BEMCI D&D: Little point in being a Fighter

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp · Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:10 pm

BEMCI stands for "Basic, Expert, Masters, Companions, Immortals" ruleset. This ruleset was first started around 1983 a few years after 1st edition AD&D.

Anywho in this edition there's no percentile strength. 18 Str gives +3 to hit and damage, 16-17 gives +2 to hit and damage, etc. so a Magic-user can have an 18 Str just as well as a fighter.

Wisdom does nothing except that if you're a cleric you get an experience point bonus of 5% with 16-17 Wis or 10% with 18 Wis. The Prime requisite bonus works for every class (Str Fighters, Int Magic-users, Dex Thieves, etc.)

The rules also state that a character can subract 2 points from one score to raise another score by 1. Thus, it's always in a Cleric's interest to lower their Wisdom score to 9 in order to raise their Strength as close to 18 as possible. Simply because to go to 2nd level, a cleric at 1st level requires 1500 xp, while a fighter at 1st requires 2000 xp. So even if a fighter had an 18 str, he'd still need effectively 1820 xp to gain a level vs. the cleric's 1500 xp.

The benefit to fighters over clerics is, an extra attack at level 12 (and 24 and 36). 1 extra hp on average, edged weapons, and slightly better Thac0

The benefit of clerics is: The light spell which lasts 6 turns and prevents the monster from attacking, hold person, animate dead, magic item and artifact crafting, etc. etc. etc. etc. The game even have rules for baronies and whatnot and clerics can be barons just as easily (I'd argue better) than fighters.

So before 12th, at 12th and beyond the cleric should be contributing much more than the fighter. The only exception is at 1st level where the cleric has no spells yet. At this level, the fighter has 1 higher average hp and 1 higher average damage.

Just a thought,
Bill

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:28 pm

I love these little stories about games before my time. *throws another log on the fire*

Lokathor · Post by **Lokathor** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:29 pm

It sounds like BRRPG took a lot from that version.

Suggestions:
[*]Swap the Fighter and Cleric XP charts.
[*]Give fighters more HP in some major way.
[*]Give out bonus attacks way sooner.
[*]Don't worry about it.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:35 pm

If you're including Master set stuff, then there's a reason to be a Fighter: Weapon Mastery. Using a Net, for example, is at the top-tier a +8 or so to AC, or get +attacks per round. Clerics get screwed on that front.

souran · Post by **souran** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:21 pm

LITTLE REASON NOT TO BE the ELF in Heroquest

In breaking news going through older games it has recently been discovered that the elf in heroquest has a distinct advantage over, well, pretty much everybody.

The elf gets a school of magic, can use all the weapons and armor, can use the same potions and has the same movement rate.

Strangely, although this is a clear fact based on the way the games rules are written, it has strangly been rejected by the Heroquest community.

Bobby Nomalplayer's comment was the most telling. "This sucks, the wizard stuck me with the fuckng water magic and its just like being a cleric in D&D!"

The "cleric" is the healer in the D&D game and our research has uncovered the heretofore unknown fact that until the year 2000 the cleric was the most hated class in the D&D game. Players avoided being the cleric by not being the last person to the gamemasters house, yelling "NOT IT" at the top of their lungs and then invoking the "make the new guy heal" rule.

The news that the second most hated Heroquest player was actually the games most powerful came as a shock to even people who had experience with the game.

Eric Experiencedplayer stated "It's wierd, you know, the elf was the guy we let have the magic undead slaying sword because we sort of felt sorry for him. I mean, the barbarian with Boran's Armor and a battle axe, was basically invulnerable to everything except the gargoyle. I always thought that he was the most powerful. Oh well, at least its not the god damned dwarf."

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:42 pm

Quick question:

Does anyone know any console/PC games based off of Heroquest or Advanced Heroquest? I thought it would be fun to play again for nostalgia's sake.

Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp · Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:56 pm

mean_liar wrote:If you're including Master set stuff, then there's a reason to be a Fighter: Weapon Mastery. Using a Net, for example, is at the top-tier a +8 or so to AC, or get +attacks per round. Clerics get screwed on that front.

Reading the Master's rules on Weapon Mastery, I can't read anything that says only Fighters or Dwarves or whatever can get weapon masatery

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:05 pm

I thought that the Fighter actually got enough to make it matter - the other classes couldn't get enough slots, or allotments or had a capped mastery magnitude... it's been a while.

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:11 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Quick question:

Does anyone know any console/PC games based off of Heroquest or Advanced Heroquest? I thought it would be fun to play again for nostalgia's sake.

Yes, it's called Heroquest it was for dos and it's abandonware. I don't know how accurate it is to the original game though.

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:20 pm

Didn't fighters start with an eense more money, and about 10 years younger, also? I might be thinking of AD&D here.

In basic, the fighting man did have a couple extra hit points (ok, one extra per level, on average), and get to use slightly better, edged, weapons. Yes, that's totally pathetic, and certainly some weak game design...but this was in an era where game design was crude at best. By the time 'basic' got upgraded to expert or whatever, they were more or less stuck with building on the old rules.

It's only recently that folks thought a complete re-write, keeping the words the same while changing most meanings, was an honest way to fix bad design.

souran · Post by **souran** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:12 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Quick question:

Does anyone know any console/PC games based off of Heroquest or Advanced Heroquest? I thought it would be fun to play again for nostalgia's sake.

There is a computerized version of Descent floating around and while DJITD is honestly not as good a game as Heroquest, it is fairly similar in play and a lot of fun in its own right. At least the Game Master can play for keeps in Descent without it getting to bad.

Honestly, if somebody would release a way of playing Warhammer quest online I would be all over that. Although that game is basically WOW and I spend to much time at that already.

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:29 am

I actually ran a Warhammer Quest campaign with 4 friends...we made it to level 8 before my head threatened to explode trying to keep up with all the fiddly bits that come into play at higher levels.

souran · Post by **souran** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:23 pm

Doom314 wrote:I actually ran a Warhammer Quest campaign with 4 friends...we made it to level 8 before my head threatened to explode trying to keep up with all the fiddly bits that come into play at higher levels.

Level 8 is really quite impressive. I had a group get mostly to level 6 once.

However, I made the mistake of letting the party be

1 Brettionian Knight
1 chaos warrior
1 wizard
1 High Elf Ranger

The thing is, in warhammer quest some characters are just better in one off games and others are just better in the campaign game. The Chaos Warrior, however, is just outright abusive from the getgo.

I got my copy of warhammer quest after i had been playing D&D for about 4 years. The thing was, by that time warhammer quest was a better game than 2e D&D!

Which is where I am going to lead this: D&D as a game should be more fun to play than descent, or warhammer quest. It should be FUN in combat like these games were. If that means fewer overall powers in exchange for more iconic ones I guess I am for that. However, whatever product carries the D&D game should not be getting its ass handed to it by dungeon exploration board games. D&D should set the standard for these guys.

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:00 pm

The level 8 campaign was with the 'stock' characters.

GW wasn't shy about making those 'expansion pack' characters way too good not to buy. I guess you never saw the witch hunter...yikes.

WHQ a better game than 2e? That's a bit harsh, I don't really put them in the same category, and even if I did, 2e breaks down at a bit higher level.

Descent, while fun for a while, really is heavily flawed. It's the goldfish of board dungeon crawl games---you get your money's worth, and it dies just as you're done with it anyway.

souran · Post by **souran** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:38 pm

Doom314 wrote:The level 8 campaign was with the 'stock' characters.

GW wasn't shy about making those 'expansion pack' characters way too good not to buy. I guess you never saw the witch hunter...yikes.

Oh, we had lots of experience with the witch hunter. He just was not one of the ones in the game we had that lasted the longest.

On the other hand the Knight was amazing in the one off games but his mechanics broke down almost immedatily in the campaign game. Unless you got the one or two really insane favors.

WHQ a better game than 2e? That's a bit harsh, I don't really put them in the same category, and even if I did, 2e breaks down at a bit higher level.

2e was fun, and I enjoyed pretty much every game of it I played. That doesn't make it the best game around. Infact, that was pretty much the problem. 2e needed an edition change when they printed the revised books. It needed to take a big step in game design.

2e is stll written to appeal to the 70's/80's wargame community. Heck, you can almost smell the die cut counters and the low gloss ink just thinking about the book. It broke down severely after level 10.

So, then we really have two games that are both 10 levels long. It takes about the same amount of play time to gain a level in each game.

Yes, D&D has more combat rules for doing more things. However, for doing bread and butter things Warhammer Quest is a better game.

Descent, while fun for a while, really is heavily flawed. It's the goldfish of board dungeon crawl games---you get your money's worth, and it dies just as you're done with it anyway.

Descent is a WIERD game. Each dungeon takes you through the stages of a complete D&D game. You start off terrible, but by the end the monsters present no challenge. Its actually kind of funny.

Additionally, descent's campaign rules don't really let you advance from the way the game plays in one offs, but instead it allows you to start WEAKER than normal and progress to a stage a little bit ahead of where you would get in a single game. Its actually in some ways a little unsatifying.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:55 pm

I love WHQ, but I haven't played it in nearly a decade. Damnit! I'm running out of time to play all the games I want to play!

I also love HQ. About four years ago, I worked on an expansion that separated race and class, added two ability scores (Strength and Agility), and broke the heroes up into five levels. I expanded the classes, weapons, and spells. It was fun to work on, but playtesting showed it needed some serious work. That being said, just picking up WHQ right out of the box and playing sounds like a lot of fun right now.

souran · Post by **souran** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:24 pm

RobbyPants wrote:
That being said, just picking up WHQ right out of the box and playing sounds like a lot of fun right now.

Thats because Games Workshop had a diamond in the rough with rick priesty. He could actually mkae interesting games instead of the wank fest that is warhammer/40k.

To bad they don't support any of their games that are actually good. If they dropped warhammer/40k entirely and only published epic 40k and warmaster they would be a wargames company. Instead they are a plastic men company.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:31 pm

souran wrote:
Doom314 wrote:The level 8 campaign was with the 'stock' characters.

GW wasn't shy about making those 'expansion pack' characters way too good not to buy. I guess you never saw the witch hunter...yikes.
Oh, we had lots of experience with the witch hunter. He just was not one of the ones in the game we had that lasted the longest.

The Witch Hunter sucked; the Warrior Priest sucked HARDER. We had...

Wizard
Pit Fighter
Witch Hunter
Trollslayer

...and got to around level 8 when we party-wiped on a lvl 10 encounter with a Vermin Lord (and attendant skaven). The Witch Hunter basically had to rely on his "teleport to one enemy and attack" with tons of whatever favor points he had dumped on it in order to remain relevant, and trudging through a dungeon in order to nova was shitty.

The Pit Fighter, meanwhile, was stupendous.

Elf Ranger was also glorious.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:03 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Quick question:

Does anyone know any console/PC games based off of Heroquest or Advanced Heroquest? I thought it would be fun to play again for nostalgia's sake.

Google for them and you should find a few, most will be ways to emulate the board game on the computer to move things around kind of like the 4th edition D&D game table, and other virtual table top software.

There are a few for playing a game by yourself, but I don't recall if they were for NES, or PC.

The point in being a fighter in any D&D edition is simple: because that is what you want to play. Not because some list of stats or abilities give you some advantage over the other players or some such.

You can run "the numbers" on many things, but those numbers will not give you anything. Some things just cannot be quantitatively analyzed.

The question comes down to the same thing always. How well the group works together. You can have a group of ALL fighters perform better in a game than a groups of all wizards, and not just because of higher HP totals.

This was always a problem with any kind of organized play, and Gary faced it head on. While the RPGA was a gopod idea to bring people together it really doesn't show how a good group plays together, and that it takes work to learn how to play within a group and the time to do so. Not everyone can slap together a playstyle for a group in an hour that will work.

So the point to playing any character is because you WANT to play it, not because it has some uber-stat blocks to it.

souran · Post by **souran** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:52 pm

Shadzar

If we put your argument in context of say the NFL what you are saying is the equivalent of saying

"It doesn't matter that the clevaland browns and the kansas city chiefs have been terrible for long time. Both cities have strong fan bases, and even though both teams are terrible and between them have one superbowl win in THE HISTORY OF THE NFL SINCE THE FUCKING MERGER.
It just doesn't matter at all, because they still play foobtall and as long as your playing football it doesn't matter if you always suck."

Do you see how retarded that is? No, the point of rolepalying is not to always get stuck playing useless "tiny tim" characters who are little more than redshirts with last names.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:36 am

Unless the point for the people how are playing is to get paid to play football. Sure they might want to get paid more to win, but they don't have to flip burgers, or shovel shit for a living, and get to make money playing football for fuck's sake!

Dallas sucks as does the Redskins, and they win often, so your analogy falls apart on the other end of the spectrum.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:53 am

I don't know what Shad was just trying to say in that last post but I do think that there is a considerable difference between the NFL and role playing or at least between the contexts. I think (not sure) I kind of agree with Shad in this particular case. A bit. I do believe that the point of playing a character, for any individual is, that they like said character for one reason or another. And many many many people will play a functionally worse character (class) for any number of reasons. While in terms of game design having a functionally worse character is bad, it often times might not matter depending on the person or the group. It is true that some play a fighter with the mistaken notion that they can make something happen that they really can't (as far as 3rd ed goes) but from what I understand people have been playing them for years despite the evidence of this and it at times work. This happens to the point where fans will angrily reject suggestions that make the fighter more powerful.

So I think a better way to put his statement/intent is to say that is: :It doesn't matter to fans of the Cleveland browns or Kansas city chiefs that the teams are terrible and have one Superbowl win in history between them. It just doesn't matter, as long as you play NFL football you will always have fans"

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:22 am

Of course you agree with Shad Mguy, you, like him, are roletard, who says stupid roletard shit like "people should be perfectly fine playing shitty classes made of ass" and other such bullshit.

(While I find your roletarding contemptible to the extreme, I am not implying here that you share shad's other stupid as fuck traits, like random tangent oclock, or responding to arguments with whining, or constant lying.)

A Man In Black · Post by **A Man In Black** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:43 am

Kaelik wrote:Of course you agree with Shad Mguy, you, like him, are roletard, who says stupid roletard shit like "people should be perfectly fine playing shitty classes made of ass" and other such bullshit.

No, I think he's saying "People get emotionally attached to classes even in the face of obvious evidence that they are shit." Which is true but kind of obvious.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:00 am

A Man In Black wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Of course you agree with Shad Mguy, you, like him, are roletard, who says stupid roletard shit like "people should be perfectly fine playing shitty classes made of ass" and other such bullshit.
No, I think he's saying "People get emotionally attached to classes even in the face of obvious evidence that they are shit." Which is true but kind of obvious.

A) No, he's more saying what I said. You can tell this by the way he makes it clear not just that people might like X, but that they also like X being weaker than everything else, and they also have a better game "for them" by playing shitty fighters.
b) even if he wasn't, it wouldn't matter, because I said that he is a roletard, and he is. As evidenced by everything he's ever said in the past.

See: Rogues not combat.
See: Those shitty classes he was making.

The Gaming Den

BEMCI D&D: Little point in being a Fighter

BEMCI D&D: Little point in being a Fighter

This Just IN