Yeesh, if your system is so convoluted that even computers have a hard time calculating it, then it's not an ideal system.although it doesn't have WvAC embedded because of how much processing power it would take to check each token for a specific armor type, if there were a bunch of tokens on the screen.
From what I understand, it's a fantasy grounds coding issue. I was a bit loose with my language. What I was referencing is discussed on the FG forumsYeesh, if your system is so convoluted that even computers have a hard time calculating it, then it's not an ideal system.
mrgrey said:Any possibility of adding attack modifiers based on AC to weapons? I mean, I know it's doable manually (just like with pen and paper), but it's one aspect of 1e that could definitely benefit from better automation (not to mention being one of only two things I prefer in 1e over 2e).
celestian said:Weapon versus armor was a thing in 1e and 2e actually, just most people did not use it so I can see why you'd think 2E did not have it.
You can do this but it will require some work on the DM's part.
In "Effect Features" for a weapon item (set to action only):
IFT: ARMOR(plate,platemail);ATK: 2
And then the target needs to have plate or platemail in their inventory equipped.
That said. I would not go nuts with it. FG does not like making nodes. So if you have 20 npcs all with equipment lists a mile long it will take a while to add them to the CT.
Because of that I did not go through and add all those effects to weapons.
Note this means in a tie, someone with a dagger gets to attack a guy with a longsword twice before the guy with the longsword gets to attack, even though the guy with the longsword has reach, and daggerman has to get past the point of the longsword in order to make those attacks.When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first
in a melee round, there is a chance that one opponent will be entitled to
multiple attacks. Compare the score of the lower-factored weapon with that of the higher. If the difference is at least twice the factor of the lower, or 5 or more factors in any case, the opponent with the lower factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent with the higher weapon factor is entitled to any attack whatsoever. If the difference is 10 or greater, the opponent with the lower-factored weapon is entitled to 2 attacks before the opponent is allowed to attack, and 1 further attack at the same time the opponent with the higher-speed-factored weapon finally is allowed to attack. Note that such speed factor considerations are not applicable when either closing or charging to melee, but after an initial round of combat, or in cases where closing/charging was not necessary, the speed factor considerations are applicable.
That's what I mean by "adding complexity". 2e's initiative (or was it an initiative variant?) where initiative order was established by rolling a d10 and adding the weapon speed or spell speed was at least simpler and more elegant, even if I strongly disagree with the way speed factors were assigned.The speed factor of a weapon also determines when the weapon strikes during the course of the round with respect to opponents who are engaged in activity other than striking blows. Thus, suppose side A, which has achieved initiative (action) for the round, has a magic-user engaged in casting a spell. Compare the speed factor of the weapon with the number of segments which the spell will require to cast to determine if the spell or the weapon will be cast/strike first, subtracting the losing die roll on the initiative die roll from the weapon factor and treating negative results as positive. Example: A sword with a factor of 5 (broad or long) is being used by an opponent of a magic-user attempting to cast a fireball spell (3 segment casting time). If the sword-wielding attacker was represented by a losing initiative die roll of 1, the spell will be cast prior to the sword’s blow. A 2 will indicate that the spell and the blow are completed simultaneously. A 3-5 will indicate that the blow has a chance of striking (if a successful “to hit” roll is made) before the spell is cast, arriving either as the spell is begun or during the first segment of its casting. Suppose instead that a dagger were being employed. It has a speed factor of only 2, so it will strike prior to spell completion if the initiative roll which lost was 1-4 (the adjusted segment indicator being 1, 0, 1, 2 respectively) and simultaneously if the die score was a 5. If the weapon being employed was a two-handed sword (or any other weapon with a speed factor of 10, or 9 for that matter)
there would be no chance for the reacting side to strike the spell caster prior to completion of the fireball. Note that even though a spell takes but 1 segment to complete, this is 6 seconds, and during that period a reacting attacker might be able to attack the magic-user or other spell caster prior to actual completion of the spell! If combat is simultaneous, there is no modification of the weapon speed factor.
Not true. Conditional modifiers can occur in combat, and it is possible for there be a trade off associated with gaining a bonus or incurring a penalty, like charging, or keeping or breaking cover, or moving into a position to attack from the flank or rear.As for decisions that are uninteresting simple math decisions - that applies equally to any decision a character could make that produces a modifier to a roll.
Also, you have a 17% chance of rolling any particular number on a six-sided die. Two people don't have a 17% chance of rolling the same particular number on opposed six-sided die rolls. I'm not a mathematician but I'm sure one will be along shortly.EOTB said:Speed factor has nothing to do with segment your attack goes on; it breaks some tied die rolls when both are using weapons, and it sometimes allows someone attacking a spellcaster in melee to go early, before a spell would complete, but speed factor is a corner case rule, not a commonly-applied one.
Again, it does what I said. If you lose init you can possibly attack early and still spoil the spell even though you lost init. When losing init, you compare your init roll and the weapon speed. Whatever the difference is between those two numbers (whatever those numbers are), that difference is either less than (you've got a shot to disrupt!), equal to (attack at the same time spell goes off), or more than (insert sad horn sound here) the spell casting time.And it is not accurate to suggest (as I think you are) that speed factor does not interact with spell casting time
EDIT: Before that, in the same thread, he said this:As for weapon sped factor, I use it only when two closely matched opponents are in combat. In mass-melee situations the added calculation takes too much time, detracts from the action, for combat simulation is not featured in the LA game.
Aargh! Forget weapons speed factors. I must have been under the effect of a hex when I included them in the bloody rules
Let's say we both roll d6, but you roll first. Whatever number you roll, I have a 17% chance of rolling the same number. So if you roll a "2", and then I roll, I have a 17% chance of rolling a "2".Also, you have a 17% chance of rolling any particular number on a six-sided die. Two people don't have a 17% chance of rolling the same particular number on opposed six-sided die rolls. I'm not a mathematician but I'm sure one will be along shortly.
I could be wrong on the math; wouldn't be the first time. But the point is if there is a tie when both parties are fighting with weapon vs weapon, the smaller one goes first. No mental effort required. Again - doesn't come up with fighting a troll.Let's say we both roll d6, but you roll first. Whatever number you roll, I have a 17% chance of rolling the same number. So if you roll a "2", and then I roll, I have a 17% chance of rolling a "2".
This does not change if we roll them at the same time.
Gary's comments about weapon speed and armor class adjustments illustrate that 1e was an experiment evolving on the fly. He cooked up a lot of stuff in a hurry and slapped it in there waiting to see what might work, and what might not. The fact that he later reversed himself is interesting, but does not in itself invalidate those ideas. They were experiments to begin with and we are now drawing conclusions. Game designers do this all the time.Each transaction may be short, if you have been playing for years and don't need to look anything up. But as you start piling on subsystem transactions, many of which have different mechanics, it all starts to pile up. And what do you get out of it? Simulationism? Balance for MUs? Even if I thought it accomplished those things, I just don't think its worth it.
For interest, here's what Gygax said about speed factor on Dragonsfoot:
And here's what he said on Enworld about weapons vs. AC: "we never used the weapons vs. armor type adjustments."
Let's say we both roll d6, but you roll first. Whatever number you roll, I have a 17% chance of rolling the same number. So if you roll a "2", and then I roll, I have a 17% chance of rolling a "2".
This does not change if we roll them at the same time.
The probability that you BOTH roll a 2 is P(A)*P(B) = (1/6)*(1/6) = 1/36 (<2.8%).Let's say we both roll d6, but you roll first. Whatever number you roll, I have a 17% chance of rolling the same number. So if you roll a "2", and then I roll, I have a 17% chance of rolling a "2".
This does not change if we roll them at the same time.
I am enjoying this back-and-forth very much. (Particularly because I'm not in the thick of it for once).Most people diss this stuff because it's conventional wisdom to diss it. It's not difficult to say WvAC or weapon speed sucks. People who've never even read them parrot that stuff. I'm letting people who may be interested know that someone who actually plays 1E all the time has found the criticism to be overstated.
The dagger vs halberd on a tie mechanic is one I've never seen come up in the wild. The triggering circumstances probably has, and it just wasn't recognized because the situation is simply too rare. There's a critical mass of likelihood required for a rule to be practical, and this wrinkle doesn't really cut it.We did use the weapon speed mechanics, including when dealing with spell casters. But after years of playing many games, in hindsight, I now realize the weapon speed mechanics misrepresent weapons and don't make sense for the reasons you cite. I too thought it silly that the dagger man could outdo the sword man; that's counter factual. And, the brain bending inversion math while doable was really overdone.
Otherwise, if MUs have a decent chance to get off low level (1-4) spells successfully when winning initiative, I rarely see the quoted dynamic. Instead I see most magic in combat is memorized spells with players hoarding their magic items for use only in extremis, or when their "replenishing" memorized spells are gone. This impacts the flow of the campaign in at least the following ways:Because spell casting will be so difficult, most magic-users and clerics will opt to use magical devices whenever possible in melee, if they are wise.