The End of 4e D&D.

[Doom]

Actually, to point myself out as being a bit more wrong that that, there's weapon specialization in 2nd edition.

It's only for single class fighters, though, so in my own defense, any magic weapon at all is likely to be of use to at least someone in a typical party...which is still something that is absolutely untrue in 4e.

[Roy]

Even without weapon specialization, some weapons were flat out worse due to attack matrixes, speed, or simple base damage. You're not going to use a +3 Dagger over a +1 Longsword unless you can't use the latter for some reason (proficiencies, enemy immunities, etc).

[Doom]

Yep, that's why I put 'almost anything'. It's worth noting, however, that average damage from a +3 dagger is same as from a +1 longsword, at least versus small/medium creatures...and the dagger has a higher chance to hit, and thus a higher expected damage, so even in this case the fighter would still be better off with the dagger, outside of weird cases where his only hope of survival requires dealing 9 damage in a round or the like. Proficiency was never an issue in AD&D, every class that can use a sword can use a dagger.

Even if the fighter honestly doesn't want the dagger, there's a decent chance someone in the party can use the +3 dagger well enough in old AD&D/


In 4e, only certain rogue builds might have a use for it (and with 'ever returning weapons', maybe not even then, if they already have one), so most likely it's just vendor trash, despite the better +.

And that's talking about a basic, staple weapon of fantasy...there's just no way to use a random treasure table in 4e.

[Roy]

Well there's some other quirk about Longswords aside from the 1d12 vs Large. Can't remember what it was though.

But really, every edition had a lot of vendor trash (regardless of whether or not it tries to pretend you can't sell it) and it hasn't really worked out in any of them. 1st and 2nd only do it because they go for the Marvel vs Capcom approach to balance (aka, they don't give a fuck, except when they do) which is why you have a non zero chance to get a 1,000,000 gp gem from the first kobold you kill, and promptly ding level 20 or something.

One thing everyone's just going to have to accept is that magic items have never been anything special in D&D. Like the fireman's axe and the policeman's service revolver they are tools of the trade and nothing more. So putting any kind of bullshit between you and what you need to do your job is not only ensuring you can't do your job, but is ensuring that the game isn't about Dungeons and Dragons, it's about Bribery and Cock Sucking.

While I'm on the subject I'm going to blast the herp derp magic items are special crowd in a different way.

If you go into a store right now, and you see one item that costs 20 dollars and another item that costs 51 dollars but they look completely identical, wouldn't you ask the shopkeeper what makes the higher priced item so special? Damn right you would.

And shopkeeping 101 is 'Advertise the positive aspects of your goods' so if he has any brains in his head he'll extoll the virtues of the 51 dollar item to justify its premium pricing so that you might actually buy the damn thing. Because that's 31 more dollars in his pocket. And as long as he doesn't lie about it he doesn't have to face any sort of repercussions. Like angry adventurer wanting to kill him and take his stuff.

Now he doesn't have to describe its exact specifications but he should definitely give enough info to make it demonstrably useful to you. Otherwise you'll say fuck that shit, and just buy the 20 dollar item, or buy nothing.

But the herp derp crowd would have that shopkeeper say 'give me 51 dollars and figure it out'.

Which of course warrants a 'fuck you, and suck a barrel of cocks'.

[violence in the media]

One thing everyone's just going to have to accept is that magic items have never been anything special in D&D. Like the fireman's axe and the policeman's service revolver they are tools of the trade and nothing more. So putting any kind of bullshit between you and what you need to do your job is not only ensuring you can't do your job, but is ensuring that the game isn't about Dungeons and Dragons, it's about Bribery and Cock Sucking.

I agree with the bolded section whole-heartedly. There is entirely too much fap-fapping over how wonderful and special a +1 weapon is, or is supposed to be.

[MfA]

nm, missed the point.

[Starmaker]

Well there's some other quirk about Longswords aside from the 1d12 vs Large. Can't remember what it was though.

Longswords pop up in treasure tables very often. I recall a figure of "30% of all weapons" from TGD discussions.

[RobbyPants]

Well there's some other quirk about Longswords aside from the 1d12 vs Large. Can't remember what it was though.

Longswords pop up in treasure tables very often. I recall a figure of "30% of all weapons" from TGD discussions.

Yeah, that's the only special thing I remember. I thought if you were randomly generating a weapon, you have to randomly generate a type, and longsword was by far the most common.

This would be important for picking proficiencies, and for specialization if you were a fighter.

[Roy]

Well there's some other quirk about Longswords aside from the 1d12 vs Large. Can't remember what it was though.

Longswords pop up in treasure tables very often. I recall a figure of "30% of all weapons" from TGD discussions.

No, that wasn't it either. Though that is true. Some kinda favorable attack or speed metric? Something for going longsword and shield? Meh whatever, doesn't really matter.

Point is any metric for getting an item more complex or involved than 'you walk into the proverbial mage mart with the money and walk out with your next tool' is the DM putting bullshit between you and your ability to do your job. Which is very close to him putting bullshit between you and your ability to play, since without the proper tools of the trade you might as well not be at the table.

Now what qualifies as such varies class to class. A caster needs a con item and a prime stat item, and a resistance item if not using the spell and that's the major needs covered.

Everyone else has a fucking grocery list of tools they need.

And if you take the fapping over how super special magic items are very far, not only do you end up with bullshit stifling your game, but you end up with lying fluff as well. Go read the first few pages of Weapons of Legacy sometime. There's this bit where they fap to some weak ass repeating light crossbow, insisting you'd totally take it over some other minor, but genuinely useful item that doesn't fucking cripple your character.

If you know what I'm talking about and can post that exact text that's your biggest argument against pretending magic items are anything other than necessary.

[PoliteNewb]

Well there's some other quirk about Longswords aside from the 1d12 vs Large. Can't remember what it was though.

I actually think that was pretty much it...aside from the fact that they were more common (to find magic ones), and that elves got +1 with them, they were the highest-damage one-handed weapon available (so you could use a shield, or fight with two weapons).

Using a shield was the nuts in AD&D, especially after Complete Fighter (Weapon & Shield style, which allowed you to make parries with your shield, completely negating an enemy's attack if you could hit his AC). Fighting with two weapons, if you invested in the fighting style (CF, again) was also pretty sweet. Whereas using a weapon in 2 hands, aside from the higher base weapon damage (which wasn't crazy higher) got you bupkis...the 2-handed fighting style gave you a weapon speed bonus, which made it almost as fast as if you'd just used a longsword in the first place. Hell, I don't think most people even used weapon speeds.

[hogarth]

Well there's some other quirk about Longswords aside from the 1d12 vs Large. Can't remember what it was though.

I actually think that was pretty much it...aside from the fact that they were more common (to find magic ones), and that elves got +1 with them, they were the highest-damage one-handed weapon available (so you could use a shield, or fight with two weapons).

Longswords had a relatively good weapon speed factor (not as good as a dagger, though). I can't say what the AC adjustments looked like, though; we never used them when we played AD&D.

[Doom]

Yeah, AC adjustments might have put the longsword ahead in some cases, despite the lower plus (not by much, though, I don't think anything went past +/- 3, never used 'em, myself).

But half of us are talking about one game, half another, making this conversation a mess.

[Orca]

In AD&D smaller, lighter weapons got horrible attack penalty modifiers (up to -14 or so) against any real armour. But no one used that table, so never mind.

I think AD&D 2e had an optional rule where each type of armour got different AC modifiers vs. Slashing, Piercing or Bludgeoning weapons. No one ever used that either that I heard of.

[RobbyPants]

In AD&D smaller, lighter weapons got horrible attack penalty modifiers (up to -14 or so) against any real armour. But no one used that table, so never mind.

I think AD&D 2e had an optional rule where each type of armour got different AC modifiers vs. Slashing, Piercing or Bludgeoning weapons. No one ever used that either that I heard of.

I started in 2E and saw that table. I never used it either.

I did use a lot of the Combat & Tactics rules when that book came out, and each weapon description had its own rules. The quarterstaff (and club?) had a -2 penalty against plate armors, for example. I think the pick got a bonus against plate.

[CCarter]

The modern OD&D crowd generally seem to love the weapon-vs-AC tables, notwithstanding that Gary repudiated them. I came in from the 2nd ed era, but the 2nd ed. (optional) table watered down the bonuses considerably. Lighter weapons did usually get penalized against heavy armour...though heavy weapons often took a slight penalty vs. unarmoured opponents as well (presumably assuming they're less encumbered and can dodge a heavier weapon more easily).
Longswords were probably best from the commonness perspective; in 2E a broadsword (2d4 rather than 1d8) is slightly better for damage generally, though I can't remember what its Larger-than-man-size damage was like. I think the bastard sword may have been better as well - can't remember.

In 2e the main problem with finding random crap is that characters had a limited range of weapon proficiencies rather than "all simple + martial", so using the dodgy magic trident or whip or whatever the GM gave you would give your character from a -2 to -5, at least until they levelled up and took the proficiency. Fighters were usually specialized so they got particularly boned - virtually all single-class fighters in 2nd ed. would specialize, whereas a 3e character is IMHO more flexible unless their feats lock them into something specific.

[Doom]

All single class fighters would specialize, but 2nd edition had workable multi-classong rules, so a party of 6 would be pretty likely to have a multiclassed fighter...if not a ranger...or a paladin.

Brings up a question, not so related:

How big was everyone else's AD&D parties? Seems like my groups were 6, up to 9, since henchmen were a pretty big deal then.

Did other folks play with smaller parties, like 4e's 'standard' of 5?

[RobbyPants]

Longswords were probably best from the commonness perspective; in 2E a broadsword (2d4 rather than 1d8) is slightly better for damage generally, though I can't remember what its Larger-than-man-size damage was like. I think the bastard sword may have been better as well - can't remember.

I don't have my books anymore, but I seem to remember the broadsword doing something like 2d4 against large creatures as well. The bastard sword was different because you could use it either one handed or two-handed and you'd get different damage. I'm pretty sure one-handed was the same as a longsword, and two handed was 2d4 vs medium and 2d8 against large.

How big was everyone else's AD&D parties? Seems like my groups were 6, up to 9, since henchmen were a pretty big deal then.

Did other folks play with smaller parties, like 4e's 'standard' of 5?

I played a lot of one-on-one stuff back in 2E. Once I finally got a group together, it was usually 4-5 PCs. I've played in somewhat larger groups a couple of times, but there were often players missing, so there was seldom more than six players present at any given session.

[Doom]

Is Therpgsite down all of a sudden? Was posting there a bit ago, a bit paranoid that now I get error messages when I load it up.

I mean, the Den being down, that just means it's an odd-numbered month, but therpgsite is a different matter.

[CCarter]

Is Therpgsite down all of a sudden? Was posting there a bit ago, a bit paranoid that now I get error messages when I load it up.

I mean, the Den being down, that just means it's an odd-numbered month, but therpgsite is a different matter.

Yep I'm getting an error for it as well...somewhat unusual.

[Username17]

The Rpg site is ineed down.

Broadswords did 2d4 against medium and smaller, but I think only d8 or something dumb against a giant.

The big deal is that frost brands an shit weren't "a weapon" they were almost all specifically long swords. So life drainers, firebrands, and so on were all long swords on the chart no matter what you did.

-Username17

[Lokathor]

All single class fighters would specialize, but 2nd edition had workable multi-classong rules, so a party of 6 would be pretty likely to have a multiclassed fighter...if not a ranger...or a paladin.

Remember that multiclass fighters can't specialize though >_> oy.

[PoliteNewb]

Broadswords did 2d4 against medium and smaller, but I think only d8 or something dumb against a giant.

Weapon damages (straight from the 1E PH and UA):

Longsword 1d8/1d12
Broadsword 2d4/1d6+1
Bastard Sword
-in 1 hand 1d8/1d12
-in 2 hands 2d4/2d8
Two-handed Sword 1d10/3d6

The big deal is that frost brands an shit weren't "a weapon" they were almost all specifically long swords. So life drainers, firebrands, and so on were all long swords on the chart no matter what you did.

Sorry, not true. The 1E DMG said absolutely nothing about what kind of sword the various magic swords were...they all just said "sword". Unearthed Arcana cleared this up a bit, and introduced magic swords that were "always" a particular kind of sword.

Note: 65% of swords are longswords, 20% are broadswords, 5% are falchion swords, 5% are short swords, 4% are bastard swords, and 1% are two-handed swords, unless the description of a specific item indicates otherwise.

Particular swords that specified what type they were included:

Short Sword of Quickness
Sword of the Planes (always a broadsword)
Sun Blade (always a bastard sword)
"Final Word" sword (always a broadsword)
Scimitar of Speed (self-explanatory)

All single class fighters would specialize, but 2nd edition had workable multi-classong rules, so a party of 6 would be pretty likely to have a multiclassed fighter...if not a ranger...or a paladin.

Well...remember Rangers and Paladins needed really good stat rolls. And multiclassing slowed your progression, especially at low levels, so not everybody did that (dual-classing was much better, but again, you needed really high stats). Multiclassing became even less popular in 2E, where Fighter/Mages couldn't wear armor any more, and Fighter/Clerics still had blunt weapon restrictions. So IMO, single-classed fighters were fairly common.

Specialization was seriously a huge advantage...the +1/+2 was okay, but the increased attacks per round was the real edge...getting 2/1 attacks 6 levels early was pretty awesome, especially since few of our campaigns ever made it to 13th level, but LOTS made it to 7th. Even the 3/2 attacks (right from 1st level) was pretty huge. And double-specialization (mastery in 2E) was +3/+3, pretty solid.

How big was everyone else's AD&D parties? Seems like my groups were 6, up to 9, since henchmen were a pretty big deal then.

I allowed multiple characters per player, so we never used henchman...a party was usually between 4-8 characters, depending on number of players and characters per player. Our longest-running campaign was about an adventuring guild that numbered 40+ (all PCs), where we would trade off what characters starred in any particular adventure. I never ran a group with more than 4 players.

[Josh_Kablack]

But in pre-3rd editions (and to still to a large degree in 3.0) any demon, devil, lycanthrope and half the undead and dragons you fought could not be damaged AT ALL by less than a "+X weapon" so even if you had a +3 dagger that somehow dealt only half the average damage of a +1 longsword, you'd still want the dagger against like half the monsters you faced, because just being +1 wasn't gonna be good enough against level-appropriate enemies.

Both "Magic Items are rare and Special" and "Magic Items are necessary tools of the trade" are valid ways to design a game. The problem is that the two are fundamentally incompatible and there is horrible miscommunication and lack of understanding between DMs and Designers on which method is being used.

Going by RAW, in pre-3rd, you fucking needed at least the primary fighter to have a usable +N weapon in order to hurt the infernal gygaxian legacy crap that took zero fucking damage from dropping a +0 mountain on it. In 4th ed you fucking need everyone in the party to have a +N weapon/implement where N is equal to 1+ (level/5) just to stay on the RNG and have a chance of hitting level appropriate monsters.
And with those assumptions, magic items just means "level appropriate gear"

However you totally COULD do a setup where in pre 3.e, "+N or better weapon to hit" got houseruled into "takes -N damage per attack/die roll, or "This critter is immune to Bob's character's attacks" or other similar function.) And in 4e you can (and probably should houserule) that everyone just gets an enhancement bonus equal to 1+(Floor[Level-1]/5) to everything an enhancement bonus applies to. And with those sorts of simple houserules, you remove the NEED for characters to have magic items to be effective and you can run a world where magic is rare and special.

[violence in the media]

I allowed multiple characters per player, so we never used henchman...a party was usually between 4-8 characters, depending on number of players and characters per player. Our longest-running campaign was about an adventuring guild that numbered 40+ (all PCs), where we would trade off what characters starred in any particular adventure. I never ran a group with more than 4 players.

I'm feeling downright spoiled here, as, barring one exception, I don't think I've ever participated in a tabletop group with less than 5 players + DM, and the average is probably closer to 7 players + DM. I have never gamed with a group that allowed multiple PCs per player.

My high school group from the early 90's had about 8 regular players, plus 4 or 5 others that would join in from time to time. That group used a lot of henchmen and hirelings, and an adventuring party would typically number around 30 to 40 characters + NPCs. Granted, this was counting things like a squad of animated skeletons and the camp cook, but that was how we rolled.

When 3E came out, I ran a game for 2ish years with 9 players. They didn't go hireling crazy like my old group, but there were the familiars, the cohorts, the occassional NPC allies, and the special mounts crowding things up.

Maybe it's just the central Florida area, but it has always seemed to me that we have a pretty large gaming community here. When WoD LARPs were big, it wasn't unusual to have multiple games with 30 to 50 regular players, and rosters of 100+. It's a common experience around here, with the people I've talked to, to have to turn players away from tabletop games because the GM has just run out of space to accomodate them or the ability to herd that many players.

[PoliteNewb]

But in pre-3rd editions (and to still to a large degree in 3.0) any demon, devil, lycanthrope and half the undead and dragons you fought could not be damaged AT ALL by less than a "+X weapon" so even if you had a +3 dagger that somehow dealt only half the average damage of a +1 longsword, you'd still want the dagger against like half the monsters you faced, because just being +1 wasn't gonna be good enough against level-appropriate enemies.

You are HEAVILY overestimating the number of things that needed better than a +1 weapon to be hit. Hell, even a fair number of demons and devils could be hit by completely normal weapons (not even silver/cold iron). And in 1E/2E (unlike 3.0 and higher) things like Lycanthropes and Jackalweres were fully harmed by +1 or better weapons, even if they weren't silver or cold iron.

So, what needed a +2 or better weapon? From the 1E DMG appendix (I don't have the MM in PDF, but I can check it later if you like):

Elementals
Type IV demons (BUT, not Type V or VI, so Mariliths and Balors were hurt just fine by +1 swords)
Ice Devils
Pit Fiends
Stone Golems
Iron Golems (needed +3)
Night Hags (needed +3, but silver or iron could hurt)
Intellect Devourers (crazy weapon and spell immunity)
Unique fiends (some +2, some +3)

No Undead monster needed greater than a +1 to hit.

Hell, you could hit DEMOGORGON and DISPATER with a +2 sword. It was seriously not a big deal. This was part of the AD&D philosophy, which was "even when the monster has 90% magic resistance or is immune to a bargeload of spells, stabbing them nearly always works".