Mechanics Cross-Pollination Thread

EOTB

So ... slow work day? Every day?
IDK what to tell people who want to latch on to wording and interpret it in counter-intuitive ways. The head armoring added to the suit of armor is meant to convey the purchase of armor comes with headgear.

If you think everyone who buys leather armor for 5 gp then has to go buy a 10 gp helmet, be my guest. I'm not going to go digging through Q&A columns over it.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Sure, it is much more intuitive to assume that a 5 gp set of leather armor comes with a 10 gp helm thrown in for free.

At that point why would you ever buy a replacement helm? You would just buy a set of padded armor for 4 gp, keep the helm and throw away the armor.
 
Last edited:

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
I've also always gone with the "helm included" assumption...unless you wanted a "Great Helm" for some reason.
 

EOTB

So ... slow work day? Every day?
Sure, it is much more intuitive to assume that a 5 gp set of leather armor comes with a 10 gp helm thrown in for free.

At that point why would you ever buy a replacement helm? You would just buy a set of padded armor for 4 gp, keep the helm and throw away the armor.
You wouldn’t ever buy a 10 gp replacement helm, no. [edit - if you could match metal armor with leather helmets without penalty]

A 10 gp replacement helm is built into the AC of expensive metal armors, because it’s an expensive metal helmet that must be forged instead of hides or cloth that is sewn.

so if you’re wearing chain mail or plate and say “a-ha! Insteadof buying a metal helm to replace the one I lost, I’ll buy a leather one!”…the DM should simply reduce the AC of the armor until you do it right
 
Last edited:

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
You wouldn’t ever buy a 10 gp replacement helm, no. [edit - if you could match metal armor with leather helmets without penalty]

A 10 gp replacement helm is built into the AC of expensive metal armors, because it’s an expensive metal helmet that must be forged instead of hides or cloth that is sewn.

so if you’re wearing chain mail or plate and say “a-ha! Insteadof buying a metal helm to replace the one I lost, I’ll buy a leather one!”…the DM should simply reduce the AC of the armor until you do it right
Okay, this is clearly a houserule - a reasonable houserule, but still a houserule. That's fine, but don't go treating it like a rule that everyone should know.
 

Hemlock

Should be playing D&D instead
I had originally written "solely" and then softened that to "mainly a combat engine". I guess that implies 51+%, but I was thinking even more.

I am referring to time-spent trading blows. Tactical combat is fairly quick in AD&D, but strategically it stretches much longer in planning and execution. I wouldn't count that necessarily.

Do you think that that spending 24.5% or less of your time exploring, and 24.5% or less interacting (with what you've found) is typical? It doesn't match with my comfort zone. Perhaps a third of each is a better balance?

Combat may be the crescendo, but the rest of the symphony is needed to build to that point---to give it relevance.

My caution may be exaggerated, but only because the pitfall is real and perhaps a path too commonly taken. It's the video-game influence: chop-chop-chop fight-fight-fight. OK, cleared the level---on to the next screen! That's not great D&D, to me.
I don't think there's a hard-and-fast distinction between combat, exploring, and interacting. E.g. innovating new spell combos, like a Reduce spell to shrink a statue covering a chimney enough that the 9000 lb. statue turns into a 1000 lb. statue falling down the chimney and onto an enemy's head, is simultaneously combat, exploration, and interaction.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
Okay, this is clearly a houserule - a reasonable houserule, but still a houserule. That's fine, but don't go treating it like a rule that everyone should know.
You can say that, but I think you'll find you are in a minority in your interpretation of what was written. I think (but of course I don't know for sure) that very few AD&D players are buying helms to go with their armor, and their DMs are not applying the helmet rule to them. Most assume it's included from the wording.
 
Last edited:

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
You can say that, but I think you'll find you are in a minority in your interpretation of what was written. I think (but of course I don't know for sure) that very few AD&D players are buying helms to go with their armor, and their DMs are not applying the helmet rule to them. Most assume it's included from the wording.
I think this is true, but I think that is in part because a lot of people don't know about/remember/like the helmet rule.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
We played called-shot rules, (-8 for the head, -4 for anything else I think?). So noting the existence or absence of a helmet was key.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
We played called-shot rules, (-8 for the head, -4 for anything else I think?). So noting the existence or absence of a helmet was key.
I had some DMs who did that; I think with them we treated helmets as not included in the purchase of armor.
 

EOTB

So ... slow work day? Every day?
Okay, this is clearly a houserule - a reasonable houserule, but still a houserule. That's fine, but don't go treating it like a rule that everyone should know.
Have you plumbed the depths of the clarification columns in TSR periodicals before coming to this conclusion? Or are you one of the guys who rejects the idea that periodical clarifications to the text are valid?
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I wanted to expand on this post without derailing the original thread:

To expand on this, in my own game I want to know who is mapping, who is probing with the 10' pole, who is checking for secret doors as they go, who is looking ahead and who is looking behind. Mapping, probing and checking for secret doors all slow movement from late-D&D standard to 1e speeds, which enables wandering monster checks.
This suggests you need, ideally, a party of at least 5, and possibly 6, in order to cover all bases: one for each role mentioned (I rule that probing walls and floor with a pole divides your attention sufficiently that you can't really focus on the more distant path ahead); except for searching for secret doors, which requires one elf or two non-elves to cover each wall using early edition rules.

If you have less, you have choices to make in terms of what areas you leave uncovered, or if you want to slow your speed by having certain characters duplicate roles. So for a three person team, assuming you always want someone watching the van and rear at all times, only one person is available to map, check for secret doors, and probe for traps; covering all of those roles will triple or quadruple your wandering monster checks, so there are real decisions to make.

To be clear on the searching for secret doors role, for most people this requires that they inspect, prod, and tap on walls. Based on a passage in the 1e DMG, which I don't care to look up, I let elves search by just concentrating, as long as they walk within, say, 5 feet or so (although I have some setting specific limitations on this).

It becomes particularly interesting if you run an edition where the action economy (what you can do in a round/on your turn) is an important factor in combat. The mapper needs both hands to map, and cannot carry a weapon or a light source; the same goes for the person with the pole, unless he is using a polearm, which will probably be shorter and has other issues in confined spaces; stowing writing implements and drawing weapons is a real issue. Non-elf secret-door searchers can likely carry a weapon and tap on walls with it, but they likely can't wear a helm that muffles sound (great helms, armets, etc., basically the more protective helms), since they need to hear the sound of the tapping.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Huh. I just ran across my campaign journal from when I played the Beoric character, in my late teens. I haven't read it yet, but it looks like it goes from first level to far enough beyond name level that some of the party has followers and strongholds. Looks like we started near Hommlet, and I see references to Castle Amber, and possibly White Plume Mountain and the Temple of Elemental Evil.

Hmm, I see one battle where we had a solar, a couple of planetars, some devas and bakus on our side, and it was still almost a TPK. And Orcus made an appearance, but bailed; I think this is a revised version of the fight in ToEE where Cuthbert drives/scares off Iuz.

Looks like we get resurrected a lot. I'm going to have to read the whole thing; despite my cringy teenage writing the whole thing seems pretty cool
 

Johann

*eyeroll*
Let us know some juicy tidbits! Wacky plans, powerful items, number of resurrections, homemade monsters!
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
For those who are interested, somebody posted their playtest questionnaire/notes from playtesting one of the earlier iterations of 4e.

https://dolunt.net/web/kargas-dolunt/4e-playtesting

Not sure where this was in the playtest. Most of the rules are recognizable to me, although some numbers tweaking and clarifications were obviously done after this.
 
Top