OOC Banter

[Edeldhur]

I could see the parry only being useful against one opponent a round but the text is clear "The Fighter can parry at any time, without giving up the ability to attack in the same round." Since it is the only really good ability they get I don't see any reason to house rule it so that Fighters suck. In fact an 18 Dex is identical to a 13 otherwise.

Fair enough, like I said I am also not interested in too many changes - so lets go with option 1. Parry is limited to one melee opponent at a time.

Though this is not the Fighter only really good ability in my opinion - example: Strength penalties apply to any character, but only Fighters get the bonuses (to hit and to-damage). Furthermore, RAW for S&W, Str bonuses also apply to ranged damage (though the book leaves the houserule open for DMs to restrict it to melee only). That is pretty strong

[Rex]

Sounds good.

Where do you guys get these images from? They all look amazing.

Duckduckgo image search. Had a hard time finding any halfling/hobbit images that fit Bodkin's stats and demeanor so went with this warrior, just imagine him short, LOL. I also steal them from here when others post cool pictures, just stole Hreigă of Căléd, awesome pic.

[Edeldhur]

Thanks Rex, and yep, that one is crazy impressive

[gurusql]

What do you want me to change the splint mail to?

[Edeldhur]

What do you want me to change the splint mail to?

Why change?

[gurusql]

I revised the pregens and they should now be looking good. But let me know if you spot anything.
Splint Mail does not 'exist' in S&W (relevant for Jûnger), but we will not get hold up on that

You made this post, I was trying to do what you wanted.

[Edeldhur]

I revised the pregens and they should now be looking good. But let me know if you spot anything.
Splint Mail does not 'exist' in S&W (relevant for Jûnger), but we will not get hold up on that

You made this post, I was trying to do what you wanted.

All good, I said we will not get hold up on that
So you can keep it as splintmail - I will probably introduce it as purchasable armor in the future, since it covers an armor value which does not exist in S&W.

Chainmail is AC 5
Plate is AC 3

So Splintmail fits right in at AC 4.

[gurusql]

OK thanks

[Edeldhur]

Game thread is open and good to go!

viewtopic.php?t=13468

Feel free to introduce your characters, activities you might have had during the trip, and perhaps some inkling of why you are 'adventuring'.
I think we can just go with the assumption you already know each other, either from before or on the road - up to you.

As for the game system, I am not a rules lawyer, and this is my first time running an S&W game. So let's play it by hear, and please be patient with me

[gurusql]

Any list of Gods that you want me to select from, I realized that is a missing piece for me.

[Dicey]

.

[Dicey]

I’m new to OSR, but the old guys did a poor job with fighters. I’ve come to realize, for the first couple of levels, for all the “warrior trained in battle” talk, the fighter is no better than anyone (else including the magic user!) in the “to hit” department. From what I’ve seen on these boards, the pace is glacial and level advancement nonexistent, so the fighter has no appreciable advantage for the life of the game, or effectively so since an adventure takes years to complete. The “Any armor and weapon” benefit is a hollow hardly so, since clerics, paladins, rangers can too and get more perks. A cleric can use a blunt weapon that does as much as a sword, along with spells. In play by post at least, a fighter is far from what he’s cracked up to be.

The designers if not the GM should rectify this. Like give a point(s) differentiation in to hit, or more combat perks. Making requisites in Str and Dex to get a bonus on damage or parry only helps when you have the stats (which Talesian doesn’t). Instead, the designers should make those perks a class thing. Does a cleric or MU need certain stats to turn dead or cast a spell? A thief need a 16 Dex to use thief skills? Why does the fighter then?

Anyway, this is more a design bitch than a personal character complaint. I’ll play Talesian and make something interesting of her, while she yet lives, but would avoid the class otherwise. I play in some other OSR system in another game and its the same deal.

[Edeldhur]

I’m new to OSR, but the old guys did a poor job with fighters. I’ve come to realize, for the first couple of levels, for all the “warrior trained in battle” talk, the fighter is no better than anyone (else including the magic user!) in the “to hit” department. From what I’ve seen on these boards, the pace is glacial and level advancement nonexistent, so the fighter has no appreciable advantage for the life of the game, or effectively so since an adventure takes years to complete. The “Any armor and weapon” benefit is a hollow hardly so, since clerics, paladins, rangers can too and get more perks. A cleric can use a blunt weapon that does as much as a sword, along with spells. In play by post at least, a fighter is far from what he’s cracked up to be.

The designers if not the GM should rectify this. Like give a point(s) differentiation in to hit, or more combat perks. Making requisites in Str and Dex to get a bonus on damage or parry only helps when you have the stats (which Talesian doesn’t). Instead, the designers should make those perks a class thing. Does a cleric or MU need certain stats to turn dead or cast a spell? A thief need a 16 Dex to use thief skills? Why does the fighter then?

Anyway, this is more a design bitch than a personal character complaint. I’ll play Talesian and make something interesting of her, while she yet lives, but would avoid the class otherwise. I play in some other OSR system in another game and its the same deal.

I do disagree with you on a couple of points:

1. The Fighter is different from everyone else from the get-go. Note the following on Str to-hit and damage bonuses rules:

*Penalties apply to any character, but only Fighters get the bonuses.

Which in itself is a big advantage.

2. Couple this with the Parry ability (which I have houseruled to be applied only to one opponent - we will see how that pans out), and already no one beats the Fighter in a straight up scuffle (of course dice rolls nonwhithstanding). Remember Talesian can also parry, since she has a +1 Dex bonus.

3. Also keep in mind the rule for two-weapon fighting and two-handed weapons (page 41 - they are not 'Fighter only' but we could discuss it), which gives you a bit more combat options.

That being said, one of the points of this game is to experience the system (with its shenanigans), critique, and discuss it (It is possible I like talking about RPG game systems almost as much as playing hahaha) so this is good feedback. So thanks Dicey, and feel free to 'complain' as much as possible

Not sure how many games/adventures I want to DM using S&W, it will all depend on whether we are having fun or not. I might agree with you the Fighter could use a tweak, and I even have some ideas of what those tweaks could be if I stuck with S&W as my 'forever' game, or if I wanted to use it as a base for a long lasting campaign. But for now I am trying to keep the experience as RAW as possible, so we/I can get a feel for the ruleset and its intricacies - how good/bad it is/feels. I have already handwaved several things in this first encounter, like encounter distance and rolling initiative every round, but next combat I may decide to push to implement those and see how it turns out

The moment I/we arrive at the conclusion we have seen all S&W has got to offer, and it is not for me/us, then it is time to move to the next game/ruleset, which will probably be B/X, BECMI, or a retroclone.

In the meantime I may actually create a separate thread for us to comment our pros and cons of the RAW S&W Complete Revised system as we see it.

[Dicey]

I would agree but your points are conditionally not fully right.

1. Str. Bonus. True, but one needs a Str. 16 to start getting damage bonuses, which Tal doesn’t

2. Parry. Only fighters with Dex. 14 can do so, which Tal doesn’t. Her Dex. 13 is enough to get a +1 on AC and missile to hit (which everyone gets), but not parry (according to Table 10 p. 31). If you house-ruled a change, I missed that.

The design flaw point here (Relative to #1 and 2) is why is only the fighter deprived of class abilities based on stats? A thief doesn’t need Dex 15 to use their skills, or a use a graduated chart to get better back stab pluses; a cleric doesn’t need Wis 15 to turn dead; a MU Int. 15 to cast spells, etc.al.

3. Yes, but again that is something anyone can do. Dual hand is not particular to fighters. Playing true to the sheet, Tal’s bastard sword and shield combo precludes dual hand. I could drop shield but have no second weapon except my fist.

My main point that a fighter has no advantage in the very concept upon which they were designed - hitting things - remains. All the trope-inspired classes - studious wizard, the little reticent hobbit who overcomes, the cleric of healing and good will, the sneaky thief who favors a knife in the back over a front attack, the nature loving druid - they all somehow are equal statistically to the trained and pugnacious fighter in their chance to strike a foe. At least until third level, which in play-by-post appears as good as never if you’re 1st level.

In short, a fundamental design flaw that is not unique to this ruleset (I’ve only played one other. My guess is since these are all clones, they share the design flaw.) From what I’ve seen, only DCC gets it right.

Solutions: House rule or start adventures at 3-5th level. I favor the latter. It gives you a much better play test sense since all classes will have more going on. You experience the characters more and what makes them special. And they won’t die from 1-2 blows, short-lived PCs who really don’t reveal much of anything as a playtest.

From the outside looking in, it seems that for many (not all) there is a sadomasochistic undertone in OSR that celebrates low level death as a badge of honor (PCs) or delight (DMs). Particularly at 1st level. It strikes me that the versatility and play potential is greater at level 3+. I’m surprised more games here don’t start things off at that level.

My critiques do not mean I’m not enjoying this, which I am. It just literally started. But I may just make Tal a sadomasochist

[Edeldhur]

I would agree but your points are conditionally not fully right.

1. Str. Bonus. True, but one needs a Str. 16 to start getting damage bonuses, which Tal doesn’t

2. Parry. Only fighters with Dex. 14 can do so, which Tal doesn’t. Her Dex. 13 is enough to get a +1 on AC and missile to hit (which everyone gets), but not parry (according to Table 10 p. 31). If you house-ruled a change, I missed that.

The design flaw point here (Relative to #1 and 2) is why is only the fighter deprived of class abilities based on stats? A thief doesn’t need Dex 15 to use their skills, or a use a graduated chart to get better back stab pluses; a cleric doesn’t need Wis 15 to turn dead; a MU Int. 15 to cast spells, etc.al.

3. Yes, but again that is something anyone can do. Dual hand is not particular to fighters. Playing true to the sheet, Tal’s bastard sword and shield combo precludes dual hand. I could drop shield but have no second weapon except my fist.

My main point that a fighter has no advantage in the very concept upon which they were designed - hitting things - remains. All the trope-inspired classes - studious wizard, the little reticent hobbit who overcomes, the cleric of healing and good will, the sneaky thief who favors a knife in the back over a front attack, the nature loving druid - they all somehow are equal statistically to the trained and pugnacious fighter in their chance to strike a foe. At least until third level, which in play-by-post appears as good as never if you’re 1st level.

In short, a fundamental design flaw that is not unique to this ruleset (I’ve only played one other. My guess is since these are all clones, they share the design flaw.) From what I’ve seen, only DCC gets it right.

Solutions: House rule or start adventures at 3-5th level. I favor the latter. It gives you a much better play test sense since all classes will have more going on. You experience the characters more and what makes them special. And they won’t die from 1-2 blows, short-lived PCs who really don’t reveal much of anything as a playtest.

From the outside looking in, it seems that for many (not all) there is a sadomasochistic undertone in OSR that celebrates low level death as a badge of honor (PCs) or delight (DMs). Particularly at 1st level. It strikes me that the versatility and play potential is greater at level 3+. I’m surprised more games here don’t start things off at that level.

My critiques do not mean I’m not enjoying this, which I am. It just literally started. But I may just make Tal a sadomasochist

All good! And I believe some 'design flaws' are to be expected in earlier editions and their retroclones. It is not a bug, it is a feature
We discover these as we move along. Opinions about them will vary - some of us will find them adequate, others essential, others quirky, others irrelevant, while others simply will not like them.
Maybe you/me/we come out on the other end with the conclusion 'S&W is not for me/you/us, unless houseruled, starting at higher level, etc'.
It is all a learning process, and part of the experiment. I for one am curious about these 'design flaws', and to see how they pan out.

My suggestion would be not to focus too much on what you are not able to do. But instead use your imagination, focus on what your character CAN do, get immersed, and play smart. Just because it is not written on your character sheet, it does not mean you should not play in a tactically solid manner. Do that, and your chances for survival increase a LOT. Older school systems ARE definitely less forgiving when players are reckless. Do we like it? Lets find out. Maybe you don't need to be sadomasochist when you roll a character you are not so happy with, but can instead give him or her a fighting chance?

[Edeldhur]

In short, a fundamental design flaw that is not unique to this ruleset (I’ve only played one other. My guess is since these are all clones, they share the design flaw.) From what I’ve seen, only DCC gets it right.

I feel like this might be too much of a generalization

[Rex]

First, a comment on my background since context always matters. I started playing D&D with Holmes Basic in 1979 and have been playing ever since. I have experience playing/DMing with all the editions except 3e, 3.5e, and 4e (although I have experience with Pathfinder which I am told is the very similar to 3.5e). Of them 5e is easily my least favorite and a mix of Holmes Basic and AD&D (1e) is my favorite.

OSR is not about a specific edition, it is about a play style. Part of that play style is in fact house rules, just about everyone used them. They were often tweaks to the classes for varying reasons. In fact Gary himself admitted that he didn't play with the rules exactly as written and Dave's Blackmoor campaign was even more famous for ad hoc rulings and house rules. Some of the first articles published in Strategic Review and Dragon magazine were effectively semi-official house rules, starting with changes to the Fighter class.

Role Play vs Roll Play. OSR is about Role Play and on the spot Rulings where later editions (5e for example) are very much about Roll Play. In OD&D (we are playing a clone of this with later supplements now) you just say you do something and the DM rules on if it works or not. Maybe they make you roll a dice, maybe not. The better you explain what you are doing and why the more likely it works. It isn't based on a skill or a special ability that only one class has. If my fighter can explain how he is going to use a pole to trip a trap he should have a chance at it. He is not a thief but who cares. In the original 3 book version of OD&D there wasn't even a Thief class but there were still traps and you could find them and deactivate them. In fact the Thief class was an optional class introduced first in Strategic Review (from someones house rules in their personal campaign) then in one of the supplements.

My suggestion is if you really want to learn about the play style and if it is for you, then I suggest you embrace that fact that part of the style is lack of balance. There isn't balance in the real world and you don't need it in a game either. Play what you have and try and make it your own and enjoy yourself along the way. I didn't pick Bodkin because he was the best Fighter I picked him because I like playing crazy Halflings. My first character ever was a crazy Halfling Fighter. My favorite class is in fact Cleric. I don't care much about ability scores either. I am playing in a game on the boards here with a character with a 3 Chr that I rolled with the 4d6 drop the lowest die method (yup, I rolled 4 1's). No complaints, no request to roll again. That characters highest score is a 14 and he has a 3 Chr, he is a Thief if it matters. I am embracing it. I have another character on here with a 4 Int and 18 Wis, a Fighter by the way as with a 4 Int it is the only allowed class in AD&D. Running with it and seeing where it goes. I have a Half Orc Fighter/Cleric with a 9 Wisdom. Most people would never touch a Cleric with a 9 Wisdom, I am enjoying playing him and think of him as more a Holy Warrior.

My point is that you get out of the game based on what you put into it. Play the character as you envision them being. Enjoy it. Isn't it sweeter knowing you pulled something off even though you are not the best suited for it? Maybe you will learn along the way that you don't like playing Fighters but the Magic-User is really cool and that is more your style. That is OK too, we all have favorites. I almost never play Magic-Users or Paladins, better than a Fighter or not I don't care for them.

[Rex]

Bodkin,Cropey, Talesian and Jůnger valiantly try to fend off their attackers. But their swings are ill timed, and they all miss their mark.

Jůnger

Jůnger thinks this might not have been the best idea but attacks again.

Hammer: [1d20+1]=2+1=3 Dmg: [1d4+2]=2+2=4

Jůnger, a note to say only Fighters get to-hit (and damage) bonuses from Strength

Is it our turn again?

[gurusql]

Macro corrected

[donjong]

Damn, these dice rolls are brutal! Without the Sleep spell I think we'd be toast (we might very well be anyway...)