PDA

View Full Version : Learning 3rd edition, need help with rules.



Jarawara
2007-05-23, 05:26 PM
OK, I've been playing D&D for 25 years, been a DM for one long continuous campaign that whole time, and been running it as a '3rd edition' campaign for going on 5 years now. But you see, I've been faking it, been going on my understanding of what makes a good game, and thus been avoiding how to actually play the game right.

Nobody's been complaining, but there have been times when I've had to just ignore all kinds of rule-realities in order to make a fight scene work, and some where along the way, the players are going to realize that things die at the "Speed of Plot", instead of the application of rules and tactics.

So I figured I better buckle down and actually learn the game.

*opens rulebooks, starts to read, 27 1/2 hours later, head explodes*

:smallfrown: ...somebody, please help me....:smallfrown:

*~*~*

OK, with that intro done with, I'm going to make a thread where I ask a series of absolutely newbie questions, and people can tell me how much of an idiot I am and how not to be so much of an idiot. Thanks in advance.

I'm making a few encounters for low level characters. Going through the Monster Manual, I see the entries for Kobolds and for Orcs. Kobolds have an attack bonus of -1 melee, +2 ranged, while Orcs have a +3 melee, +1 ranged. Now to understand the rules, I want to know why these bonuses are what they are, and how to calculate them.

Kobolds are small sized, so thats a +1 right there. Add in a -2 to strength, +1 for Dex, and you get a -1 melee, +2 ranged. So no Basic attack bonus for them, I guess. In fact, I found the stats on advancing humanoids, which cites them as being rated using the cleric Bab chart for advancement, so no bonus at 1st level. So far so good.

Then I look at Orcs. No size bonus, they're medium sized. +2 for strength. No dex bonus. So that's the +2 melee, +0 ranged... but wait, it's supposed to be +3/+1. Where's the extra +1 from? I look through the text, it says they are treated as Warriors, so at 1st level they'd have a +1 Bab.

Ok... but what about those Kobolds? If they are all humaniods, why don't the Kobolds also have the +1 Bab? Or do they? Is the size modifier bonus kept separate, and so the bonus to hit is based on them being warriors, and I add in the size modifier as the combat plays out? That'd be another +1 to the final calculation, so this is important. Or am I to assume they are not Warriors after all - in which case, what class are they?

And if the Orcs are considered 1st level warriors, where's all their skill points? They have +2 to Spot and Listen, and they have Alertness as their feat. Is the +2 bonus from Alertness in addition to the +2 to Spot and Listen, or was the skills listed as they final bonus with all feats added in? And if so, where's their skill points?

Thanks in advance, and I'm already going on to question #2.

Rats! As in, Giant Rats! Where are they? The stablemate of beginning adventures everywhere, and I can't find them at all.

I found... Normal sized rats, not much to look at, really. I also found "Dire Rats", but they are like twice the combat ability of 1st edition Giant Rats, and the description really doesn't explain what "Dire" means. Is 'Dire' like some kind of uber-rat, bigger than 'Giant' rats?

So I looked at the advancement rules for rats, but it isn't very self-explanatory. In fact, it took me quite awhile to realize you have to look to the individual creature descriptions to find the 'Advancement' line, to tell you how to do it. So I look at rats.... and Rats!, no advancement line listed. I look to Dire rats, and no clue there how to make 'half-strength' Giant rats.

I could just fake it, and make up stats on what I want... but that's not the point of this whole exercise.

So what am I missing?

Thanks for any and all help, from a veteran newbie. :smallwink:

Jarawara
2007-05-23, 05:37 PM
Another question already:

What is the difference between "Humanoid" and "Monsterous Humanoid"? How do I tell which Humanoid is 'Monsterous', and which ones are simply monsters? :smallwink:

Jasdoif
2007-05-23, 05:47 PM
I dunno where you're seeing that about the kobold (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/kobold.htm), I'm looking and the attack bonus is listed correctly there, with the kobold being a 1st-level warrior.

As for the giant rat...Dire rat is what you want. Like the section for dire animals says, "Dire animals are larger, tougher, meaner versions of ordinary animals. Each kind tends to have a feral, prehistoric, or even demonic appearance." A party shouldn't have much trouble with a single dire rat.


Another question already:

What is the difference between "Humanoid" and "Monsterous Humanoid"? How do I tell which Humanoid is 'Monsterous', and which ones are simply monsters? :smallwink:The creature's stat block will list its type as Monstrous Humanoid instead of Humanoid. Compare an orc (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm) to a grimlock (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/grimlock.htm).

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-23, 05:47 PM
I found... Normal sized rats, not much to look at, really. I also found "Dire Rats", but they are like twice the combat ability of 1st edition Giant Rats, and the description really doesn't explain what "Dire" means. Is 'Dire' like some kind of uber-rat, bigger than 'Giant' rats?

Dire animals are stronger animals that pretend to be based off pre-historic animals but are usualy just super animals.


So I looked at the advancement rules for rats, but it isn't very self-explanatory. In fact, it took me quite awhile to realize you have to look to the individual creature descriptions to find the 'Advancement' line, to tell you how to do it. So I look at rats.... and Rats!, no advancement line listed. I look to Dire rats, and no clue there how to make 'half-strength' Giant rats.

You could always use rat swarms instead. Those are nasty.


Another question already:

What is the difference between "Humanoid" and "Monsterous Humanoid"? How do I tell which Humanoid is 'Monsterous', and which ones are simply monsters? :smallwink:

Monstrous Humanoids are ones with that in their stat block.

Generaly monstrous humanoids are odder than humanoids. Humanoids also tend to have subtypes like (Orc) or (Elf), in fact no humanoid doesn't have a subtype. Some Monstrous humanoids don't though many are (Reptilian).

If it's humanoid but has 6 arms it's a monstrous humanoid.

Dhavaer
2007-05-23, 05:52 PM
3.0 Kobolds appear to have a humanoid hit die, so they have +0 BAB. Orcs, on the other hand, are apparently warriors, so they have +1 BAB. 3.0 is not very consistant in this respect.
Orcs have Listen +2, Spot +2, which is what you get from Alertness. However, they also have Wis 8, which gives a -1 to both. They recieve 4 skill points from their Warrior class, and have bought 1 rank in each skill cross class to negate their Wisdom penalty.
Standard rats are really big, mean rats. Dire rats are really, really big, mean rats. A standard rat is the size of a cat. A dire rat is the size of a dog. Both could be considered 'giant'.

silentknight
2007-05-23, 05:56 PM
Are you playing with 3.0 books or 3.5?
Getting accurate info might make a difference depending on the edition.

Jarawara
2007-05-23, 06:15 PM
Thanks for all the replies, everyone.

Jasdoif, I think you've got the 3.5 Kobolds, or something, 'cause mine in the 3rd edition books is only a 1/2 HD (2 hp) creature, with no class listed. Apparently some creatures just have no class (bad pun intended).

Kobolds are crappy, but in 3.0, they were 'half-crappy' (or would that be 'twice crappy', inverted math at work here).

I should invest in 3.5 books, but once I've learned how the system works, I'll just go back to using my own definitions anyway.

*~*~*

Ok, next question: I want my Orcs to have Longspears. Longspears have 'reach'. I *think* I found the rules applying to how to attack past someone else, if they get within 5 feet of my Orcs. People in the way provide cover, a +4 to AC to the target beyond (assuming there is one).

So tell me if I have my assumptions correct:

PC goes to attack Orc in front rank. Orc in second rank has a longspear. Orc in 2nd rank may attack PC, but PC has a +4 cover bonus. Yes?

Orc in front rank also has a longspear. He is sad. He can attack any PC in their 2nd rank, but again, the +4 cover bonus applies. Yes? The Orc could not attack the PC directly in front of him, unless by unarmed combat. Orc should've remembered what his mama told him: 'Always wear fresh underwear, and carry a dagger with you at all times.'

I haven't checked the rules on Sundering, though I presume the PC in the front rank could do so to the Orc's spear in the second rank. If that happens, are their rules for passing weapons between Orcs?

And then, the rules I haven't found... Is there any penalties to getting past the Orc's 10' reach? I presume an attack of opportunity, but can the Orc stop the PC from advancing to the 5' range?

Plus, is there other attacks of opportunity in any of the above fight scenarios? (Besides the poor Orc with his unarmed combat).

Thanks in advance

Jarawara
2007-05-23, 06:17 PM
Silentnight,

3rd edition, not 3.5 Thus the half-crappy Kobolds.

**Man, 2 hp Kobolds? They haven't been that bad since original D&D. What was WotC thinking?**

Dhavaer
2007-05-23, 07:55 PM
Passing the orc's 10 foot reach would provoke an Attack of Opportunity. There's a feat called Stand Still that could prevent someone from passing, I think.

Jarawara
2007-06-06, 12:52 AM
Hi, it's me again. I got more questions.

First of all, I'm setting up an encounter with a Minotaur, and looking at the Monster Manual stats, I don't quite understand how many attacks he gets per round.

Remember, this is 3.0 edition, not 3.5.

The MM states: "Attacks: Huge Greataxe +9/+4, gore +4"

Now I get the Huge Greataxe split numbers, as that's the standard attack with a second attack 5 points less, just like PC characters get. But what I don't know about is the Gore attack - is that in addition to the Greataxe (making it a third attack per round), or is that in place of the Greataxe, like if he were disarmed somehow?

Later on in the entry, it describes how he starts with a Charge getting a single Gore attack (doing massive damage, 4d6+6). As it clearly states he gets a single attack, I got no questions there... but what is the attack bonus for that? +4 (as listed previously), or +9 (as being the primary attack)?

Thanks in advance.

*~*~*

I got another one.

This one seems simple, but in my addled brain I can't think where to look for this one. The PC scores a critical hit on the Minotaur. He rolls a 5. He's got +2 damage due to strength, he's weilding the weapon two handed (x1.5 str bonus), he's got +2 for weapon specialization, and +1 bonus to damage for being magic, plus 1d6 fire damage (rolled a 3). His get times three damage.

How much of that is tripled? (And if I read this correctly, you don't actually triple it, you roll three times - so the question is, do you add all those bonuses to every roll, or only the final result, or... ?)

Thanks in advance for that one too. Slowly, I learn.

*~*~*

Whenever I make character sheets, I am reminded of doing my taxes. Anyone else feel the same way? To calculate your final attack bonus, please refer to publication 2378, Form F, and multiply by .9235 :smallconfused:

Dhavaer
2007-06-06, 01:09 AM
The Gore attack is in addition to the weapon attacks. If you're using it on its own, it doesn't have the -5 penalty (so +9).

The strength bonus (total, after the 1.5x modifier), Weapon Spec., magic enhancement bonus and weapon damage (the 1d8 for a longsword, for example) are multiplied. Anything with a flat bonus (Strength, for example) is multiplied. Any bonus dice (flaming, sneak attack, etc) are not multiplied.

Jack Mann
2007-06-06, 01:34 AM
It's important to keep in mind that you never get extra attacks with natural weapons, no matter how high your BAB is. However, the rules for attacking with another natural weapon are a bit more favorable than the rules for two-weapon fighting.

Natural weapons are often added to full attack routines. Generally, so long as you don't need the limb involved for using your weapons (i.e. no claw attack when your hands are occupied), you get them in addition. When used with a weapon, they're treated as secondary attacks. Secondary natural weapons are usually at a -5, no matter how many you have. So, if you had a gore, a tail slap, and a tentacle (some sort of aberration, obviously), you'd get them all at a -5. However, you can take the multiattack feat, which reduces the penalty to a -2 for all of your natural weapons. Attacking with your natural weapons does not give you any penalties on your other attacks.

If you're not using a weapon, one of your natural weapons becomes your primary natural weapon, and gets your full attack bonus. Sometimes, you have a pair or a set of primary natural weapons. For example, we'll give our aberration three claw attacks as its primary. We'll say it has a total attack bonus of +14, after modifiers like size and strength. Its full attack routine would be three claws +14/gore +9/tail slap +9/tentacle +9. If it had multiattack, the secondary natural weapons would go up to +12.

Bassetking
2007-06-06, 02:43 AM
This one seems simple, but in my addled brain I can't think where to look for this one. The PC scores a critical hit on the Minotaur. He rolls a 5. He's got +2 damage due to strength, he's weilding the weapon two handed (x1.5 str bonus), he's got +2 for weapon specialization, and +1 bonus to damage for being magic, plus 1d6 fire damage (rolled a 3). His get times three damage.

How much of that is tripled? (And if I read this correctly, you don't actually triple it, you roll three times - so the question is, do you add all those bonuses to every roll, or only the final result, or... ?)

Thanks in advance for that one too. Slowly, I learn.

*~*~*

Whenever I make character sheets, I am reminded of doing my taxes. Anyone else feel the same way? To calculate your final attack bonus, please refer to publication 2378, Form F, and multiply by .9235 :smallconfused:

You triple anything provided that is not Bonus dice. By this, it means that your strength modifier, your weapon damage, and the addition from weapon specialization are trebled. The +1, from being a magic weapon, and the 1d6 flaming are not.

Jack Mann
2007-06-06, 04:21 AM
The +1 is multiplied, Basset. It does not count as bonus dice.

Premier
2007-06-06, 05:04 AM
Jarawara: I think you're creating a problem yourself where these is none.

First, you said the players don't have a problem with the way you run things. Then why fret? This is a game, the one and only goal of it is to have fun. If everyone's having fun right now, then why expend a great deal of time and effort to change things? You know, you won't get a "Running D&D 3rd ed." Boy Scout badge. The only thing you might get is player dissatisfaction when you abandon ease of play for the bulkiness of by-the-books play.

The other thing I don't understand is, if you do want to play by-the-book but are not familiar enough with 3E, then why use 3E? You have 20 years of experience with earlier editions, and there's neither law nor statute against using them. Just use the system you know the best.

SITB
2007-06-06, 07:24 AM
I agree with Premier, why move on if playing 2nd edition(or edited 3rd) works ?
I really reccomend playing 3.5 instead of 3rd,it's much easier to understand.

Dausuul
2007-06-06, 08:08 AM
I agree with Premier, why move on if playing 2nd edition(or edited 3rd) works ?
I really reccomend playing 3.5 instead of 3rd,it's much easier to understand.

He said he'd already been running 3.0 for five years now, so it's a bit late to go back.

However, I agree with the general sentiment that if your players have been fine with the way you run things for the last five years, they'll be fine if you keep running things that way. Besides, I know the rules pretty damn thoroughly at this point, and my monsters still die at the speed of plot. It's a question of DMing style, not knowledge of the rules.

Jarawara
2007-06-07, 10:08 AM
Thank you again for all your fast replies. I think things are progressing nicely now. I had another question, but then it suddenly occured to me that 'Ab' did not stand for Attack Bonus, but for Ability. Thank Learun that I caught that before posting my question, or I would have looked like a complete idiot!

(Then again, admitting to my initial confusion makes me look like an idiot, doesn't it? I must be an idiot for admitting to being an idiot.)

But to risk derailing a fine thread about questions, I think the question posed to me deserves an answer: "If things have been going fine for five years, why change now?"

Well, in short, it's because things are slowly becoming 'un-fine'. Explained in more detail, it's a power level thing. At low levels, I could just wing it, using my experience from previous editions to deal with whatever the players were capable of doing. Honestly, there isn't much difference a 1st level PC from AD&D and a 1st level PC from 3E, in terms of what they can do. Orcs are relatively the same, too. But as they go up in levels, the damage output seems to spike up, and I'm finding more and more that the battles I wish to portray are banging up against the capabilities of the players - and the players are beginning to notice as well.

And as previously pointed out, the players have already switched to 3E, so there's no undoing that. I'm putting 1st edition monsters against 3rd edition characters, and I'm losing. Small wonder, really.

I think it also has to do with the players having the feeling they no longer have control. If the DM (me) is going to have things live and die at the speed of plot (honestly, I don't do this directly... but it feels like I do), then why should the players actually *play*, instead of just going along with the story and letting it play out around them.

At 1st level, if I wanted an Orc to live (for some storyline or roleplay purpose), all I really need is for one of them somewhere to survive, and the players aren't going to be too choked up that random Orc #27 got away. They got the other 26; they feel like had control of their actions, and one got away is all. But now, if I want "Important high level NPC" to survive the battle, the only way I'm going to give him a legitimate shot at surviving is to gift him 100 or more hit points, and then hope it's enough. Sometimes it isn't, even then. And if the players run him down and find he's got huge, unrealistic, HP reserves, they then begin to feel that their actions no longer count. DM wants this NPC alive, why should they bother to try to change the outcome.

It's not come to that yet. But it gets closer every session. And I wisely do not rely on the NPC surviving, so if they do run him down, that HP reserve goes poof, and they get their man. But it would be an easy auto-kill for them if I didn't stretch every rule I can to make sir NPC survive as well as he did - and the rule stretching is showing more and more.

So what is causing this problem? My lack of understanding the rules, simple answer. If I knew the rules better, maybe I could find an actual rule that would keep my NPC's alive, instead of faking it. Maybe I don't need to 'gift' my key NPC's an extra 100 hp, but instead just use the rules correctly and intelligently.

I am constantly ranting on how I wish there was some way I could fight defensively, to keep the key people alive that I want to survive. Well, instead of ranting, maybe I should be *reading*... maybe there is such a rule-mechanic that will save my NPC's butt.

And if I become knowledgeable on the rules, then perhaps I can design the encounter better, without having to fudge to keep it going smoothly. Then, when they play well and kick my butt, I can let them win with a smile, because they legitimately beat me, not because I didn't realize how fast they can pile the damage on me.

Oh, and one last thing - I do *not* intend to switch over to by-the-book play by the RAW. In fact, this step is only a precursor to my redesigning the whole system, using the 3E framework to produce a more 1E feel to the game. But before I go running off to design my own game, to 'correct' the flaws of 3rd edition, maybe I should learn what 3E is all about first. Maybe they did a good job after all, which I would learn with a little bit of reading.

So that's why I decided to learn 3E, after 5 years of successfully gaming without it. Oh, and also, I've already found a half dozen different rules my players were breaking. Fix them, and maybe they won't be doing all that extra damage on me! :smallwink:

*~*~*

So anyway, thanks to all for helping me with this. My players are patient and understanding with me, and are helping where they can. Someone (SITB) suggested I switch straight to 3.5, easier to understand. I might invest in some new books and take a look. (thanks for the tip)

Matthew
2007-06-09, 08:56 PM
Heh. Yeah, 3.x is worth learning just to see how it interacts with previous editions. It's really very interesting, as well as providing inspiration for House Ruling and Home Brewing D&D in general.