5e - why you think it sucks, and why you're wrong

[squeen]

Alright. I give. My research has failed. What is a VTT?

Also, I do kinda like 10 segments/round. Not so slow IMO.

...but I am still a crap DM when it comes to resolving movement.

 

[EOTB]

VTT = virtual tabletop. Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, etc.

Fantasy grounds now supports AD&D 2E as an official ruleset, and the adapter of the 2E rule set has put out a 1E extension/adapter to it which makes it really close to 1E, 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. But you can add a modifier to your roll with a mouseclick.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

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.

Yeesh, if your system is so convoluted that even computers have a hard time calculating it, then it's not an ideal system.

 

[Slick]

Wait what? I'm not a programming expert but I'm familiar enough, and there's no way that would be anywhere close to a high load for any computer built after 1995. It's adding one step to the process, and you would only run the WvAC function when an attack is made. There are full first person shooters that run in-browser that run fine and they have more complex calculations going on every frame. I don't buy that excuse at all.

EDIT: If it's an issue with the VTT's coding specifically that makes sense.

 

[EOTB]

Yeesh, if your system is so convoluted that even computers have a hard time calculating it, then it's not an ideal system.

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 forums

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).

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.

 

[gandalf_scion]

Back to one of my favorite topics - armor class adjustments for weapons.

"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)."

I'm glad to see others also value those modifiers from 1e. Indeed, as mentioned, 2e did have a version of those mods, but it got them wrong. Only 1e mods showed the wisdom (and historical truth) of using halberds, hammers, and picks against armor. In a perverse misinterpretation of D&D "magic sword" logic, 2e mods favored swords! Anyway, here again, Lamentations of the Flame Princess is the winner. That game succeeded with a brief, but historically accurate set of armor class adjustments for weapons. 1e had been accurate, but long. 2e had been brief, but inaccurate. 5e just ran from the whole matter.

 

[EOTB]

Yeah, I think people look at the table and freak out. I do have one houserule I forgot to mention upthread - I drop all "and shield" categories. So that cuts down the complexity. Wearing chain is the mod for AC type 5 whether you have shield or not, etc.

Most weapons only have a handful of mods against a few of the armors, with a lot of "0" or no mod. In practice, it's not hard to remember after using it for a bit - no more difficult than remembering to add a prayer spell bonus, or something like that. If I handed out a "short sword +1, +2 to-hit vs leather armor" you can bet your bottom dollar players would have no problem remembering to apply that conditional bonus. Just like they have no problem remember to apply a long sword +1, +3 vs lizards. It's no different.

 

[squeen]

A multiply or add in a computer typically runs less than 5 nanosecs (200 million a sec). They must have seriously borked their programming model if that's an issue. Probably a data-entry PITA or just an object-oriented logistically nightmare (e.g. Java).

Where does one get a VTT?

 

[EOTB]

Roll20 is free for the basic version, you can read up on it at their website. It's web based, and most people I know just use the tabletop part but not their audio or video - running skype or discord separately for that. You can pay a monthly subscription for more storage and features. Luckily, I backed their KS several years ago, so when I want to use it my "free" version is the full version.

Fantasy Grounds is free in certain circumstances. It's not webpage based, and the "demo" version is free. I purchased the sort of license where anyone with a demo version can play in my games as if they had the full version. There are two tiers of full versions - the cheaper one where others who have the cheap version can connect, and the more expensive one where no one connecting has to have a paid license. You can check out the tiers at fantasy grounds' website. I also use discord separately with fantasy grounds for A/V; I just prefer its capabilities.

 

[squeen]

Thanks EOTB. Great info.

 

[Beoric]

Yes but where there are ties (17% of the time), speed factor plays a big role. Consider this gem from DMG p. 66:

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.

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.

And it is not accurate to suggest (as I think you are) that speed factor does not interact with spell casting time. Consider this quote from the same page:

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.

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.

But 1e, with its pages of small text rules for determining attack order, is classified as OSR and "rules light" (except by 0e and B/X snobs), whereas 4e, where the rule can be stated in six words (roll d20 and add your initiative modifier) is classified as clunky and rules heavy.

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.

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.

 

[EOTB]

All of that is just repeating what I said. But it isn't routinely a modifier to your die roll/determine your segment of action. It never directly modifies your die roll. It does sometimes allow you to reactively attack a spellcaster when your die roll says you shouldn't be able to.

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.

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.

And it is not accurate to suggest (as I think you are) that speed factor does not interact with spell casting time

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.

Really, this takes 1 extra second at the table, I promise. All the numbers involved are single-digit and everybody knows what their weapon speed is, and that fireball takes 3 segments, so all you have to do is a quick 1st grade math problem in your head. And it also is another 1E rule that reigns in wizards and severely dampens their power in combat.

1E takes the fun core play process born in OD&D, that has some breaking points, and patches them with corner case exceptions. Later editions have been trying to streamline the core again ever since but that just brought back the problems AD&D's spot rules fixed. Yes, it takes some time playing AD&D to get all these corner cases automatic in your head. It was not a game for 12 year olds, whatever the marketing. But for people who play it long enough that they don't have to remember these things - just execute them when they apply - it's really fast and easy, I promise.

EDIT - also, note how this works against those "statistically optimized weapons" you opined on earlier. Yes, a two-handed sword might be statistically optimal when fighters are attacking something wearing armor. They're statistically non-optimal when attacking a spell caster, because yes, you can interrupt the spell if you straight-win initiative (something 2E's always-add-the-weapon-speed-to-every-roll system subsequently screwed up) but a short sword will also always interrupt when you win, and often interrupt when you lose. Not so for the 2-hander. It doesn't have much of a chance to disrupt anything except long, long spells. Sooner or later a fighter with a 2-hander is going to lose an init they need to win, and it just might kill them.

There's a lot of depth and balance in 1E you have to play to appreciate. People who read it with a lens for elegance in writing, layout, and streamlining can't/don't see that. It is, bar none, the best play experience over the long term of any D&D written. If you apply all the rules, every character type has some aspect of play they'll dominate and shine at.

 

[Beoric]

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:

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.

EDIT: Before that, in the same thread, he said this:

Aargh! Forget weapons speed factors. I must have been under the effect of a hex when I included them in the bloody rules

And here's what he said on Enworld about weapons vs. AC: "we never used the weapons vs. armor type adjustments."

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.

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.

 

[EOTB]

Yeah, Gygax was an OD&D guy at heart. He also wrote a few other cool games. Whether or not he wanted to use a rule isn't whether a rule works. It works. It works well. It works in a short amount of time and has a beneficial effect on the game. If you and anyone else finds it slows down a game to look at a die that has a "2" on it, compare that to "3" weapon speed and realize the difference is less than "3" casting time; I agree - stick to other systems. I much prefer to keep the effect magic users getting shanked even when they win initiative has on the game.

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.

You're not piling on subsystem transactions. Every once in a while, a subsystem will apply. Most of the time it doesn't. These things almost never apply when fighting monstrous monsters like trolls, for example. The persistent time overhead is low. I get that you don't like it. I'm not trying to convince you to like it. I'm saying it doesn't quite work how you say it does.

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 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.

 

[gandalf_scion]

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.

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.

Nobody I knew back in the day ever used weapon vs. armor type adjustments either; at the time, it seemed too bulky. But after years of playing many games, in hindsight, I now value those adjustments as an important and accurate expression of differences between weapons. Without them, it's all about the damage die so players just pick the biggest one they can deliver with one hand (long sword) and the reality of the medieval arms race disappears.

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.

But this is all part of an evolving game and subject to personal preference. For a good compromise on armor type (class) adjustments I recommend Lamentations of the Flame Princess.

 

[squeen]

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%).

 

[squeen]

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.

I am enjoying this back-and-forth very much. (Particularly because I'm not in the thick of it for once).

It is teaching me things because I am squarely in the OD&D camp but am looking for ways to improve that elegantly simple game with elements proven to work well for others. I most definitely want to hear about others' play experience. Nothing is more valuable that real-world data.

The case for some of the AD&D (1e) improvements over OD&D seems strong (and easy to add). One might argue that the 1e DMG is an open letter by Gygax to OD&D DM's trying to help them out of some jams.

Even circling back to the original topic of the thread---I also want to hear what's good about 5e. For example, advantage/disadvantage sounds like a nice nuance over DM fiat (i.e. I'll give you XX% change of that working). Something to experiment with, and that wouldn't break the basic game.

EOTB has stated he already has everything he needs in 1e (and owns a Jeep).

I do not. (...err...for D&D, or a Jeep...)

I am looking to cherry-pick and find my personal (best) groove, and I am not done shopping. (...err, for D&D...or Christmas...)

Please, continue.

 

[EOTB]

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.

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.

I think I get it - Gary was white rooming while stomping out a manuscript and to him it made sense to have a little rule that captured the ability of someone with a small weapon and a free hand to foul the swing of a weapon requiring two hands - if you're in the middle of a close-quarters fight with someone with a halberd and you somehow interrupt their ability to swing it, with one hand, you temporarily have the advantage to get in a couple quick thrusts with your dagger. It's leaving the possibility within the game that exists and we've all seen played out in movies, etc. But it just doesn't happen enough to worry about, mainly because when combatants wielding these big weapons do show up, no one ever engages them with a dagger. And even if it would come up once every 4 years of play sessions, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

But I don't get the argument about getting beyond the reach of the longer weapon. There's never been a rule in D&D that longer reach weapons get extra or free attacks on shorter reach weapons. If this is a concern, how do people reconcile a low-level magic-user with a dagger scoring an otherwise normal hit on something attacking it with a sword, when the MU has no magic left to cast or use against its attacker? This situation comes up all the time at low levels and there's no appreciable difference in how it violates the "reach" concern.

But IMO reigning in spellcasters is addressing the single-greatest balance problem in D&D over the long term. So keeping the primary and most oft-used aspect of the rule makes stuff like this actually happen in play:

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.

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:

1) there's less "room" to hand out new magic items without the players looking like magic christmas trees. I prefer that magic items are used up with more flowing in to replace them, since this gives more XP and results in characters leveling faster.
2) Play takes on a more grinding aspect, because memorized spells are used for damage instead of the miscellaneous and knowledge-gathering non-combat spells, and the variety of play experience goes down since it's the same six magical effects used time after time. I find usage of these other sorts of spells makes the in-between game play much more impactful/memorable. Otherwise players are basically blundering around between combats without enough intel.
3) magic items are damage-capped to what a midrange caster would do with a memorized spell, so as the game moves above that level it dampens the ability of one spell to severely tilt a combat in most play, while still retaining the possibility of the uncapped damage spell for the most critical encounter. 2E capping all damage spells to 10th level screwed up the latter.

EDIT
#1 reminds me of another house rule I forgot to quote upthread. You don't get XP for items (excepting weapons/armor) until you use them at least once, and then I hand it out on the spot - so one-use potions are effectively XP-after-the-fact. Combined with item saving throws, this creates a powerful incentive to use magic items in play instead of hoarding them. If you hoard that potion and it's wiped out by a fireball, you got zilch in XP from it. So come up with a fun use in play and get closer to your next level because that's fun. Also, no XP for healing potions but you can get the gold XP for selling them (but that's the definition of penny wise and pound foolish).

 

[Two orcs]

ACKS solves the magic item hoarding by making them very expensive. In early levels you will likely sell any +1 magic items since they are worth 5,000gp a piece. Healing potions and 1st level scrolls go for 500gp a piece. The reason you keep them is either because of overwhelmning utility or if they are so expensive you can't find a buyer (anything over 10k will take months if not years just hanging around in a maximum size market).

 

[EOTB]

Isn't the true purpose of magic to provide variance in play?

Don't get me wrong - I have no issue selling magic items, and in fact recommend selling items early and taking the additional XP from the sale rather than keeping items, so that levels are gained earlier rather than an extra plus 1 on to hit and damage. But after hitting level 3, isn't play improved most through the wonder of keeping, and using, items?