Me and the DMG

[squeen]

@Beoric : If we can just get past the notion that we are arguing about editions, and instead see what we can learn from 1st Revision --- i.e. what did it try to fix/clarify, then we don't have to get too deep in the particular mechanics, and just make sure we preserve the intent. Why did Gygax think it was important enough to amend the 0e unarmed combat rules?

The point here is that you (and I) has eschewed unarmed combat as a confusing PITA --- and EOTB brilliantly points out it's in that pesky 1e DGM for a very good reason---one you've already admitted that we both had missed! Being outnumbered, at any XP level, should make your players panic a bit (possibly reaching for that fireball spell).

For me, the goal is to either take the "high road" and get proficient with the 1e grappling (as written) --- or find something a bit simpler that works for me until I feel like I'm ready (as a DM) to take the training-wheels off.

It's the same thing I'm doing with Weapons vs. AC---a half-step between nothing and the full PHB table, that looks a bit like the LotFP approach.

That type of "fiddling" is really a whole other topic/thread called "Matt Finch, Swords & Wizardry, and Me". S&W is very close to the 0e/1e hybrid I played in my youth, so it was easy for me to be drawn to it. Finch created it AFTER he did OSRIC (1e). Why? My guess---Rules Light (it was a trendy thing, 4e reactionary?). It's easier for the DM and players to get going with it. It's not "Advanced".

The goal (for me) is just to keep hammering away at up-ing my game and see what it brings to the table. EOTB has his Jeep (when prodded, even he'll admit it's got some custom mods)...I'm still tinkering with mine. The whole 0e mind-set has always been DIY (quoting Finch: "Imagine the Hell Out of It!"), so I'm not afraid to experiment. But what I'm learning (and the topic of this thread) is that the answer is frequently sitting in a (inscrutable) book that's been right in front of me for decades. It's not perfect, but its just plain stupid to toss aside the hard-won lessons written down inside---so I'm doing my homework, learning the "why" of things. Many friendly folk here (and other places on-line too) have been exceptional teachers.

I wish that the progression of editions HAD been a continuous, unbroken rise to perfection---and while I don't doubt that there are some gems in the later stuff---I know for a fact that something got lost too. Too many stupid "market research polls to see what players want". I ask you: When, in the history of mankind, has that kind of crass commerical thinking ever produced anything of great quality? The true spirit of the OSR = Recover What Was Lost! (...and not that everything written past 1979 is junk, as it's detractor attempt to paint it.) I don't think anyone would argue against the notion that 5e dialed back the clock a bit and is better for it.

 

[The Heretic]

Speaking of Rube Goldbergesque....

 

[squeen]

Speaking of Rube Goldbergesque....

Assuming you are referring to 1e unarmed combat --- if you're not ready for it, then that's totally cool. Find something that does makes you comfortable --- but do find something. It has a place in the Great Clockworks of D&D.

 

[squeen]

@squeen: my game is pretty lethal, I just use more streamlined mechanics.

Are your high-level PC's afraid of a large mob of orcs? If so, then I'd say you're golden.
(DP would say "Stay gold"...which I suspect doesn't quite mean the same thing...)

(EDIT: Mine previously were too...but that's because I gave them poisoned arrows. My players HATE poison, precisely because it's the other Great Equalizer.)

 

[squeen]

..what happens when they try it on a lich?)

hold person, wall of fire, telekinesis, etc. I think a lich would fight tactically to prevent being approached, if nothing else, so it's spells weren't disrupted. Also, I'm not sure throat slitting bothers the undead so much. Details.

Botton-line: Try it! See what works! You can be skeptical, but there is ample anecdotal evidence that 1e-ish unarmed combat works and addresses an issue.

 

[The Heretic]

Assuming you are referring to 1e unarmed combat --- if you're not ready for it, then that's totally cool. Find something that does makes you comfortable --- but do find something. It has a place in the Great Clockworks of D&D.

Lol yes, that was a bit of snark, mainly in reference to an earlier comment in this thread.

 

[squeen]

Nothing wrong with going a different route, such as bounded accuracy, to keep low level stuff viable.

Can you explain "bonded accuracy" via an example?

 

[Beoric]

For me, the goal is to either take the "high road" and get proficient with the 1e grappling (as written) --- or find something a bit simpler that works for me until I feel like I'm ready (as a DM) to take the training-wheels off.

Ok, lets look at this logically. You already have a "to hit" mechanic in place, which other than changing the direction of AC has remained essentially the same across every edition. It seems like that would be a good place to start.

Your purpose is to give minions a fighting chance to take someone down, so you presumably want it to be easier to hit with a grapple or overbear (I will talk about pummeling later) so team monster doesn't need a nat 20. Wearing heavier armor doesn't make you any more dextrous, so let's not let armor improve your AC. A shield probably does help, so let's still include that. Magical bonuses to armor may or may not help, so let's consider that a maybe. So a case could be made for the orcs hitting against AC 10 less shield bonus less magical bonuses. That is much easier to hit. I note that in 4e it would be an attack against reflex, which is more or less armorless AC, so this tracks.

So there is a hit, now what? By the 4e rules, this would result in a grab, which is more or less the equivalent of grabbing someone by the hockey jersey. If you wanted to improvise something more than a grab (which improvisation is also allowable by the rules), you could either have an improvised attack to knock prone next round, or try an improvised attack to knock prone in this round with an ad hoc penalty. With the possibility of 8 orcs surrounding a single PC, you could easily do something like this:

1. Orc 1 charges and goes for a tackle. Attack vs armorless AC, with no penalty. On a hit, both orc and PC are knocked prone. There is no penalty because this is a tackle; the orc is accepting the disadvantage of also being prone in order to have a better chance at succeeding.

2. Orc 2 grabs PC. Attack vs armorless AC, with bonus because PC is prone. On a hit, PC is held in place. Note steps 1 and 2 could probably be reversed with minor changes.

3. Orc 3 restrains PC. Attack vs armorless AC, with bonus because PC is prone. On a hit, PC is restrained. In 4e, the main difference between restrained and grabbed + prone is that a restrained character has penalties to hit.

4. Orc 4 renders PC helpless. Attack vs armorless AC, with bonus because prone and restrained; also, no shield bonus anymore. In 4e, helpless means the PC can be the subject of a coup de gras. The 4e coup de gras rules are weaksauce, but they don't have to be (and there are other things I would do here, but it would diverge from my illustration).

5. Orc 5 administers coup de gras. Attack vs armorless AV, with bonuses for prone etc. and no shield bonus. PC is still squirming and has a gorget on, so it is no guarantee, but if you hit the PC dies.

There you go, murder in five acts. Use it or don't.

I said I would discuss pummeling. I can't see why punching or kicking someone in armor is easier than hitting them with a sword. I also can't see why hitting someone with the hilt of a dagger is easier than hitting them with a sword. I don't know why this isn't just an ordinary attack against AC, doing 1d4x2 damage, only half of which is real damage. Just sayin'.

EDIT: One more thing. I assume orcs are proficient at unarmed combat since they have a damage die if they are not carrying a weapon. I would make no such assumption regarding PCs. So PCs would get a non-proficiency penalty when making unarmed attacks.

 

[squeen]

MMV?

 

[Beoric]

[T]his [thread] is intended to be a reflection of how y'all came to understand the D&D system you are currently using.

Oh yeah, I forgot, this thread has a topic.

I grew up playing mostly 1e. Heavily houseruled 1e; I don’t think any of us actually liked the system, we just didn’t know it at the time. By the time I was 16 we had a stable core group of about six people, three of whom I still play with. Most of us were, at that time, pretty physical. Four of us played football, three of us wrestled, three of us did martial arts (including some weapon training), three of us were into hiking, two of us rode horses, two of us went hunting from time to time, and one was an Olympic level swimmer.

A lot of us found some of the assumptions of the more fiddley bits of the rules to be … problematic. Other bits, well, while I could not have articulated it at the time, there are a lot of elements that give combat a narrative variability, but don’t really respond to strategic or tactical considerations. We tended to throw those out or greatly simplify them. We did use all the rules that were tactical in nature, like charging and rules relating to positioning. Most of us preferred to use minis. Most of us didn’t like the multiclass/dual class system, and we used various workarounds. We experimented with Rolemaster for a while, but that had its own problems. There were endless experiments with houserules which were generally failures, I think because we did not recognize the problem.

After University we went through a long period of not playing for a variety of reasons, until one of us introduced the 4e rules. For me, personally, the 4e combat rules scratched the itch that 1e never could. There was not a lot of out of combat support, however, which always bothered me, other than interminable skill challenges, which can die a fiery death. And while I loved the stuff we made up, the published adventures left me cold. I have probably read 150 4e WotC adventures, and can think of maybe 5 that are salvageable.

I went through a brief “event based” structure phase, because that was what was being pushed; and a brief character optimization phase, mostly because the mechanics of it fascinated me. I actually got something lasting out of the CharOp reading, because it helped me learn the guts of the system, and recognize the difference between what WotC thought it was about, and what it was really about. Once I knew how the rules really worked, I was able to modify the play experience by using the existing mechanics in ways the designers had not recognized, or at least did not talk about.

I really enjoy 4e combat because player skill matters. Since the out of combat mechanics in 4e are essentially absent, it is easy to fill the gaps with 1e mechanics, mutatis mutandis. It is much harder to make the 1e combat system do what I want – believe me, I spent at least 20 years trying.

I love the 1e DMG and the MM1, and still probably refer to them more than any other book. But I don’t read them for the combat mechanics. I read them for Appendixes A to C, the henchmen and hireling rules, the hexcrawl rules (although they are frustratingly incomplete), the rules regarding followers and territory development, and probably half a dozen others that have slipped my mind. I read the MM1 for human and humanoid settlement structures, treasure types, numbers appearing, in lair%, and monster lore. I use the d12+d8 system in the back of the MM2 for my random monster tables. I use the utility spells in the PHB and UA to supplement the flavourless rituals that are used out of combat.

TL;DR: My game is 4e in combat, and 1e out of combat. Sort of.

 

[squeen]

Beoric you are truly the Black Unicorn! There is definitely something to what you say---and perhaps an itch to be scratched for folk needing a more tactical combat-D&D over a solid/balanced exploratory framework.

I love that you've done your homework, glued two systems together, and found something that works for you.

Bravo!

(Also, I think the foray into DMG's unarmed combat was totally inline with the gist of this thread.)

 

[DangerousPuhson]

The more I'm reading, the more I realize that D&D tastes are a lot like food tastes.

I hate cilantro on a genetic level, and any bit of cilantro in anything spoils it for me.
I hate raw mushrooms, but enjoy them when they are cooked.
I hate reheated pizza, but fresh pizza is amazing.
I love bacon in any form and its addition improves everything.

An yet as definitive as I know my tastes to be (so much that I can tell you if I'd like or hate something before trying it), you'll get the different hatreds, caveats and appreciations depending on who you ask - no two people are alike. There is no universal formula for D&D, just as you'll never find a food that everyone, everywhere loves universally.

 

[Beoric]

folk needing a more tactical combat-D&D over a solid/balanced exploratory framework.

That's not it exactly, my games aren't at all combat focused. Exploration is a big part, and I am working on seeing how the 4e rules can be applied to create a more satisfying dominion play experience. But when there is combat, I prefer it when player choices play a larger role in the story of the battle.

Incidentally, I think virtual tabletops with dynamic lighting are an excellent addition to the exploration experience. There is something about starting on a black screen, seeing just your characters and a circle of torchlight, and slowly opening up the dungeon as you explore, that really makes me feel like I am there in the darkness, dependent on my flickering torch for survival. As a DM is makes certain devices to confound mapping more difficult (and sometimes impossible) to pull off, but I never got much out of those anyway, so it is a more than fair tradeoff.

 

[squeen]

That's not it exactly, my games aren't at all combat focused.

I wrote that poorly. What I meant to say was "...a more detailed tactical combat-D&D integrated into a solid/balanced exploratory framework".

My bad.

@DangerousPuhson : (bacon + cake?)

 

[DangerousPuhson]

(bacon + cake?)

Classic cakon

 

[Beoric]

One other thing that really bugged me about 1e was that the lack of wilderness skills for rangers. We always took it that the existence of skills for climbing, moving silently and hiding for thieves, and the absence of same for rangers, implied that rangers couldn't do any of hose things. I liked playing rangers, and thought they should be able to climb natural features and stalk prey, but I always had to MC thief if I wanted to do any of that stuff. I was happy when the DSG and WSG came out and allowed a nonweapon proficiency for Mountaineering (although stealth was still an issue, and I could never figure out what direction the bonuses were supposed to go since they were opposite in the two books).

For you 1e players, how did you handle this? Who used non-weapon proficiencies? Who used a basic "roll under" mechanic?

 

[squeen]

Not quite the same question, but I posted one similar over at K&K. I basically asked what are non-thieves' chances of doing some of those basic thief skills (e.g. climbing a wall)? I asked because it came up in my last game. You should read the thread directly, but here is my summary of their responses in a Table. The general feeling was that the Dungeon Survivial Guide is quite poor (1e's bottom-of-the-barrel).


Most interesting to me was how folks linked moving silently with surprise (e.g. rangers). You might also want to give ranger's a better chance to hear noises in the woods.

So you are right in a sense that the DMG does fall down a bit on the chance to elaborate on rangers.
Perhaps Gygax thought this in the PHB was sufficient:



Lastly, I was surprised Malrex wasn't the one to ask this question!

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Have we become incapable of making snap rulings at the table in situations like this? Can you not just say "I'd say there's probably a 5% chance of that happening, so roll a % die" or "no, non-thieves don't know how to use thieve's tools"?

Also seems weird that you can untrained open a simple lock, but can't pick a pocket - do you need to go to a special "grabbing school" or something to be able to take something from someone's pocket?

To me this just seems excessive, especially considering the retro-clone predilection toward simple, streamlined rules.

 

[squeen]

Have we become incapable of making snap rulings at the table in situations like this? Can you not just say "I'd say there's probably a 5% chance of that happening, so roll a % die" or "no, non-thieves don't know how to use thieve's tools"?

EOTB's reply (from the 1e DMG) is what you what then.

Mine is a little cheat-sheet for myself that just summarizes what already exists in the 1e universe. It's to assist me with those at-the-table snap rulings, since I'd like to stay consistent (and have a bad memory). My House Rules, if you will---just sharing!

And yes, my players KEEP TRYING TO DO THIS! (smacks-palm-to-forehead).

If you'd like a 1% chance for an untrained person to pick a pocket---go for it. I might even allow up to 25% if the target was way-drunk.

Again, you should read the K&K thread. I think it was insightful.

 

[Beoric]

I don't like playing in NWP games. Players seem to fixate on finding ways to use their NWP that aren't very organic.

Yes, that can happen in any game with a skill system. However, I have found it to be the easiest bad habit for players to break, given the right incentive. I explain to my players that for many actions, the skill system is a safety net. If they can figure something out methodically by question-and-answer with the DM, they may succeed without having to take the risk. For example, if the players puzzle out how a trap mechanism works and figure out how it can be disabled, they don’t have to make a Thievery check.

I do this because of an article I read, I don’t remember where, which said this was the intention with respect to the Thief’s abilities. The intention was that by default traps should be discovered and disabled by player skill, and the Thief’s abilities were really intended as a sort of Hail Mary pass. Which is why Thieves are so crappy at some many things at low lever; you aren’t supposed to be relying on them in the first place.

Note I don’t just use this for traps, and finds that it works for many other skills as well. And players looking for an edge (aren’t they all?) generally get on board pretty quickly. It helps if the stakes are high and the DCs are difficult.

As for rangers or any other class, I let them do anything that is in the archetype for the class, using the roll-under rule on DMG pg 110:

There will be times in which the rules do not cover a specific action that a
player will attempt. In such situations, instead of being forced to make a
decision, take the option to allow the dice to control the situation. This can
be done by assigning reasonable probability to an event and then letting
the player dice to see if he or she can make that percentage.

So if you're a ranger and want to climb a tree, your percentage is probably 100% if you have a rope for primitive fall protection, the tree is healthy and of a type good for climbing, and you have no time pressure. It might go down to 50% if someone is shooting arrows at you, the tree is dead with compromised wood, and there's only a couple of rounds before the branch of someone you're trying to reach, breaks.

I see a couple of problems with this. The first is the statement in the quote that this applies where “which the rules do not cover a specific action”. The problem is, the rules DO apply to the actions we are discussing. They grant the Thief an ability to climb walls, and they grant the Barbarian an ability to climb cliffs and trees, but they do not grant that ability to the Ranger. Every group I ever played with interpreted this as meaning only a Thief could do these things, and from my interactions online I don’t think this is uncommon.

Another problem is that there is a risk with ad hoc decisions of this nature that you could accidentally grant a better chance to the non-Thief than the Thief gets.

Say a ranger wants to climb a cliff in a natural setting. The cliff is dry and rough, with many projections; in other words, it is pretty much like a modern climbing wall. A DM could easily make an ad hoc decision that a ranger ought to be able to climb that without bothering to roll. Maybe you wouldn’t make that call, but it is easy to see that someone might.

But per DMG p.19, the Thief has the same chance to climb a dry surface that is “rough and with ledges or many projections” as he has to climb a dry surface that is “very smooth – few cracks”, the only difference being the rate of speed. For a 1st level Thief, that is 85%, less in leather armor.

And your point only speaks to climbing. Stalking skills are still absent from the ranger, whom I imagine to be an accomplished hunter. Surprise is a limited proxy, since there are many instances when moving silently or hiding are useful other than when you stumble into an encounter.

Moreover, you don’t seem to do anything all that different from what happens with a properly adjudicated skill system. When a player declares an action that is something you think the PC ought to be able to do, you decide whether it is something that is easy enough to be accomplished automatically, or if there is risk. If there is risk, you decide the matter by the roll of a die, either by using a roll-under mechanic or by making an ad hoc decision as to the probability of success.

With a skill system, if the player declares an action that is something that the DM thinks the PC ought to be able to so, the DM decides whether it is something that is easy enough to be accomplished automatically, or if there is risk. If there is risk, the DM decides the matter by the roll of a die, using the established skill system and determining the probability of success using established guidelines.

The only difference is whether, when there is a risk of failure, the probability of success is determined systematically or in an ad hoc fashion.

1E has secondary skills, which aren't directly applicable to your question but do show what the design wanted to granulate and what it didn't.

4e digression, which is probably relevant to 5e: I do something similar in my 4e game using backgrounds. I assume the PC has proficiency in matters related to the background from which they have chosen a background benefit, and possibly others if they seemed to have developed them somewhat; it is a bit ad hoc.

Conversely, I assume that they are not proficient in matters unrelated to their background or to adventuring in general. The assumption is that adventurers are trained at adventuring, so that, for instance, a ranger can’t use the nature skill as a proxy for farming unless he has a farming background. This is actually a diversion from the rules as written, but I prefer it.