specific rules, I often favor using AD&D. For example, I prefer AD&D's:
- Attack progression (+1 per level for fighters).
- Powerful fighters (1 attack per level against HD lower than 1, multiple attacks as you level up, etc.).
- Magic-user nerf (chances of learning spells and I kinda like the idea of components. kinda).
- Turn undead rules (undead leaders make everyone harder to turn IIRC).
- Race separate from class.
OTOH I dislike:
- Messy attribute bonus instead of the neat -3/+3 of B/X.
- Bard and druid strange class progression.
- Weapon versus armor table (that contains arithmetic errors and not even Gygax used, apparently).
Notice I already implemented a few ideas from AD&D to Dark Fantasy Basic, my B/X homage. As I
read, I'm sure I'll find more of to add to my Basic(ish) games.
In short, my reading will not be historical or literal, but utilitarian. Let's see what I can find in the DMG to use in my own games!
Let me know in the comments if this seems like a worthwhile exercise.
So, let's do this!
Foreword, Contents and Preface (pages 1-8)
The book begins with a small foreword by Mike Carr, discussing dungeon mastering as both "art" and "science". On one hand, it is a matter of taste, flair, style; on the other, it requires experimentation, preparation, etc. It is fun, but requires effort. It is "above all, a labor of love".
This book focuses on the "science" part, I'd say - but you have to provide the imagination.
After that, we get a table of contents that I won't discuss now, but in the next post, as the organization of this book is explaining on page 9.
After the table of the contents, we get a preface by Gygax. It follows the reasoning of the foreword: you, as the referee, have ultimate authority, and you must create your own worlds, adventures, etc. However, the book advises you do not go too "wild", or you won't be playing AD&D anymore. So, keep most of the rules, races, monsters, as written, so you can have a shared experience with other AD&D players all over the world.
This feels a little more limiting than most advice you read nowadays, saying simply you can do "anything you want" with your game. This freedom is what brought me into RPGs in the first place, and I still think it is the best approach. However, I can see the value of keeping some uniformity so we can still use D&D as lingua franca.
Still, the preface lays a lot of responsibility in the hands of the referee.
The preface is followed by Credits and Acknowledgments, and then the actual introduction.
Introduction (and a note on organization) - page 9
The introduction talks about the organization of the book. The first part is commenting on The Player's Handbook. The second ADDS STUFF to the PHB, which includes... everything else. Besides the actual rules, we will get designer notes explaining why the rules are created this way.
About the organization... There is no clear separation between these two sections in the table of contents. The sections/chapters aren't numbered or clearly separated in any order except the one mentioned above. The next section (The Game, which we will cover in the next post) starts in the same page and column, and the section title is almost identical to the subsection title.
So, this book is a bit hard to navigate.
Anyway. Gygax say there was too much to add, so " the criterion was usefulness. First came material which was absolutely vital to play, then came the inclusion of what would be most helpful to you, and finally interesting items of broad I appeal to you which tends to improve the flavor of a campaign". Nice! Exactly what we are looking for.
Action and fun are more important than realism and "long and drawn out operations by the referee". Agreed!
The penultimate paragraph of the section tells the you can cut portions of the book to " maintain excitement" - including random encounters! It mentions you should skip them if the PCs are tired and out of resources, or use them when the PCs "deserve" it.
This seems like strange advice for me (especially coming from an old school perspective), as if the referee is not being completely honest, or playing softball with the players. But it is interesting to notice. And I can agree random encounters can feel anti-climatic at certain times.
Fair enough. But I'm not convinced. I think random encounters when the PCs are weak could be useful to emphasize the danger of the surroundings, the "truthfulness" of the setting, and to force PCs to consider talking, escaping, etc., instead of fighting every time. But it is something to consider.
The last paragraph repeats what we've read before: learn the rules carefully, create your own stuff, do the work, and be a great DM. It will take effort (which the players won't always recognize) but it will be fun.
What have we learned today?
Not much for now. Just an introduction, a few reminders (DMing should be enjoyable, occasionally ignore rules in favor of fun, be creative while keeping some familiar elements to have a shared D&D experience with other people), and the impression that the book could be more clearly organized. There is much more to come!
Coming next... THE GAME!
Rereading it myself (I'm running a true beginner's game for teens using a modified S&W with some additions, and going back to the intellectual wellspring is always helpful). Thanks for posting this!
This is something I would say goes in general that often gets missed when it comes to reading for meaning is, you have to to a degree put yourself in the author's shoes. I've heard a lot of literature teachers reduce this idea to knowing a bunch of biological information. And that can be helpful, but it's not always accurate. A lumberjack might write the great American novel while on an extended world cruise, and there would be no reason to think his being a lumberjack would necessarily be a significant factor into his state of mind at the time of writing. Of course an even bigger problem with leaning on biographical information, or even words in an interview straight from the horse's mouth, is sometimes there are ghostwriters involved. If it isn't a known fact that a lot of the 1E DMG is a compilation of rulings from different sources rather than a single vision or stream of consciousness, it seems fairly evident in the presentation.
So why is putting yourself in the author's shoes important when you don't even know which shoes to put on? The one thing we know with absolute certainty, even if we don't even know who the author is, is that whoever was doing the writing did so with some purpose in mind. There was something Gary or whoever was trying to accomplish, some problem he or she or they were looking to solve. And if you can figure out what that problem was, its vital context for what is actually written.
To wit, I will literally blast anyone and everyone for saying they don't like the weapon vs armor tables, especially if they say they reason they don't like it is because it's too much looking up stuff and at the end of the day the adjustments do not make a big difference. Because that's really only true if you play the standard RPG trope of motley band of borderline sociopaths wander the land getting caught up in wacky adventures. It's not true if you're running a campaign that's more like Braveheart, where you're doing mass battles, most of the characters, at least the NPCs and adversaries, are ordinary soldiers (0th level).
First of all, you want this "minutia" to matter because the effectiveness of different weapons in different situations played a part in the planning of battles, and the planning of battles were at least as important as the battles themselves. It's a huge chunk of playing that type of game.
Secondly, the lookups are not all that burdensome when you've got scores of homogenous units on either side. Buncha guys with hand axes attacking a buncha guys with chainmail armor, that's one lookup per side and it gets multiplied across 80 or however many guys.
Thirdly, a +2 or -2 adjustment here and there is HUGE difference when the "to hit" probability is as low as it is for 0th level humans. Off the top of my head, a broad sword has a -2 to hit a guy in platemail (AC 3), while a footman's flail has a +2. In terms of the number of hits scored per 20 men, you're talking about 1 with the broad sword, or 5 with the flail. It's a five-fold difference in the swing.
Do this and strategery is sure to take center stage. If that's the kind of campaign you're running, you dismiss these rules at your peril. "Oh, but even Gary said he didn't use weapon vs armor adjustments." Yeah. Gary's AD&D campaigns also were not centered around leading armies and mass combat. It was centered around the motley band of heroes trope. With every character so different, every swing requires a new lookup making it a pain in the ass. And for what? Maybe getting a +2 adjustment? Small potatoes when you're swinging +4 swords.
So circling back to my main point, the utility of this rule, when it enhances the game and when it hinders it, gives you some insight on what the rule is meant for. The unwritten implication of which is, the rule should not be applied to situations it was not meant for. So if you're running a bog standard fantasy campaign using 1E, you're actually not deviating from the Rules as Written when you ignore this rule, because in my estimation the rule was never meant to be applied to that style of play.
And that's kind of the eye you need to read the 1E DMG. Because aside from the appendices, the huge page count detailing magic items, and a few vital rules sections and tables, the book is mainly a collection of specific rulings (sometimes oddly specific). Often times their purpose is clear. But sometimes you need to read between the lines to infer it. And other times it's similar to weapon vs armor adjustments and you need to figure out what the rule is good for and what it's bad at rather than judging whether or not it tickles your fancy.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 29, 2023, 09:06:00 PM
Rereading it myself (I'm running a true beginner's game for teens using a modified S&W with some additions, and going back to the intellectual wellspring is always helpful). Thanks for posting this!
Thank you!
Quote from: Lunamancer on May 30, 2023, 10:44:56 AM
This is something I would say goes in general that often gets missed when it comes to reading for meaning is, you have to to a degree put yourself in the author's shoes. I've heard a lot of literature teachers reduce this idea to knowing a bunch of biological information. And that can be helpful, but it's not always accurate. A lumberjack might write the great American novel while on an extended world cruise, and there would be no reason to think his being a lumberjack would necessarily be a significant factor into his state of mind at the time of writing. Of course an even bigger problem with leaning on biographical information, or even words in an interview straight from the horse's mouth, is sometimes there are ghostwriters involved. If it isn't a known fact that a lot of the 1E DMG is a compilation of rulings from different sources rather than a single vision or stream of consciousness, it seems fairly evident in the presentation.
So why is putting yourself in the author's shoes important when you don't even know which shoes to put on? The one thing we know with absolute certainty, even if we don't even know who the author is, is that whoever was doing the writing did so with some purpose in mind. There was something Gary or whoever was trying to accomplish, some problem he or she or they were looking to solve. And if you can figure out what that problem was, its vital context for what is actually written.
I agree this is important, but notice I am tackling this from a particular angle: finding stuff I can use in my games.
While I will not make many historical considerations, I´d be happy to hear other people's perspectives on why certain rules were written, etc.
Quote from: Lunamancer on May 30, 2023, 10:44:56 AM
To wit, I will literally blast anyone and everyone for saying they don't like the weapon vs armor tables, especially if they say they reason they don't like it is because it's too much looking up stuff and at the end of the day the adjustments do not make a big difference. Because that's really only true if you play the standard RPG trope of motley band of borderline sociopaths wander the land getting caught up in wacky adventures. It's not true if you're running a campaign that's more like Braveheart, where you're doing mass battles, most of the characters, at least the NPCs and adversaries, are ordinary soldiers (0th level).
First of all, you want this "minutia" to matter because the effectiveness of different weapons in different situations played a part in the planning of battles, and the planning of battles were at least as important as the battles themselves. It's a huge chunk of playing that type of game.
Secondly, the lookups are not all that burdensome when you've got scores of homogenous units on either side. Buncha guys with hand axes attacking a buncha guys with chainmail armor, that's one lookup per side and it gets multiplied across 80 or however many guys.
Thirdly, a +2 or -2 adjustment here and there is HUGE difference when the "to hit" probability is as low as it is for 0th level humans. Off the top of my head, a broad sword has a -2 to hit a guy in platemail (AC 3), while a footman's flail has a +2. In terms of the number of hits scored per 20 men, you're talking about 1 with the broad sword, or 5 with the flail. It's a five-fold difference in the swing.
Do this and strategery is sure to take center stage. If that's the kind of campaign you're running, you dismiss these rules at your peril. "Oh, but even Gary said he didn't use weapon vs armor adjustments." Yeah. Gary's AD&D campaigns also were not centered around leading armies and mass combat. It was centered around the motley band of heroes trope. With every character so different, every swing requires a new lookup making it a pain in the ass. And for what? Maybe getting a +2 adjustment? Small potatoes when you're swinging +4 swords.
So circling back to my main point, the utility of this rule, when it enhances the game and when it hinders it, gives you some insight on what the rule is meant for. The unwritten implication of which is, the rule should not be applied to situations it was not meant for. So if you're running a bog standard fantasy campaign using 1E, you're actually not deviating from the Rules as Written when you ignore this rule, because in my estimation the rule was never meant to be applied to that style of play.
And that's kind of the eye you need to read the 1E DMG. Because aside from the appendices, the huge page count detailing magic items, and a few vital rules sections and tables, the book is mainly a collection of specific rulings (sometimes oddly specific). Often times their purpose is clear. But sometimes you need to read between the lines to infer it. And other times it's similar to weapon vs armor adjustments and you need to figure out what the rule is good for and what it's bad at rather than judging whether or not it tickles your fancy.
Yes, great points.
Specifically about the weapon vs armor adjustments, I might have something to say in the near future. I agree that it's much more important when you're running battles, and unnecessarily cumbersome for a group of adventures fighting monsters.
You're obviously right about ordinary soldiers; a +1 bonus is huge (double damage output) if your THAC0 is 20, but negligible if it is 5.
OTOH I will say that I think the table should NEVER be used as written. It contains errors that should be obvious to anyone analyzing it, but apparently no one noticed until Daniel/Delta compared AD&D numbers to chainmail.
http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-big-mistake-in-weapon-vs-armor.html
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 31, 2023, 02:07:42 PM
Yes, great points.
Specifically about the weapon vs armor adjustments, I might have something to say in the near future. I agree that it's much more important when you're running battles, and unnecessarily cumbersome for a group of adventures fighting monsters.
You're obviously right about ordinary soldiers; a +1 bonus is huge (double damage output) if your THAC0 is 20, but negligible if it is 5.
OTOH I will say that I think the table should NEVER be used as written. It contains errors that should be obvious to anyone analyzing it, but apparently no one noticed until Daniel/Delta compared AD&D numbers to chainmail.
http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-big-mistake-in-weapon-vs-armor.html
Meh. I've seen this before. It's bunk.
Have you noticed something missing from the blog post? Any indication at all that he's ever used actually the tables.
I started using them in 1993. According to my watch that makes it 30 years of using it. Or 28 years as of the date in the blog. And about the first 10 years of using it, I also did apply it to ordinary adventuring parties. For neither that nor in mass combat play did I ever run into anything that I felt was deeply wrong with these tables. The fact is, they hold up perfectly well, as-written, in actual play. There is no error. There might be a difference in preference, sure. But that doesn't make for an error. So there's good reason no one ever spotted this before Delta. Because there's no problem to spot.
Now as I said, I have seen this before. And so I can dive right into the weeds and show you where his errors are if you like. I know exactly where the bodies are buried, so to speak. But it's your thread. I don't want to derail it. I'll just say you shouldn't be saying things like "the table should NEVER be used as written" if you don't have the experience of using them extensively yourself, and even then you should be able to speak to your own experiences of what you felt didn't work for you.
Quote from: Lunamancer on May 31, 2023, 04:08:10 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 31, 2023, 02:07:42 PM
Yes, great points.
Specifically about the weapon vs armor adjustments, I might have something to say in the near future. I agree that it's much more important when you're running battles, and unnecessarily cumbersome for a group of adventures fighting monsters.
You're obviously right about ordinary soldiers; a +1 bonus is huge (double damage output) if your THAC0 is 20, but negligible if it is 5.
OTOH I will say that I think the table should NEVER be used as written. It contains errors that should be obvious to anyone analyzing it, but apparently no one noticed until Daniel/Delta compared AD&D numbers to chainmail.
http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-big-mistake-in-weapon-vs-armor.html
Meh. I've seen this before. It's bunk.
Have you noticed something missing from the blog post? Any indication at all that he's ever used actually the tables.
I started using them in 1993. According to my watch that makes it 30 years of using it. Or 28 years as of the date in the blog. And about the first 10 years of using it, I also did apply it to ordinary adventuring parties. For neither that nor in mass combat play did I ever run into anything that I felt was deeply wrong with these tables. The fact is, they hold up perfectly well, as-written, in actual play. There is no error. There might be a difference in preference, sure. But that doesn't make for an error. So there's good reason no one ever spotted this before Delta. Because there's no problem to spot.
Now as I said, I have seen this before. And so I can dive right into the weeds and show you where his errors are if you like. I know exactly where the bodies are buried, so to speak. But it's your thread. I don't want to derail it. I'll just say you shouldn't be saying things like "the table should NEVER be used as written" if you don't have the experience of using them extensively yourself, and even then you should be able to speak to your own experiences of what you felt didn't work for you.
I'll admit I have never used this tables, but Delta's post has me convinced with the Chainmail comparison.
If you can show me his errors, I'd certainly appreciate it! As I've seen no one trying to debunk it, I had assumed it was more or less obvious (I didn't run the numbers myself but his reasoning makes plenty of sense to me - i.e., the chainmail numbers got lost in the d20 translation).
I'm still studying the issue, and I think it is well within the scope of this thread - i.e., finding stuff in AD&D you could potentially use (for me, in B/X, but could be used in any game).
(one example: the mace. In Chainmail, and, I think in real life, it is a great tool to defeat basically any type of armor or shield - not so in the AD&D table).
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 31, 2023, 05:45:22 PM
I'll admit I have never used this tables, but Delta's post has me convinced with the Chainmail comparison.
If you can show me his errors, I'd certainly appreciate it! As I've seen no one trying to debunk it, I had assumed it was more or less obvious (I didn't run the numbers myself but his reasoning makes plenty of sense to me - i.e., the chainmail numbers got lost in the d20 translation).
I'm still studying the issue, and I think it is well within the scope of this thread - i.e., finding stuff in AD&D you could potentially use (for me, in B/X, but could be used in any game).
(one example: the mace. In Chainmail, and, I think in real life, it is a great tool to defeat basically any type of armor or shield - not so in the AD&D table).
I'll start with the big, main reason, then later I can get into everything about the post that's raising flags with me.
The whole claim that it's wrong because they double-counted I think is bunk. As a math guy myself, I get having a heightened awareness about double-counting. It's not clear that is what happened here, though. His own absolute error table shows you how often his calculation is off. It may be close. But this is far from any kind of conclusive evidence at all that this is where it came from. It's not an over-statement to say, he's literally just making shit up that fits.
I don't think his theory is implausible, mind you. I do a lot of converting between systems and even just re-organizing information within a single system to look at it new ways. Sometimes I do slam tables together. I get it. I can totally see Gary or any number of game designers doing it. I know for a fact it's the sort of thing I might do. So let me grant for the sake of argument that he has his history right as far as where these numbers came from, and let's also grant that Gary did smash tables together. Note I am being extremely fair to his case.
Here's the problem. If this is how it happened, with tables being smashed together, it certainly wasn't done "blindly" as evidenced by the differences noted in the Absolute Error table. Why didn't the math work out exactly? Gary must have decided to make some adjustments to the table smash results. Delta affirms this when he talks about the spear. So if Delta posits that Gary made a correction to the spear, why wouldn't he have also made a correction to the mace if that was wrong?
Unless it wasn't wrong. Unless it was exactly as intended. If it's as intended, then there is no arithmetic error. And if there's no arithmetic error, there's no story here. Whether tables were slammed together or not, it's a fact supported by the same evidence Delta cites that there was a reasonability test applied to the final form. That alone is logically sufficient to entirely dismantle Delta's case. You can still argue it emotionally if you like, but it objectively is not supported by math or logic.
And as for double-counting, when you're going from a 2d6 mechanic to a 1d20 mechanic, you're dealing with a change in scale. You smash together two tables with variations for a 2d6 mechanic and just add them without any further mathematical manipulation, it kind of does fit the change in scale. To the degree there was a table slam, the effect would be to reconcile two different tables put together to fit two different game purposes through averaging them.
So now here's all the little things that really irk me about the article.
QuotePlayers of 1E AD&D duel with the most heavy-weight table in the PHB (p. 38): the "Weapon Types, General Data, and 'To Hit' Adjustment" table, which includes Armor Class Adjustments, intended to recreate the matchups of certain weapons versus certain classes of armor.
AD&D 1E PHB Weapon TYpes Table
It's among the more complicated things in the game.
I don't know of any player who's ever "dueled" with the table. And I don't know there's anything complicated about this table. It's a friggin' table. Even if you consider tables extremely complicated, the game's got so many tables, this is hardly more complicated than most other things players will "duel" with. So right off the bat, he's already making vacuous statements for emotional effect.
QuoteOn the one hand, they're not listed as variants or optional rules;
The books are prefaced that everything is optional. As a matter of practice, very little is marked as optional. But it's understood.
Quoteand they're ingrained to the DMG example of combat -- so many 1E players do pound these tables into their games, determined to faithfully use them no matter how awkward they are. On the other hand, at least as many players of the game overlooked them,
This doesn't happen. Almost nobody uses these tables in their games. Almost nobody does mass combat in their games, either, so almost no one has a reason to use these tables in their game. But that's not what he makes it sound like, does it? No. He's trying to paint up swaths of non-existent people as fools. Because when you have nothing real to say, you have to set up straw men to knock down.
QuoteAs usual, the answer is given more clearly if we take a step back to the Original D&D texts.
Ever think in finding clarity by taking a step forward to Gary's later works? I mean Dangerous Journeys has some extremely detailed armor/weapon systems. If you're trying to map his thoughts, that's the source that would have the most data.
You know what you'll find there regarding the mace? When insane amounts of detail are given to damage types vs armor types? You find that, better armor does indeed provide better protection against even the mace but just not to the same degree as other weapons. Same as you get out of the 1E tables. By the way, even though it's a ton simpler, this sort of thing surfaces to a subtle degree in the Lejendary Adventure RPG as well. How many times in a row does Gary have to do this before we accept that's how he intended it?
Quote
Yikes. I'm pretty sure this is the biggest numerical error I've ever seen in the legacy of D&D, and I do think it seems to have escaped everyone's notice for lo these 45 years and counting.
So I'd say that any 1E players who are still engaged in this gnashing-of-teeth exercise with these tables would be wise to put it to bed, because the whole effect of those tables in O/AD&D was fundamentally broken all along. It doesn't even begin to serve the goal that they're allegedly for. I'm guessing that they were never playtested at Gary's table -- again, he was adamant that he never used them, and was essentially disinterested in the whole project -- but once they got printed and published, everyone took it on faith that they were fit for the purpose. But they very much weren't.
This is his "Everyone is dumb except me" refrain.
There's no numeric error here.
It hasn't escaped anyone's notice. In fact, I noticed within my first month of using the tables that, oh, on average each point of AC makes the target more than 5% harder to hit with a weapon. I'm pretty sure I've Ackchyually'ed people before on this very point in response to claims that armor in AD&D isn't effective enough. Possibly as far back as usenet in the mid 90's. Yeah. Because weirdly these tables actually do solve some problems that usually don't get mentioned when the tables get brought up.
I've never met anyone engaged in any kind of gnashing-of-teeth over this.
The tables are not fundamentally broken.
They do serve the goal that they're for. Not that he knows the purpose--he didn't mention anything about the difference between using these in individual combat versus mass combat.
Playtested? I would challenge the automatic assumption that playtesting is necessary when a) the game and its parts have emerged from actual play rather than having been designed in a bubble, and b) when you're talking about entries on a matrix it's literally giving a ruling as to what to do when these two variables meet. Playtested? Not playtested? Either way, even Delta apparently believes that Gary intentionally corrected the spear adjustments. There absolutely was a test for reasonableness applied. So, yes, it was definitely tested. We can say that with a fair bit of certainty.
Quote from: Lunamancer on May 31, 2023, 10:15:59 PM
snip
Thanks for the detailed response!
You make some good points.
I remain convinced of the "translation error" because, if you remove the spear from the list, the chainmail version is just too close to Greyhawk to believe that it took much thinking between both (practically identical to original-8 in some cases). A simple transposition/error seems more likely.
The mace, I think, is a good example - believing that Gygax did a 180 on purpose (from "great at defeating armor" to "not particularly good at anything") requires an explanation I don't see.
There are other reasons to avoid the AD&D table, IMO:
- Gygax repeated recommendations/regrets.
- Some extreme weirdness I cannot explain (or justify), such as your shield HINDERING you when fighting someone with a mace, or chainmail being BETTER than plate against a 2H sword (when most plate had chain underneath).
- Too fiddly even for mass combat.
On the other hand, you did make me consider some aspects I had missed - taking a look at Dangerous Journeys, for example.
And while I think I spent too much time looking at these tables, I believe the idea of weapon against armor has merit, even if I disagree with some particular numbers. So, in the end, AD&D DID inspire me to try and create something (much simplified) to my B/X games, which is the whole point of the exercise.
(It could also "fix" some problems in B/X, where NO ONE has a reason to use a battleaxe, for example).
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2023, 10:16:15 AM
(It could also "fix" some problems in B/X, where NO ONE has a reason to use a battleaxe, for example).
Well, in BEMCI/RC, the optional weapon mastery rules are supposed to fix that problem, albeit in a different way than AD&D. I'm not sure weapon mastery does everything it sets out to do, and it's not my favorite set of rules, but it certainly does make weapons different enough to give some players a reason to broaden their choices a bit.
Of course, those rules are arguably more complex than the weapon vs armor charts. OTOH, they are integrated with the B/X style already. Porting the weapon vs armor charts to B/X cleanly would probably be a combination of porting and then adjusting to some of the assumptions of the weapon mastery rules, while shedding most of the details of the weapon mastery rules.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 01, 2023, 05:19:51 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2023, 10:16:15 AM
(It could also "fix" some problems in B/X, where NO ONE has a reason to use a battleaxe, for example).
Well, in BEMCI/RC, the optional weapon mastery rules are supposed to fix that problem, albeit in a different way than AD&D. I'm not sure weapon mastery does everything it sets out to do, and it's not my favorite set of rules, but it certainly does make weapons different enough to give some players a reason to broaden their choices a bit.
Of course, those rules are arguably more complex than the weapon vs armor charts. OTOH, they are integrated with the B/X style already. Porting the weapon vs armor charts to B/X cleanly would probably be a combination of porting and then adjusting to some of the assumptions of the weapon mastery rules, while shedding most of the details of the weapon mastery rules.
Yes, good point! BECMI/RC is a whole different matter... I do think I prefer AD&D in this regard. And I enjoy minimalism, so I added this paragraph to my minimalist house rules:
---
Weapons [optional]. The "slow" tag gives -1 initiative, +1 to hit, and +1 damage on critical hits (the lance gets the same bonuses but no initiative penalty). Maces and war hammers get the same benefits but no initiative penalty. All 1d4 weapons, hand axes, spears and swords get -1 to hit against chainmail (i.e., AC 14) or better, unless the opponent is prone or unaware (e.g., backstab). See also "great weapons" and "critical hits".
---
This seems to be enough to give each B/X weapon a niche.... leaving multiple attacks for another day.
Greetings!
Well, while I love AD&D, and revere Gygax, some aspects of the old rules can and should be looked at with a careful eye. There is a reason that medieval armies in Western Euroe, but also throughout Eastern Europe and Russia, and down into India, equipped many of their infantry warriors with various kinds of maces and war hammers.
Maces and War Hammers are not *just* a bit cheaper and easier t make, than say, a finely-crafted sword. Maces and War Hammers are brutally effective and ruthlessly lethal against all kinds of armoured opponents, whether they are wearing leather armour, chainmail, lamellar, or plate armour. Primary sources in both medieval Russia and India all discuss the ferocious lethality of maces and war hammers against armoured opponents. The Russians for example, developed the Chekan--which was a hand weapon that combined a hammer-head on one side, and a short, puncturing steel spike on the other side. Absolutely brutal against any kind of opponent, whether they were on foot or mounted. Likewise, the Indian armoursmiths and weapon smiths, funded and directed by great emperors and kings fighting enormous wars--were keen to ensure that their troops in the field had plentiful access to a variety of lethal styles of maces and war hammers as weapons. In many instances, they provided expert witnesses and staff to survey and interview warriors in the field about weapon effectiveness against different kinds of enemies. Over and over again, Indian weapon smiths experimented with different materials and weights, to achieve the most efficient balance of speed, agility and ease of use, and brutal effectiveness.
Thus, if anything, I think maces and war hammers should be even more effective. Aside from a poke, maces and war hammers were like egg-crackers and "Can Openers" against armoured enemies. Importantly, even foot soldiers, the infantry, could devastate charging cavalry troops by using maces and war hammers. After the initial charging surge--if that didn't break the infantry formation--the cavalry were often pinned and drug into ferocious hand to hand combat, where quite honestly, against heavy infantry armed with maces and war hammers, the mounted troops were often crushed in terrible defeat. Regardless of the battle's ultimate outcome, heavy infantry warriors armed with maces and war hammers guaranteed that mounted cavalry would suffer severe casualties.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2023, 10:16:15 AM
I remain convinced of the "translation error" because, if you remove the spear from the list, the chainmail version is just too close to Greyhawk to believe that it took much thinking between both (practically identical to original-8 in some cases). A simple transposition/error seems more likely.
That's the story Delta tells. It's not the story at all when you look at the actual numbers. On his own Absolute Error table, there are a lot of deviations. The only weapons listed on the Absolute Error table that line up exactly are the two-handed sword and morning star. Every other weapon deviates from the hypothesis. Including the mace. Not to mention, the weapons he has listed, those he can find in those previous sources, is less than half the weapon list in AD&D. What's the explanation behind them?
QuoteThe mace, I think, is a good example - believing that Gygax did a 180 on purpose (from "great at defeating armor" to "not particularly good at anything") requires an explanation I don't see.
Again, this may be the story Delta tells. But it's just not true. This claim is not supported by any evidence at all. It's only supported by an illusion.
As I mentioned towards the tail end of my last post, Ackchyually, when you take into account the weapon vs armor tables in 1E, 1 point of AC typically provides more than a 5% benefit. In other words, you can't make any accurate assessment without adjusting your expectations likewise.
Here's a an example.
Going strictly by the hit tables, the difference in number needed to hit AC 10 vs AC 2 should be 8 points.
The difference in the number needed to hit with a broadsword to hit AC 10 vs AC 2 is 13 points.
The difference in the number needed to hit with a horseman's mace to hit AC 10 vs AC 2 is 7 points.
It's easy to be fooled that the mace is still facing the brunt of armor protection--7 out of 8 points, anyway. But it's actually facing 7 points compared to other weapons that face more like 13 points. And so it actually is diminishing the protective value of armor by about half.
So it's an objective fact that there's been no 180 change in the purpose of the weapon. It's simply an untrue claim. It's just its effect has been softened. And I find this to be more reasonable than the original chainmail. And that you see this repeated in Gary's later fantasy RPGs as well. So even if you insist on calling it a 180 change in purpose, what you see in AD&D is clearly what he had intended.
And here's another way you can look at it. Of those weapons listed in Chainmail, only the Flail and the Two-Handed Sword work better vs AC 2 than the mace. In the AD&D tables, the only weapons rated better than the mace vs AC 2 that also appear in Chainmail are the two-handed sword and the (footman's) flail. And it remains equal to the halberd, just as it is in Chainmail, but does better than the morning star in AD&D even though they were equal vs AC 2 in Chainmail. So it certainly has not lost any positioning at all in the pecking order of weapons that do well against good armor. And in fact it made gains over the morning star. Again, the claim is complete and total bunk with zero evidence behind it and plenty of evidence contradicting it.
Quote- Gygax repeated recommendations.
If you asked him his advice, he had a way of figuring out what you wanted to hear and giving you that answer. Because he really wanted individual GMs to decide these things for themselves.
I was once at an in-person Q&A with Gary when someone asked him about Psionics. And just like Delta quotes, sure enough, he says he never used it. But there was more too the answer in that live Q&A, and I know it's something that's out there somewhere. The other part of it is he said he didn't feel Psionics were appropriate for the fantasy genre, and better fits in sci fi. His remark was met with thunderous applause.
The problem is, after D&D, he went on to write two more fantasy RPGs, and both of them have psionics. Well, they're actually called Psychogenics in both games, with a note in DJ that Psychogenics is the more correct term. That psionics implies technologically enhanced mind powers. But it's not like when he said he didn't use psionics he really meant he just called it something different. And the applause wasn't for a name change. He gave the answer people wanted to hear, and I don't think for one second that he thought mind-powers, no matter what you call them, are out of place in the fantasy setting. Despite him being on record saying it is.
Quote- Some extreme weirdness I cannot explain (or justify), such as your shield HINDERING you when fighting someone with a mace, or chainmail being BETTER than plate against a 2H sword (when most plate had chain underneath).
Chainmail being better than plate against a 2H sword is not a thing. But the mace/shield does raise questions. Just not about the same issues being argued. You're also worse off having a shield if you have no other armor against a footman's flail. I've always interpreted that being the shield catching the chain causing the head to wrap around and go bonk.
It's possible there was a transcription error. That the footman's mace adjustments were meant to be the adjustments for the footman's flail and the line of adjustments somehow got swapped. But the other thing is, the way the modern nerd categorizes the differences between the mace and flail so neatly was not necessarily viewed so cleanly back then. In fact, about 20 years ago when I attended a workshop regarding medieval weapons, with Gary Gygax himself on the panel, the museum that hosted the event literally had a thingie with a chain on display and labeled as a type of mace. So maybe he's got footman's mace as one of those. I really don't know.
You know what I do know, though? The number of times in 30 years someone used an ordinary shield but no armor. If you're not sure what that number is, the hint I'll give is that leather armor is cheaper than all shields but the wooden shield, does not reduce movement rate, and does not use up a hand.
Quote- Too fiddly even for mass combat.
I don't know what that means.
QuoteOn the other hand, you did make me consider some aspects I had missed - taking a look at Dangerous Journeys, for example.
If you want the better organized and expanded AD&D in Gary's vision, Advanced Mythus is it. But I really like Lejendary Adventure because it's much more rules lite and I think more in the spirit of D&D, with it's nitty-gritty rules working well to compliment the stuff that's in the 1E DMG without repeating it.
Another thing I like about LA is it boldly returns to some of Gary's old ideas that other people have also argued impressively Gary really didn't mean. Like the whole way illusions changed over the editions, and the insistence that Gary never really intended illusions that could actually hurt you, it's just there was no thought on it one way or another back then (I think it's Frank Mentzer that pushes that the hardest), and then in LA he's got an illusion power that very specifically says it can cause wounds to spontaneously open "as stigmata do."
So always be very, very careful about some of the very well-made cases about D&D and the history of D&D, because a lot of it is complete bullshit no matter how compelling it sounds, no matter what documentation is produced, and there's evidence that it's total bullshit in Gary's later games for anyone who bothers to look.
I wonder if Gary's locked down works ever see the light of day again, if anyone will ever pay the ransom to get the backup files of the Lejendary.com forums released. Because Gary posted a ton of stuff there. It makes the Dragonsfoot Q&A threads with Gary seem like amateur hour. I think there's probably some stuff in there that can flip a lot of things accepted as known fact on their heads.
On the weapon vs armor table.
TSR put out in Dragon 74 and later sold a Fighting Wheel. This marvelous little gadget allowed you to just look it all up fairly easy.
(https://i0.wp.com/waynesbooks.games/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/add-combat-computer.jpg?resize=554%2C600&ssl=1)
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2023, 09:20:59 PM
Greetings!
Well, while I love AD&D, and revere Gygax, some aspects of the old rules can and should be looked at with a careful eye. There is a reason that medieval armies in Western Euroe, but also throughout Eastern Europe and Russia, and down into India, equipped many of their infantry warriors with various kinds of maces and war hammers.
Maces and War Hammers are not *just* a bit cheaper and easier t make, than say, a finely-crafted sword. Maces and War Hammers are brutally effective and ruthlessly lethal against all kinds of armoured opponents, whether they are wearing leather armour, chainmail, lamellar, or plate armour. Primary sources in both medieval Russia and India all discuss the ferocious lethality of maces and war hammers against armoured opponents. The Russians for example, developed the Chekan--which was a hand weapon that combined a hammer-head on one side, and a short, puncturing steel spike on the other side. Absolutely brutal against any kind of opponent, whether they were on foot or mounted. Likewise, the Indian armoursmiths and weapon smiths, funded and directed by great emperors and kings fighting enormous wars--were keen to ensure that their troops in the field had plentiful access to a variety of lethal styles of maces and war hammers as weapons. In many instances, they provided expert witnesses and staff to survey and interview warriors in the field about weapon effectiveness against different kinds of enemies. Over and over again, Indian weapon smiths experimented with different materials and weights, to achieve the most efficient balance of speed, agility and ease of use, and brutal effectiveness.
Thus, if anything, I think maces and war hammers should be even more effective. Aside from a poke, maces and war hammers were like egg-crackers and "Can Openers" against armoured enemies. Importantly, even foot soldiers, the infantry, could devastate charging cavalry troops by using maces and war hammers. After the initial charging surge--if that didn't break the infantry formation--the cavalry were often pinned and drug into ferocious hand to hand combat, where quite honestly, against heavy infantry armed with maces and war hammers, the mounted troops were often crushed in terrible defeat. Regardless of the battle's ultimate outcome, heavy infantry warriors armed with maces and war hammers guaranteed that mounted cavalry would suffer severe casualties.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Great points. In chainmail, the mace is about FIVE TIMES better than a regular sword against AC 2 (because of 2d6 probabilities). I think this might be realistic, but from a practical standpoint it feels too much.
On the other hand, I think the mace is too weak in most D&D versions. It is strictly worse than the sword in B/X, and in 5e it is weaker than the quarterstaff!
Certainly something that deserves to be fixed...
Quote from: Omega on June 02, 2023, 12:06:55 AM
On the weapon vs armor table.
TSR put out in Dragon 74 and later sold a Fighting Wheel. This marvelous little gadget allowed you to just look it all up fairly easy.
(https://i0.wp.com/waynesbooks.games/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/add-combat-computer.jpg?resize=554%2C600&ssl=1)
Neat!
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 01, 2023, 11:19:03 PM
As I mentioned towards the tail end of my last post, Ackchyually, when you take into account the weapon vs armor tables in 1E, 1 point of AC typically provides more than a 5% benefit. In other words, you can't make any accurate assessment without adjusting your expectations likewise.
Here's a an example.
Going strictly by the hit tables, the difference in number needed to hit AC 10 vs AC 2 should be 8 points.
The difference in the number needed to hit with a broadsword to hit AC 10 vs AC 2 is 13 points.
The difference in the number needed to hit with a horseman's mace to hit AC 10 vs AC 2 is 7 points.
It's easy to be fooled that the mace is still facing the brunt of armor protection--7 out of 8 points, anyway. But it's actually facing 7 points compared to other weapons that face more like 13 points. And so it actually is diminishing the protective value of armor by about half. So it's an objective fact that there's been no 180 change in the purpose of the weapon. It's simply an untrue claim. It's just its effect has been softened.
Yes, this is a good point. I don't think it's comparable to chainmail, where the mace simply ignores armor, and is five times better than a sword against AC 2. But it's still a decent weapon against armor, relatively to other weapons.
"1 point of AC typically provides more than a 5% benefit" is true and gave me some interesting ideas.
Which brings us to the next point:
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 01, 2023, 11:19:03 PMAnd I find this to be more reasonable than the original chainmail. And that you see this repeated in Gary's later fantasy RPGs as well. So even if you insist on calling it a 180 change in purpose, what you see in AD&D is clearly what he had intended.
Now on this point we fully agree. While I think some mistakes have been committed, the most important part for me is: which rules can we use (in my games, or anyone else's). And here AD&D beats chainmail, of course, and also can be useful to "fix" B/X.
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 01, 2023, 11:19:03 PM
And here's another way you can look at it. Of those weapons listed in Chainmail, only the Flail and the Two-Handed Sword work better vs AC 2 than the mace. In the AD&D tables, the only weapons rated better than the mace vs AC 2 that also appear in Chainmail are the two-handed sword and the (footman's) flail. And it remains equal to the halberd, just as it is in Chainmail, but does better than the morning star in AD&D even though they were equal vs AC 2 in Chainmail. So it certainly has not lost any positioning at all in the pecking order of weapons that do well against good armor. And in fact it made gains over the morning star. Again, the claim is complete and total bunk with zero evidence behind it and plenty of evidence contradicting it.
Here's the difficult part: If the mistake Delta claims occurred, it wouldn't change the "pecking order", as it would have been repeated for every weapon (except the spear).
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 01, 2023, 11:19:03 PM
Chainmail being better than plate against a 2H sword is not a thing. But the mace/shield does raise questions. Just not about the same issues being argued. You're also worse off having a shield if you have no other armor against a footman's flail. I've always interpreted that being the shield catching the chain causing the head to wrap around and go bonk.
It's possible there was a transcription error.
2H sword: my bad, I looked at the wrong column. I mean a 2H is
better against AC 8 than AC 10, which is equally absurd IMO. Same for the shield hurting the wielder.
There could be an explanation for this, but again, I'm looking for useful/cool ideas, and " drop your shield when you see a mace/flail", or "lose the leather armor when you see a 2H sword" is not something I can use.
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 01, 2023, 11:19:03 PM
If you want the better organized and expanded AD&D in Gary's vision, Advanced Mythus is it. But I really like Lejendary Adventure because it's much more rules lite and I think more in the spirit of D&D, with it's nitty-gritty rules working well to compliment the stuff that's in the 1E DMG without repeating it.
Another thing I like about LA is it boldly returns to some of Gary's old ideas that other people have also argued impressively Gary really didn't mean. Like the whole way illusions changed over the editions, and the insistence that Gary never really intended illusions that could actually hurt you, it's just there was no thought on it one way or another back then (I think it's Frank Mentzer that pushes that the hardest), and then in LA he's got an illusion power that very specifically says it can cause wounds to spontaneously open "as stigmata do."
So always be very, very careful about some of the very well-made cases about D&D and the history of D&D, because a lot of it is complete bullshit no matter how compelling it sounds, no matter what documentation is produced, and there's evidence that it's total bullshit in Gary's later games for anyone who bothers to look.
I wonder if Gary's locked down works ever see the light of day again, if anyone will ever pay the ransom to get the backup files of the Lejendary.com forums released. Because Gary posted a ton of stuff there. It makes the Dragonsfoot Q&A threads with Gary seem like amateur hour. I think there's probably some stuff in there that can flip a lot of things accepted as known fact on their heads.
That sounds extremely interesting!
I'll leave these here for easy reference, to anyone following the discussion.
Chainmail
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vmfJ8OBXhwE/YERsDShaFSI/AAAAAAAAFi8/l7-bziC4Gbc1L5TXEsiKnFQvZFdAD1oEgCNcBGAsYHQ/s919/CM-ManToManMelee.png)
AD&D
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ohNcHA-LMHk/YERr36hHhEI/AAAAAAAAFi4/Wdgy5L-F7DUr8YnZpU5VC6JaPevhKf8PwCNcBGAsYHQ/s939/1E-WeaponTypes.png)
(BTW, if anyone can find this AD&D table as a spreadsheet, please let me know!)
But I'll emphasize that I'm less concerned with historical aspects, or if and how mistakes have been committed. What I'm looking for are cool/flavorful ideas that we can use in our games - for example, "the mace is great against armor", etc. - see SHARK's post.
(It's still an interesting discussion anyway)
EDIT: I wrote a small post on the subject. While I haven't managed to reduce these tables to B/X levels of simplicity, I think I'm getting close.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/weapon-versus-armor-from-ad-to-bx.html
Anyway, here is part 2:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-ii-pages-9-22.html
We are reading the original DMG - the ultimate DM book - but from a B/X and OSR point-of-view. Here is part I. Today we will tackle:
THE GAME 9
— APPROACHES TO PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 9
— DICE 9
— USE OF MINIATURE FIGURES 10
— AIDS TO PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 11
CREATING THE PLAYER CHARACTER 11
— GENERATION OF ABILITY SCORES 11
— NON-PLAYER CHARACTERS 11
— THE EFFECT OF WISHES ON CHARACTER ABILITY SCORES 11
— CHARACTERISTICS FOR PLAYER CHARACTERS 11
— PLAYER CHARACTER NON-PROFESSIONAL SKILLS 12
— STARTING LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE FOR PLAYER CHARACTERS 12
CHARACTER AGE, AGING, DISEASE, AND DEATH 12
— CHARACTER AGE 12
— AGING 13
— Unnatural Aging 13
— DISEASE 13
— DEATH 15
CHARACTER ABILITIES 15
— EXPLANATION OF ABILITIES 15
CHARACTER RACES 15
— PLAYER CHARACTER RACIAL TENDENCIES 15
CHARACTER CLASSES 16
— FOLLOWERS FOR UPPER LEVEL PLAYER CHARACTERS 16
— The Paladin's Warhorse 18
— SPYING 18
— THIEF ABILITIES 19
— THIEVES AND ASSASSINS SETTING TRAPS 20
— ASSASSINATION EXPERIENCE POINTS 20
— ASSASSINS' USE OF POISON 20
— THE MONSTER AS A PLAYER CHARACTER 21
— LYCANTHROPY 22
The game
First, we get a small paragraph repeating what we have heard before: D&D is about fun, not "realism" or "simulation". Sounds obvious, but it is valuable advice if you are coming from wargames - as they did at the time.
Next, we get a section explaining dice. Again, this looks obvious now, but it was necessary back in 1979, since the stranger dice types (including the iconic d20) were a lot less common. One interesting things is that it teaches you what a bell curve is - I find this knowledge to be essential to DMs (and, well, to everyone) and sorely lacking in modern DMGs.
In the end of this part, we get an interesting alternative for the habitual reaction rolls, and a good conclusion on dice in general. I'll reproduce it here (as a curiosity), but TBH I won't try it in my games, since it requires special dice and a lot of rolling and thought for something that can easily be resolved with 2d6.
Unfortunately, this is apparently something common in the book: we get decent advice mixed with unrefined, convoluted, in unnecessarily complex systems.
The author has a d6 with the following faces: SPADE, CLUB, CLUB, DIAMOND, DIAMOND, HEART. If, during an encounter, players meet a character whose reaction is uncertain, the card suit die is rolled in conjunction with 3d6. Black suits mean dislike, with the SPADE equalling hate, while red equals like, the HEART being great favor. The 3d6 give a bell-shaped probability curve of 3-18, with 9-12 being the mean spread. SPADE 18 means absolute and unchangeable hate, while HEART 18 indicates the opposite. CLUBS or DIAMONDS can be altered by discourse, rewards, etc. Thus, CLUBS 12 could possibly be altered to CLUBS 3 by offer of a tribute or favor, CLUBS 3 changed to DIAMONDS 3 by a gift, etc.
In closing this discussion, simply keep in mind that the dice are your tools. Learn to use them properly and they will serve you well.
The sections on miniatures and playing aids (sheets, etc.) are not especially relevant or useful nowadays, since most of it has gone digital.
Creating the PCs
As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow
participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he
or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters
by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a
suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal
characters tend to have short life expectancy — which tends to discourage new
players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class
which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then,
is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used.
Four alternatives are offered for player characters: [...]
Coming from a BX/OSR view, this is strange advice, as many are used to roll 3d6 in order and play with what they get. In practice, however, I agree with Gygax - why not let players get the class/race they want? Most players will create the same kind of PCs over and over again (in my experience), but they are having fun, so be it.
So, instead of the usual 3d6 in order, we get FOUR different methods of generating PCs, the most famous being "roll4d6, drop lowest. That's a lot of redundancy and needless dice rolling, and generates very high ability scores. I might choose a less benevolent method for my own games, however: maybe assign 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 7, or roll 3d6 seven times and assign to taste. Even better, just roll 3d20.
NPCs, wishes, Characteristics for PCs
NPCs have their own methods of generating ability scores. I find this unnecessary. Wishes can augment ability scores, but after 16 they only improve by one decimal point per wish. Okay. PCs shouldn't have (random) NPC characteristics (e.g., personality - the table is actually on page 100) forced upon them, as they should play the PCs as they see fit. Except for weight and height somehow. Okay.
Player Character non-professional skills
Now, we get something useful. PCs are defined by their class "virtually to the exclusion of all other activities", but might have some past experience determined randomly. This is nice as it replaces many skills and backgrounds in modern games. It can be ported directly to B/X, and a similar system is used in modern games such as Shadow of the Demon Lord and my own Dark Fantasy Basic (both with a bit more specific advice on how to use these backgrounds mechanically). Just roll 1d100 and check the table below:
When secondary skills are used, it is up to the DM to create and/or
adjudicate situations in which these skills are used or useful to the player
character. As a general rule, having a skill will give the character the ability
to determine the general worth and soundness of an item, the ability to find
food, make small repairs, or actually construct (crude) items. For example, an
individual with armorer skill could tell the quality of normal armor, repair
chain links, or perhaps fashion certain weapons.
Starting level of experience for player characters
Some advice on dealing with PCs of different levels, and also players of different levels of experience. All very vague and nothing particularly useful except for the advice of running separate high level and low level campaigns, so that new players can have a taste of high level if they want.
CHARACTER AGE, AGING, DISEASE, AND DEATH
This section has several detailed tables on starting age, aging, disease, death and resurrection. As such, they can be used in B/X as written. While I'm not particularly interested in checking monthly to see if the PCs suffer from parasites or mild ear disease, I can see the point if you're running a particularly extended and realistic campaign. But fun trumps realism, remember? Which is why we don't get realistic combat or even critical hits (IIRC). Instead, we have urinary system infection.
A sword to the head without a helmet is in the rules, but this won't cost you an eye or ear. Disease might. I'm not even sure there are rules for PCs that have lost an eye or part of their hearing. Guess we will see later on (let me know in the comments, or remind me to edit this post in a few months!). In short, these rules are interesting, but half-baked at best.
CHARACTER ABILITIES, RACES
An explanation on what abilities (Strength, Dexterity, etc.) mean and how they function, followed by a section explaining dwarves, elves, etc. Mildly useful if you still want to understand the difference between Wisdom and Intelligence ("while the intelligent character will know that smoking is harmful to him, he may well lack the wisdom to stop"). The race descriptions are pretty standard.
CHARACTER CLASSES
Frist, we get lots of random tables for followers the PCs can get when they reach high levels. These are organized as troops, presumably for domain management and mass battles. Rangers get special creatures, including, potentially, a copper dragon or storm giant. The paladin's special warhorse is also described here.
Then we have rules for spying. Especially for NPC spies (assassins). No idea why this is in the PC section, but it is useful to gather information.
Thief skills are next. Back Stabbing does not function against creatures with no discernible backs. Opening locks, finding traps, disarming traps take 1-4 rounds each. Useful information. Slippery walls can be added to make climbing harder for the thief. "Slightly slippery is the norm for some reason, which DOUBLES the chance of failure. Sounds like a bad choice and a needles nerf on the thief.
OTOH, we learn that thieves and assassins can set traps. Assassins also learn to concoct poisons, and this section contains a poison table that is very useful for B/X games, as B/X does not contain a similar tool.
THE MONSTER AS A PLAYER CHARACTER is included in character CLASSES for some reason. Here, the author insists in the "humanocentric" tone of AD&D, discouraging PCs that want to de dragons, demons, devils, etc. This is contrary to OD&Ds suggestion that you could start the game as a low-level Balrog or dragon (and seems to contradict the advice we've read a few pages ago that players should be able to pick race, class, and personality as desired). I think each method has its own pros and cons, which deserve a post of its own (this one!). Suffice to say, this is general advice and could be useful for any RPG. I'll highlight this bit (emphasis mine):
The game features humankind for a reason. It is the most logical basis in an
illogical game. From a design aspect it provides the sound groundwork. From a
standpoint of creating the campaign milieu it provides the most readily usable
assumptions. From a participation approach it is the only method, for all players
are, after all is said and done, human, and it allows them the role with which
most are most desirous and capable of identifying with. From all views then it is
enough fantasy to assume a swords & sorcery cosmos, with impossible professions
and make-believe magic. To adventure amongst the weird is fantasy enough
without becoming that too!
Next, we get advice discouraging PCs to become lycanthropes, very much in the same vein, but more detailed. Apparently, these are allowed, with lots of downsides. Nothing particularly useful for my games here. Well, enough for today.
What have we learned today?
Lots of cool tables, but everything seems a bit unnecessarily complex, sometimes redundant. Some philosophical essays that are worth a read, and at least two subsystems that are easy and fun to use in B/X games: secondary skills and poisons. The spying section is equally useful, since B/X does not have an assassin class but does have spies you can hire, with no rules except for some very vague guidelines.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 02, 2023, 08:54:49 AM
(BTW, if anyone can find this AD&D table as a spreadsheet, please let me know!)
I got this file a long time ago from who knows where, but it's basically a Word Doc of all the major tables in AD&D. You should be able to copypasta the AC-armor type table directly into a spreadsheet.
EDIT: Nevermind, it won't attach. I'll just put up a link
EDIT2: Scratch that again, that file didn't have the actual table you wanted. Went ahead and just dumped it into a spreadsheet. May need some cleanup.
https://file.io/EY623dKEI967
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 04, 2023, 04:15:43 PM
While I'm not particularly interested in checking monthly to see if the PCs suffer from parasites or mild ear disease, I can see the point if you're running a particularly extended and realistic campaign. But fun trumps realism, remember? Which is why we don't get realistic combat or even critical hits (IIRC). Instead, we have urinary system infection.
A sword to the head without a helmet is in the rules, but this won't cost you an eye or ear. Disease might. I'm not even sure there are rules for PCs that have lost an eye or part of their hearing. Guess we will see later on (let me know in the comments, or remind me to edit this post in a few months!). In short, these rules are interesting, but half-baked at best.
A couple of things you should keep in mind while reading the DMG. First, it's a toolkit. RPGs developed during play, especially back then. Just about everything you see in the D&D rules was something that was needed, tried, or adjudicated during a session (or, was a post hoc attempt to address something that happened during play). So a lot of the "advice" in the DMG seems arbitrary or random because E.G.G. was taking notes, ideas, memories, and theories from what had happened in his and others' game sessions and putting it out there for folks to use.
Second, D&D was not a "finished" product. It's not like a video game (lol... see other threads), in that the rules are constantly changing, adapting, and in development. So E.G.G. was giving you a snapshot of the game and his thoughts as they were
at that moment in time. So some things will be emphasized and some glossed over, simply because of what was pressing in his games at that time. If you are looking for a "completed work" like a novel or something, you're not going to get it. But as an example of real "game design" on the fly and the mentality of a DM, the DMG is unmatched in utility.
Third, the game was different back then, even from table to table. E.G.G. would run sessions (not "adventures," as those only existed for tournament play) for single players with a single character, and the next day run a session where each of six players had three characters and a dozen henchmen. This is where the wargaming roots blend in. Disease might not be a strong concern for a PC in the modern game, but when you consider that arguably until WW2 more soldiers died from disease than from combat, it might be a serious issue for the large groups he ran for.
So, once again, thanks for doing this. I've enjoyed reading your commentary. But don't forget Chesterton's Fence. Some of the best education from the DMG is trying to figure out why some material is included, and what that says about the design of D&D at the time...
Quote from: Brad on June 05, 2023, 10:28:47 AM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 02, 2023, 08:54:49 AM
(BTW, if anyone can find this AD&D table as a spreadsheet, please let me know!)
I got this file a long time ago from who knows where, but it's basically a Word Doc of all the major tables in AD&D. You should be able to copypasta the AC-armor type table directly into a spreadsheet.
EDIT: Nevermind, it won't attach. I'll just put up a link
EDIT2: Scratch that again, that file didn't have the actual table you wanted. Went ahead and just dumped it into a spreadsheet. May need some cleanup.
https://file.io/EY623dKEI967
Thank you! I couldn't download it, unfortunately, but I managed to paste from my PHB. Wrote a small post about this, BTW.
http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/ad-weapon-speed-and-armor-piercing-made.html
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifDhQGCMLgr0ubjjCwKBb0gqHluklMSQmARm71NwXHUsagpXX6hhsrLjGims2p2VrkvHSTUd4g9JppvdmXaYIpPUUjaOKv--uyfWZFdR8lsCBSPXmeKqcZMSODXoX6yODJ9HE4H9q4IhjoSVGDjMd8hqO4ayGwi6Ozx4ZmGHrHKSPLxxEW7PJWu__DmQ/s857/tab1.png)
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 05, 2023, 10:54:18 AM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 04, 2023, 04:15:43 PM
While I'm not particularly interested in checking monthly to see if the PCs suffer from parasites or mild ear disease, I can see the point if you're running a particularly extended and realistic campaign. But fun trumps realism, remember? Which is why we don't get realistic combat or even critical hits (IIRC). Instead, we have urinary system infection.
A sword to the head without a helmet is in the rules, but this won't cost you an eye or ear. Disease might. I'm not even sure there are rules for PCs that have lost an eye or part of their hearing. Guess we will see later on (let me know in the comments, or remind me to edit this post in a few months!). In short, these rules are interesting, but half-baked at best.
A couple of things you should keep in mind while reading the DMG. First, it's a toolkit. RPGs developed during play, especially back then. Just about everything you see in the D&D rules was something that was needed, tried, or adjudicated during a session (or, was a post hoc attempt to address something that happened during play). So a lot of the "advice" in the DMG seems arbitrary or random because E.G.G. was taking notes, ideas, memories, and theories from what had happened in his and others' game sessions and putting it out there for folks to use.
Second, D&D was not a "finished" product. It's not like a video game (lol... see other threads), in that the rules are constantly changing, adapting, and in development. So E.G.G. was giving you a snapshot of the game and his thoughts as they were at that moment in time. So some things will be emphasized and some glossed over, simply because of what was pressing in his games at that time. If you are looking for a "completed work" like a novel or something, you're not going to get it. But as an example of real "game design" on the fly and the mentality of a DM, the DMG is unmatched in utility.
Third, the game was different back then, even from table to table. E.G.G. would run sessions (not "adventures," as those only existed for tournament play) for single players with a single character, and the next day run a session where each of six players had three characters and a dozen henchmen. This is where the wargaming roots blend in. Disease might not be a strong concern for a PC in the modern game, but when you consider that arguably until WW2 more soldiers died from disease than from combat, it might be a serious issue for the large groups he ran for.
So, once again, thanks for doing this. I've enjoyed reading your commentary. But don't forget Chesterton's Fence. Some of the best education from the DMG is trying to figure out why some material is included, and what that says about the design of D&D at the time...
Good points, thanks. You're right, disease makes more sense in this "wargame" context (like many things seem to make...). Although, still, could be vastly simplified (again, as everything else)
And yes, AD&D does look like a collection of house rules often. I definitely agree with the Chesterton's Fence idea and I think there are good house rules to collect in there (I believe AD&D weapons make more sense than B/X, for example, as discussed in my post mentioned in my last comment).
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 06, 2023, 01:11:34 PM
And yes, AD&D does look like a collection of house rules often. I definitely agree with the Chesterton's Fence idea and I think there are good house rules to collect in there (I believe AD&D weapons make more sense than B/X, for example, as discussed in my post mentioned in my last comment).
I like to consider it this way: However well or not AD&D handles a thing, however much that applies or not to my current circumstances--if there was a rule for something, it was something that at one time or another needed handling. This sounds like pablum. Yet it is not true of all games.
I'm enjoying reading your blog series. It's a lot of fun to pour through these voluminous books, looking for little rule passages (at least for me).
Regarding the Weapon Types, General Data, And "to Hit" Adjustments table, the thing that threw me off for a long time, was upon reading the passages again, it's for Armour Type, not the AC. That cleared things up quite a bit for me and it is briefly mentioned in the PHB:
"Weapon Factors:
You have already seen information regarding the damage each type of
weapon does, how heavy each is, how long and how much space each needs,
and each weapon's relative speed factor. The same charts also give relative
efficiency against armor types. Your referee will use these factors in
determination of melee combats by relating them to his Attack Matrices."
PHB pg.105
And confirmed use of the WvAC table in the Staff of Striking characteristics:
"Staff of Striking: This oaken staff is the equivalent of a +3 magic weapon.
(If weapon vs. armor type adjustment is made, the staff of striking is always
treated as the most favorable weapon type vs. any armor.)"
DMG pg. 134
So, core 3, it seemed AC 2-10 range for armour-type (not Class) made a lot more sense (which UA expanded upon with various plate options take it to 0, I think).
It seems one of those rules that's there to find, but not easy to find (sums up AD&D pretty well hah!)
The thing that gets me is what am I adjusting: attack die roll result, or base AC on the table?
Under the DMG sub-header Important Note Regarding "To Hit" Adjustments is the mention of avoiding making things 'unhittable':
"...Such changes MUST be
made to the armor class of the figure concerned, not to the dice score rolled in
attacking. An inspection of the combat tables will show that the dice roll
progression will make some opponents hit proof if the dice rolls are adjusted
downwards rather than the armor class being moved upwards. (At some point,
the upwards armor class adjustment could also make such opponents virtually
invulnerable, but this is less likely and not necessarily undesirable.)..."
So, it seems one adjusts the AC (not the die roll) on negatives AND positives for the WvAC table. I've searched around for another place (Dragon, etc.) that states this clearly to be the case, but have yet to find confirmation that this is correct approach overall. Dragon #74 explained the reasoning the whole WvAC better (and I recommend reading it if confused). Still, it seems to conflict somewhat with the DMG on their example excerpt:
"...the DM notes that the battle axe brings with it a -1 penalty to
hit against armor class 5. To account for this, the DM
can either subtract 1 from the character's base to hit
number (making the number needed 14 instead of 13), or
add 1 to the player's actual roll (decreasing the result)
before announcing whether a hit has occurred...."
So, it seems AC adjusted, or die roll adjusted is an option. I've heard from others that negatives are AC, positives add to the die roll is the way to go. I'm just trying to find some feedback or documented material that states it clearly.
I'm probably over-thinking it (most likely) and it's staring me in the face, but I just can't see the clear answer here.
I know we have some smart AD&D-minded cookies in this forum, so I welcome your input. I love this fiddly stuff but it's probably aged me a few years trying to make sense of it all (I think the DMG might really be a tome for Haste spell. Perhaps...)
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 06, 2023, 07:12:14 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 06, 2023, 01:11:34 PM
And yes, AD&D does look like a collection of house rules often. I definitely agree with the Chesterton's Fence idea and I think there are good house rules to collect in there (I believe AD&D weapons make more sense than B/X, for example, as discussed in my post mentioned in my last comment).
I like to consider it this way: However well or not AD&D handles a thing, however much that applies or not to my current circumstances--if there was a rule for something, it was something that at one time or another needed handling. This sounds like pablum. Yet it is not true of all games.
Agreed. That what makes AD&D valuable and gives it a "genuine" feel IMO.
Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on June 07, 2023, 05:15:31 PM
I'm enjoying reading your blog series. It's a lot of fun to pour through these voluminous books, looking for little rule passages (at least for me).
[...]
So, core 3, it seemed AC 2-10 range for armour-type (not Class) made a lot more sense (which UA expanded upon with various plate options take it to 0, I think).
It seems one of those rules that's there to find, but not easy to find (sums up AD&D pretty well hah!)
Thanks!
Well, this is complicated. It is clear that chainmail means to adjust by weapon type, but AD&D mentions AC in the table. However, AC does not tell you what armor you're using for sure because AD&D adds new types of armor. Which generates some mistakes - for example, it seems like sometimes the intention is to make a weapon good against shields, but we cannot know if AC 4 means you have a shield, as it could be "Chain mail + shield/splint mail/banded mail".
Seems like we have no option but true ignore armor types and rely on AC (although we can disregard dexterity and magical modifiers).
Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on June 07, 2023, 05:15:31 PM
The thing that gets me is what am I adjusting: attack die roll result, or base AC on the table?
Under the DMG sub-header Important Note Regarding "To Hit" Adjustments is the mention of avoiding making things 'unhittable':
"...Such changes MUST be
made to the armor class of the figure concerned, not to the dice score rolled in
attacking. An inspection of the combat tables will show that the dice roll
progression will make some opponents hit proof if the dice rolls are adjusted
downwards rather than the armor class being moved upwards. (At some point,
the upwards armor class adjustment could also make such opponents virtually
invulnerable, but this is less likely and not necessarily undesirable.)..."
So, it seems one adjusts the AC (not the die roll) on negatives AND positives for the WvAC table. I've searched around for another place (Dragon, etc.) that states this clearly to be the case, but have yet to find confirmation that this is correct approach overall. Dragon #74 explained the reasoning the whole WvAC better (and I recommend reading it if confused). Still, it seems to conflict somewhat with the DMG on their example excerpt:
"...the DM notes that the battle axe brings with it a -1 penalty to
hit against armor class 5. To account for this, the DM
can either subtract 1 from the character's base to hit
number (making the number needed 14 instead of 13), or
add 1 to the player's actual roll (decreasing the result)
before announcing whether a hit has occurred...."
So, it seems AC adjusted, or die roll adjusted is an option. I've heard from others that negatives are AC, positives add to the die roll is the way to go. I'm just trying to find some feedback or documented material that states it clearly.
I'm probably over-thinking it (most likely) and it's staring me in the face, but I just can't see the clear answer here.
I know we have some smart AD&D-minded cookies in this forum, so I welcome your input. I love this fiddly stuff but it's probably aged me a few years trying to make sense of it all (I think the DMG might really be a tome for Haste spell. Perhaps...)
About the modifiers in the table, I'm pretty sure that they are meant to affect your roll. For example, a fist is terrible (-7) against plate armor, while a bec de corbin is good (+2). Does not seem to make sense otherwise.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 07, 2023, 11:25:57 PM
<snip>About the modifiers in the table, I'm pretty sure that they are meant to affect your roll. For example, a fist is terrible (-7) against plate armor, while a bec de corbin is good (+2). Does not seem to make sense otherwise.
Hmn, but if applied to the roll , seems to run into that problem Gygax stated to avoid. Honestly, a fist against plate seems pretty accurate: I've not personally mangled my fist hitting plate but if I hit my fridge, likely a broken hand would be the only result.
(Note: Let's just not worry about Monks regarding this for my own sanity)
I think it comes down to the use of the repeating 20's in the Weapon tables. By adjusting on negatives, it still has more chance being in that region than an 'unhittable' via adjusting attack roll.
I mean yea, I can suss it out, make a ruling like most did, or ignore the table all-together like many did, but it's sort of figuring out via written word that appeals to me.
More so looking to find something written in the old mags (Sorcerer's Scroll, Leomund's Tiny Hut etc.) that broaches this topic and makes it clear to the reader without the somewhat vague 'Gygaxian' prose. It's quite amazing (at least to me) how little there was said on it in these old mags.
Sorry, I think I misunderstood: the fist is obviously bad against plate, as it should be. I was thinking of THAC0.
Yes, it does make impossible to hit plate for certain weapons. But if you turn things around (not sure you're proposing this), it would be EASIER to punch someone in plate than someone without armor.
I'm not sure what weapon tables you're referring to. Maybe attack matrices?
EDIT: gotcha, you're talking about attack matrices and I was thinking of THAC0. Yes, it could work if you make the "-7" as a "-7 to AC" instead of the attack roll. So you could still hit someone in plate with your fist on level 1 if you roll a nat 20. Makes sense.
Yea, sorry been talking about the weapon table so much, I bungled the nomenclature.
You figured out my synapse mis-firing.
Too many tables! (somewhere, a Rolemaster player snickers at the folly of my statement).
Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on June 08, 2023, 04:45:05 PM
Yea, sorry been talking about the weapon table so much, I bungled the nomenclature.
You figured out my synapse mis-firing.
Too many tables! (somewhere, a Rolemaster player snickers at the folly of my statement).
Hehahah yes, RM was cool, tripping invisible turtles all the way to victory!
Here is part III:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-iii-pages-23.html
We are reading the original DMG - the ultimate DM book! - but from a B/X and OSR point-of-view. Here is part I. Today we will tackle:
ALIGNMENT 23
— ALIGNMENT LANGUAGE 24
— CHANGING ALIGNMENT 25
MONEY 25
— PLAYER CHARACTER STARTING MONEY 25
— PLAYER CHARACTER EXPENSES 25
— VALUE AND REPUTED PROPERTIES OF GEMS AND JEWELRY 25
— NOTE REGARDING THE MAGICAL PROPERTIES OF GEMS, HERBS, et al 27
ARMOR, ARMOR CLASS, & WEAPONS 27
— TYPES OF ARMOR AND ENCUMBRANCE 27
— DEXTERITY ARMOR CLASS BONUS 28
— WEAPON TYPES, "TO HIT" ADJUSTMENT NOTE 28
HIRELINGS 28
— STANDARD HIRELINGS 28
— EXPERT HIRELINGS 29
HENCHMEN 34
— LOYALTY OF HENCHMEN & HIRELINGS, OBEDIENCE, AND MORALE 36
ALIGNMENT
This part describes what the various alignments mean. It contains a simple explanation; law/chaos are groups vs. individuals, and good/evil is respect for human rights versus might makes right. Neutrality means balance. It doesn't really put an end to the discussion (I'm not even sure that this it's possible), and it is not perfectly faithful to Anderson nor Moorcock, but it's a good start.
It adds a few notes on planes and their alignments, and stresses the importance of keeping tracks of PC's actions and change their alignment accordingly. "It is of utmost importance to keep rigid control of alignment behavior with respect to such characters as serve deities who will accept only certain alignments".
Next, we have a section on alignment language that aims to avoid player abuse, once again, and one more section describing the penalties for changing alignment.
Makes me wonder - if alignment is so prone to player abuse, maybe we should try some other approach?
I am not a big fan of alignment, nor do I think this solves most questions (such as nepotism, euthanizing evil creatures, unjust laws, individual rights against the group, etc.) - see " additional reading" for my take on alignments.
This is still better and clearer than most modern takes.
MONEY
The section on money starts by saying "the amount of funds which each player begins with is kept low to prevent the game from becoming too easy". I think I'm seeing a trend here. Then, we have player character expenses ("not less than 100 gold pieces per level of experience per month") - possibly for the same reason. You must consider the maintenance of henchmen, strongholds, taxes and tithes. I'm not sure I'm particularly interested in running a game about accounting, and I certainly dislike dealing with taxes.
Next, we have a whole page on gems - their size, color, value, quality, and so on. It also describes their magical properties, and adds some fantastical examples ("Star Ruby: translucent ruby with white "star" center") that I didn't know (but they actually exist!). I find this extremely flavorful and interesting. It is by no means essential to your games, but very cool. This is top-tier "random table" stuff.
ARMOR, ARMOR CLASS & WEAPONS
A detailed account of various types of armor and shields, and some notes on Dexterity as it relates to AC. Can basically be used as written for B/X, if you care for this much detail. There's also an important note about a subject we've been discussing lately:
WEAPON TYPES, "TO HIT" ADJUSTMENT NOTE
If you allow weapon type adjustments in your campaign please be certain to remember that these adjustments are for weapons versus specific types of armor, not necessarily against actual armor class. In most cases, monsters not wearing armor will not have any weapon type adjustment allowed, as monster armor class in such cases pertains to the size, shape, agility, speed, and/or magical nature of the creature. Not excluded from this, for example, would be an iron golem. However, monsters with horny or bony armor might be classed as plate mail if you so decide, but do so on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, monsters wearing armor will be subject to weapon type "to hit" adjustment.
HIRELINGS
The cost and description of various types of hirelings, including experts (alchemists, armorers, spies, and, of course, gem-cutters). The most interesting part here, in my opinion, is the list of troops and their organization. For example:
Captain: A captain is nothing more than a capable leader, a fighter of 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th level (according to the d10 score, 1-4 = 5th, 5-7 = 6th, 8-9 =7th, 0 = 8th) but NOT capable of working upwards. A captain can command as many scores of troops as he or she has levels, i.e., 4th level enables command of 80 men, 5th level enables command of 100 men, etc. In addition, the level of the captain dictates the number of lieutenants which can be controlled. This is exclusive of serjeants and any auxiliary types such as servants, cooks, etc. The monthly cost of a captain is 100 gold pieces per level.
This makes high-level fighters a lot more interesting in mass combat - and they get a clearer place in society. Even tough these are not PC fighters ("NOT capable of working upwards"), they both indicate the potential capabilities of fighters and also sketch how an old school "warlord" class could look like (my version is a lot simpler, but not as focused on mass combat).
Likewise, the book contains a very detailed (two pages long!) description of another expert, the sage. Again, extremely interesting and could perfectly be a class of its own. It would be a fine addition to B/X and AD&D games. As most things you'll find is this book, it is unnecessarily complex, but full of inspiration.
HENCHMEN
Henchmen are individual adventurers, not merely laborers, employees or experts. They have PC classes, go to dungeons with the PCs and get a share of treasure, so they get more attention/detail. This section describes their classes, levels, races, costs, and hiring process. Their personality traits are described in other part of the book (PERSONAE OF NONPLAYER CHARACTERS). The organization is still strange, but at least we know where to look.
This section finishes with an entire page of modifiers to henchmen loyalty, obedience and morale. Each individual entry is interesting - I specially like the idea, for example, that while most creatures prefer to follow lieges of similar alignment, chaotic creatures make bad leaders and followers in general. However, keeping track of all these things looks like a nightmare. I prefer the much simpler 2d6 checks of B/X. Anyway, here is a good summary:
What have we learned today?
Once again - "lots of cool tables, but everything seems a bit unnecessarily complex, sometimes redundant". We have gems that we can use as written if you want that kind of detail, various troops for mass combat games, and two potential new classes waiting for a B/X adaptation: the commander and the sage.
Coming next... TIME! SPELLS! (prepare yourself: part IV is my favorite part of the DMG so far!)
Contains affiliate links. By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog.
Additional reading (on alignment):
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-alignment-part-i-alignment-origins.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/05/languages-alignment-or-otherwise.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/07/dark-fantasy-basic-one-page-hacks-and.html
Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on June 07, 2023, 05:15:31 PM
So, it seems AC adjusted, or die roll adjusted is an option. I've heard from others that negatives are AC, positives add to the die roll is the way to go. I'm just trying to find some feedback or documented material that states it clearly.
I'm probably over-thinking it (most likely) and it's staring me in the face, but I just can't see the clear answer here.
I know we have some smart AD&D-minded cookies in this forum, so I welcome your input. I love this fiddly stuff but it's probably aged me a few years trying to make sense of it all (I think the DMG might really be a tome for Haste spell. Perhaps...)
Probably over-thinking it. But then again, there is a bit to think about.
There are two versions of how to use the hit tables. The non-amended, and the amended. The non-amended one itself is not a single method. "
Penalties and bonuses may modify either the die roll or the number needed to hit, as long as one method is used consistently." (DMG, pg 73)
That part right there requires some thought be applied. If you apply your +2 STR to hit bonus to the die roll, it makes it easier to hit. Of course. But if you applied +2 instead to the number needed to hit, then that would make it harder. So that's not correct. You have to apply common sense to the interpretation here. Probably the most obvious application is to subtract the adjustment. Which means if the adjustment is a penalty, you have to minus a minus.
Or, here's another thing you can do. You won't hear this anywhere else, but it pretty much guts the criticisms of minusing a minus being confusing. So what you would do is apply bonuses and penalties to the die roll. The defensive adjustment (due to Dexterity) can likewise be counted among the to-hit adjustments. But the defensive adjustment due to magical armor (the magical +), those are adjustments to the attacker's number needed to hit. So that whole thing about having a -2 defensive adjustment from a 16 Dex and a +2 defensive adjustment from a +2 shield, and both of those being a good thing, what that's saying is -2 to the attacker's die roll, +2 to the number needed to hit, and it all makes perfect sense.
The "amended" version is more strict. All adjustments are applied to the die roll, but second and successive 20's require a natural 20 on the die to hit regardless.
So here's a scenario for you. 1st level fighter (THAC0 20) w/ 18/51 STR (+2 to hit) swings his long sword at someone wearing +2 Chainmail and 18 Dex (-4 to AC).
Method 1: Determine defender's overall AC as -1. Using the attack matrix, we find the fighter needs a 20 (the second successive 20 for those who are counting) to hit his enemy. But he gets a +2 bonus to the die roll. So
he will hit if the d20 rolls 18-20.
Method 2: Determine defender's base AC as 5. Using the attack matrix, we find the fighter needs a 15 to hit, but this is adjusted to 17 because of the defender's +2 armor. He gets a +2 to the hit roll from his Strength, but a -4 due to the defender's Dex. And so
he will hit if the d20 rolls 19-20.
Method 3: Determine defender's overall AC as -1. Using the attack matrix, we find the fighter needs a 20, and the fact that it's a second successive 20 now matters. This means he will only hit on a natural 20. And so
he will hit if the d20 rolls 20.
Note that if you are using the amended version of the repeating 20's and choose to make the Dex adjustment a hit modifier rather than an actual shift in AC (call this Method 4), then the result is the same as Method 2 since the 6-20's rule never comes into play.
Now all of these are 100% kosher by the book. And they can have some neat effects. Like if you use Method 4, then he could hit on a 19. But if it's a monster with a natural AC of -1 instead, then he's going to need the natural 20. And so that's a way you could give tough monsters an edge while letting a little air out of min-maxers who stack bonuses.
And by the way, before anyone jumps the gun and says this is just confusion, or poor editing, or chaos at TSR during the time the DMG was published, or that there's some mathematical error, I'm going to point out that something somewhat similar comes up again in Gary Gygax's Lejendary Adventure, where there is little consistency as to whether a bonus is subtracted from the die roll or added to the target number (this is a percentile roll-under system). If you get into the weeds of the system, though, there are subtle differences in effect. Just like with what you're seeing with how the number needed to hit varies depending which method you use. So I think it's an intentional feature of the design. It's the task of the advanced Game Master to simply understand the differences in effect and simply go with the one that seems most reasonable to the GMs sensibilities or the GMs world.
Anyway, I got one more for you. Method 5. This involves using THAC0 and working off of calculation rather than referencing the attack matrix. The very last paragraph of DMG pg 73, with its instructions on how to deal with ACs not on the table, set the precedent that determining hits by calculation/formula/pattern rather than using the table. So using THAC0 calculations is perfectly fine BtB.
So here's how to do THAC0 calculations, and this is how it should have been explained in 2E, and I think had it been done this way, there never would have been an impetus to flop the ACs in 3E. AC will now be treated as yet another attack roll adjustment. Going against AC 5? Add 5 to your hit roll. Against AC -3? -3 to your hit roll. And then the total just has to make or beat the THAC0. Once again, at no point does it call for minusing a minus.
There's still the matter of 0th level humans, 1/2 HD creatures, 1st-4th level thieves, and 1st-5th level magic-users needing a 20 to hit AC 1 (THAC1 = 20) on account of the six repeating 20's rule. One really handy way you can simulate the 6 repeating 20's via calculation is by treating THAC1 = 20 as THAC0 = 21, but counting a "natural 20" as if the die had somehow rolled a "25." So if a 1st level fighter with a +2 to hit adjustment, if the player rolls a natural 20, count it as 25, then add the 2, that's 27, meaning if the AC is as low as -7, you still hit.
This is the most consistent of methods since it will get you the same results no matter how you apply the modifiers. It's going to yield results similar to method 2, reaffirming that it is a kosher, by the book method. And this is the method I use.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 02, 2023, 08:53:13 AM
Here's the difficult part: If the mistake Delta claims occurred, it wouldn't change the "pecking order", as it would have been repeated for every weapon (except the spear).
Well, yeah. I think that's a huge problem, that so long as the purpose of the mace is linked to its place in the pecking order, Delta is just babbling nonsense. Even if he's right about the mistake, he's wrong that it altered the purpose of the mace. And that the example of the mace no longer supports the case that there was an arithmetic error. And I think you've indicated that was the piece you found most convincing. So it's all a big nothing burger.
In my expert opinion as a mathematician, I will say the small magnitude of variations from what Delta thinks happened indicate that this was probably one of the things Gary did to get the AD&D adjustments. But the high number of variations indicate that Gary didn't just "blindly" accept the results of the arithmetic, that he actually assessed the results for reasonability and made appropriate adjustments. That's a clear indicator that what Delta is claiming was an arithmetic error was not an error of any kind. That the end results actually are precisely as intended.
You can like them or dislike them. Doesn't mean it's an error. I am certainly willing to entertain that there might have been some transcription error that got the adjustments swapped for the Footman's Mace and the Horseman's Flail. And even that's predicated on the idea that Gary was distinguishing mace and flail by whether or not the head was fixed or connected by chain. But that's got nothing to do with anything that Delta posted.
Quote2H sword: my bad, I looked at the wrong column. I mean a 2H is better against AC 8 than AC 10, which is equally absurd IMO. Same for the shield hurting the wielder.
There could be an explanation for this, but again, I'm looking for useful/cool ideas, and " drop your shield when you see a mace/flail", or "lose the leather armor when you see a 2H sword" is not something I can use.
We always interpreted 2H swords having a harder time hitting someone in no armor is it was something of a bonus to acknowledge the exceptionally free movement of someone running around in their skivvies. When I started using these adjustments in the mid-90's, a lot of RPGs were big on imposing penalties for using armor. I never liked the idea. I think something that was designed to be effective protection in combat should not make you a sitting duck. That didn't make sense to me. But one single instance against a particularly slow weapon (highest weapon speed of all non-pole weapons) is a way of acknowledging that there is some performance loss in using armor without overturning the utility of leather armor. I thought it was fair and reasonable and made enough sense.
As for drop your shield when you see a footman's flail, that is literally something we said and were aware of. And I think that is usable information, but for the fact that I don't recall there ever being an instance of someone running around with a shield but no armor. If such a thing ever did happen, then we'd need them to run into someone who was swinging a footman's flail or mace. It's like that time in August 1965 when for about an hour George Carlin was both fine and dandy at the same time, but no one asked him how he was feeling.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 04, 2023, 04:15:43 PM
Now, we get something useful. PCs are defined by their class "virtually to the exclusion of all other activities", but might have some past experience determined randomly. This is nice as it replaces many skills and backgrounds in modern games. It can be ported directly to B/X, and a similar system is used in modern games such as Shadow of the Demon Lord and my own Dark Fantasy Basic (both with a bit more specific advice on how to use these backgrounds mechanically). Just roll 1d100 and check the table below:
When secondary skills are used, it is up to the DM to create and/or
adjudicate situations in which these skills are used or useful to the player
character. As a general rule, having a skill will give the character the ability
to determine the general worth and soundness of an item, the ability to find
food, make small repairs, or actually construct (crude) items. For example, an
individual with armorer skill could tell the quality of normal armor, repair
chain links, or perhaps fashion certain weapons.
This is one of those ideas Gary boldly returned to with Lejendary Adventure. It's a skill-based RPG, but the skills work a lot like these secondary skills. Using insight from LA, I was able to put together some notes detailing a little more what each of the Secondary Skills do.
Quote from: My Secret Notes
Armorer, Bowyer/Fletcher, Leather Worker/Tanner, and Tailor/Weaver. These will mainly only ever be used during down-time. Although they may be used in-game to conduct repairs on metal armor, bows/crossbows, leather armor, and padded armor respectively. Secondary skill in one of these areas may also enable the character to evaluate the quality of items within their skill area. I would also consider possibly replacing Bowyer/Fletcher on the list with "Weaponer" divided up into three types indicated on the top of the second column of pg 34.
Farmer/Gardener, apart from use during "down time", this secondary skill may allow the character to identify herbs and know its reputed uses and effects. The character will also have knowledge of customs and mannerisms of rustic, rural, and farming communities.
Fisher (netting), Forester, Hunter/Fisher, these will allow the character to find fresh food in cases where rations are running low. As a rule of thumb, one day of dedicated activity can yield food for one person for 1 week on average. Though I would consider hunting game animals would give the character a 2 in 6 chance per day of obtaining enough meat to feed 1 man for 20 days. Foresters may also identify safe to eat fruits and berries as well as assess terrain for safely crossing through wilderness areas.
Gamblers will have knowledge of games, probability and odds, and also skilled at (and at discovering) cheating. This may also give the character the ability to evaluate man, animal, or vessel for the purposes of determining who will most likely win a race or contest.
Husbandman involves caring for riding and draft animals and livestock. Mainly this will be applicable in downtime, however a character with this skill may be able to evaluate the quality of a horse, or effectively befriend and train animals such as dogs.
Jeweler/lapidary, can be used to evaluate the value of gems/jewels, and possibly improve gems, mainly during downtime.
Mason/Carpenter, Shipwright, Woodworker/cabinetmaker. Building structures during down time, certainly, but possibly even creating makeshift shelters in survival situations. They would also be able to evaluate the quality of workmanship, condition, and integrity of a structure. Carpenters and woodworkers may also be able to create and repair wooden shields.
Miner, during downtime performing or directing excavation and prospecting activities. During play, they may be able to evaluate the structural integrity of a mining tunnel. You may also want to allow them to perform some of the special abilities normally reserved for dwarves and/or gnomes.
Navigator, Sailor. In order to engage in any sort of waterfaring, a certain minimum number of crew members must be skilled in this area. The number needed will vary by vessel. NPC sailors should be assumed to have the sailing skill with at least 1 or 2 crew members being skilled navigators.
Teamster/freighter are skilled in operation of overland vessels, control and care for draft animals, evaluation of overland vessels and minor repair may also be possible. Some teamsters may also be specialized in erecting certain equipment, such as roustabouts for a circus.
Trader/Barterer. Ability to evaluate the quality of goods and estimate market value. Skill at negotiation and commerce. Literacy and numeracy should be assumed for most characters with this skill.
Trapper/Furrier, ability to set traps, mainly animal traps, including knowing the best places to set traps to capture animals. Furriers know how to skin an animal to preserve its pelt, how to treat and create it into valuable furs for trade and use in making garments.
I found this works really well with Castles & Crusades. I nix the priming of attributes, instead the "primes" are pinned to one of the Secondary Skills. The diverse activity covered by skills might actually use different attributes, but having the skill primed means using the lower TN. So this makes the priming a lot less redundant with the attributes.
One side note. I made a brief mention once of "Forester" on Dragonsfoot, and the ignorance there was palpable. "Use more precise language" one mentally obese fuck demanded. It's like, yo, don't you read the goddamn book? Forester is one of the secondary skills.
One of the things I really appreciated about Gary's writing and this book in particular when I was a kid learning this game, is that Gary doesn't speak down to you. The downside that comes with that, though, is sometimes you're expected to know stuff that isn't obvious. Like Forester was an actual medieval profession. It's a precise term. Not just "hey, this guy wears green tights."
During times of war, some of the activities of the Forester expanded, and those expanded activities are an astonishing match for the very first line of the Ranger class description in the PHB "Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying." And so it seems like the intent is that the Ranger is an elite Forester. As such, unless you have a specific reason to do otherwise, I would assume that all rangers have the Forester secondary skill. Meaning they've got wilderness skills beyond just what's in the class description. Oh, and the very last word of that sentence I quoted? Spying? There's no mention of the Ranger in the DMG section on Spying, but I definitely wonder if Rangers should get to use the Assassin Spying Table as well. At least for spy activity that borders on scouting and recon.
QuoteCHARACTER AGE, AGING, DISEASE, AND DEATH
This section has several detailed tables on starting age, aging, disease, death and resurrection. As such, they can be used in B/X as written. While I'm not particularly interested in checking monthly to see if the PCs suffer from parasites or mild ear disease, I can see the point if you're running a particularly extended and realistic campaign. But fun trumps realism, remember? Which is why we don't get realistic combat or even critical hits (IIRC). Instead, we have urinary system infection.
Sorry, gotta say this is a run-of-the-mill/cliched/mediocre take on this. I can get this identical commentary on this section out of every 1E-hating 2E gamer who's never read a 1E book in their life.
I use the monthly disease checks. Part of the reason is just to drop the bomb up front. Your PCs are all going to die. Period. The question we're putting to the game is, what great things can you do in the meantime. Yeah. It's kind of the influence of Braveheart creeping in again. Every PC dies. Not every PC truly lives. So contrary to the view that disease tables is just getting bogged down in realism, and that it's work not fun, I think at least the way I present it sets the tone for ramping up the fun of the game. Especially if you have really cautious, risk-averse players at the table.
There is a secondary reason. It's more of a practical one than a tone-setting one. It's game economics. Not to be confused with the economics of the in-game setting. It's a cost to sitting still. Face it, before the first round of disease checks even come, there's a good chance the PCs can afford to pay for a Cure Disease. Sure. Sometimes the dice might turn up something interesting, and that alone could be a good reason to use these tables. But mostly it's just going to drain the PCs money. May even force them to sell a magic-item. I like having magic-items come and go. You know why? Because I can ramp up the frequency with which players get to experience the excitement of their character gaining a new magic item, but without the PCs becoming so inundated with magic items that they no longer value them. I can have my cake and eat it, too.
My tertiary reason is it's also part of time-keeping in the campaign. We rarely miss a combat round, and it's because we have plenty of procedural stuff to do, like rolling initiative. Well, if there's something to roll on a monthly basis, I'm more likely to remember to do it. And, of course, nail the PCs with that monthly cost of living.
Regarding WvAC, Appreciate the extensive analysis of the various methodology of the topic.
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 10, 2023, 10:49:56 PM
... Anyway, I got one more for you. Method 5. This involves using THAC0 and working off of calculation rather than referencing the attack matrix. The very last paragraph of DMG pg 73, with its instructions on how to deal with ACs not on the table, set the precedent that determining hits by calculation/formula/pattern rather than using the table. So using THAC0 calculations is perfectly fine BtB...
I quite like this method you posted. I'm going to give that one a go. It's compact, succinct, and useful for running the calculations without referencing the tables all the time.
While researching this, I see many others like my young self, chucked these rules (and others) back in the day for one reason or another, which I now think is a shame. Forget everyone using daggers with Holmes, now let's all use longswords with AD&D! One would think the severely crippling the 2-handed sword in Moldvay would have been enough incentive to reconsider one's stance.
Perhaps a case of the player base shifting from OD&D players, with previous knowledge aiding them in grokking Gygax's approach, to the new wave of Basic players coming in, with pre-conceived notions and kind of bouncing off some of the concepts presented.
However, if one looks at the
Rogues Gallery, they'll see 'base' AC/WvAC was alive and well, evidently used by the staff at TSR, as their own characters were depicted. Even Gygax's great Mordenkainen was bopping around with an AC 10 on his sheet. Granted, he had bracers of defence and other means to assist protection, but it was evidently a distinction made with a purpose.
As Wells, the game mechanic 'answer person' in Dragon was involved in making this, I figure she makes a pretty good candidate for credibility of how things were run (curiously, a few evil characters played by the staff/associates as well, certainly putting an interesting spin on the perceived style of game being played using 1e).
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 11, 2023, 12:18:22 AM
...One side note. I made a brief mention once of "Forester" on Dragonsfoot, and the ignorance there was palpable. "Use more precise language" one mentally obese fuck demanded. It's like, yo, don't you read the goddamn book? Forester is one of the secondary skills.
One of the things I really appreciated about Gary's writing and this book in particular when I was a kid learning this game, is that Gary doesn't speak down to you. The downside that comes with that, though, is sometimes you're expected to know stuff that isn't obvious. Like Forester was an actual medieval profession. It's a precise term. Not just "hey, this guy wears green tights."...
Hilarious. Yea, some forums have tended to produce a 'my way or the highway' predilection with some of the more debatable topics, assuming that anyone coming in just doesn't grok things. The clique atmosphere mind-set that develops sometimes is unfortunate.
Honestly, I think half the lexicon I use came from reading the AD&D books. I've got kids and you can make darn sure I'm going to encourage them to read them, if for nothing more than expanding their vocabulary.
The meagre pre-adventuring skills column is something that I pretty much remember glossing over, but it could have some real benefits for distinguishing the characteristics and makeup of a character, if not directly tied to mechanics. Although, if one is using UA with the armour denting rules, or finds that obscure rule in the DMG about bows being custom crafted for strength bonuses, I probably would have been much more inclined to take notice. Even having the simple background of a sailor is going to be useful when you're the only one that knows for sure they can sink or swim when the day comes.
This has been a very helpful discussion to grok things. I look forward to reading more of your blog Eric Diaz as you continue, seeing others input their knowledge in the spirit of healthy advice and insights. A more thorough read of the AD&D books has changed quite a few things I erroneously perceived, for the better.
<edit sp>
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 10, 2023, 10:49:56 PM
And by the way, before anyone jumps the gun and says this is just confusion, or poor editing, or chaos at TSR during the time the DMG was published, or that there's some mathematical error, I'm going to point out that something somewhat similar comes up again in Gary Gygax's Lejendary Adventure, where there is little consistency as to whether a bonus is subtracted from the die roll or added to the target number (this is a percentile roll-under system). If you get into the weeds of the system, though, there are subtle differences in effect. Just like with what you're seeing with how the number needed to hit varies depending which method you use. So I think it's an intentional feature of the design. It's the task of the advanced Game Master to simply understand the differences in effect and simply go with the one that seems most reasonable to the GMs sensibilities or the GMs world.
Your entire post on THAC0 is interesting food for thought. After I'm finished with AD&D, might try LA.
The part we disagree, I think, might be a matter of perspective. I do not think "little consistency" is a plus in game design; while your analysis does help one to understand the DMG, I think such explanations should be in the book (if intentional).
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 10, 2023, 10:49:56 PM
We always interpreted 2H swords having a harder time hitting someone in no armor is it was something of a bonus to acknowledge the exceptionally free movement of someone running around in their skivvies. When I started using these adjustments in the mid-90's, a lot of RPGs were big on imposing penalties for using armor. I never liked the idea. I think something that was designed to be effective protection in combat should not make you a sitting duck. That didn't make sense to me. But one single instance against a particularly slow weapon (highest weapon speed of all non-pole weapons) is a way of acknowledging that there is some performance loss in using armor without overturning the utility of leather armor. I thought it was fair and reasonable and made enough sense.
As for drop your shield when you see a footman's flail, that is literally something we said and were aware of. And I think that is usable information, but for the fact that I don't recall there ever being an instance of someone running around with a shield but no armor. If such a thing ever did happen, then we'd need them to run into someone who was swinging a footman's flail or mace. It's like that time in August 1965 when for about an hour George Carlin was both fine and dandy at the same time, but no one asked him how he was feeling.
Again, interesting, but to me it sounds like justification - not something intentional. Somewhat similar to B/X fans (I'm one) insisting that the price of garlic (1/12th of plate armor) is justifiable for some reason, or that in their settings garlic is a rare commodity, etc. Instead of justifying it, I prefer just fixing it (should cost 5 cp probably).
Likewise, I do not think wearing no armor would leave you better of against a 2H sword. Same with shields. Might be rare, might have a reasonable explanation, etc., but it just doesn't seem to improve the game.
(With that said, I must say discussing with you has given me a more nuanced view on the subject and helped me see the usefulness of starting with AD&D numbers when creating my own).
About armor penalties, I agree - in fact, I do think D&D has a steep speed penalty to use armor - and the weapon versus armor table is useful to make heavy armor even more important.
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 11, 2023, 12:18:22 AM
This is one of those ideas Gary boldly returned to with Lejendary Adventure. It's a skill-based RPG, but the skills work a lot like these secondary skills. Using insight from LA, I was able to put together some notes detailing a little more what each of the Secondary Skills do.
[...]
I found this works really well with Castles & Crusades. I nix the priming of attributes, instead the "primes" are pinned to one of the Secondary Skills. The diverse activity covered by skills might actually use different attributes, but having the skill primed means using the lower TN. So this makes the priming a lot less redundant with the attributes.
Great stuff! I like your use with Castles and Crusades - it is very similar to something I did in my own RPG (e.g., a background just gives you an advantage when attempting some checks).
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 11, 2023, 12:18:22 AM
One of the things I really appreciated about Gary's writing and this book in particular when I was a kid learning this game, is that Gary doesn't speak down to you. The downside that comes with that, though, is sometimes you're expected to know stuff that isn't obvious. Like Forester was an actual medieval profession. It's a precise term. Not just "hey, this guy wears green tights."
During times of war, some of the activities of the Forester expanded, and those expanded activities are an astonishing match for the very first line of the Ranger class description in the PHB "Rangers are a sub-class of fighter who are adept at woodcraft, tracking, scouting, and infiltration and spying." And so it seems like the intent is that the Ranger is an elite Forester. As such, unless you have a specific reason to do otherwise, I would assume that all rangers have the Forester secondary skill. Meaning they've got wilderness skills beyond just what's in the class description. Oh, and the very last word of that sentence I quoted? Spying? There's no mention of the Ranger in the DMG section on Spying, but I definitely wonder if Rangers should get to use the Assassin Spying Table as well. At least for spy activity that borders on scouting and recon.
I agree there's a downside to this. I would prefer things to be much clearer. "Forester" is clear enough. "You could resolve an attack in any of four or five ways" is not, and should be explicit.
Agree about the ranger too. To me, a ranger is just a fighter with some wilderness skills.
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 11, 2023, 12:18:22 AM
Sorry, gotta say this is a run-of-the-mill/cliched/mediocre take on this. I can get this identical commentary on this section out of every 1E-hating 2E gamer who's never read a 1E book in their life.
I use the monthly disease checks. Part of the reason is just to drop the bomb up front. Your PCs are all going to die. Period. The question we're putting to the game is, what great things can you do in the meantime. Yeah. It's kind of the influence of Braveheart creeping in again. Every PC dies. Not every PC truly lives. So contrary to the view that disease tables is just getting bogged down in realism, and that it's work not fun, I think at least the way I present it sets the tone for ramping up the fun of the game. Especially if you have really cautious, risk-averse players at the table.
There is a secondary reason. It's more of a practical one than a tone-setting one. It's game economics. Not to be confused with the economics of the in-game setting. It's a cost to sitting still. Face it, before the first round of disease checks even come, there's a good chance the PCs can afford to pay for a Cure Disease. Sure. Sometimes the dice might turn up something interesting, and that alone could be a good reason to use these tables. But mostly it's just going to drain the PCs money. May even force them to sell a magic-item. I like having magic-items come and go. You know why? Because I can ramp up the frequency with which players get to experience the excitement of their character gaining a new magic item, but without the PCs becoming so inundated with magic items that they no longer value them. I can have my cake and eat it, too.
My tertiary reason is it's also part of time-keeping in the campaign. We rarely miss a combat round, and it's because we have plenty of procedural stuff to do, like rolling initiative. Well, if there's something to roll on a monthly basis, I'm more likely to remember to do it. And, of course, nail the PCs with that monthly cost of living.
I don't claim to be an expert on AD&D (although I am far from an "1e hater"); I'm just checking the book to see what I can use. I can see the value of disease checks in a realistic campaign, but I do not find it particularly fun. It could work, I might even use something similar - maybe as part of a bigger table of nefarious events.
About time keeping... I think we will end up agreeing on this one. It is my favorite section of the book so far, it might completely change the way I run campaigns. Same for spell acquisition.
Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies on June 11, 2023, 04:49:07 AM
This has been a very helpful discussion to grok things. I look forward to reading more of your blog Eric Diaz as you continue, seeing others input their knowledge in the spirit of healthy advice and insights. A more thorough read of the AD&D books has changed quite a few things I erroneously perceived, for the better.
Thank you! I'm really enjoying this discussion too.
I've been learning a lot from the book and from this forum.
First, I've made an index for the series so you can read all parts.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/dmg-1e-cover-to-cover-index.html
Here is part IV, my favorite so far.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-iv-pages-37.html
TIME
So, I went "digging" into the DMG... and now I think I've found some gold. This single page made me want to completely change the way I run games. It might be the most interesting part so far.
Of course this is not the first time I've read this. This part contains a famous quote in all caps. In addition, many people have been talking about this lately most notably Jeffro Johnson. Here is a relevant bit:
Game time is of utmost importance. Failure to keep careful track of time expenditure by player characters will result in many anomalies in the game. The stricture of time is what makes recovery of hit points meaningful. Likewise, the time spent adventuring in wilderness areas removes concerned characters from their bases of operation — be they rented chambers or battlemented strongholds. Certainly the most important time stricture pertains to the manufacture of magic items, for during the period of such activity no
adventuring can be done. Time is also considered in gaining levels and learning new languages and more. All of these demands upon game time force choices upon player characters, and likewise number their days of game life.
One of the things stressed in the original game of D&D was the importance of recording game time with respect to each and every player character in a campaign. In AD&D it is emphasized even more: YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT.
The gist of this section is emphasizing how important time keeping is for your campaign. This includes not only turns and rounds but also days, weeks and months. The book also stresses the importance of downtime and rotating characters. For example, when a PC is hurt, diseased, or busy with an important project (e.g., researching spells or creating a magic item), you should go adventuring without him or her - or maybe using an entire different party. Even better, you can have multiple groups of players, and different parties, as hinted before.
The method Gygax used for that is "real time": If one week has passed in the real world, one week has passed in the game world. This means a player could be using a different character for months. Of course you will occasionally need to freeze time between sessions, but now the clock is not working only at the players (in their characters) convenience. Time-railroading is limited. This gives the campaign a much more satisfying, organic feel.
For smaller units of time, the book recommends careful note keeping. I'm not a big fan of this, but you can easily be replaced by real time too, as I suggested here and apparently has become popular in other games lately.
Time seems to be the glue that holds many rules together: Healing, researching, building, random encounters, searching, torches, diseases, etc. Once you ignore it, everything seems to come crashing down. Maybe this is one of the fundamental ideas of old school play.
There is much to ponder about this section. For now, I'll just recommend that you read it yourself, in its entirety. This is the first time in this series that I do that.
CHARACTER SPELLS (plus ACQUISITION)
After finishing this important section on time I thought I could glance over the section on spells. However, there's important stuff here too.
The first parts of this section are about spell acquisition. I always disliked the idea that clerics get ALL spells "for free". Here, the book makes clear that this requires continued service in favor of a deity - and, for higher level spells, direct communication with their gods! An "unfaithful" cleric must perform sacrifice and atonement to get spells (which may require time), but changing deities might have irreversible consequences (including instant death, which is less interesting). Similar rules apply to paladins.
Starting magic-users get additional spells and scrolls when compared to B/X, but here it is clear that these spells are random. The book provides a small table that ensures they'll be varied enough:
Illusionists follow a similar pattern. Some spell choice is permitted on "difficult campaigns".
As magic-users level up, they can get more spells, but they can only choose one per level. Everything else must be acquired trough scrolls, NPCs (or other PCs), and so on. This is seldom an easy process: you might fail to learn from a scroll, and NPCs might require magic items in exchange of spells.
Once again, the book is trying to limit PCs, but this time it does so in a very interesting way for both clerics and magic-users. Now they cannot simply handwave the origin of their spells. On the contrary, they have to engage with the setting to build their PC's repertoire. And there is enough randomness in the game that two magic-users will never be alike.
This sounds fair. Fighters get their "special powers" by finding magic items, intelligent swords, etc., and they usually don't get to choose (unless you're using something like proficiencies or Old School Feats). There should be a balance between choice and chance, and I think AD&D does pretty well in this regard.
RECOVERY OF SPELLS
Spell recovery requires time (again - this is the linchpin), to a maximum 12 hours of sleep plus 15 minutes for each spell level to be recovered. This create meaningful choices - what RPGs are all about. And is also a bit more fair to fighters (they need to rest a lot to recover all their HP).
SPELL CASTING
Next we get a small section explaining how spells work within the fictional world (reportedly taking inspiration from Vance and Bellair). Enticing, short, and clear.
TRIBAL SPELL CASTERS
This sections explain that various humanoids (ogres, orcs, bugbears, trolls, giants, etc.) have their own "shamans" (clerics) and "witch-doctors" (magic-users/clerics). Unfortunately, it does not tell you if the witch-doctors have grimoires... (I would guess they don't).
While the section was interesting and useful (for suggesting spells and levels for these creatures), I don't find this distinction between shaman and cleric or mage and witch doctor to have much merit, especially as they are restricted to NPCs. It feels a bit like PC "races" can only be "civilized" fighting against "barbaric" foes. Why not have a PC or human/elf shaman? Also, did they forget ogre mages?
We could get something useful out of this (e.g., different forms of magic), but as written it feels insufficient and detached from the rest of the game (classes, random encounters, Monster Manual, etc.).
SPELL EXPLANATIONS
This section details particular spell. I'll skip this part entirely; it is basically impossible to understand without the PHB, and it is only separated from it because the books weren't written at the same time. From a brief glance, most explanations sounds both sensible and flavorful.
What have we learned today?
The bit about time, if considered seriously, is definitely a game-changer. I don't remember the exact rules for spell acquisition in B/X, but the ones in the DMG are pretty good. And, okay, I'll admit, I might add a troll shaman or two to my games.
Coming next... THE ADVENTURE!
Additional reading (on time and spells):
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/04/real-time-dungeon-exploration.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/05/railroading-in-space-and-time-and.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-best-way-to-get-spells-in-d.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/02/living-spells.html
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 16, 2023, 09:38:29 AM
First, I've made an index for the series so you can read all parts.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/dmg-1e-cover-to-cover-index.html
Here is part IV, my favorite so far.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/06/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-iv-pages-37.html
TIME
So, I went "digging" into the DMG... and now I think I've found some gold. This single page made me want to completely change the way I run games. It might be the most interesting part so far.
Of course this is not the first time I've read this. This part contains a famous quote in all caps. In addition, many people have been talking about this lately most notably Jeffro Johnson. Here is a relevant bit:
Game time is of utmost importance. Failure to keep careful track of time expenditure by player characters will result in many anomalies in the game. The stricture of time is what makes recovery of hit points meaningful. Likewise, the time spent adventuring in wilderness areas removes concerned characters from their bases of operation — be they rented chambers or battlemented strongholds. Certainly the most important time stricture pertains to the manufacture of magic items, for during the period of such activity no
adventuring can be done. Time is also considered in gaining levels and learning new languages and more. All of these demands upon game time force choices upon player characters, and likewise number their days of game life.
One of the things stressed in the original game of D&D was the importance of recording game time with respect to each and every player character in a campaign. In AD&D it is emphasized even more: YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT.
The gist of this section is emphasizing how important time keeping is for your campaign. This includes not only turns and rounds but also days, weeks and months. The book also stresses the importance of downtime and rotating characters. For example, when a PC is hurt, diseased, or busy with an important project (e.g., researching spells or creating a magic item), you should go adventuring without him or her - or maybe using an entire different party. Even better, you can have multiple groups of players, and different parties, as hinted before.
The method Gygax used for that is "real time": If one week has passed in the real world, one week has passed in the game world. This means a player could be using a different character for months. Of course you will occasionally need to freeze time between sessions, but now the clock is not working only at the players (in their characters) convenience. Time-railroading is limited. This gives the campaign a much more satisfying, organic feel.
For smaller units of time, the book recommends careful note keeping. I'm not a big fan of this, but you can easily be replaced by real time too, as I suggested here and apparently has become popular in other games lately.
Time seems to be the glue that holds many rules together: Healing, researching, building, random encounters, searching, torches, diseases, etc. Once you ignore it, everything seems to come crashing down. Maybe this is one of the fundamental ideas of old school play.
There is much to ponder about this section. For now, I'll just recommend that you read it yourself, in its entirety. This is the first time in this series that I do that.
CHARACTER SPELLS (plus ACQUISITION)
After finishing this important section on time I thought I could glance over the section on spells. However, there's important stuff here too.
The first parts of this section are about spell acquisition. I always disliked the idea that clerics get ALL spells "for free". Here, the book makes clear that this requires continued service in favor of a deity - and, for higher level spells, direct communication with their gods! An "unfaithful" cleric must perform sacrifice and atonement to get spells (which may require time), but changing deities might have irreversible consequences (including instant death, which is less interesting). Similar rules apply to paladins.
Starting magic-users get additional spells and scrolls when compared to B/X, but here it is clear that these spells are random. The book provides a small table that ensures they'll be varied enough:
Illusionists follow a similar pattern. Some spell choice is permitted on "difficult campaigns".
As magic-users level up, they can get more spells, but they can only choose one per level. Everything else must be acquired trough scrolls, NPCs (or other PCs), and so on. This is seldom an easy process: you might fail to learn from a scroll, and NPCs might require magic items in exchange of spells.
Once again, the book is trying to limit PCs, but this time it does so in a very interesting way for both clerics and magic-users. Now they cannot simply handwave the origin of their spells. On the contrary, they have to engage with the setting to build their PC's repertoire. And there is enough randomness in the game that two magic-users will never be alike.
This sounds fair. Fighters get their "special powers" by finding magic items, intelligent swords, etc., and they usually don't get to choose (unless you're using something like proficiencies or Old School Feats). There should be a balance between choice and chance, and I think AD&D does pretty well in this regard.
RECOVERY OF SPELLS
Spell recovery requires time (again - this is the linchpin), to a maximum 12 hours of sleep plus 15 minutes for each spell level to be recovered. This create meaningful choices - what RPGs are all about. And is also a bit more fair to fighters (they need to rest a lot to recover all their HP).
SPELL CASTING
Next we get a small section explaining how spells work within the fictional world (reportedly taking inspiration from Vance and Bellair). Enticing, short, and clear.
TRIBAL SPELL CASTERS
This sections explain that various humanoids (ogres, orcs, bugbears, trolls, giants, etc.) have their own "shamans" (clerics) and "witch-doctors" (magic-users/clerics). Unfortunately, it does not tell you if the witch-doctors have grimoires... (I would guess they don't).
While the section was interesting and useful (for suggesting spells and levels for these creatures), I don't find this distinction between shaman and cleric or mage and witch doctor to have much merit, especially as they are restricted to NPCs. It feels a bit like PC "races" can only be "civilized" fighting against "barbaric" foes. Why not have a PC or human/elf shaman? Also, did they forget ogre mages?
We could get something useful out of this (e.g., different forms of magic), but as written it feels insufficient and detached from the rest of the game (classes, random encounters, Monster Manual, etc.).
SPELL EXPLANATIONS
This section details particular spell. I'll skip this part entirely; it is basically impossible to understand without the PHB, and it is only separated from it because the books weren't written at the same time. From a brief glance, most explanations sounds both sensible and flavorful.
What have we learned today?
The bit about time, if considered seriously, is definitely a game-changer. I don't remember the exact rules for spell acquisition in B/X, but the ones in the DMG are pretty good. And, okay, I'll admit, I might add a troll shaman or two to my games.
Coming next... THE ADVENTURE!
Additional reading (on time and spells):
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/04/real-time-dungeon-exploration.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/05/railroading-in-space-and-time-and.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-best-way-to-get-spells-in-d.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/02/living-spells.html
Yeah. AD&D was very much about the expenditure and marshalling of resources. Time is an often (and easily) overlooked resource, unless you are playing a "counting clock" type adventure. I frequently have to remind myself that ignoring time gives the players very different levels of resources than strictly bounded time does...
I love 1:1 time, it adds a lot to any campaign, but the real magic is with multi-group campaigns.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 16, 2023, 09:38:29 AM
RECOVERY OF SPELLS
Spell recovery requires time (again - this is the linchpin), to a maximum 12 hours of sleep plus 15 minutes for each spell level to be recovered. This create meaningful choices - what RPGs are all about. And is also a bit more fair to fighters (they need to rest a lot to recover all their HP).
Spell recovery is something I think is of massive significance to the game. If we're talking a higher level party on a long quest involving wilderness travel, you really only get 12 hours of daily downtime. If a magic-user or cleric takes 6 hours of sleep, that leaves just 6 hours to study spells, giving them only 24 spell-levels worth renewable daily. By 8th level, you can't replenish all your slots daily anymore. So there's a real ceiling on spell fire power imposed here.
This means there's a limit on daily renewable healing spells, and therefore a limit on how much hit point loss a party can recover daily. It will vary depending on exact level and party composition, but it tops out somewhere around 15 or 16 hit points per party member renewable daily. You could have a 15th level fighter with over 100 hit points, but you can still only lose 15 or 16 daily sustainably.
These are a couple of the reasons the power curve in 1E flattens out dramatically after name level, far more than a casual observer would appreciate just by doing some superficial math. You don't get wizards with quadratic growth that become dramatically more powerful than the rest of the party. You also don't get level-capped demi-humans being left in the dust. A lot of the ideas associated with D&D in general, or at least high level D&D, actually hinge on ignoring the spell recovery limitation.
You could probably write a book called "Your Friends Are Wrong About D&D," and at least 40% of it would link back to this rule one way or another.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 16, 2023, 12:47:22 PM
Yeah. AD&D was very much about the expenditure and marshalling of resources. Time is an often (and easily) overlooked resource, unless you are playing a "counting clock" type adventure. I frequently have to remind myself that ignoring time gives the players very different levels of resources than strictly bounded time does...
True. There must be SOME counting clock - torches, encounters, whatever. Giving the PCs all the time in the world changes the game significantly.
Quote from: S'mon on June 16, 2023, 04:54:53 PM
I love 1:1 time, it adds a lot to any campaign, but the real magic is with multi-group campaigns.
Makes sense, although 1:! times keeps things straight. Multi-group with multiple timelines could get confusing...
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 17, 2023, 01:24:11 AM
Spell recovery is something I think is of massive significance to the game. If we're talking a higher level party on a long quest involving wilderness travel, you really only get 12 hours of daily downtime. If a magic-user or cleric takes 6 hours of sleep, that leaves just 6 hours to study spells, giving them only 24 spell-levels worth renewable daily. By 8th level, you can't replenish all your slots daily anymore. So there's a real ceiling on spell fire power imposed here.
This means there's a limit on daily renewable healing spells, and therefore a limit on how much hit point loss a party can recover daily. It will vary depending on exact level and party composition, but it tops out somewhere around 15 or 16 hit points per party member renewable daily. You could have a 15th level fighter with over 100 hit points, but you can still only lose 15 or 16 daily sustainably.
These are a couple of the reasons the power curve in 1E flattens out dramatically after name level, far more than a casual observer would appreciate just by doing some superficial math. You don't get wizards with quadratic growth that become dramatically more powerful than the rest of the party. You also don't get level-capped demi-humans being left in the dust. A lot of the ideas associated with D&D in general, or at least high level D&D, actually hinge on ignoring the spell recovery limitation.
You could probably write a book called "Your Friends Are Wrong About D&D," and at least 40% of it would link back to this rule one way or another.
Yes, "quadratic wizards" is what happens if you ignore rules like this!
QuoteThe Russians for example, developed the Chekan--which was a hand weapon that combined a hammer-head on one side, and a short, puncturing steel spike on the other side. Absolutely brutal against any kind of opponent, whether they were on foot or mounted.
For a historical correction - chekans - ergo battle pick-axes are known from Bronze Age, and they spread to Europe first with Alans, and then various Turkic tribes. Become very popular among Slavic people - alpinist ice axes are called chekans in Polish - but they are not Russian nor Polish invention .