Training action.

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 4/23/99 3:30:42 AM Central Daylight Time,
m.m.richert@twi.tudelft.nl writes:

>

There is your problem. The group should get experience equally if they take
part in the combat. Reason: Numbers keeps you from getting rushed and
overwhelmed.

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 4/23/99 3:30:42 AM Central Daylight Time,
m.m.richert@twi.tudelft.nl writes:

[Craig Dalrymple]

- -----Original Message-----
From: the Falcon
To: birthright@mpgn.com
Date: Friday, April 23, 1999 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Training action.


>Well, the minimax combat machines of old usually have Str/Dex/Con
>18/18/18, so no need to worry there.
>
>My point here is that with fighters, for example, Strength is everything.
>There's no better fighter than the high-Strength fighter. Yeah, well
>maybe the high-Strength-high-Dexterity-high-Constitution fighter, huh?
>But the thing is that in AD&D there's no way to make a good
>brain-over-brawn or slim-but-skilled fighter. All the good AD&D fighters
>look like bodybuilders and weightlifters. Having a knack for being a good
>swordsman should not necessarily mean you also bulge out in hulk-like
>propertions, if you catch my drift.
>It's not just a problem of XP anymore...
>
> - the Falcon
>

Ok, I actually have the solution to this, and it is presented in an offiical
product from TSR that works! (can you belive it?)


If you look at some of the optional rules in the Combat & Tactics expansion
book, there are a few reasonable and logical tweaks you can make to the
game that can really change the situation where fighters are concerned. I
really like it as it is a blanancing act for fighter types and lightly
armored
fighters with fast weapons become formidable.

Heres a synopsis:

The initative system has been changed such that actions take place
in one of five phases that represent the relative speed of the participant.
In general, the smaller, lighter, and unencumbered combatant will always
act before a large, heavy, encumbered combatant. There are going to
be some exceptions/modifications needed to make all D&D creatures
fit into this as some of the big ones might actually be quick, but this
is trivial.

This initative system is the most important thing there. It really does not
make combat any more toilsome, especially if you already use weapon
speeds. If you add in the rules for fatigue and encumbrance and such
a fighter in full plate with a two handed sword fighting a unarmored
fighter with a rapier is in trouble. Why? Well, for starters the
fighter-lite
warrior is going to be highly maneuverable, which makes him hard to hit.
He can change points of attack. The tank warrior can't. Big swords and
armor are hard to get around in.

When I explained this to some friends I put it this way, The lightly armored
fighter will hit first, and wont' get tired as quick; but when the heavy one
gets to swing it's going to hurt.

This system allows the combat to almost be realistic. A lightly armored
warrior with qucik weapons will be like a quisinart and will have his
blades dancing like Do'Urden (sorry fr haters), while the tank will
just watch the rain of blows bounce off his armor and then wack the
annoying bug really good. This might sound like the tank still has an
advantage, but I think hitting LAST in combat is a really bad thing.
It's hard to do more than react when you move and attack last
in the round. The fighter-lite has more options and therefore a better
chance of survival IMHO.


I think there is a lot in that book that can make BR something really
fine. I just gotta train all my players in it's finer points. ;)

Craig

[JNeighb934@aol.co]

In a message dated 04/23/99 5:43:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
m.m.richert@twi.tudelft.nl writes:

[Tod Hurlbert]

the Falcon wrote:

> Now the fighter is the most obvious example,
> but in the end all classes suffer from the problem that characters with
> high stats, and high prime requisites in particular, just have an unfair
> and unreasonable disadvantage over those who have not. There's definitely
> something wrong there...
>
>

Wrong? Seems right on to me; as in realistic. Had Einstein chosen to be a
professional boxer rather than a physicist do you think anyone would remember
his name? And for that matter, how far would you think Mike Tyson would go as a
scientist? No, it's not fair, but what has fairness to do with anything?

Tod

[the Falcon]

> I've always assumed that in D&D, skill with a weapon directly correlates with
> character level. The higher level a character is, the more skilled a
> swordsman he is (as long as he is proficient with a sword). And a 12th lvl
> fighter of slim build and average strength could easily defeat a 3rd lvl
> heavily-muscled gargantuan Conan-type of warrior. But with character level
> being equal, meaning weapon skill is approximately the same, the
> exceptionally strong warrior will usually win out, which I think is realistic.
> But also a fighter with a high DEX could hold his own with a fighter with
> high STR. An exceptionally dexterous warrior fits the bill of a slim,
> average-built but highly skilled swordsman. His skill lies not so much in
> offense, but in defense because he is so hard to hit. So he would stand a
> good chance of beating a better muscled, but slower fighter.

Sadly, high strength does not rule out high dexterity. So what you get is
that player who wants to an play average-built but highly skilled
swordsmen takes high Dex and high Con, but the player who wants to play
the wanna-be half-ogre, takes those as well, in addition to a high Str.
And that's the problem...

- the Falcon

[Pieter Sleijpen]

the Falcon wrote:

> Well, it can get kinda borin, especially if you have more than one
> fighter like that in the campaign, like I had at first. Now, with the
> new party, the players have chosen to be a bit more creative in their
> stats, but I already see some disturbing things. First of all,
> min-maxers seem to have an unfair disadvantage. Let me give an
> example. Two fighters. One is your general high-physique/low-psyche
> mobile tank, while the other is a more creative, stylish figure. Both
> created with a point system, but this could also very well happen with
> Random rice rolls. Suppose they go on adventure together. Since the
> superman smashes off a lot more Hit Dice and monster than the
> swashbuckler type fighter, he tends to get a lot more XP as well.
> This mean he advances more swiftly in level. So not only does he
> start out better, he also has the tendency to get better a lot faster.
> This does not seem right. It gets even worse if mister all-mighty has
> a strength of 16 or better, while his companion does not, cause then
> the superhero gets the 10% bonus in addition as well, while his friend
> does not. Definitely not right. Come to that, I've always find that
> 10% bonus a bit odd. I mean, isn't it logical the low-strength
> fighter would learn _faster_, because it's more dificult to him and
> thus he gets more practice? Besides, the high-strength fighter
> already gets more XP because he bests more monster, so why give him a
> 10% bonus as well? It's just not possible in AD&D to create an
> efficient fighter who prefers brains over brawn. Now the fighter is
> the most obvious example, but in the end all classes suffer from the
> problem that characters with high stats, and high prime requisites in
> particular, just have an unfair and unreasonable disadvantage over
> those who have not. There's definitely something wrong there...
>
> - the Falcon

Your problems is partly based on the conception that a character should
earn more xp, because he bashed more opponents. As far as I know this is
not the case. Every member of a party gets an equal share of the xp of
slain monsters as long as the characters were there and saw it all. It
does not matter in my opinion if the mage did not do a thing, he would
still learn from it. Only when a fighter singlehandly and on his own
defeats a monster, then I will give a character class bonus. This tends
to happen only against monsters with which the less strong has not got
much problems with also. Then I also grant the xp of a defeated monster,
that is chased away, avoided the combat all together or capture the
creature. For a character with a high charisma it should be easier to
talk himself out of combat (as on of my players is finding out with his
warrior with a charisma of 6). Thirdly roleplaying and problem solving
earns a lot more xp in my campaigns then those 1 or 2 fights in a
session (if any at all), meaning that in the end stats hardly matters
for the amount earned.

As for that bonus, it is based on the fact that certain persons have got
a knack for certain skills. This most of the time comes from high
"scores", not from low scores. Strong fighter just learn easier, then
weak fighters. So I have no problems with it, besides the differences in
amounts of xp in my campaign comes from roleplaying skill, not dice
rolls. As my players could assure you. In my campaign the thief tends to
have the most xp, while she hardly ever defeats monsters. She just
happens to be the best roleplayer of the group with the brightest idea's
(yes, the thief has got an int of 15).

Use attribute checks of all kinds more often. In my campaign players do
not favor one characteristic or an other. If anything it certainly is
not strength, but dexterity.

Pieter Sleijpen

[Pieter Sleijpen]

the Falcon wrote:



> My point here is that with fighters, for example, Strength is everything.
> There's no better fighter than the high-Strength fighter. Yeah, well
> maybe the high-Strength-high-Dexterity-high-Constitution fighter, huh?
> But the thing is that in AD&D there's no way to make a good
> brain-over-brawn or slim-but-skilled fighter. All the good AD&D fighters
> look like bodybuilders and weightlifters. Having a knack for being a good
> swordsman should not necessarily mean you also bulge out in hulk-like
> propertions, if you catch my drift.
> It's not just a problem of XP anymore...
>
> - the Falcon
>

For some reason I do not have that problem, if you bring the other three
characteristics to the front, they will also chose those three to be
high. Take it from me, whenever a score is below average my player is
going to find out what that means :-)

I even have a fighter who is somewhat afraid of blood and tries to avoid
combat like hell. So it might be my players, who try to get something
out of their character. The problem is by the way worst with other
character classes, a fighter can life with a low strength. A thief,
wizard and priest will be penalized a lot more then on just a little
damage.