So I remember talking to two of my friends after session about DND 5e rules a while back. One friend who I know is a big fan of customizable rpgs like Fable and Oblivion found it weird that we couldn't add more to our character's AC by adding helmets, gauntlets, and stuff.
Being a really big fan of 5e, I knew it was because canonically, all characters who wore armor, are wearing the whole set, helmets and things included, despite no one really portraying their characters that way. My other friend pointed out, that it's justifiable that it's reasonable to say characters don't need a helmet cause their battle auras help protect them, and yea I have heard that AC ids both physical and mental, so I nodded at that. However, looking back now, like months later, I feel like that was still kind of a stretch, even if it works per rules.
People who play 5e, them included have been unable to accept smaller matters then that when it comes to this game and it kinda got to me the other day. We can justify that magic is a powerful force in this world that normal people can tap into through willpower or study but find it odd that that same power can be accessed through physical efforts to lift more or to increase our speed to weave between fire? It's not like these things are hard to justify either. Why does invisibility still cause disadvantage against see invisibility? Cause it's a tabletop game and that was the best way to implement it in 5e or it's cause invisibility is based on how it works in Tolkien, seeing into the Ethereal realm and such. That took me like, seconds to get, but for someone who's willing to say "you can be a Monk without having to be a monk," all of a sudden, that's just too out there.
It's just a little nitpick I noticed within the 5e community in the passed decade and thought it was interesting. I'd love to hear if you guys noticed anything like that, either with others having issue with the lore how the game works that you understand with no issue.
D&D has always been a game about heavy abstraction and the premise of trying to justify abstractions with realism is kind of counterintuitive as one was created very specifically for the purpose of not having to deal with the other.
Hit Points are a great example as they do not represent health or energy or anything specific, yet are kind of a combination of everything, yet losing hit points has ZERO impact on the game. Quite literally there is no difference between 1 hit point and 100 hit points. If you run out, however, you are instantly unconscious and dying. There is no realistic way to explain that, the physical body simply doesn't work like that, but we accept this abstraction as a "mechanic" of the game. Every once in a while someone will bring it up and argue about it a bit, in the end, it quite objectively makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in any context or explicable way, hit points are complete nonsense...yet...we shrug, accept it and move on because it works as a game mechanic.
Game rules, are not intended to be realistic anymore. They are rules for the balance of the game. Back in 1st edition sure the writers of the rules tried to account for each piece, and yadda yadda, those rules were frankly annoying to deal with. If you wore armor, you had to take a specified amount of time putting it on, then you couldn't sleep or rest in the armor at all. So you had to take it off (With help went faster, without help took forever.)
Then... each piece had an AC value. Head, Chest, trousers, hands, feet, and shield if used. You could also have 5 rings per hand, and a cloak. (no attunement back then)
Thing is, the rules were overly complicated, todays rules make sense for a game, and we have to remove game rules from expected reality. When writing a story about your characters, you can ignore the rules and do the story how you want realistic, or fantasy with aura of protection. But for the game your character is a token on a map.
Game rules, are not intended to be realistic anymore. They are rules for the balance of the game. Back in 1st edition sure the writers of the rules tried to account for each piece, and yadda yadda, those rules were frankly annoying to deal with. If you wore armor, you had to take a specified amount of time putting it on, then you couldn't sleep or rest in the armor at all. So you had to take it off (With help went faster, without help took forever.)
Then... each piece had an AC value. Head, Chest, trousers, hands, feet, and shield if used. You could also have 5 rings per hand, and a cloak. (no attunement back then)
Thing is, the rules were overly complicated, todays rules make sense for a game, and we have to remove game rules from expected reality. When writing a story about your characters, you can ignore the rules and do the story how you want realistic, or fantasy with aura of protection. But for the game your character is a token on a map.
That... eh...... everything you said here is inaccurate, that is not at all how 1e worked.
That... eh...... everything you said here is inaccurate, that is not at all how 1e worked.
It was how it was played in the 80s at most tables. I was there playing in the 80s. Sure I evolved with every iteration of the game, going to d20s with 2nd switching away from thAC0 in 3rd/3.5 and playing MMO the ttrpg with 4th, and 3.5 simplified with advantage in 5th.
I honestly have not read 1st edition rules again since 1989. But I still have my old books in storage (about 100 miles from here). Now I also know there is a reinterpretation of 1st ed and 2nd ed rules, to avoid copyright issues, they had to rewrite those rules from the ground up, I have no idea how those rules are played. But from your avatar, I suspect you play those.
But I should inform you if you buy those rules and use them, everything from the to hit AC 0 tables, and XP tables was rewritten. Also the long flowery words written by TSR were rewritten. Because words and artistic number patterns can be copyrighted, but game systems can't be. Modern XP tables are a math formula, but 2nd and 1st tables were artistic and based on the authors feelings.
That... eh...... everything you said here is inaccurate, that is not at all how 1e worked.
It was how it was played in the 80s at most tables. I was there playing in the 80s. Sure I evolved with every iteration of the game, going to d20s with 2nd switching away from thAC0 in 3rd/3.5 and playing MMO the ttrpg with 4th, and 3.5 simplified with advantage in 5th.
I honestly have not read 1st edition rules again since 1989. But I still have my old books in storage (about 100 miles from here). Now I also know there is a reinterpretation of 1st ed and 2nd ed rules, to avoid copyright issues, they had to rewrite those rules from the ground up, I have no idea how those rules are played. But from your avatar, I suspect you play those.
But I should inform you if you buy those rules and use them, everything from the to hit AC 0 tables, and XP tables was rewritten. Also the long flowery words written by TSR were rewritten. Because words and artistic number patterns can be copyrighted, but game systems can't be. Modern XP tables are a math formula, but 2nd and 1st tables were artistic and based on the authors feelings.
Dude, I played 1st edition AD&D last night. These are not old systems I played in the 80's, these are systems I play now.
Dude, I played 1st edition AD&D last night. These are not old systems I played in the 80's, these are systems I play now.
I'm sure you did. But how many of you are over 50 and played it in the 80s?
How many of you play with the rules on Drive through RPG vs the rules books as printed in the 70s and 80s? I spotted several major differences on the Drive through RPG version of the books, vs the books I own. So yes I believe you, but it's not how we played in the 80s.
The closest it ever came to that was a few specific monsters had different ACs for different body parts, and a few had specific hit points for body parts.
But that never applied to PCs, RAW. Your foot's AC was the same as your hand's AC was the same as your head's AC, and none of them had separate hit points.
The closest it ever came to that was a few specific monsters had different ACs for different body parts, and a few had specific hit points for body parts.
But that never applied to PCs, RAW. Your foot's AC was the same as your hand's AC was the same as your head's AC, and none of them had separate hit points.
Each item was additive to the whole, but you could do called shots to body parts, if you hit a target one ac for the whole, called shot was a huge penalty but went against the body party.
Edit: looking up on the internet for where the called shot rules were, or came from. And I get nothing but conjecture, it was something everyone was using in 1989, and I suspect it might have been like the Crit damage tables, something in a Dragon Magazine which all the DMs just adopted as main rules. As I said, it was how we played back then, it's not something new adopters to the system would have seen.
Technically if you are wearing plate you are wearing the entire suit of armor. If you don't want to wear helmet/etc then you are wearing half-plate not plate armor. Basically PCs shouldn't gain more AC for more parts of the armor, they should be losing AC for each section of armor they don't want to wear.
Being a really big fan of 5e, I knew it was because canonically, all characters who wore armor, are wearing the whole set, helmets and things included, despite no one really portraying their characters that way. My other friend pointed out, that it's justifiable that it's reasonable to say characters don't need a helmet cause their battle auras help protect them, and yea I have heard that AC ids both physical and mental, so I nodded at that. However, looking back now, like months later, I feel like that was still kind of a stretch, even if it works per rules.
I've always been under the assumption that part of AC is your ability to dodge within your 5 foot square. That's why you can add DEX to your leather armour but the DEX bonus decreases the heavier your armour is until there's no bonus at all for full plate because you're no longer able to agiley move out the way
The closest it ever came to that was a few specific monsters had different ACs for different body parts, and a few had specific hit points for body parts.
But that never applied to PCs, RAW. Your foot's AC was the same as your hand's AC was the same as your head's AC, and none of them had separate hit points.
Each item was additive to the whole, but you could do called shots to body parts, if you hit a target one ac for the whole, called shot was a huge penalty but went against the body party.
Edit: looking up on the internet for where the called shot rules were, or came from. And I get nothing but conjecture, it was something everyone was using in 1989, and I suspect it might have been like the Crit damage tables, something in a Dragon Magazine which all the DMs just adopted as main rules. As I said, it was how we played back then, it's not something new adopters to the system would have seen.
No, you couldn't. There were third party tables for things like hit location or called shots, likely some in Dragon Magazine, but mostly from Red Dwarf, but regardless of source, nothing official. And hardly universally adopted. Again, there were many versions of such, but most DM's did not use them at all. Was the way you played, the way some tables I played at played, but not universal.
Game rules, are not intended to be realistic anymore. They are rules for the balance of the game. Back in 1st edition sure the writers of the rules tried to account for each piece, and yadda yadda, those rules were frankly annoying to deal with. If you wore armor, you had to take a specified amount of time putting it on, then you couldn't sleep or rest in the armor at all. So you had to take it off (With help went faster, without help took forever.)
Then... each piece had an AC value. Head, Chest, trousers, hands, feet, and shield if used. You could also have 5 rings per hand, and a cloak. (no attunement back then)
Thing is, the rules were overly complicated, todays rules make sense for a game, and we have to remove game rules from expected reality. When writing a story about your characters, you can ignore the rules and do the story how you want realistic, or fantasy with aura of protection. But for the game your character is a token on a map.
I remember rules for weapon damage adjusted for opponent size and against armor types. IIRC a rapier worked better against chain armors, stuff like that. It was a lot of math.
The closest it ever came to that was a few specific monsters had different ACs for different body parts, and a few had specific hit points for body parts.
But that never applied to PCs, RAW. Your foot's AC was the same as your hand's AC was the same as your head's AC, and none of them had separate hit points.
Each item was additive to the whole, but you could do called shots to body parts, if you hit a target one ac for the whole, called shot was a huge penalty but went against the body party.
Edit: looking up on the internet for where the called shot rules were, or came from. And I get nothing but conjecture, it was something everyone was using in 1989, and I suspect it might have been like the Crit damage tables, something in a Dragon Magazine which all the DMs just adopted as main rules. As I said, it was how we played back then, it's not something new adopters to the system would have seen.
AD&D 2nd Edition Fighter’s Handbook is what I found online. I haven’t looked it up myself yet.
Game rules, are not intended to be realistic anymore. They are rules for the balance of the game. Back in 1st edition sure the writers of the rules tried to account for each piece, and yadda yadda, those rules were frankly annoying to deal with. If you wore armor, you had to take a specified amount of time putting it on, then you couldn't sleep or rest in the armor at all. So you had to take it off (With help went faster, without help took forever.)
Then... each piece had an AC value. Head, Chest, trousers, hands, feet, and shield if used. You could also have 5 rings per hand, and a cloak. (no attunement back then)
Thing is, the rules were overly complicated, todays rules make sense for a game, and we have to remove game rules from expected reality. When writing a story about your characters, you can ignore the rules and do the story how you want realistic, or fantasy with aura of protection. But for the game your character is a token on a map.
I remember rules for weapon damage adjusted for opponent size and against armor types. IIRC a rapier worked better against chain armors, stuff like that. It was a lot of math.
Armor type adjustments are not the same as hit location adjustments or separate AC's by hit location by armor.
I remember rules for called shots being in some of the AD&D games I played in, but I don't remember if they were homebrew, 3rd party, or official D&D rules (which would have included rules printed in Dragon Magazine). I do remember that there were rules for injury to different body parts, like the Tarrasque's bite could lop off random limbs on a crit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Dude, I played 1st edition AD&D last night. These are not old systems I played in the 80's, these are systems I play now.
I'm sure you did. But how many of you are over 50 and played it in the 80s?
eh this guy....
Edit: looking up on the internet for where the called shot rules were, or came from. And I get nothing but conjecture, it was something everyone was using in 1989, and I suspect it might have been like the Crit damage tables, something in a Dragon Magazine which all the DMs just adopted as main rules. As I said, it was how we played back then, it's not something new adopters to the system would have seen.
I remember rules for called shots being in some of the AD&D games I played in, but I don't remember if they were homebrew, 3rd party, or official D&D rules (which would have included rules printed in Dragon Magazine). I do remember that there were rules for injury to different body parts, like the Tarrasque's bite could lop off random limbs on a crit.
Called shot is in 2nd edition AD&D splash book, Complete Fighters Handbook
That... eh...... everything you said here is inaccurate, that is not at all how 1e worked.
It was how it was played in the 80s at most tables. I was there playing in the 80s. Sure I evolved with every iteration of the game, going to d20s with 2nd switching away from thAC0 in 3rd/3.5 and playing MMO the ttrpg with 4th, and 3.5 simplified with advantage in 5th.
I honestly have not read 1st edition rules again since 1989. But I still have my old books in storage (about 100 miles from here). Now I also know there is a reinterpretation of 1st ed and 2nd ed rules, to avoid copyright issues, they had to rewrite those rules from the ground up, I have no idea how those rules are played. But from your avatar, I suspect you play those.
But I should inform you if you buy those rules and use them, everything from the to hit AC 0 tables, and XP tables was rewritten. Also the long flowery words written by TSR were rewritten. Because words and artistic number patterns can be copyrighted, but game systems can't be. Modern XP tables are a math formula, but 2nd and 1st tables were artistic and based on the authors feelings.
I read them every day as in (the present), I play the game every week and have been doing so since 1985 with the same group of guys using the same books I bought in 1985.
I suspect you think that having played the game in the 1980's somehow makes you a unique member of this forum, but I assure you that there are more old school gamers on this forum, than there are on Dragonfoot.
Its just that on Dragonfoot, your not allowed to like modern games.
Dude, I played 1st edition AD&D last night. These are not old systems I played in the 80's, these are systems I play now.
I'm sure you did. But how many of you are over 50 and played it in the 80s?
How many of you play with the rules on Drive through RPG vs the rules books as printed in the 70s and 80s? I spotted several major differences on the Drive through RPG version of the books, vs the books I own. So yes I believe you, but it's not how we played in the 80s.
also not a dude.
I'm 48, played in the 80's and had every 1e sourcebook. As well as bought every Dragon and Dungeon magazine since 86 when I started (yes I was 10 when I started playing). And no. The official sourcebooks didn't account for each individual piece of armor as AC. Now, I do believe there was a optional rule I think (been almost 40 years, so don't remember exactly), that allowed you to play with each piece counting as individual armor pieces. But I think that was in 2e or from an article in Dungeon or Dragon magazine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I remember talking to two of my friends after session about DND 5e rules a while back. One friend who I know is a big fan of customizable rpgs like Fable and Oblivion found it weird that we couldn't add more to our character's AC by adding helmets, gauntlets, and stuff.
Being a really big fan of 5e, I knew it was because canonically, all characters who wore armor, are wearing the whole set, helmets and things included, despite no one really portraying their characters that way. My other friend pointed out, that it's justifiable that it's reasonable to say characters don't need a helmet cause their battle auras help protect them, and yea I have heard that AC ids both physical and mental, so I nodded at that. However, looking back now, like months later, I feel like that was still kind of a stretch, even if it works per rules.
People who play 5e, them included have been unable to accept smaller matters then that when it comes to this game and it kinda got to me the other day. We can justify that magic is a powerful force in this world that normal people can tap into through willpower or study but find it odd that that same power can be accessed through physical efforts to lift more or to increase our speed to weave between fire? It's not like these things are hard to justify either. Why does invisibility still cause disadvantage against see invisibility? Cause it's a tabletop game and that was the best way to implement it in 5e or it's cause invisibility is based on how it works in Tolkien, seeing into the Ethereal realm and such. That took me like, seconds to get, but for someone who's willing to say "you can be a Monk without having to be a monk," all of a sudden, that's just too out there.
It's just a little nitpick I noticed within the 5e community in the passed decade and thought it was interesting. I'd love to hear if you guys noticed anything like that, either with others having issue with the lore how the game works that you understand with no issue.
D&D has always been a game about heavy abstraction and the premise of trying to justify abstractions with realism is kind of counterintuitive as one was created very specifically for the purpose of not having to deal with the other.
Hit Points are a great example as they do not represent health or energy or anything specific, yet are kind of a combination of everything, yet losing hit points has ZERO impact on the game. Quite literally there is no difference between 1 hit point and 100 hit points. If you run out, however, you are instantly unconscious and dying. There is no realistic way to explain that, the physical body simply doesn't work like that, but we accept this abstraction as a "mechanic" of the game. Every once in a while someone will bring it up and argue about it a bit, in the end, it quite objectively makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in any context or explicable way, hit points are complete nonsense...yet...we shrug, accept it and move on because it works as a game mechanic.
Game rules, are not intended to be realistic anymore. They are rules for the balance of the game. Back in 1st edition sure the writers of the rules tried to account for each piece, and yadda yadda, those rules were frankly annoying to deal with. If you wore armor, you had to take a specified amount of time putting it on, then you couldn't sleep or rest in the armor at all. So you had to take it off (With help went faster, without help took forever.)
Then... each piece had an AC value. Head, Chest, trousers, hands, feet, and shield if used. You could also have 5 rings per hand, and a cloak. (no attunement back then)
Thing is, the rules were overly complicated, todays rules make sense for a game, and we have to remove game rules from expected reality. When writing a story about your characters, you can ignore the rules and do the story how you want realistic, or fantasy with aura of protection. But for the game your character is a token on a map.
That... eh...... everything you said here is inaccurate, that is not at all how 1e worked.
It was how it was played in the 80s at most tables. I was there playing in the 80s. Sure I evolved with every iteration of the game, going to d20s with 2nd switching away from thAC0 in 3rd/3.5 and playing MMO the ttrpg with 4th, and 3.5 simplified with advantage in 5th.
I honestly have not read 1st edition rules again since 1989. But I still have my old books in storage (about 100 miles from here). Now I also know there is a reinterpretation of 1st ed and 2nd ed rules, to avoid copyright issues, they had to rewrite those rules from the ground up, I have no idea how those rules are played. But from your avatar, I suspect you play those.
But I should inform you if you buy those rules and use them, everything from the to hit AC 0 tables, and XP tables was rewritten. Also the long flowery words written by TSR were rewritten. Because words and artistic number patterns can be copyrighted, but game systems can't be. Modern XP tables are a math formula, but 2nd and 1st tables were artistic and based on the authors feelings.
Dude, I played 1st edition AD&D last night. These are not old systems I played in the 80's, these are systems I play now.
I'm sure you did. But how many of you are over 50 and played it in the 80s?
How many of you play with the rules on Drive through RPG vs the rules books as printed in the 70s and 80s? I spotted several major differences on the Drive through RPG version of the books, vs the books I own. So yes I believe you, but it's not how we played in the 80s.
also not a dude.
Yeah, that is not at all how 1E worked, ever.
The closest it ever came to that was a few specific monsters had different ACs for different body parts, and a few had specific hit points for body parts.
But that never applied to PCs, RAW. Your foot's AC was the same as your hand's AC was the same as your head's AC, and none of them had separate hit points.
Each item was additive to the whole, but you could do called shots to body parts, if you hit a target one ac for the whole, called shot was a huge penalty but went against the body party.
Edit: looking up on the internet for where the called shot rules were, or came from. And I get nothing but conjecture, it was something everyone was using in 1989, and I suspect it might have been like the Crit damage tables, something in a Dragon Magazine which all the DMs just adopted as main rules. As I said, it was how we played back then, it's not something new adopters to the system would have seen.
Technically if you are wearing plate you are wearing the entire suit of armor. If you don't want to wear helmet/etc then you are wearing half-plate not plate armor. Basically PCs shouldn't gain more AC for more parts of the armor, they should be losing AC for each section of armor they don't want to wear.
Very few people actually rule it that way.
I've always been under the assumption that part of AC is your ability to dodge within your 5 foot square. That's why you can add DEX to your leather armour but the DEX bonus decreases the heavier your armour is until there's no bonus at all for full plate because you're no longer able to agiley move out the way
No, you couldn't. There were third party tables for things like hit location or called shots, likely some in Dragon Magazine, but mostly from Red Dwarf, but regardless of source, nothing official. And hardly universally adopted. Again, there were many versions of such, but most DM's did not use them at all. Was the way you played, the way some tables I played at played, but not universal.
I remember rules for weapon damage adjusted for opponent size and against armor types. IIRC a rapier worked better against chain armors, stuff like that. It was a lot of math.
AD&D 2nd Edition Fighter’s Handbook is what I found online. I haven’t looked it up myself yet.
Armor type adjustments are not the same as hit location adjustments or separate AC's by hit location by armor.
I remember rules for called shots being in some of the AD&D games I played in, but I don't remember if they were homebrew, 3rd party, or official D&D rules (which would have included rules printed in Dragon Magazine). I do remember that there were rules for injury to different body parts, like the Tarrasque's bite could lop off random limbs on a crit.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
eh this guy....
Called shot is in 2nd edition AD&D splash book, Complete Fighters Handbook
I read them every day as in (the present), I play the game every week and have been doing so since 1985 with the same group of guys using the same books I bought in 1985.
I suspect you think that having played the game in the 1980's somehow makes you a unique member of this forum, but I assure you that there are more old school gamers on this forum, than there are on Dragonfoot.
Its just that on Dragonfoot, your not allowed to like modern games.
I'm 48, played in the 80's and had every 1e sourcebook. As well as bought every Dragon and Dungeon magazine since 86 when I started (yes I was 10 when I started playing). And no. The official sourcebooks didn't account for each individual piece of armor as AC. Now, I do believe there was a optional rule I think (been almost 40 years, so don't remember exactly), that allowed you to play with each piece counting as individual armor pieces. But I think that was in 2e or from an article in Dungeon or Dragon magazine.