PDA

View Full Version : Hey you darn kids get off my edition!



Pages : [1] 2

2D8HP
2016-04-05, 08:42 PM
Did you once make fun of oldtimers for not switching to an "up to date" edition of the game (D&D, Shadowrun, whatever)?
Is your favorite version now considered "obsolete"?
Tell the story!
Feel free to criticize versions of the game that aren't "the one true way" (edition wars are fun)!
Ever change your mind?

TheIronGolem
2016-04-05, 08:47 PM
Every edition older than the one you play is a clumsy artifact that only grognards play because they can't handle change.

Every edition newer than the one you play is a dumbed-down video game on paper that only entitled kiddies play because they can't handle Real RoleplayingTM.

That should just about cover things.

oxybe
2016-04-05, 09:12 PM
playing since 2nd ed, went to 3rd & 4th as i found those to be upgrades to the version before.

5th though? I'm just not seeing the draw to it when compared to previous editions: if i wanted low-power and lethality, i have 2nd. if i wanted raw customization & options, i'll go with 3rd/pf. if i wanted a game that focused on action & adventuring and ease of GMing, i'd pick 4th.

yet while 5th ed isn't doing anything particularly offensive to my tastes, and the other editions mentioned all have a few thing that manage to get my goat, esp. 3rd ed, and i admit to not having the experience with 5th as i do with 2nd, 3rd or 4th, but i just don't feel anything for the game.

those other 3 editions all had something to grab me and still do to an extent despite (or in spite of) their flaws, but 5th ed is failing to draw me in... it's a very safe, almost vanilla edition, compared to what came before it and it's particular mix of gaming elements doesn't do much for me over what i already own.

it's not that i find 5th ed bad or offensive, just terribly bland for my taste.

gadren
2016-04-05, 09:44 PM
playing since 2nd ed, went to 3rd & 4th as i found those to be upgrades to the version before.

5th though? I'm just not seeing the draw to it when compared to previous editions: if i wanted low-power and lethality, i have 2nd. if i wanted raw customization & options, i'll go with 3rd/pf. if i wanted a game that focused on action & adventuring and ease of GMing, i'd pick 4th.

yet while 5th ed isn't doing anything particularly offensive to my tastes, and the other editions mentioned all have a few thing that manage to get my goat, esp. 3rd ed, and i admit to not having the experience with 5th as i do with 2nd, 3rd or 4th, but i just don't feel anything for the game.

those other 3 editions all had something to grab me and still do to an extent despite (or in spite of) their flaws, but 5th ed is failing to draw me in... it's a very safe, almost vanilla edition, compared to what came before it and it's particular mix of gaming elements doesn't do much for me over what i already own.

it's not that i find 5th ed bad or offensive, just terribly bland for my taste.
Wow, you summed up my experience and stance almost entirely, the only difference being I started with OD&D.

My group playtested 5e when it first game out and basically it just bored us.

Knaight
2016-04-06, 12:10 AM
Every edition older than the one you play is a clumsy artifact that only grognards play because they can't handle change.

Every edition newer than the one you play is a dumbed-down video game on paper that only entitled kiddies play because they can't handle Real RoleplayingTM.

That should just about cover things.

Not really. For instance, I quite like Fudge, and am pretty neutral on Fate (which is a spinoff, not a successor) from a game design perspective. That Fate took a whole bunch of mechanics from Fudge and doesn't credit Fudge at all anymore? That gets on my nerves a bit.

Or, take Shadowrun. I don't particularly like SR 5, but none of the criticisms fit the dumbed down video game on paper that only entitled kiddies play model.

Earthwalker
2016-04-06, 07:08 AM
At some stage someone really needs to get a way to make books stop working after a while. A few systems I dont switch up versions on, not becasue I don't think the new version is wrong or not to my tastes. Mainly becuase my old books still work and I can still play using them.

So I have like 20 or 30 Shadowrun 3e books. They still work and I can run the game. I don't feel the need to buy the same again in 4e or 5e. (Tho I have bought the main rule book for both)

i do still buy new games but these days I buy whole new systems.

I am probably not the customer the games industry needs.

Vinyadan
2016-04-06, 07:14 AM
.

I am probably not the customer the games industry needs.

You might be the one it deserves ;)

Âmesang
2016-04-06, 10:44 AM
Wow, you summed up my experience and stance almost entirely, the only difference being I started with OD&D.

My group playtested 5e when it first game out and basically it just bored us.
This, for the most part. I, too, found 5e to be rather bland and simple… but it's that simplicity (especially the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic) that endeared a lot of my fellow players.

I started with 3e and still prefer it, but oddly enough I had no problem with 4e (though I still only have the core books :smalltongue:). To be a bit contradictory I would also like to play AD&D just to see where it all started (so to speak, at least until I can grab a-hold of pre-1e rules).

Delwugor
2016-04-06, 02:59 PM
Old fart here. :smallbiggrin:
Started with Basic and Advanced and then other old games like Palladium, Marvel, Traveller, etc., years of 3.x and a bit of Mathfinder.
About 10 years ago, I got bored with the same old I had been doing for so long and started looking around. Since then I've played many good games: Mutants and Masterminds, Fate (many types), AW, Savage Worlds and others. I just played Monster of the Week for the first time and it's the best take on AW I've seen.

I stopped GMing D&D games for many years because frankly I couldn't stand WotC rules heavy games any more. But last year I was drafted into a 5E game and was pleasantly surprised at how well it worked with simplified mechanics. Now this Sat. I will be GMing my first D&D game in probably 5 years using 5E.

For me it's not being loyal to an old system, but matching the system (and genre) to what I'm interested in playing and running.

Quertus
2016-04-06, 03:11 PM
[QUOTE=Knaight;20630500Or, take Shadowrun. I don't particularly like SR 5, but none of the criticisms fit the dumbed down video game on paper that only entitled kiddies play model.[/QUOTE]

What don't you like about shadowrun 5e?

--------

As to me... with what games have I noticed and cared about the differences between different editions? Hmmm...

Shadowrun: when I first played, fast characters were fast. A super fast street samurai could get, say, a 36 on init. So he'd go on 36, then on 26, then on 16, then some of the normal folks might get to go before he took his last action of the turn on 6.

But in newer editions I've looked at, everybody gets to go once before anyone gets their second action. They took what was the most special, wonderful, unique part of that game, and threw it away. :(

The systems formerly all known as World of Darkness: this one's tricky. I hate losing options on "upgrade". Most of the WoD lines are... diminished... compared to their origins.

I have mixed feelings about the move to fixed DC in the various d10 systems (not necessarily WoD). On the one hand, it's simpler - just a single slider (number of successes required) to worry about, making it easier to make things consistent, and probably making the games more approachable to new players. On the other hand, I like the fiddly bits of Computer Aptitude and Strong Willed, that care about and interact with the difficulty system

In older editions, the "semi auto CAD cam" was one of the ultimate spells any mage could aspire for - kinda like Wish or Polymorph Any Object in D&D. Actually, very much like them. In newer editions, it's something a starting character can do. Just imagine, for a moment, if 6th edition D&D made Wish and Polymorph Any Object into first level spells. Let that sink in.

Oh, and I hate the Atlantis theme.

D&D: I love the... balance? flow?... of 2e, the customization and ease of play of 3e. I like the idea of the CR system, and the expected WBL, but I don't like magic item Wal-Mart, or characters feeling irrelevant in higher level or higher optimization parties. I don't like how "save or die" has become the norm, rather than the exception. I'm glad that resurrection has scaled with the proliferation of SoD, yet I can't help but feel that the whole "bang, you're dead" / "no, I'm not" somehow cheapens the experience.

Speaking of which - these kids these days, and their instant gratification! Getting all this cheap experience, and leveling about 100x faster than we used to. Levels used to mean something!

Now, where was I? Ah, right D&D editions. See, the problem is, they haven't published my ideal edition of D&D.

My ideal version of D&D would have, in roughly the order of importance,
* an intuitive base system (high numbers are good, add your modifier to a.d20)
* lots of options, like 3.x
* simple character creation mini game, like older editions
* good guidelines on what monsters might be balanced against what party, kinda like 3e, but with no expectation that the world needs to be at your level, like older editions
* the balance of older editions, where level and optimization level meant something, but didn't completely obsolete other characters

... And more I don't have time to explain right now.

Clistenes
2016-04-06, 03:30 PM
playing since 2nd ed, went to 3rd & 4th as i found those to be upgrades to the version before.

5th though? I'm just not seeing the draw to it when compared to previous editions: if i wanted low-power and lethality, i have 2nd. if i wanted raw customization & options, i'll go with 3rd/pf. if i wanted a game that focused on action & adventuring and ease of GMing, i'd pick 4th.

yet while 5th ed isn't doing anything particularly offensive to my tastes, and the other editions mentioned all have a few thing that manage to get my goat, esp. 3rd ed, and i admit to not having the experience with 5th as i do with 2nd, 3rd or 4th, but i just don't feel anything for the game.

those other 3 editions all had something to grab me and still do to an extent despite (or in spite of) their flaws, but 5th ed is failing to draw me in... it's a very safe, almost vanilla edition, compared to what came before it and it's particular mix of gaming elements doesn't do much for me over what i already own.

it's not that i find 5th ed bad or offensive, just terribly bland for my taste.

5th edition is a good system, but they need to make it more attractive and engaging. They need some shiny stuff to awaken our interest and imagination. More setting soucebooks, more options, whatever.

However, the current stance of WotC seem to be that keeping it simple will help them attract more players, but I'm not sure... If older gamers stick to 2nd and 3.5 editions and don't introduce the new players to the game, who will do it?

johnbragg
2016-04-06, 03:33 PM
When I was in high school (in the early days of 2E), there was a younger group that played BECMI Basic. I did not understand.

Delwugor
2016-04-06, 03:51 PM
However, the current stance of WotC seem to be that keeping it simple will help them attract more players, but I'm not sure...

I think it is a good strategy. Pathfinder has the market cornered on expansion books, multitude of classes archetypes and I can't count how many feats. But it seems like PF mainly makes money on adventure path.
So WotC with a simpler system doesn't have to compete with PF on the mechanics, but can put their effort into competing where the money is. I think they learned alot from the relative failure (money making wise) of 4E and want to gain back the customer they lost to PF or other systems.

2D8HP
2016-04-06, 03:59 PM
Now, where was I? Ah, right D&D editions.

Speaking of which - these kids these days, and their instant gratification! Getting all this cheap experience, and leveling about 100x faster than we used to. Levels used to mean something!


Amen! Preach it!

Aran nu tasar
2016-04-06, 05:03 PM
5th edition is a good system, but they need to make it more attractive and engaging. They need some shiny stuff to awaken our interest and imagination. More setting soucebooks, more options, whatever.

However, the current stance of WotC seem to be that keeping it simple will help them attract more players, but I'm not sure... If older gamers stick to 2nd and 3.5 editions and don't introduce the new players to the game, who will do it?

Honestly, I like the current approach. One of my issues with 3.5 was the absurd feature bloat, and it seems like WotC is trying to avoid that. More options are nice, I will admit, and they are coming out with new options- SCAG, for instance, had a bunch of fun stuff, as did the EE book. But they are putting them out at a slower pace, which I personally think is good. I was always one of the people who read through all three thousand sourcebooks to find the synergies that were just right for my build, but I saw a lot of new players getting overwhelmed by massive tables of feats and hundreds of pages of prestige classes. Plus the feature bloat lead to power creep and led to a lot of unintended bugs (Nightstick Divine Metamagic Persist Spell, I'm looking at you) that couldn't all be caught before the release of the relevant books, since there was simply too much stuff to check every possible source of shenanigannery. A return to (relative) simplicity is good in my book.

Aliquid
2016-04-06, 05:51 PM
When I was in high school (in the early days of 2E), there was a younger group that played BECMI Basic. I did not understand.
That was me...

johnbragg
2016-04-06, 06:30 PM
That was me...

Played in the cafeteria at Stuyvesant?

Tiktakkat
2016-04-06, 08:20 PM
Did you once make fun of oldtimers for not switching to an "up to date" edition of the game (D&D, Shadowrun, whatever)?

No.


Is your favorite version now considered "obsolete"?

Yes.


Tell the story!

Way back when I was at a gaming convention when they focused on wargames rather than RPGs or CCGs, and I saw all the kids with Magic cards sitting on the carpet, playing on the sides.
And I thought "How utterly stupid."
This was a few years after the first LARPers had been let back into the cons after getting kicked out for harassing bystanders. Not nastily, just walking up to ordinary people on vacation and asking if the LARPers could drink their blood.
So my opinion of people in other modes of gaming was rather low in general.

Then about five years after that I walked in my FLGS and looked around, contemplating what was on the shelves.
As I did, I realized that the wargames and RPGs had been there . . . well, forever.
So I walked up to the store manager and started gossiping:
"So . . . CCGs?"
"Yeah, they sell really well."
"Well enough they pay the bills while that other stuff just takes up space."
"Yup."
"Thought so."
And with that I stopped hating on the weirdo CCGers and LARPers and just accepted their presence as essential to keeping the FLGS open.
A few years after that I realized that they at least kept people near to RPGs (and what little wargaming I still did), at least making it possible to recruit them. So I went from tolerating them to embracing them as fellow hobbyists.
I might not play CCGs or LARP, but they are gamers just like me.


Feel free to criticize versions of the game that aren't "the one true way" (edition wars are fun)!

No they aren't.
They are just as stupid and useless as setting wars, something I also abandoned.


Ever change your mind?

See above.
I gave up setting wars when watching people praise a particular piece of edition war drivel yet again (GH vs FR) and decided to give it a partial fisking.
Half of the points contradicted the other half, with all of them being simply wrong. And by "wrong" I mean "completely ignoring actual products available and the actual content within those products", including elements that were highlighted by the internal contradictions that were simply ignored.
I realized I had no time for such silliness. I like a particular setting. If you don't, oh well. It in no way takes anything away from my game for you to play something different. If the company chooses to put out setting product for you to buy but not me, it just saves me money.

I've just gotten well beyond the point where differences in form of gaming, version of a particular game, or setting within a game is something I need to get upset over.
I'll happily discuss the differences and my preferences, but taunting someone for gaming differently than me is not something I need to waste time on.

BayardSPSR
2016-04-06, 09:09 PM
5th though? I'm just not seeing the draw to it when compared to previous editions: if i wanted low-power and lethality, i have 2nd. if i wanted raw customization & options, i'll go with 3rd/pf. if i wanted a game that focused on action & adventuring and ease of GMing, i'd pick 4th.

yet while 5th ed isn't doing anything particularly offensive to my tastes, and the other editions mentioned all have a few thing that manage to get my goat, esp. 3rd ed, and i admit to not having the experience with 5th as i do with 2nd, 3rd or 4th, but i just don't feel anything for the game.

those other 3 editions all had something to grab me and still do to an extent despite (or in spite of) their flaws, but 5th ed is failing to draw me in... it's a very safe, almost vanilla edition, compared to what came before it and it's particular mix of gaming elements doesn't do much for me over what i already own.

it's not that i find 5th ed bad or offensive, just terribly bland for my taste.

I haven't played it "properly," but I participated in the playtesting and in the discussion of the playtesting, and if I remember correctly that's the intention of 5e's design: to hit the median of all the other editions, without really standing out from them. I was critical of that objective at the time of the playtest, but now that it's out I'm glad that the designers achieved their goal and that people who like that goal seem to appreciate the game.


"So . . . CCGs?"
"Yeah, they sell really well."
"Well enough they pay the bills while that other stuff just takes up space."
"Yup."
"Thought so."
And with that I stopped hating on the weirdo CCGers and LARPers and just accepted their presence as essential to keeping the FLGS open.

RPGs do seem like an absolutely terrible way to make money - one book to let an arbitrary number of people play forever, even before you account for PDFs, SRDs, and homebrewing... I'm glad it's cheap, as a consumer, but I do pity the people trying to live off it.

2D8HP
2016-04-07, 07:01 AM
Since it now seems to match this thread, from a different thread-

From the 1977 Holmes "Basic" rules, I miss:
Being able to know all the rules. How enchanting the box illustration looked. How quickly characters could be created.
From the 1974 to 1977 OD&D rules and supplements I miss:
The charm of a creation of "amateurs" (done for love), not "professionals" (done for money). "Guidelines" rather than "rules" (5e kind of brings this back).
From 1e AD&D I miss:
The authorial voice. How completely awesome 1e Rangers were!
That the characters stayed human scale longer (not quickly becoming comic book style superheroes). How "Appendix N" and "Deities and Demigods" inspired my reading.
What I don't miss about 1970's D&D:
How hard it was to create and get a character to survive more than a few sessions (but man was it gratifying when they did!).
How feeble magic users were at first level (in retrospect we should have just started classes at different levels, but that seemed like "cheating").
How much magic users overshadowed the other classes at high levels (in retrospect just tweak the level advancement, and give latter edition like benefits to the other classes). That I was never able to roll ability scores high enough to create a Ranger (and get 2D8 hit points at first level)!
From 1985's "Unearthed Arcana" I miss:
The initial excitement of the "Barbarian" and "Cavalier" classes.
I don't miss:
What an unbalanced rule changing mess it made of the game (I later skipped 2e thinking it would be more of the same, also the artwork turned me off, just say no to helmet horns!).
3e, what I miss:
The initial excitement of the diversity of characters that could be created. That they brought back the Greyhawk setting! That more classes were viable and could survive first level!
What I don't miss about 3e:
The oversized mess it became (just say no to infinite "feats" and "prestige classes)! How quickly 3.5 and 4e replaced it (no more than one edition per decade please)! How quickly the characters became unhumanly "epic".
Two weapon wielding Rangers, that's not Aragorn!
What I like abou 5e:
Not as bloated as 3e yet, but it retains much that I liked about it.
What I may not like:
It seems like PC's get too powerful and pile on extra abilities, too fast,
All that said, if the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!

JAL_1138
2016-04-07, 08:24 AM
(The following is purely personal opinion and not intended to spawn any edition-warring over which is "objectively better" or any such nonsense. The very things I hated about one edition might be the things someone else didn't mind or even loved to pieces, and vice-versa, and neither one is wrong.)

Never played OD&D, Holmes Basic, B/X, BECMI, or RC, though I've played a couple B/X and BECMI modules with 2e classes and rules. What little I've read of B/X and BECMI look like there's a lot I'd like and some I'd dislike, though. I can't properly comment on them; I didn't know much of anything of them beyond that they existed until I got copies of HB, B/X, and BECMI recently. Never made fun of people playing them largely because I didn't know anyone who did (and certainly wouldn't now, because they look nifty and I'd like to try them).

Never made fun of the 1e crowd either, exactly, it was just too clunky for me to wrap my head around. Trying to play it "by the book" (a'la ADDICT) makes my eyes cross--but I liked a lot of the material besides the combat rules, like the few setting box sets it had and the modules, and played them with 2e combat rules (which, believe it or not, were massively streamlined in comparison. Yes, even in spite of THAC0, which (along with modern roll+bonus, too) is harder to use in some ways than to-hit tables).

Started in 2e (with a fair bit of 1e non-rules material thrown in) and loved the heck out of it. It wasn't perfect (and for all the slew of amazingly awesome setting material it had, messed up Greyhawk with the From The Ashes box set and the Vecna modules), but it was awesomely fun.

Didn't like Players' Options rules for character building or combat (although the crit tables were nifty) for 2e, though; they were overcomplicated, frequently broken, slow, fiddly, and felt like a different game entirely.

Didn't like 3e; it felt like they took everything I didn't like in Players' Options and built the game out of those, then went further and wrecked what little balance TSR-era D&D had with the boost to casters, made character creation overcomplicated and full of trap options (and into something that didn't "feel" like the D&D I liked, with the changes to multiclassing, explosion of classes, templates, feats, etc.), then made monsters extra-complicated and prep extremely time-consuming to boot.

4e was unrecognizeable as D&D to me; as far as I was concerned it was another game with D&D names tacked on, with padded-sumo gameplay that took ages for a single fight, dissociated mechanics, way too much emphasis on positioning and repositioning (often in nonsensical or too-artificial-seeming ways), a treadmill effect with items (3e had the same problem up 'till the casters got good at crafting, then it just broke), utility magic (via rituals) that was too costly to be useful nine times out of ten, and dozens of samey-feeling options thst led to option-paralysis, many of which were effectively trap options (in the sense that there was likely another power that did nearly the same thing but a little bit better, rather than the 3e trap options where your character didn't work worth a dang anymore compared to others of the same level).

Then 5e came along, threw out most of the things I had an issue with in 3rd and 4th, took the few good bits of them, and tried to rebuild AD&D out of that, to a pleasantly-surprising degree of success. It's overcomplicated in some places and overly-streamlined in others, but works much better than I initially thought it would. Still not as good as 2e--and I wish it were easily cross-compatible with TSR-era material, like 2e was compatible with 1e and BECMI/RC with practically no effort--but with some advantages over 2e in terms of newbie-friendliness, class balance, ease of use, and DM advice for balancing encounters. Easily my second-favorite and one I'm enjoying quite a bit, even if I needle the "dagnabbed whippersnappers" from time to time about how "back in MY day" a first-level wizard had 1d4 HP that you had to roll for and one spell per day with no cantrips.

Psyren
2016-04-07, 09:50 AM
Every edition older than the one you play is a clumsy artifact that only grognards play because they can't handle change.

Every edition newer than the one you play is a dumbed-down video game on paper that only entitled kiddies play because they can't handle Real RoleplayingTM.

That should just about cover things.


Not really. For instance, I quite like Fudge, and am pretty neutral on Fate (which is a spinoff, not a successor) from a game design perspective. That Fate took a whole bunch of mechanics from Fudge and doesn't credit Fudge at all anymore? That gets on my nerves a bit.

Or, take Shadowrun. I don't particularly like SR 5, but none of the criticisms fit the dumbed down video game on paper that only entitled kiddies play model.

Also, most folks would agree that 4e -> 5e meant being less video-gamey, not more.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-07, 10:01 AM
However, the current stance of WotC seem to be that keeping it simple will help them attract more players, but I'm not sure... If older gamers stick to 2nd and 3.5 editions and don't introduce the new players to the game, who will do it?

Eh, RPGs will always be hard to get into (I've previously had to supply dice for an entire group, due to nobody being willing to spend £5, not fun, and I'm certain I used to have another 5 d10s), especially as lots of people are so unwilling to be the GM (which is the main problem).

Not introducing new players to D&D I can live with. The only editions I actually like anymore are 4e and 2e, and those have their own challenges. I'm apathetic towards the rest.


Then 5e came along, threw out most of the things I had an issue with in 3rd and 4th, took the few good bits of them, and tried to rebuild AD&D out of that, to a pleasantly-surprising degree of success. It's overcomplicated in some places and overly-streamlined in others, but works much better than I initially thought it would. Still not as good as 2e--and I wish it were easily cross-compatible with TSR-era material, like 2e was compatible with 1e and BECMI/RC with practically no effort--but with some advantages over 2e in terms of newbie-friendliness, class balance, ease of use, and DM advice for balancing encounters. Easily my second-favorite and one I'm enjoying quite a bit, even if I needle the "dagnabbed whippersnappers" from time to time about how "back in MY day" a first-level wizard had 1d4 HP that you had to roll for and one spell per day with no cantrips.

You see, my problems with 5e mount up, going from barely there narrative mechanics, far too few rules in the rulebook, far too many prepackaged spells, far too many classes (what happened to the version where Sorcerer and Wizard were going to be Mage subclasses? That sounded great), a horrible skill system, and so on. Comparing the 5e player's handbook to the Fate Core System book I can see:

Both have roughly the same number of pages, although Fate uses a smaller size.
Fate feels like it uses better quality paper.
Fate cost less than two-thirds the price of the 5ePhB
Fate gives me a complete game in one tone, with GM advice in addition to player rules.
Fate includes narrative mechanics from step 1 of character creation, and they are actively influenced by the players instead of waiting for GM handouts.
Fate streamlines characters and removes the elements that would just be similar (such as gear)
Fate allows me to represent the difference between a wizard who has studied Arcana all his life, and a hedge mage who kinda knows how to distinguish spells.
Fate gives me advice on homebrewing for my game and encourages it (in the Skills section where it talks about making skill lists and stunts, to the extras section)
I actually just prefer Fate as a game, due to the mechanics encouraging player/GM cooperation.


I feel like Fate is just a better designed and fun game, especially for fantasy adventuring (although I'm not fond of dungeons, I want a plot). I know that many people do like 5e, and I'm not saying that they are wrong (my female half-orc swashbuckler Lore Bard in a silly hat is going to be played), but I just can't like it as a game (although I don't dislike it, I have an intense burning apathy).

2D8HP
2016-04-07, 10:18 AM
The following is purely personal opinion and not intended to spawn any edition-warring over which is "objectively better" or any such nonsense. The very things I hated about one edition might be the things someone else didn't mind or even loved to pieces, and vice-versa, and neither one is wrong.
Started in 2e, it was awesomely fun.
Then 5e came along. Easily my second-favorite and one I'm enjoying quite a bit, even if I needle the "dagnabbed whippersnappers" from time to time about how "back in MY day" a first-level wizard had 1d4 HP that you had to roll for and one spell per day with no cantrips.

JAL (and others),
I really like your post, it says it all (I shortened the quote a bit for length as I'm sure you can see). Your love for the game shines through, I skipped past 2e "back in the day" but I would love to pull up a seat at your table and try it out.
When I read of what people love about the editions I never played I get more eager to play them. Strangely peoples criticisms of other editions makes me want to play then to (a lot of what people say they don't like in some editions sound like what we wished for a little of back in the 1970's)!
My son recently turned the same age I was when I discovered D&D, and since 5e is what is in the stores now I got it for him (didn't work he prefers "Magic: The Gathering"). Had he had been born just a little earlier I would have gotten 4e instead.
Don't get me wrong, I think "edition wars" are great fun, and I will happily bad mouth what I perceive as an editions flaws (I also like political arguments as well). But if someone invites me to play that edition? Yes! I will gladly take a seat (DMing it, however is another story. It must be the "one true game")!
Don't get me started on "Katanas and Trenchcoats"!

digiman619
2016-04-07, 01:52 PM
Well, edition wars can be fun, but Spoony's (https://www.youtube.com/user/countermonkeybard/featured) EPIC two (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtaL5Bark54&list=PLtffrRBS4J2HE5I3cl75ncRlVlg-79nFP&index=42)-part (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaIdRMelb74&list=PLtffrRBS4J2HE5I3cl75ncRlVlg-79nFP&index=43) rant about how 5th Edition really turned me off of it. He complained the 5th wasn't 2nd Edition again like how he wanted, and how modern gamers were huge p*****s because of the lowered lethality of the game and how obviously better 2nd Edition was, but Pathfinder's his current fave (figure THAT out). Because having level 1 characters, even the martials, be at risk at being one-shotted even by low level enemies is clearly the better system. What's worse, he comes off as though it's OUR fault that 5th isn't the perfect system it deserves to be. I like Spoony, but that rant had me stop watching him for a few months.

oxybe
2016-04-07, 02:39 PM
spoony is an odd duck.

i like hearing him talk about his gamer stories (the shadowrun squirtgun wars is probably the funniest example of GM/Player arms race and it is something i can see happening in shadowrun) and the oddballs he's put up with, but we have such a difference in play & gming styles, i would never want to play with the guy in anything resembling a campaign.

Bohandas
2016-04-07, 02:57 PM
I've criticized people because hey did update. Does that count?[

JAL_1138
2016-04-07, 02:57 PM
JAL (and others),
I really like your post, it says it all (I shortened the quote a bit for length as I'm sure you can see). Your love for the game shines through, I skipped past 2e "back in the day" but I would love to pull up a seat at your table and try it out.
When I read of what people love about the editions I never played I get more eager to play them. Strangely peoples criticisms of other editions makes me want to play then to (a lot of what people say they don't like in some editions sound like what we wished for a little of back in the 1970's)!
My son recently turned the same age I was when I discovered D&D, and since 5e is what is in the stores now I got it for him (didn't work he prefers "Magic: The Gathering"). Had he had been born just a little earlier I would have gotten 4e instead.
Don't get me wrong, I think "edition wars" are great fun, and I will happily bad mouth what I perceive as an editions flaws (I also like political arguments as well). But if someone invites me to play that edition? Yes! I will gladly take a seat (DMing it, however is another story. It must be the "one true game")!
Don't get me started on "Katanas and Trenchcoats"!

Thanks!

Likewise, sometimes the criticisms are what pull me in. I heard complaints about 5th that it stripped out a lot of the granularity, power-level, and character-creation options of 3rd, and stripped out a lot of the tactical positioning and combat-role emphasis. These were things I didn't like, so the amount of rage over them that came up from really, really diehard fans of those editions got me a little more interested in it.

Complaining is an underrated and entirely-valid hobby in its own right, IMO, but it can get troublesome on forums. Thought I'd best post a disclaimer :smallsmile:

I'm likewise much more willing to jump in as a player than a DM. A game has to be low on prep time, something I already understand really well, and something I really enjoy as a system (not just because of a particular setting or adventure I had fun in, or because of good fluff, but mechanically) before I'll consider DMing it.

I've come to the conclusion I can't really evaluate something until I've actually played it for a few sessions--unless I can't figure out how to play it, or it doesn't have published bestiaries (I hate building monsters from scratch), or it has a crunch level that makes my eyes cross, at least. I didn't think I'd like 5e nearly as well as I do when I first read it.

2D8HP
2016-04-07, 09:02 PM
I actually just prefer Fate as a game, due to the mechanics encouraging player/GM cooperation.
I feel like Fate is just a better designed and fun game, especially for fantasy adventuring (although I'm not fond of dungeons, I want a plot). I know that many people do like 5e, and I'm not saying that they are wrong (my female half-orc swashbuckler Lore Bard in a silly hat is going to be played), but I just can't like it as a game (although I don't dislike it, I have an intense burning apathy).

Dagnabbit!
Now I want to try FATE (and FUDGE) as well!
(angry muttering while counting money in wallet follows)

JAL_1138
2016-04-07, 09:23 PM
Player/DM cooperation? What sort of newfangled hippie nonsense is that? The DM's job is to try to kill the players fair and square (i.e., not using DM omnipotence to guarantee they'll die), and the players' job is to both try to live and annoy the living heck out of the DM with shenanigans. Dagnabbed whippersnappers! Back in MY day...

Knaight
2016-04-07, 09:41 PM
Dagnabbit!
Now I want to try FATE (and FUDGE) as well!
(angry muttering while counting money in wallet follows)

So, are you counting the money for the free Fudge .pdf, or for the free Fate .pdf? There are commercial implementations of both that reduce the GM initial workload a bit, but both have free core mechanics.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-08, 03:21 AM
Dagnabbit!
Now I want to try FATE (and FUDGE) as well!
(angry muttering while counting money in wallet follows)

I personally haven't located the free FUDGE pdf yet (any links would be appreciated), but the Fate pdf is free and accessible through this hastily bashed together link (http://www.evilhat.com/home/fate-core-downloads/).


Player/DM cooperation? What sort of newfangled hippie nonsense is that? The DM's job is to try to kill the players fair and square (i.e., not using DM omnipotence to guarantee they'll die), and the players' job is to both try to live and annoy the living heck out of the DM with shenanigans. Dagnabbed whippersnappers! Back in MY day...

To be fair, that is an acceptable way to play, and as a whippersnapper I want to try playing like that, it's everyone else in the group that balks (well, okay, apart from the other writer).

Until then, I'm going to play Fate as it's mechanics and advice tell the GM to cooperate with the players while in D&D5e I see that players have to cooperate with the DM, but nothing stating that the other way round has to be in effect. Or I still feel like 5e is encouraging of 'DM as god', where the DM gets the last say, while Fate asks that everybody be happy and allows players to influence the story through stuff on other people's character sheets (which 5e would have a fit at, especially if it was an NPC's sheet).

Now Fate isn't for anyone, but I just find that it has a tighter and more complete set of mechanics than 5e (which it fully recommends butchering and ignoring if some other consequence would be fun, while failing a knowledge check in 5e isn't fun or useful at all).

How is failing a knowledge roll fun in Fate? Complications, and the ability to skip it entirely. For the latter, having a relevant aspect should just let you know it, for the latter, a failed Lore roll can mean anything from you're still researching as the city is attacked, and you finally find it, or the library closes and you only have 2 hours left to enact your plan.

JAL_1138
2016-04-08, 07:26 AM
I personally haven't located the free FUDGE pdf yet (any links would be appreciated), but the Fate pdf is free and accessible through this hastily bashed together link (http://www.evilhat.com/home/fate-core-downloads/).



To be fair, that is an acceptable way to play, and as a whippersnapper I want to try playing like that, it's everyone else in the group that balks (well, okay, apart from the other writer).

Until then, I'm going to play Fate as it's mechanics and advice tell the GM to cooperate with the players while in D&D5e I see that players have to cooperate with the DM, but nothing stating that the other way round has to be in effect. Or I still feel like 5e is encouraging of 'DM as god', where the DM gets the last say, while Fate asks that everybody be happy and allows players to influence the story through stuff on other people's character sheets (which 5e would have a fit at, especially if it was an NPC's sheet).

Now Fate isn't for anyone, but I just find that it has a tighter and more complete set of mechanics than 5e (which it fully recommends butchering and ignoring if some other consequence would be fun, while failing a knowledge check in 5e isn't fun or useful at all).

How is failing a knowledge roll fun in Fate? Complications, and the ability to skip it entirely. For the latter, having a relevant aspect should just let you know it, for the latter, a failed Lore roll can mean anything from you're still researching as the city is attacked, and you finally find it, or the library closes and you only have 2 hours left to enact your plan.

A) Was just being silly, hence the bluetext.

B)That said, 5e actually has rules for Plot Points on P. 267 of the DMG. There are three variants for them. Option 1, "What a Twist!", allows players to spend a plot point to introduce a new element that must be taken as true. Examples given are a secret door, an NPC, or discovering that the monster is a baleful-polymorphed long-lost ally. Option 2, "The Plot Thickens," adds on to Option 1, and requires the player sitting to the right of anyone spending a Plot Point to add a complication to the plot point, e.g., opening the secret door triggers a teleport trap. Option 3, "The Gods Must Be Crazy," allows any player spending a Plot Point to take the reins as DM until someone else spends a Plot Point to replace them.

EDIT: There are also skill check variants that allow a failed roll to result in a success-with-a-complication, or have degrees of success and failures instead of just pass/fail. These can further be combined with Hero Points that function like Bardic Inspiration (free d6 to the roll) or allow an autosuccess on a death save, and the Plot Points mentioned above.

ALSO EDIT: There's also a section on ignoring the dice and focusing instead on roleplayed plans and solutions, or mixing that approach with dice rolls as the situation calls for it. That section also tells DMs that both the dice and the rules are tools to keep the action moving, rather than absolute-requirements-or-else-you're-doing-it-wrong, tools which can be used or disregarded as everyone's fun requires.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-08, 09:21 AM
A) Was just being silly, hence the bluetext.

Yeah, I know, I just want to play in that way.


B)That said, 5e actually has rules for Plot Points on P. 267 of the DMG. There are three variants for them. Option 1, "What a Twist!", allows players to spend a plot point to introduce a new element that must be taken as true. Examples given are a secret door, an NPC, or discovering that the monster is a baleful-polymorphed long-lost ally. Option 2, "The Plot Thickens," adds on to Option 1, and requires the player sitting to the right of anyone spending a Plot Point to add a complication to the plot point, e.g., opening the secret door triggers a teleport trap. Option 3, "The Gods Must Be Crazy," allows any player spending a Plot Point to take the reins as DM until someone else spends a Plot Point to replace them.

Why aren't these in the PhB? It sounds like a great idea, and I literally cannot afford to buy another 2 books to get the complete game (and, again, I'm the only group member to have bought the PhB). I don't like option 3, because it feels wrong to allow a player to spend a point to take on all the extra work. As it is, they sound a lot like 'Fate Points, but as an add on' (whereas in Fate, the point economy is the most important part of the game).


EDIT: There are also skill check variants that allow a failed roll to result in a success-with-a-complication, or have degrees of success and failures instead of just pass/fail. These can further be combined with Hero Points that function like Bardic Inspiration (free d6 to the roll) or allow an autosuccess on a death save, and the Plot Points mentioned above.

You see, I see these as being what the default rules should be. 'You fail' is just boring, and leads to the 'me too' aspect where the party just tries again and again until they succeed (although occasionally it can be fun to have everyone roll a knowledge skill and get slightly different information). Again, these feel like a tacked-on version of Fate Points.


ALSO EDIT: There's also a section on ignoring the dice and focusing instead on roleplayed plans and solutions, or mixing that approach with dice rolls as the situation calls for it. That section also tells DMs that both the dice and the rules are tools to keep the action moving, rather than absolute-requirements-or-else-you're-doing-it-wrong, tools which can be used or disregarded as everyone's fun requires.

Not bad, it's just that I look at 5e and it seems like a mess trying to be rules-light. Instead of giving me a streamlined set of rules I can apply to any situation ('is it Overcome, Create an Advantage, Attack, or Defend?') it gives me a bunch of rules that apply to some situations and then says 'rules options in another book, along with stuff that you should be able to do with the level of detail in here'. It just feels like a letdown when I can pay less and get a more complete game.

2D8HP
2016-04-08, 10:02 AM
Player/DM cooperation? What kind of newfangled hippie nonsense is that? The DM's job is to try to kill the players fair and square (i.e., not using DM omnipotence to guarantee they'll die), and the players' job is to both try to live and annoy the living heck out of the DM with shenanigans. Dagnabbed whippersnappers! Back in MY day...

OMG! This is perfect! If I can ever figure out that fancified book learnin' required to signature something I will!

Get those damn d10s off my lawn!

JAL_1138
2016-04-08, 11:54 AM
Yeah, I know, I just want to play in that way.


There's no school like the old school. Although I may be a bit more masochistic than most; playing through the Tomb of Horrors was one of the most fun game-sessions I've had.



Why aren't these in the PhB? It sounds like a great idea, and I literally cannot afford to buy another 2 books to get the complete game (and, again, I'm the only group member to have bought the PhB). I don't like option 3, because it feels wrong to allow a player to spend a point to take on all the extra work. As it is, they sound a lot like 'Fate Points, but as an add on' (whereas in Fate, the point economy is the most important part of the game).



Option 3 is pretty good if you've got a bunch of improv-heavy DMs who have a bit of burnout running a normal campaign, though. Also possibly a good way to avoid burnout in the first place, by sharing the workload.

But yeah, they're a tacked on version of Fate Points. D&D typically doesn't use them, and many D&D players don't want them, hence why they're not in core. I'm not a huge fan of the fate points / plot points concept, personally (although it wouldn't necessarily kill the game for me).



You see, I see these as being what the default rules should be. 'You fail' is just boring, and leads to the 'me too' aspect where the party just tries again and again until they succeed (although occasionally it can be fun to have everyone roll a knowledge skill and get slightly different information). Again, these feel like a tacked-on version of Fate Points.

Conversely, I tend to think "you fail" to be an important part of the experience--especially in combat, but in skills as well. Sometimes you can't pick the lock, you can't persuade someone, you can't find the tracks, you can't move silently. Always succeeding (albeit with complications) is in some ways more boring to me; it's a little like playing with godmode on. Success or failure never hinges on a roll, just whether you succeed clean or succeed with something bad happening as well. Except in rare circumstances (e.g., Planescape Torment's lack of permanent death for the Nameless One), I need to be able to fail outright for success to feel meaningful (and you can fail the game in PS:T too, just not die). Failure itself isn't boring; failure that stalls the game is boring. That's an adventure-design problem, not a rules problem, though. There shouldn't be just one way to do something, most of the time--can't pick the lock you need to open for the game to continue? The Fighter has an axe. Can't find the enemy's tracks? Investigate rumors and piece together that travelers tend to disappear on the north road, between the town of Karnath and the Forest Crossroads, so maybe you should search there (cue the hex-crawl), or set up an ambush for them if they attack again. Can't open the riddle-door that guards the treasure vault? Continue on through the dungeon by another route to complete your other objectives (maybe the big bad has a key, or maybe you just don't get the treasure). Can't persuade the NPC? Find another way around the problem (for instance, the aforementioned fighter with an axe--roll initiative!).



Not bad, it's just that I look at 5e and it seems like a mess trying to be rules-light. Instead of giving me a streamlined set of rules I can apply to any situation ('is it Overcome, Create an Advantage, Attack, or Defend?') it gives me a bunch of rules that apply to some situations and then says 'rules options in another book, along with stuff that you should be able to do with the level of detail in here'. It just feels like a letdown when I can pay less and get a more complete game.

I never got the rules-light vibe from 5th. For rules-lite, I'd go with something like Here's Some F***in' D&D, and either use material from Swords and Wizardry or one of the comments on the main Reddit post (giving a size+role template that would probably work fine, in about a paragraph of space) for the Monster Manual. The "PHB" of HSFD&D is two pages. And manages to include eight races, thirteen classes, and three spell lists of twenty spells each, with all the spell descriptions. Highly recommend looking it up sometime (replace the asterisks with the rest of the F-word when googling).
5th struck me as trying to be rules-medium, trying to hit the same sweet spot that older editions hit between options, detail, simplicity, and speed.
It's expensive, though, granted. Although the SRD helps out in that department a bit.

Meanwhile, I always felt like Fate was simultaneously too complex but under-defined. There's a lot of information and (relatively) a lot of rules regarding things like Stunts, Aspects, and suchlike in Fate Core, but relatively little on which ones you can use or what's a valid one. Fate Accelerated is even more vague. I like things to be more concrete, I guess, even in rules-lite games. But, since I haven't played it, I'd need to get into a game and get a better idea of how it works in practice before I can comment much more than that--it easily might surprise me like 5e did. When I read 5th, I wasn't hugely impressed. It looked kind of meh, a little disappointing. Improvement over 3e and 4e, sure, but not really good, just more tolerable than the ones I hated. I didn't think I'd like it as much as I do until I played it and got the hang of it.

JAL_1138
2016-04-08, 12:07 PM
OMG! This is perfect! If I can ever figure out that fancified book learnin' required to signature something I will!

Feel free! :smallbiggrin:

To sig a quote, hit "reply with quote" and Ctrl+x the quote. Then go to "Settings" at the top of the page (not "My Profile" or the username). On the sidebar called "My Settings," there's a link called "Edit Signature," just below "Edit Profile." Click that and Ctrl+v the quote into the message box. Click "save signature" below the box and you're good to go.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-08, 12:49 PM
There's no school like the old school. Although I may be a bit more masochistic than most; playing through the Tomb of Horrors was one of the most fun game-sessions I've had.

The other fun one I've had: in one of my groups (my 'holiday group' to be specific) there was a guy who thought the best part of roleplaying was combat, and that it was the only important part. I discovered that our 'old school' player ran a great game of Call of Cthulhu, and wanted to play it because it sounds like a load of fun, trying to survive and acting like paranoid freaks. I had a plan for a scholar with no combat skills (but maybe demolitions), and at least one other person in the group likes Call of Cthulhu. The combat-guy basically said that it wouldn't happen as long as he was there.

Thankfully he's left and the group as a whole has moved more towards roleplay, and so maybe I'll bring it up at the new 'what game are we playing' sessions (which might be sooner than we think, if the GM doesn't stop cancelling by the time exams end).


Option 3 is pretty good if you've got a bunch of improv-heavy DMs who have a bit of burnout running a normal campaign, though. Also possibly a good way to avoid burnout in the first place, by sharing the workload.

But yeah, they're a tacked on version of Fate Points. D&D typically doesn't use them, and many D&D players don't want them, hence why they're not in core. I'm not a huge fan of the fate points / plot points concept, personally (although it wouldn't necessarily kill the game for me).

You see, to me, something like Fate Points should be a core aspect of the game, or left out entirely. Sometimes I want a more classical game experience, and so will run GURPS or Anima, if I want something more narrative I'll break out Fate (which is my favourite rules system, despite not using it much). I don't take GURPS and try to slot in character classes.


Conversely, I tend to think "you fail" to be an important part of the experience--especially in combat, but in skills as well. Sometimes you can't pick the lock, you can't persuade someone, you can't find the tracks, you can't move silently. Always succeeding (albeit with complications) is in some ways more boring to me; it's a little like playing with godmode on. Success or failure never hinges on a roll, just whether you succeed clean or succeed with something bad happening as well. Except in rare circumstances (e.g., Planescape Torment's lack of permanent death for the Nameless One), I need to be able to fail outright for success to feel meaningful (and you can fail the game in PS:T too, just not die). Failure itself isn't boring; failure that stalls the game is boring. That's an adventure-design problem, not a rules problem, though. There shouldn't be just one way to do something, most of the time--can't pick the lock you need to open for the game to continue? The Fighter has an axe. Can't find the enemy's tracks? Investigate rumors and piece together that travelers tend to disappear on the north road, between the town of Karnath and the Forest Crossroads, so maybe you should search there (cue the hex-crawl), or set up an ambush for them if they attack again. Can't open the riddle-door that guards the treasure vault? Continue on through the dungeon by another route to complete your other objectives (maybe the big bad has a key, or maybe you just don't get the treasure). Can't persuade the NPC? Find another way around the problem (for instance, the aforementioned fighter with an axe--roll initiative!).

To me 'you outright fail' is the worst possible outcome. I prefer the ladder of:

You succeed and look cool doing it.
You succeed normally.
You succeed and something interesting happens.
You fail and something interesting happens, to stop you trying again.


Essentially, I don't mind outright failure being a possibility, but I prefer to think of skill checks as 'did something go wrong'. So on a stealth check in Fate the result could be 'you succeed and find out something important by accident', 'you succeed and do what you were supposed to', 'you do what you were supposed to but get caught on the way out', or 'a dragon attacks your base, you are called back, and your phone alerts the guards'. Climbing could be 'you get to the top like an expert', 'you get to the top', 'you get to the top but sprained your ankle', or 'you accidentally broke the party's last rope'. Note that in the last one it's specifically worded so that you can't try the same approach again, it should never be 'you fail', but the worse your failure is the earlier the complication happens.


I never got the rules-light vibe from 5th. For rules-lite, I'd go with something like Here's Some F***in' D&D, and either use material from Swords and Wizardry or one of the comments on the main Reddit post (giving a size+role template that would probably work fine, in about a paragraph of space) for the Monster Manual. The "PHB" of HSFD&D is two pages. And manages to include eight races, thirteen classes, and three spell lists of twenty spells each, with all the spell descriptions. Highly recommend looking it up sometime (replace the asterisks with the rest of the F-word when googling).

I've seen 5e described as rules-light, although I've never believed it. I don't even really consider Fate to be rules light (lighter than D&D, but still rules-medium). I've looked at HSFD&D, and I like the idea, but personally need more of a framework.


5th struck me as trying to be rules-medium, trying to hit the same sweet spot that older editions hit between options, detail, simplicity, and speed.
It's expensive, though, granted. Although the SRD helps out in that department a bit.

Part of the problem is, when compared to other 'free games' D&D took a long time to release a good part of it's material, and even that was mainly to help homebrewing. I don't mind the basic rules and SRD, but when games like Eclipse Phase and Fate are available in the entirety of their basic rules without paying a penny (heck, all of EP is available for the low low price of £0.00, which helps as I've lent the book to a friend).


Meanwhile, I always felt like Fate was simultaneously too complex but under-defined. There's a lot of information and (relatively) a lot of rules regarding things like Stunts, Aspects, and suchlike in Fate Core, but relatively little on which ones you can use or what's a valid one. Fate Accelerated is even more vague. I like things to be more concrete, I guess, even in rules-lite games. But, since I haven't played it, I'd need to get into a game and get a better idea of how it works in practice before I can comment much more than that--it easily might surprise me like 5e did. When I read 5th, I wasn't hugely impressed. It looked kind of meh, a little disappointing. Improvement over 3e and 4e, sure, but not really good, just more tolerable than the ones I hated. I didn't think I'd like it as much as I do until I played it and got the hang of it.

Fate is more generic than under-defined. The thing with Stunts and Aspects is that they should be balanced based on your group, which the Fate System Toolkit makes more explicit. Generally a Stunt should improve a skill in a certain situation, while an Aspect should be specific and both positive and negative. I don't like FAE though.

The thing with Fate is that character creation is effectively a dialog between players and the GM to get something that's balanced. There is guidance on what's balanced for a stunt though, even if more was put into Extras. I understand why Fate might not be for everyone, especially if it's to do with a lack of guidelines.

JoeJ
2016-04-08, 01:01 PM
OMG! This is perfect! If I can ever figure out that fancified book learnin' required to signature something I will!

Go right ahead. As JAL_1138 indicated, it's in your settings tab.

Arbane
2016-04-08, 03:52 PM
Every edition older than the one you play is a clumsy artifact that only grognards play because they can't handle change.

Every edition newer than the one you play is a dumbed-down video game on paper that only entitled kiddies play because they can't handle Real RoleplayingTM.

That should just about cover things.

Don't forget that other RPGs are all ridiculous Magical Tea Party storytelling garbage with obviously broken rules played by mental defectives.

(I've been reading Grognards.txt. It does not make me a better person.)

2D8HP
2016-04-08, 06:17 PM
Don't forget that other RPGs are all ridiculous Magical Tea Party storytelling garbage with obviously broken rules played by mental defectives.

(I've been reading Grognards.txt. It does not make me a better person.)
Hey! I played multiple sessions of "Katanas and Trenchcoats"...whoops I mean Vampir..er.."Undead: The Dream of the 90's", and I can only remember a few "Magical Tea Parties!" (sadly I probably should cop to "mental defective"), I feel the need to go brood tragically (but still with Awesomocity)!

JAL_1138
2016-04-08, 06:38 PM
Now, now. Any grognard will tell you that AD&D had the "Magical Tea Party." It was in the Dungeonland module. The Mad Hatter, the March Hare, and others tried to kill you at it.

ApocalypseSquid
2016-04-08, 07:46 PM
Funnily enough, I discovered D&D during 4e. I played that for a while, and then regressed to 3e because of a players suggestion.

I found that a lot more fun and diverse (4e just feels "flat" to me), and then I went back to 2e because of a truly grognard-y dm

And I found that of the three, I liked 2e best.

So get off of my edition! It's older than I am, but it's stood the test of time!

Brookshw
2016-04-08, 07:58 PM
Why do these danged games need so many stats? D&D 6? WW 9? Shadowrun's...stuff? Back in Tri stat we only had 3 and it was great, super flexible, could adapt for anything, the rest just had to go and overcomplicate everything :smallmad:

oxybe
2016-04-08, 07:59 PM
oh gods.... grognards.txt

that is a delicious blast from the past. i was there man... i was on the WotC forums during both the 3>4 and 4>5 transition. the 4>5 one is the one that made me go "you know what? **** this level of noise. i could be having fun instead of doing this". so i left and never looked back.

if you want to see Ye Olde Editione Warringe, when we transitioned from 2nd to 3rd, go readup on gamegrene, in particular nodes 34 & 20. it's a toxic reminder that, after reading the comments, will have you go "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" while facepalming.

hard.

TheIronGolem
2016-04-08, 08:28 PM
Don't forget that other RPGs are all ridiculous Magical Tea Party storytelling garbage with obviously broken rules played by mental defectives.

(I've been reading Grognards.txt. It does not make me a better person.)

Well, that's only for systems that are more rules-light than the one you play. Systems that are more rules-heavy than yours are not real RPG's, they're simulators for obsessive nerds who'd rather use spreadsheets than roleplay.

Telwar
2016-04-08, 08:36 PM
One of the most horrifying things I've experienced in the last few years is, having made fun of grognards all my gaming life, realizing I was now one.

(mutters about people being on his lawn)

JAL_1138
2016-04-08, 10:16 PM
I mentioned this in one of the "Things I May No Longer Do While Playing" threads, and while I'm not trying to kick off an actual argument on this thread, I might as well repeat it here, (since it's tangentially relevant):

I do like to troll people that 3.X and 4th weren't real, much the same way as the alleged but definitely nonexistent "prequels" in Star Wars. So WotC bought TSR and shuttered D&D and AD&D for over a decade. They did release one RPG product, a generic game engine designed to compete with GURPS, and were hoping to get the license to Star Wars for it, but Star Wars never went anywhere after West End lost the license. After Paizo's RPG based on WotC's generic engine hit big, they decided D&D needed to make a comeback, but needed a new system to differentiate it. When they finally relaunched the product line, 14 years after shelving it, they decided to unify the Basic and Advanced lines and adopt a new numbering system to reflect the unification:

OD&D--1
Holmes Basic--1.5
1e--2
Unearthed Arcana--2.5
B/X--3.0
BECMI--3.5
RC--3.75
2e--4.0
Players' Options: 4.5
And finally, the relaunch: 5e.

Of course, playing the fool and outright denying the existence of 3.X and 4th, especially when someone breaks out the books, is always fun. E.g., for 3rd, something like "Oh, yeah, I heard about this one! This is that fanmade thing where somebody did a version on the generic system, d20 I think it was called? They really shelled out to get this printed in hardback. Probably got sued into oblivion for it, though--I bet this book has some real value on the collector's market; there can't be many out there."

BayardSPSR
2016-04-08, 11:30 PM
the 4>5 one is the one that made me go "you know what? **** this level of noise. i could be having fun instead of doing this". so i left and never looked back.

I participated in that particular level of noise, which in hindsight was silly because I dislike D&D as a franchise, in general.

Then 5e actually came out, and every person I've met in person who has played it has liked it, which made me realize a) I was wrong and b) I should be more aware of the possibility that I'm wrong in future.

Gamgee
2016-04-09, 04:35 AM
Hmmm..... no honestly. I'm usually on the cutting edge of RPG's if that makes any sense. I have a large plethora of RPG's many I haven't run and never will but like to read. So I have a vast collection to choose from. Currently running a Numenera game and jumping back to Dark Heresy 2.0. As a matter of fact anything pre Black Crusade 40k wise is so imbalanced I can't ever see myself going back. I also can't host DnD anymore. While 5th was greatest of the DnD systems it's ultimately too tedious of a system with all the spells, splat books, and what feels like hundreds of different spells. It's just way too much for me to give a toss about.

Warhammer 40k is a dense system but it doesn't have all that wide a range of powers to have to remember ect. It also helps people hate Psykers so magic isn't exactly common in the first place.

Numenera is a light easy to use system and plays into my excellent improvisation skills to the point its practically an open world adventure game.

Star Wars Saga is I feel the pinnacle of d20 systems and the one I have hosted for many years before Numenera. Actually... now that I think of it. I despise the new FFG Star Wars and tried to update to it. It's rules light in a bad way. Great production values and art but the rules... my god the rules are so open to abuse by my players. It doesn't help they all just made the enemies drop their weapons. Nope nope I need some sane rules. They also removed the option to play... everything except their narrow definition of what Star Wars is to Disney and them. I want to play in KOTOR, TOR, Clone Wars, and all these other timelines and even infinities. Hell no to all that crap is FFG's opinion. They won't ever do anything but original trilogy and maybe the new one. It must be popular among the town since my FLGS keeps most of the popular books for it stocked but dear god I will never accept that abomination of a game. Every single player who has played it from my group has hated it.

JAL_1138
2016-04-09, 05:47 AM
WEG D6 was a great Star Wars system. Simple enough, fast character generation, cinematic and dangerous combat, and had splatbooks good enough that Lucasarts sent a bunch of them to Timothy Zahn for use in writing the Thrawn trilogy--so many nifty details for the galaxy without becoming a crunchfest or bloating the system. I never made it as far as Saga. I played the original d20 version (not sure if it was the original original or Revised original though) and was sorely disappointed, and kind of gave up after that. Starting to think I need to go back and give Saga a look; so many people on the boards here speak so well of it. What did it improve over and/or do differently than d20 #1?

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-09, 06:25 AM
Star Wars Saga is I feel the pinnacle of d20 systems and the one I have hosted for many years before Numenera. Actually... now that I think of it. I despise the new FFG Star Wars and tried to update to it. It's rules light in a bad way. Great production values and art but the rules... my god the rules are so open to abuse by my players. It doesn't help they all just made the enemies drop their weapons. Nope nope I need some sane rules. They also removed the option to play... everything except their narrow definition of what Star Wars is to Disney and them. I want to play in KOTOR, TOR, Clone Wars, and all these other timelines and even infinities. Hell no to all that crap is FFG's opinion. They won't ever do anything but original trilogy and maybe the new one. It must be popular among the town since my FLGS keeps most of the popular books for it stocked but dear god I will never accept that abomination of a game. Every single player who has played it from my group has hated it.

You see, I don't like the FFG Star Wars games for a different reason. Character Creation feels a bit dull to me, with so much hanging on your race and Attributes being the most important part to raise, and the fact that I never quite got the Force Points thing (the best I can do is 'kind of like Fate Points, but switch between player and GM'). If I was going to try Star Wars I'd probably either go back to the d6 version and give that a go (why are half the games I'm interested in older than me?), or just hack something together in Fate. Oh, I also hate how the FFG version sticks to the Original Trilogy, because I'm young enough to have grown up with the Prequel Trilogy and really like parts of it (one of the characters I want to play is a Gungan Jedi Knight focused on Lightsaber combat and Force Sensing). I've gotten older and seen how the PT is bad, but I still like the films, partially because I got to like Obi-Wan so much, and I find setting things in the Original Trilogy era again to be dull. I don't have the same problems with d6 because it comes from an era where the OT was the only Star Wars films, but I am desperate hoping for a 'Downfall of the Republic' game before I even think about buying those money-grab dice (another thing that annoys me, I only bought Fate Dice because Fate impressed me a lot, while FFGSW does not and would require me to spend a lot more if I wanted to run it).

Cluedrew
2016-04-09, 07:17 AM
"Oh, yeah, I heard about this one! This is that fanmade thing where somebody did a version on the generic system, d20 I think it was called? They really shelled out to get this printed in hardback. Probably got sued into oblivion for it, though--I bet this book has some real value on the collector's market; there can't be many out there."This amuses me way more than it should. Or maybe as much as it should.

Personally I am probably at the other end of the spectrum, or even off that spectrum. I haven't played an officially published system in 4 years. I did however play an unpublished system two days ago. I'm not exactly sure what that makes me in this conversation.

At least I don't have trouble keeping kids off my edition, as it is too far from town.

Gamgee
2016-04-09, 01:41 PM
You see, I don't like the FFG Star Wars games for a different reason. Character Creation feels a bit dull to me, with so much hanging on your race and Attributes being the most important part to raise, and the fact that I never quite got the Force Points thing (the best I can do is 'kind of like Fate Points, but switch between player and GM'). If I was going to try Star Wars I'd probably either go back to the d6 version and give that a go (why are half the games I'm interested in older than me?), or just hack something together in Fate. Oh, I also hate how the FFG version sticks to the Original Trilogy, because I'm young enough to have grown up with the Prequel Trilogy and really like parts of it (one of the characters I want to play is a Gungan Jedi Knight focused on Lightsaber combat and Force Sensing). I've gotten older and seen how the PT is bad, but I still like the films, partially because I got to like Obi-Wan so much, and I find setting things in the Original Trilogy era again to be dull. I don't have the same problems with d6 because it comes from an era where the OT was the only Star Wars films, but I am desperate hoping for a 'Downfall of the Republic' game before I even think about buying those money-grab dice (another thing that annoys me, I only bought Fate Dice because Fate impressed me a lot, while FFGSW does not and would require me to spend a lot more if I wanted to run it).

All valid points I share. I still have a small container of useless FFG rpg dice. No one wants them. I wasn't young when I seen the prequels but they certainly have a few merits that are often overlooked. Also they had the kickass Clone Wars cartoon the animated one not the cgi.

Straybow
2016-04-09, 02:08 PM
I participated in that particular level of noise, which in hindsight was silly because I dislike D&D as a franchise, in general.

Then 5e actually came out, and every person I've met in person who has played it has liked it, which made me realize a) I was wrong and b) I should be more aware of the possibility that I'm wrong in future.
Wrong thread, bro. This thread is where you are supposed to say:

Then 5e actually came out, and every person I've met in person who has played it has liked it, which made me realize a) there's definitely something wrong with these people and b) we need to set up "AD&D re-education camps" (it's for their own good, really).

PoeticDwarf
2016-04-09, 02:15 PM
playing since 2nd ed, went to 3rd & 4th as i found those to be upgrades to the version before.

5th though? I'm just not seeing the draw to it when compared to previous editions: if i wanted low-power and lethality, i have 2nd. if i wanted raw customization & options, i'll go with 3rd/pf. if i wanted a game that focused on action & adventuring and ease of GMing, i'd pick 4th.

yet while 5th ed isn't doing anything particularly offensive to my tastes, and the other editions mentioned all have a few thing that manage to get my goat, esp. 3rd ed, and i admit to not having the experience with 5th as i do with 2nd, 3rd or 4th, but i just don't feel anything for the game.

those other 3 editions all had something to grab me and still do to an extent despite (or in spite of) their flaws, but 5th ed is failing to draw me in... it's a very safe, almost vanilla edition, compared to what came before it and it's particular mix of gaming elements doesn't do much for me over what i already own.

it's not that i find 5th ed bad or offensive, just terribly bland for my taste.

5e is more to start. It's amazing if you aren't a veteran in D&D. It doesn't add much excelt less preperation for the DM and less choices for the players

2D8HP
2016-04-09, 02:36 PM
Wrong thread, bro. This thread is where you are supposed to say:

Then 5e actually came out, and every person I've met in person who has played it has liked it, which made me realize a) there's definitely something wrong with these people and b) we need to set up "AD&D re-education camps" (it's for their own good, really).

Camp THACO? Camp Level Limits?
It justs gets better!

JAL_1138
2016-04-09, 03:57 PM
Camp THACO? Camp Level Limits?
It justs gets better!

THAC0 gets a bad rap for being confusing, and that's mostly due to how it's written up. The book has you solve for the minimum number you need to roll on the die, instead of solving for the best AC you could hit on the die roll you made. THAC0 - (roll+bonuses) or (THAC0 - bonuses - roll) are mathematically identical aside from solving for a different variable, and are far easier. I've found that a lot of people pre-subtract their bonuses (for, say, STR and magic weapons) from their THAC0, making it even faster.

Granted, for most people, addition is more intuitive than subtraction, for whatever reason, but it's not THAT much harder to subtract than add. It is, a little, but not enough to make it the confusing nightmare THAC0 is portrayed as. It's just BAB for descending AC.

johnbragg
2016-04-09, 04:12 PM
THAC0 gets a bad rap for being confusing, and that's mostly due to how it's written up. The book has you solve for the minimum number you need to roll on the die, instead of solving for the best AC you could hit on the die roll you made. THAC0 - (roll+bonuses) or (THAC0 - bonuses - roll) are mathematically identical aside from solving for a different variable, and are far easier. I've found that a lot of people pre-subtract their bonuses (for, say, STR and magic weapons) from their THAC0, making it even faster.

Granted, for most people, addition is more intuitive than subtraction, for whatever reason, but it's not THAT much harder to subtract than add. It is, a little, but not enough to make it the confusing nightmare THAC0 is portrayed as. It's just BAB for descending AC.

I remember explaining it to someone who didn't get it as
"OK, start over. A regular guy over there with no armor, nothing is AC 10. The number you need to hit him is your THACten. (THAC0 -10).
For every number the AC is better than ten, add one to your THACten." Which, kids, is why BAB is the same as THAC0.

digiman619
2016-04-09, 05:28 PM
I remember explaining it to someone who didn't get it as
"OK, start over. A regular guy over there with no armor, nothing is AC 10. The number you need to hit him is your THACten. (THAC0 -10).
For every number the AC is better than ten, add one to your THACten." Which, kids, is why BAB is the same as THAC0.

At the risk of revealing my lack of old-school RPG cred, THAC0 always seemed weird because D&D was also the game that introduced the world to the concept of a +3 sword... which you then need to subtract from your roll... :smallconfused:

oxybe
2016-04-09, 05:56 PM
I participated in that particular level of noise, which in hindsight was silly because I dislike D&D as a franchise, in general.

Then 5e actually came out, and every person I've met in person who has played it has liked it, which made me realize a) I was wrong and b) I should be more aware of the possibility that I'm wrong in future.

Now that the newness and novelty of 5th ed is or has faded from my group a few people i know are coming to the same conclusion i did: it's not a particularly bad system, it just doesn't do anything particularly better that they don't already have.

This isn't anything new for us, when Edge of the Empire was the hot newness, they couldn't stop gushing about it. and like 5th, the hype died down and the overall consensus was "yeah, it's ok. It's just not for all games we'd want to run".

I know I'm not wrong that 5th ed isn't for me. I just doesn't do anything I particularly care for.


5e is more to start. It's amazing if you aren't a veteran in D&D. It doesn't add much excelt less preperation for the DM and less choices for the players
possibly. I know at least two D&D vets in my group are still enamoured with 5th, so it's definitely doing something for them.


At the risk of revealing my lack of old-school RPG cred, THAC0 always seemed weird because D&D was also the game that introduced the world to the concept of a +3 sword... which you then need to subtract from your roll... :smallconfused:

dude, i started with 2nd ed and found THAC0 pants on head dumb at the time. the thing with thac0 is that the +3 affects your roll and depending on how you managed the figuring out of your hit would.

the "do I hit" formula is ThAC0-(roll+mod)= ac hit.

if your enemy has an AC of 4 and you have a THAC0 of 16, you need to roll or 12 to hit. if you roll 14+3, or 17 (so mathing your THAC0 of 16-17 rolled) hitting AC-1, which is where you get the substracting your +3 sword from.

either way the "roll number+add bonuses & compare to number GM has on hand" is easier to use then "roll number, add bonuses, remove it from THACO & compare to number GM has on hand" simply because there are less steps involved.

I did it enough to know how to use it innately, but i still find it to be a dumb system.

Quertus
2016-04-09, 06:48 PM
THAC0 gets a bad rap for being confusing, and that's mostly due to how it's written up.

It's just BAB for descending AC.

And, IMO, and IME, that's your problem right there.

Do you want numbers that are high or low? Do you want to roll high or low (or high without going over)? That's why 2e's system, including THAC0, deserves its bad rap. Take 2e, rewrite it to where AC goes up, where you always want larger numbers on your sheet and always want to roll high, and it would be a better, more intuitive, more approachable game. Then the only advantage 3e would have over it is more options... and a built in concept of game balance (even if the implementation may leave much to be desired).

EDIT: getting to use addition is just a side effect / added bonus.

BayardSPSR
2016-04-09, 06:55 PM
Do you want numbers that are high or low? Do you want to roll high or low (or high without going over)? That's why 2e's system, including THAC0, deserves its bad rap. Take 2e, rewrite it to where AC goes up, where you always want larger numbers on your sheet and always want to roll high, and it would be a better, more intuitive, more approachable game.

Personally, though, I've always felt like hitpoints should go down instead of up, and that levels should be measured logarithmically. I've also never understood why XP has to be measured in base 10.

2D8HP
2016-04-09, 07:01 PM
And, IMO, and IME, that's your problem right there.

Do you want numbers that are high or low? Do you want to roll high or low (or high without going over)? That's why 2e's system, including THAC0, deserves its bad rap. Take 2e, rewrite it to where AC goes up, where you always want larger numbers on your sheet and always want to roll high, and it would be a better, more intuitive, more approachable game. Then the only advantage 3e would have over it is more options... and a built in concept of game balance (even if the implementation may leave much to be desired).

EDIT: getting to use addition is just a side effect / added bonus.
I played and read a bit of oD&D (with Arduin Grimoires) before getting the 1e AD&D PHB and DMG.
As much as I was initially enamored with 1e, I remember Gygax (R.I.P.) being widely mocked for the change in whether they were "rules" or "guidelines" (maybe because we took his criticism of "west coast style play" personally). If you play long enough and often enough, "homebrewing" is part of the fun.

johnbragg
2016-04-10, 12:57 PM
At the risk of revealing my lack of old-school RPG cred, THAC0 always seemed weird because D&D was also the game that introduced the world to the concept of a +3 sword... which you then need to subtract from your roll... :smallconfused:

No, you add it to the roll. OR you subtract it from the target number.

Which makes the point about the problem with THAC0--no consistency about whether high numbers are good or bad.

Gamgee
2016-04-10, 02:12 PM
Having never played I can say I am now more confused about Thaco than ever. Thanks. :smallsmile:

johnbragg
2016-04-10, 02:49 PM
Having never played I can say I am now more confused about Thaco than ever. Thanks. :smallsmile:

Your class gives you your THAC0, To Hit Armor Class 0.

Armor Class 0 is ten better than an unarmored person walking down the street towards you.

Roll your d20. Add your modifiers (stregth/dex, magic weapon, spell bonuses, random things like you hate orcs, etc). Roll + Modifiers - THAC0 = the AC you hit. I think. It's been a long time.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-10, 03:30 PM
Having never played I can say I am now more confused about Thaco than ever. Thanks. :smallsmile:

There's a couple of ways it can work. You can do d20 roll plus modifiers plus the enemy's armour class (EAC for ease) and see if it beats your THAC0. 1d20+bonuses+EAC>=THAC0 is a hit, 1d20+bonuses+EAC<THAC0 is a miss.

But that's confusing, and it's much better to use it as an inverse attack bonus. So THAC0-(1d20+bonuses)=AC hit. It would make the game less complicated if THAC0 and AC were higher is better, but THAC0 and descending AC aren't inherently hard.

For example, if you had THAC0 17 (4th level fighter), a +1 sword and +2 to-hit bonuses from high strength you'd have a 'to-hit table' of:
roll|AC Hit
20: -6 (17-(20+2+1)), also an automatic hit
19: -5 (17-(19+2+1))
18: -4 (17-(18+2+1))
17: -3 (17-(17+2+1))
16: -2 (17-(16+2+1))
15: -1 (17-(15+2+1))
14: 0 (17-(14+2+1))
13: 1 (17-(13+2+1))
12: 2 (17-(12+2+1))
11: 3 (17-(11+2+1))
10: 4 (17-(10+2+1))
9: 5 (17-(9+2+1))
8: 6 (17-(8+2+1))
7: 7 (17-(7+2+1))
6: 8 (17-(6+2+1))
5: 9 (17-(5+2+1))
4: 10 (17-(4+2+1))
3: 11/miss (I can' remember if AC10 is the worst possible)
2: 12/miss
1: automatic miss!

Also, looking at Spirit of the Century, I'm shocked at just how different Fate used to be. I'm going to have to retool it for Fate Core if I want to run it elegantly, and in that case I'd probably just steal a bunch of stuff from Romance in the Air and play pulp steampunk (Doctor Leaf and the Forbidden Jungle! springs to mind when thinking of character concepts, based off of an inventor/businessman I once made for a semi-improve play, Magnesium Leaf*).

* For the eventual play Mrs Leaf was a newspaper editor, because someone else went for a crazy inventor I got saddled with because I can act like on.

JAL_1138
2016-04-10, 10:32 PM
Having never played I can say I am now more confused about Thaco than ever. Thanks. :smallsmile:

THAC0 minus (roll + modifier) = best AC you can hit.

Your THAC0 is a number that comes off of a chart that gives it for your class and level.

AC is descending in AD&D. Which means an AC of 5 is better than an AC of 10, for example. An AC of -2 (negative two) is better than an AC of 3. Et cetera.

AC 10 is what you have if you're not wearing armor and don't have a bonus or penalty. AC 0 is what you have with great armor.

When you make an attack roll, take the number on the die and add your modifiers to it. Say you've rolled a 10. You have a penalty of -1 to Strength, but have a +2 weapon. So 10+(-1)+2 = 11.
You have a THAC0 of, let's say 14 for your class and level. So you take your THAC0 and subtract the results of your roll and modifiers from the THAC0. That gets you 14-11= AC 3. You hit the creature you're attacking if it has an AC of 3 or higher (higher is worse, remember; AC 3 is better than AC 4, so if you hit AC 3, you also hit AC 4, AC 5, and so on).

Make sense?

BayardSPSR
2016-04-10, 10:55 PM
THAC0 minus (roll + modifier) = best AC you can hit.

Your THAC0 is a number that comes off of a chart that gives it for your class and level.

AC is descending in AD&D. Which means an AC of 5 is better than an AC of 10, for example. An AC of -2 (negative two) is better than an AC of 3. Et cetera.

AC 10 is what you have if you're not wearing armor and don't have a bonus or penalty. AC 0 is what you have with great armor.

When you make an attack roll, take the number on the die and add your modifiers to it. Say you've rolled a 10. You have a penalty of -1 to Strength, but have a +2 weapon. So 10+(-1)+2 = 11.
You have a THAC0 of, let's say 14 for your class and level. So you take your THAC0 and subtract the results of your roll and modifiers from the THAC0. That gets you 14-11= AC 3. You hit the creature you're attacking if it has an AC of 3 or higher (higher is worse, remember; AC 3 is better than AC 4, so if you hit AC 3, you also hit AC 4, AC 5, and so on).

Make sense?

Let me see if I can talk myself through this correctly. So, if my THAC0 is 14, I need a 14 to hit AC 0. Then if I'm attacking something that's AC 3, I need an 11? And if my THAC0 was 12, I would need a 9? Is that right?

If that's right, then I guess it sort of works, but it's frustrating that none of the numbers are the one that I need to look for when I'm rolling a D20. Not to mention the fact that lower numbers are better, but not the D20 roll itself.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-11, 12:57 AM
Let me see if I can talk myself through this correctly. So, if my THAC0 is 14, I need a 14 to hit AC 0. Then if I'm attacking something that's AC 3, I need an 11? And if my THAC0 was 12, I would need a 9? Is that right?

If that's right, then I guess it sort of works, but it's frustrating that none of the numbers are the one that I need to look for when I'm rolling a D20. Not to mention the fact that lower numbers are better, but not the D20 roll itself.

If it helps, just pre-do the calculations, and just have a to hit table next to you during play.

Cazero
2016-04-11, 02:22 AM
If it helps, just pre-do the calculations, and just have a to hit table next to you during play.
See, the table thing is precisely why people find THAC0 (and the rest of table-heavy things like polearms AC modifiers) needlessly complicated. Why would you want to match your math with a table when you could just compare your math to the target number?

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-11, 03:02 AM
See, the table thing is precisely why people find THAC0 (and the rest of table-heavy things like polearms AC modifiers) needlessly complicated. Why would you want to match your math with a table when you could just compare your math to the target number?

I know, I find it easier to do THAC0-(d20+modifiers), although I preadjust my THAC0 so I only have to subtract the roll (it's the same thing as calculating you attack bonus with a weapon in 3.X, just with subtraction). Also, with a two column table it's not exactly hard (I'll have to reference one while running Fate because I cannot remember the adjectives ladder), just read to your roll and then slightly to the right go see your result (a large table to serve all 20 levels is another matter entirely and horrible).

Butn the end, I never see an anti-table making argument when people complain about THAC0, it's the bogus 'but it uses subtraction, which is hard maths' (exaggerated because I'm sick of it).

Khedrac
2016-04-11, 06:35 AM
Back in the day we never worried about THAC0 - we just rolled the D20, added any mods and checked the tables.
Yes THAC0 is confusing, but it isn't something you usually need to worry about when playing!

More complex was in BECMI D&D when the fighters needed to know if they could hit on a '2' rolled or not - if they can then they could use their multiple attacks at higher levels.
Also BECMI took the '20 needed' point on the table and repeated it 5 times before the '21 needed' AC (I think AD&D did the same).
BECMI however also did that at 30 and 40 etc.
Similarly at 0, but instead of going to '-1' it went to '1*' - still only miss on a '1' but now add 1 to the damage dealt!
These repeating rows meant that using THAC0 to work out the AC hit only had a very limited range.

Oh - someone said that "AC10 was an unarmored man", now that was another complication - because that was AD&D, for BECMI D&D that was AC9.
Yes AC2 was (iirc - I am afb) plate and shield for both systems, but the list of armors were different and BECMI D&D missed one out.

johnbragg
2016-04-11, 08:17 AM
Butn the end, I never see an anti-table making argument when people complain about THAC0, it's the bogus 'but it uses subtraction, which is hard maths' (exaggerated because I'm sick of it).

That's largely because THAC0, as far as I know, superseded the 1st edition system, which was tables, AFAIK. THAC0 let you use consistent math over the entire range of Armor Classes, from 10 to -10.

The subtraction argument isn't really that it's hard, it's that the system was inconsistent--sometimes you want to get lower, sometimes higher. So your +2 sword drops your THAC0 by 2. IT's not that subtraction is hard, it's that the system equivocated which was confusing.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-11, 08:58 AM
The subtraction argument isn't really that it's hard, it's that the system was inconsistent--sometimes you want to get lower, sometimes higher. So your +2 sword drops your THAC0 by 2. IT's not that subtraction is hard, it's that the system equivocated which was confusing.

Oh no, I actually agree with that. It's just every time I see 'it uses subtraction, which is harder than addition' before people start talking sense.

JAL_1138
2016-04-11, 09:39 AM
See, the table thing is precisely why people find THAC0 (and the rest of table-heavy things like polearms AC modifiers) needlessly complicated. Why would you want to match your math with a table when you could just compare your math to the target number?

THAC0 replaced the to-hit tables, it didn't use them.

Also, you roll low for skill/stat checks, not attacks.

Any time you'd be using THAC0 with the roll, you want to roll high.

Saving throws were also roll high, and those did use a chart.

Attacks (THAC0)--Add up your bonuses and your d20 roll, subtract the result from your THAC0. Roll high.
Saving throws--Roll the number on the chart for your class, level, and type of saving throw (remember to add your bonus to your roll if you have one due to an item, spell, or racial trait). Roll high.
Skill checks--Roll under your stat (or percentile skill, or adjusted stat with nonweapon proficiency). If there is bonus or penalty to the roll, then for the purposes of the check, you add the bonus or subtract the penalty from the stat you're trying to roll under (e.g., with a +1 bonus from a spell or nonweapon proficiency, and a stat of 16, you'd roll under 17. If it was a -1 penalty instead of a +1 bonus, you'd roll under 15.). Roll low.

That's it. "Sometimes you roll low, sometimes you roll high" refers to different subsystems having different mechanics. But within those subsystems, it's always consistent.

Quertus
2016-04-11, 10:27 AM
I know, I find it easier to do THAC0-(d20+modifiers), although I preadjust my THAC0 so I only have to subtract the roll (it's the same thing as calculating you attack bonus with a weapon in 3.X, just with subtraction). Also, with a two column table it's not exactly hard (I'll have to reference one while running Fate because I cannot remember the adjectives ladder), just read to your roll and then slightly to the right go see your result (a large table to serve all 20 levels is another matter entirely and horrible).

Butn the end, I never see an anti-table making argument when people complain about THAC0, it's the bogus 'but it uses subtraction, which is hard maths' (exaggerated because I'm sick of it).


That's largely because THAC0, as far as I know, superseded the 1st edition system, which was tables, AFAIK. THAC0 let you use consistent math over the entire range of Armor Classes, from 10 to -10.

The subtraction argument isn't really that it's hard, it's that the system was inconsistent--sometimes you want to get lower, sometimes higher. So your +2 sword drops your THAC0 by 2. IT's not that subtraction is hard, it's that the system equivocated which was confusing.


Oh no, I actually agree with that. It's just every time I see 'it uses subtraction, which is harder than addition' before people start talking sense.

Hey, now! If you've read my posts, then you can't say every time! :smallwink: I have consistently complained that 2e has some very unintuitive systems, and that intelligent, college educated adults still get confused after multiple seasons as to how to roll a given roll. I prefer intuitive systems, where 7 year olds pick it up the first session. :smallwink:



3: 11/miss (I can' remember if AC10 is the worst possible)


Story time!

So, in 2e, there are lots of references to "AC 10": creatures which are paralyzed or asleep are treated as AC 10, when you go to grapple someone, they are treated as AC 10, etc.

So "AC 10" kinda got this rep for being broad side of the barn, worst thing ever, you never want to see those words in reference to your character.

But really, it was just TSR overloading a term (like they did with "level". Someone really ought to make a comic about that. I bet it would be really funny). See, in 2e, just like you had your THAC0 and your bonuses, you also had your armor and your bonuses. You don't get to count your armor against a grapple... But of course you keep your bonuses. In 3.x, we would call most of the references to "AC 10"... well, "touch AC".

But, with the heavy indoctrination of "AC 10 is bad", imagine my surprise when, one day, I realized that you could, in fact, have an AC worse than 10.

So I created a death cult (not an undeath cult - these guys believed in dying) whose followers were forbidden to avoid death - no armor or protective devices. Cultists were trained not to avoid blows (they had a maximum dex of <whatever have a penalty to AC>). And I make Amalak, cleric of Death.

I only played Amalak when I knew ahead of time that the DM would ask everyone to call out their name & AC. Invariably, when I would call out "Amalak", "AC 11", I would be met with shock, and arguments of, "no, that's impossible ~ AC 10 is the worst you can have" etc.

Queue me pointing out how, RAW, it actually was possible to have an AC worse than 10.

I loved this character, because he allowed me to introduce myself to new groups. Yes, I'm a rules lawyer... but I don't do it for my or the party's benefit, I do it for the sake of realism and consistency. I will gladly sacrifice power for a cool role-playing concept.

Amalak tended to draw out the role-players in the group. He even got a few PC converts.

EDIT: hopefully, this story will help everyone remember in the future :smallwink:



Skill checks--Roll under your stat (or percentile skill, or adjusted stat with nonweapon proficiency). If there is bonus or penalty to the roll, then for the purposes of the check, you add the bonus or subtract the penalty from the stat you're trying to roll under (e.g., with a +1 bonus from a spell or nonweapon proficiency, and a stat of 16, you'd roll under 17. If it was a -1 penalty instead of a +1 bonus, you'd roll under 15.). Roll low.

That's it. "Sometimes you roll low, sometimes you roll high" refers to different subsystems having different mechanics. But within those subsystems, it's always consistent.

True, each subsystem didn't vary.

I can't find the rules, but weren't stat checks (and, perhaps by extension, skill checks) "roll high without going over"? IIRC, in opposed rolls, high roll wins, unless that roll is higher than the stat / skill.

And, in psionics, activating powers were also stat checks. IIRC, some powers had better abilities the higher you rolled (without going over), and (almost) all powers had a "critical" effect if you rolled exactly the number you needed.

So, if i'm remembering correctly, we have sub systems with roll high, roll low, roll high without going over, and roll high without going over crit on target num. Some were d20, some were percentile (system shock, thieves' skills). Now... which system did my turning check use? :smallannoyed:

JAL_1138
2016-04-11, 11:29 AM
Hey, now! If you've read my posts, then you can't say every time! :smallwink: I have consistently complained that 2e has some very unintuitive systems, and that intelligent, college educated adults still get confused after multiple seasons as to how to roll a given roll. I prefer intuitive systems, where 7 year olds pick it up the first session. :smallwink:



Story time!

So, in 2e, there are lots of references to "AC 10": creatures which are paralyzed or asleep are treated as AC 10, when you go to grapple someone, they are treated as AC 10, etc.

So "AC 10" kinda got this rep for being broad side of the barn, worst thing ever, you never want to see those words in reference to your character.

But really, it was just TSR overloading a term (like they did with "level". Someone really ought to make a comic about that. I bet it would be really funny). See, in 2e, just like you had your THAC0 and your bonuses, you also had your armor and your bonuses. You don't get to count your armor against a grapple... But of course you keep your bonuses. In 3.x, we would call most of the references to "AC 10"... well, "touch AC".

But, with the heavy indoctrination of "AC 10 is bad", imagine my surprise when, one day, I realized that you could, in fact, have an AC worse than 10.

So I created a death cult (not an undeath cult - these guys believed in dying) whose followers were forbidden to avoid death - no armor or protective devices. Cultists were trained not to avoid blows (they had a maximum dex of <whatever have a penalty to AC>). And I make Amalak, cleric of Death.

I only played Amalak when I knew ahead of time that the DM would ask everyone to call out their name & AC. Invariably, when I would call out "Amalak", "AC 11", I would be met with shock, and arguments of, "no, that's impossible ~ AC 10 is the worst you can have" etc.

Queue me pointing out how, RAW, it actually was possible to have an AC worse than 10.

I loved this character, because he allowed me to introduce myself to new groups. Yes, I'm a rules lawyer... but I don't do it for my or the party's benefit, I do it for the sake of realism and consistency. I will gladly sacrifice power for a cool role-playing concept.

Amalak tended to draw out the role-players in the group. He even got a few PC converts.

EDIT: hopefully, this story will help everyone remember in the future :smallwink:



True, each subsystem didn't vary.

I can't find the rules, but weren't stat checks (and, perhaps by extension, skill checks) "roll high without going over"? IIRC, in opposed rolls, high roll wins, unless that roll is higher than the stat / skill.

And, in psionics, activating powers were also stat checks. IIRC, some powers had better abilities the higher you rolled (without going over), and (almost) all powers had a "critical" effect if you rolled exactly the number you needed.

So, if i'm remembering correctly, we have sub systems with roll high, roll low, roll high without going over, and roll high without going over crit on target num. Some were d20, some were percentile (system shock, thieves' skills). Now... which system did my turning check use? :smallannoyed:

Stat checks, system shock (which are percentile), and d% skills like Thief skills are all roll under (NWPs key off a stat and sometimes give a bonus or penalty).

Turn undead is roll at or above the number on the Turn Undead chart (as with saving throws on the Saving Throw chart). It affects 2d6 undead, lower HD first, unless there's a specific case for affecting extra undead noted on the chart. As with most (non-psionic) attacks, it's roll high.

AFAIK the *only* thing that was "roll high without going over" was opposed psionics checks, which were in an optional supplement book rather than the core rules--and psionics are usually loathed in any edition for mechanical weirdness and/or brokenness, not just 2e.

Quertus
2016-04-11, 12:20 PM
Stat checks, system shock (which are percentile), and d% skills like Thief skills are all roll under (NWPs key off a stat and sometimes give a bonus or penalty).

Turn undead is roll at or above the number on the Turn Undead chart (as with saving throws on the Saving Throw chart). It affects 2d6 undead, lower HD first, unless there's a specific case for affecting extra undead noted on the chart. As with most (non-psionic) attacks, it's roll high.

AFAIK the *only* thing that was "roll high without going over" was opposed psionics checks, which were in an optional supplement book rather than the core rules--and psionics are usually loathed in any edition for mechanical weirdness and/or brokenness, not just 2e.

I could be remembering wrong (thus all the IIRC 's). How did you handle opposed stat checks (ie, arm wrestling), or opposed skill checks (ie, a cook-off)?

EDIT: I specifically remember house ruling (yes, I do occasionally make house rules) stat/skill checks to use "made it by X", both to facilitate opposed rolls, and to make the results of getting bonuses / penalties not be jarring.

Lord Torath
2016-04-11, 01:57 PM
Now, now. Any grognard will tell you that AD&D had the "Magical Tea Party." It was in the Dungeonland module. The Mad Hatter, the March Hare, and others tried to kill you at it.And Castle Amber had the Magic Dinner Party. Be cautious with the mushrooms, and watch out for the red wine.


I could be remembering wrong (thus all the IIRC 's). How did you handle opposed stat checks (ie, arm wrestling), or opposed skill checks (ie, a cook-off)?

EDIT: I specifically remember house ruling (yes, I do occasionally make house rules) stat/skill checks to use "made it by X", both to facilitate opposed rolls, and to make the results of getting bonuses / penalties not be jarring.I do it by changing skill checks to "The Price is Right" mechanic: roll as high as possible without going over. But that wasn't official at all.

As far as Psionics, it also followed The Price is Right mechanic. Nail it exactly, and you get a bonus effect. Roll a one, and you succeed, but something bad might happen. Roll a 20, and you fail, and something bad happens (most of the time, but a few powers didn't have penalties for a 20 other than failing). And it was really no more broken than clerics or wizards, and suffered from MAD to boot (Multiple Attribute Dependancy, not Mutually Assured Destruction - unless you used 1E or PO:Skills and Powers psionics; The Complete Psionics Handbooks and The Will and the Way version was pretty great).

Velaryon
2016-04-11, 02:25 PM
WEG D6 was a great Star Wars system. Simple enough, fast character generation, cinematic and dangerous combat, and had splatbooks good enough that Lucasarts sent a bunch of them to Timothy Zahn for use in writing the Thrawn trilogy--so many nifty details for the galaxy without becoming a crunchfest or bloating the system. I never made it as far as Saga. I played the original d20 version (not sure if it was the original original or Revised original though) and was sorely disappointed, and kind of gave up after that. Starting to think I need to go back and give Saga a look; so many people on the boards here speak so well of it. What did it improve over and/or do differently than d20 #1?

I didn't see anyone answer this question, so I'll take a stab at it.

1. Classes other than Jedi are viable.
1a. Lightsabers are good without being 2-3 times stronger than any other weapon.
2. Powers actually work. In the previous d20 edition, for example, a Jedi could only deflect a blaster bolt if it was going to miss him anyway (therefore making the power useless) and only if it missed by less than 5. Saga edition simply makes it an opposed check of the Jedi's Use the Force skill vs. the attack roll to determine success or failure.
3. Saga doesn't use the vitality/wounds system, which means your PCs won't die to a random critical hit. Neither will the BBEG, so you aren't cheated out of that climactic final battle.
4. Force powers are their own category of abilities rather than using the d20 skill system, so Force users can still have skills other than using the Force, and don't need to have genius-level intelligence to be decent at more than a small handful of Force powers.
5. Force powers work a lot like maneuvers in 3.5's Tome of Battle system. Not the exact same, but if you're familiar with that it's a good reference point. And you don't have to sacrifice hit points to use them anymore.
6. The condition track can model injuries or other conditions that reduce your effectiveness, so that there's a middle ground between fully functional and completely unconscious. It isn't a perfect system and it can be abused if you try, but it's simple and easy to understand.
7. The product line covers the original trilogy, prequel trilogy, and the EU as far back as the KOTOR games and as far forward as the Legacy era comics. All it's really missing is the Clone Wars cartoon and everything that's come out since then, because the RPG line ended around that time.

The system is not without flaws by any means, which we can go into if you want. And I know some people prefer the old WEG version or the newer Fantasy Flight game. But Saga is unquestionably the best d20 iteration of the Star Wars RPG.



This amuses me way more than it should. Or maybe as much as it should.

Personally I am probably at the other end of the spectrum, or even off that spectrum. I haven't played an officially published system in 4 years. I did however play an unpublished system two days ago. I'm not exactly sure what that makes me in this conversation.

At least I don't have trouble keeping kids off my edition, as it is too far from town.

RPG hipster, maybe? :smallbiggrin:

JAL_1138
2016-04-11, 02:29 PM
I could be remembering wrong (thus all the IIRC 's). How did you handle opposed stat checks (ie, arm wrestling), or opposed skill checks (ie, a cook-off)?

EDIT: I specifically remember house ruling (yes, I do occasionally make house rules) stat/skill checks to use "made it by X", both to facilitate opposed rolls, and to make the results of getting bonuses / penalties not be jarring.

Officially? There's nothing in the rules for opposed checks (that I can find) in core. Monsters don't even have them listed (although NPCs are given PC stats if fought). Unless it's in a supplement I don't have, like [/i]Players' Option: Skills and Powers[/i], it's not in there and readily locatable in the Ability Scores or Proficiencies chapters.

2e generally puts NPC successes or failures at anything outside combat stats (e.g., the three Expert categories: Spy, Sage, and Assassin, for example) entirely up to DM whim.

runeghost
2016-04-11, 02:47 PM
Did you once make fun of oldtimers for not switching to an "up to date" edition of the game (D&D, Shadowrun, whatever)?
Is your favorite version now considered "obsolete"?
Tell the story!
Feel free to criticize versions of the game that aren't "the one true way" (edition wars are fun)!
Ever change your mind?

I started roleplaying in 1981, so no, I've never made fun of oldtimers. :smallwink:

When it comes to D&D, my preferences are:

1st, B/X, 2nd, and then BECMI, in that order.

5th isn't a bad implementation of the basic game, but I've gotten enough invested in earlier editions, both money and time-wise, and 5th isn't particularly better, so I feel no desire to switch.

3rd (and 3.5, and Pathfinder) are an almost complete different game mechanically. I've had fun with them, but I think they're more work for the entertainment you get than the editions above.

As for 4th, if I want to play World of Warcraft, I'll go play World of Warcraft.

Mr.Moron
2016-04-11, 03:01 PM
As D&D Goes 5e is my favorite. I've played and run a lot of 3.P and the laundry list of menu items just wore on me over time. I've run but never played 4e and I enjoyed it, it seemed like a non-functional tabletop tactics game.

BayardSPSR
2016-04-11, 03:15 PM
Back in the day we never worried about THAC0 - we just rolled the D20, added any mods and checked the tables.
Yes THAC0 is confusing, but it isn't something you usually need to worry about when playing!

My issue is more that it's time-consuming, and that time adds up...

JAL_1138
2016-04-11, 04:30 PM
My issue is more that it's time-consuming, and that time adds up...

Not really. If the time that THAC0-(Roll+Bonus) takes "adds up," or the time that comparing your adjusted die roll (die roll + bonus) to a table takes, even though those should be no slower in any significant way than BAB, then with the tables and with THAC0 by adjusting the table results for your bonuses and writing your adjusted table on your character sheet. (Make a different table if you have any varying bonuses, like a nonproficient weapon). This takes a couple minutes or so.

Then, in play, you never need to do any math for attack rolls. You just look at your die roll, compare it to the table on your sheet, and it tells you the result.

Say I have a Fighter. He's Level 5 (so in 2e his THAC0 is 16). He has a Strength score of 16, which grants a bonus of +1 to attack rolls with melee weapons. He has specialized in longswords, and gets an extra +1 bonus from specialization. To make the table in 1e, I'd look up my class and level, copy the table for them, and adjust the AC hit down by 2 to take the bonuses into account. To make a table in 2e, I'd run 2-19 through the THAC0 formula, THAC0-(Roll+Bonus). So my Longsword table at this level would look like

Roll = Best AC hit
1 = Miss
2 = AC 12
3 = AC 11
4 = AC 10
5 = AC 9
6 = AC 8
7 = AC 7
8 = AC 6
9 = AC 5
10=AC 4
11=AC 3
12=AC 2
13=AC 1
14=AC 0
15=AC -1
16=AC -2
17=AC -3
18=AC -4
19=AC -5
20=Hit

No math, just go to the chart on your character sheet, look at the roll, look at the result, announce the result.

This actually starts getting helpful when you've got a high enough bonus or a bonus with an odd value like, say, 7, from a fantastic magic weapon or great magic items.

It's also useful in 3e where you could get a bonus of, say, 17 to an attack, making it be unintuitive to quickly add up every time. Make your table by adding BAB and standard bonuses together, then run through the possible die rolls and calculate the ACs you can hit. You'd need one for each iterative attack, since in 3e your BAB went down for each attack after the first. Shaves a few seconds off each roll since you don't have to calculate anything except at level-up or a change of weapon.

runeghost
2016-04-11, 04:59 PM
With all the discussion of Thac0 and "to-hit" tables I haven't seen any mention of one (of many) of AD&D 1st edition's obscure quirks when it came to extremely low ACs: the repeating 20s and numbers greater than 20 required to hit. (Which was a reason why classic Thac0 didn't actually work in 1st ed.)

If, according to the table, you needed a 17 to hit AC 2, an 18 to hit AC 1, a 19 to hit AC 0, and then a 20 to hit AC -1, you also only needed a 20 to hit ACs -2 to -6. But to hit AC -7, you needed a 21. And a 22 to hit AC -8 and so on. In other words, a certain range would produce no difference vs certain opponents, but beyond that characters could be unhittable without magic or other bonuses to the roll.

BayardSPSR
2016-04-11, 06:53 PM
It's also useful in 3e where you could get a bonus of, say, 17 to an attack, making it be unintuitive to quickly add up every time. Make your table by adding BAB and standard bonuses together, then run through the possible die rolls and calculate the ACs you can hit. You'd need one for each iterative attack, since in 3e your BAB went down for each attack after the first. Shaves a few seconds off each roll since you don't have to calculate anything except at level-up or a change of weapon.

Personally, I find the way later D&D's attack rolls work to be unnecessarily time-consuming as well, which is why I'm perpetually on the hunt for faster, more intuitive combat systems that don't sacrifice verisimilitude.

Gamgee
2016-04-12, 04:23 AM
Nothing said about Thaco has made it any easier to understand and I am now more angry and confused at it than ever. Please let thaco remain buried and dying in the fires of old editions.

How Thaco seems to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmb9FisSd-c

JAL_1138
2016-04-12, 07:50 AM
Nothing said about Thaco has made it any easier to understand and I am now more angry and confused at it than ever. Please let thaco remain buried and dying in the fires of old editions.

How Thaco seems to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmb9FisSd-c

What part of it is difficult to understand? I'm legitimately asking, not criticizing you for not getting it; I really want to know what would help you get it, but I need a little help to see where it's confusing you. I want to help you get it and not be angry or confused at it.

Here's the easiest way to do it, and please tell me if and where I lose you:

You get a number, which is called your THAC0, off a class-and-level chart in the PHB. Look at your class on the chart, then find your level in that class, and it'll give you a number. Write that number down on your character sheet. Forget about why this number is called THAC0, it just is. This number won't change until you level up, so you won't need to look at the chart again until then.

This number you got off the chart and wrote down, called THAC0, is only ever used when you make an attack roll. Doesn't come into play anywhere else.

When you make an attack roll, roll a d20. Add any bonuses you have, from your stats or a magic weapon, to your d20 roll. This number is called (roll+bonus).

Take (roll+bonus) that you just got, and subtract it from your THAC0 (the number you wrote down off the chart). So, THAC0 minus (roll+bonus).

The result is the best AC you hit with the attack. The lower the result, the better the AC you hit.

That's it. Is there anything I can clarify further? I'd like to help.


Don't worry about why there's three or four people giving three ways to do it. We're just fiddling around with the math to get different formulas to end up at the same result. You can do that with any formula, as long as you follow certain mathematical rules. Ignore all that if it's part of the frustration and stick to one method.

Cazero
2016-04-12, 08:48 AM
I have a simpler explanation.

Substract your THAC0 from 20. You now have your BAB. You add it to your attack rolls. (You might want to write it down somewhere.)
Substract your modified attack rolls from 20. You hit any AC higher than this result. (Because lower AC are better in the THAC0 system.)

GreatWyrmGold
2016-04-12, 09:50 AM
I think the only games which I've seen different editions of are D&D, Shadowrun, and GURPS, and the only one I've played different editions of is D&D.

I started gaming with 3.5 D&D, so that's always going to have a special place in my heart. The older editions seem needlessly complicated, while 4th edition seems overly-focused on combat and keeping everyone "balanced". D&DNext is a bit odd; I like some of its changes, but there are a lot that—while I understand why they were made and realize they make the game better—just feel wrong.
Then there are warlocks, which play almost the opposite of how they play in 3.5. I'm resource-use-adverse, so the 3.5 warlock's at-will spell-like abilities were a perfect fit for me...then comes Next's warlock, which has invocations as a secondary ability and even fewer spell slots than other spellcasting classes. Oh, sure, it has at-will cantrips, but everyone has those now.

Shadowrun seems to have some interesting differences, but a lot of them seem silly (e.g, people who magically connect to the Internet, bonuses for connecting almost-random equipment to local wifi). Maybe they streamlined the rules; I haven't looked deeply enough to know for sure.

GURPS's editions seem mostly the same. Some balance tweaks, but that's about it. It's a pretty solid game engine.

JAL_1138
2016-04-12, 10:33 AM
I have a simpler explanation.

Substract your THAC0 from 20. You now have your BAB. You add it to your attack rolls. (You might want to write it down somewhere.)
Substract your modified attack rolls from 20. You hit any AC higher than this result. (Because lower AC are better in the THAC0 system.)

I think we should avoid multiple versions for now, until we see what the exact issue causing the confusion is.

They're just different versions of the same underlying math, but it may not easy to see that at first, especially since we've not gone into detail on why all the different versions get the same result. That we've all gone through several different ways to calculate the attack roll here (I'm certainly guilty of it; I think I've given three at the least) may be a big part of what's confusing Gamgee.

I try to go with "THAC0 - (Roll + Bonus) = Best AC hit" for newbies because it keeps the terminology clearest. Bonuses are added (and penalties subtracted) to the die roll like their plus or minus signs imply. THAC0 gets used straight off the chart so there's no confusion over where it comes from or what to do with it.

Talakeal
2016-04-12, 10:58 AM
Aside from Thac0 what else is bad about 2e?

Istarted in 2e, but all the 1e materials I saw seemed pretty compatible, just with a slightly lower production value.

What is it that 2e changed that was so drastic? Amd why does,it turn so many people away from the game that they rate 2e significantly lower on the totem pole of favorites?

Raimun
2016-04-12, 11:16 AM
Every edition older than the one you play is a clumsy artifact that only grognards play because they can't handle change.

Every edition newer than the one you play is a dumbed-down video game on paper that only entitled kiddies play because they can't handle Real RoleplayingTM.

That should just about cover things.

Yes, thank you. That's exactly how it is. I don't see how absolutely everyone hasn't realized this. With the same reference point that I have. And I'm not being ironic.

OD&D, 1st edition, 2nd edition, AD&D, etc. haven't really aged well. The combat systems are rather rudimentary (I hit you, you hit me, until one goes at 0 HP) and out of combat-systems don't actually exist.

3.5 (and Pathfinder and even 3.0) is the gold standard and there's nothing wrong with it. Casters with 9 spell levels are not a bug, they are a feature.

I feel 4th and 5th edition rulesets are both incomplete, like the people writing them just kind of wandered off before implementing everything that's needed to have a versatile ruleset. Also, the numbers behind the rules mechanics are really weird and this directly translates to the game experience.

In 4th edition every monster has tons of HP but doesn't do much damage. PCs are the inverse. This feels artificial.

In 5th edition, the numerical abilities of everyone, monsters and PCs alike, are within these arbitrary boundaries. Legendary heroes and mythical monsters are standardized. There's no room for variation or surprises. This feels even more artificial than 4th edition.

Khedrac
2016-04-12, 11:20 AM
With all the discussion of Thac0 and "to-hit" tables I haven't seen any mention of one (of many) of AD&D 1st edition's obscure quirks when it came to extremely low ACs: the repeating 20s and numbers greater than 20 required to hit. (Which was a reason why classic Thac0 didn't actually work in 1st ed.)
Well I suppose that is the problem with a thread that can grow as fast as this one...
Also BECMI took the '20 needed' point on the table and repeated it 5 times before the '21 needed' AC (I think AD&D did the same).
BECMI however also did that at 30 and 40 etc.
Similarly at 0, but instead of going to '-1' it went to '1*' - still only miss on a '1' but now add 1 to the damage dealt!
These repeating rows meant that using THAC0 to work out the AC hit only had a very limited range.Well yes, I wasn't sure if it applied to 1st Ed or not.


Roll = Best AC hit
1 = Miss
...
19=AC -5
20=HitAnd as we both said in the earlier editions that is false (not sure for 2nd Ed - and I cannot be bother to go and dig out my copy to check)
20=AC-12 (if I have added it right, -12 needs a 22 which is your 20 with +2 to hit; -13 needs a 23 so with only +2 to hit you miss).

JAL_1138
2016-04-12, 11:43 AM
Aside from Thac0 what else is bad about 2e?

Istarted in 2e, but all the 1e materials I saw seemed pretty compatible, just with a slightly lower production value.

What is it that 2e changed that was so drastic? Amd why does,it turn so many people away from the game that they rate 2e significantly lower on the totem pole of favorites?

Structure of the combat round changed from segments to a monolithic 1-minute round with initiative modifiers. The way Surprise and Initiative worked got changed. (Also, IIRC, Missile weapons in Surprise rounds in 1e could chew someone up and spit them out, because of how rate-of-fire interacted with segments in Surprise, although few people ran that by the book apparently.) Half-Orcs and Assassins were removed as player race and class until later supplements. Bards got reworked into a completely different class. A lot of little neat crufty bits like level titles got dropped. Some changes to classes. Unearthed Arcana classes got dropped (some returned as kits in supplements, although usually weaker). To-hit tables got replaced by THAC0.

The 1e DMG is badly organized and has a definite authorial voice and bias, but it had a ton of useful worldbuilding material and cool wacky things. 2e's has less-useful material and offers some bad DM advice from time to time (basically telling DMs to railroad hard in a few places), as it mostly mirrored the PHB in layout and had fewer helpful tables compared to 1e, which had a table for everything.

2e's writing is fairly dull and sterile in comparison to The Elder Grognard Gygax's nardiest of all groggery, and also seems like the corebooks are trying to push highfalutin' sanitized shining-armor heroic fantasy on a system that's still pretty much built for good ol' murderhoboing. Gold-as-XP became optional instead of default, so at many tables the emphasis shifted to "KILL THINGS (and take their stuff)" instead instead of "LOOT STUFF (and kill anything trying to stop you if you can't get around it)."

Mechanically, not much more than some classes and the combat round changed in the core. Supplements gave more options later on. The Players' Option supplements are barely the same game as core 2e and aren't usually in the discussion, but 2e had a ton of Complete (Whatever)'s Handbook splats that can be a detractor for some.

(2e also ruined Greyhawk, IMO. Shot it to flinders. But that's just my personal opinion.)

More often, the complaint seems to be that it's a sanitized, streamlined version with dull corebook writing, but not enough actual changes to justify the switch for a group that's already happy with 1e. (Interestingly, a similar complaint gets levied by 3.X fans against 5e, except that 2e had the splatbook bloat compared to 1e. Weird sort of mirror.)

johnbragg
2016-04-12, 12:24 PM
Aside from Thac0 what else is bad about 2e?

Istarted in 2e, but all the 1e materials I saw seemed pretty compatible, just with a slightly lower production value.

What is it that 2e changed that was so drastic? Amd why does,it turn so many people away from the game that they rate 2e significantly lower on the totem pole of favorites?

I started with 2e. But 1e stuff didn't seem that different. My guess is that 2e gets the least love because its place in the Great Edition War ecology is largely taken by 1e. If you're a "Back In My Day" grognard, 1E is the Original and Still the Best, Often Imitated Never Duplicated, etc etc. (Pipe down, OD&D Chainmail guy.)

The half-generation that came to the game during 2E's print run I think mostly migrated to 3E. Those that didn't probably drifted into OSR groups, which had held or returned to the One True Gygaxian Faith.

Think in terms of identities. 5th is the Newest. 3rd is the customizable, all-the-splats. 1st is Old School.

2nd is also Old School, but it's not as old school as the 1st edition. Edition warring is a polarizing thing.

GreatWyrmGold
2016-04-12, 12:30 PM
(the shadowrun squirtgun wars is probably the funniest example of GM/Player arms race and it is something i can see happening in shadowrun)
I'm glad I heard about that. I can't decide if I wish my games got into madcap antics like that, or if I'm glad my groups don't get into that kind of conflict.


THAC0 gets a bad rap for being confusing, and that's mostly due to how it's written up...
I'm inclined to agree. In principle, it's the same.
I think the 3.5 AC system makes more sense, since "high number better" is more intuitive, but ultimately I agree that the most important difference is the clarity of the explanation.


Take 2e, rewrite it to where AC goes up, where you always want larger numbers on your sheet and always want to roll high, and it would be a better, more intuitive, more approachable game. Then the only advantage 3e would have over it is more options... and a built in concept of game balance (even if the implementation may leave much to be desired).
I've only played a little 2e, but it seems like you'd need to rewrite most of its rules with the philosophy behind the change you mentioned to get it to the point where 3e's balance and options were its only advantages. By then, you'd probably be closer to 3e than not.


Personally, I find the way later D&D's attack rolls work to be unnecessarily time-consuming as well, which is why I'm perpetually on the hunt for faster, more intuitive combat systems that don't sacrifice verisimilitude.
Why not look for cheap games that don't sacrifice quality? There's a trade-off; fast and intuitive combat needs to be simplified, while verisimilitude requires complications. And if you're looking for even the slightest bit of tactical depth, that requires more complications.

Talakeal
2016-04-12, 12:51 PM
I would love to see someone make a d20 port of AD&D.

Swap out Thac0, saving throws, and proficiencies to the d20 mechanics but not go in and screw around with the numbers to make them more like the broken 3e system.

JAL_1138
2016-04-12, 01:11 PM
3e also had a vastly different combat round, being based on 6 seconds instead of a minute, with fiddlier movement, fiddlier division of actions, OAs based on a slew of factors instead of "retreating faster than 1/3 your speed," and changed how spellcasting worked so that it wasn't disrupted by taking any hit before the spell went off. Granted, most of those changes came from Player's Option: Combat & Tactics, except the change to spellcasting.

2D8HP
2016-04-12, 01:22 PM
Aside from Thac0 what else is bad about 2e?

Istarted in 2e, but all the 1e materials I saw seemed pretty compatible, just with a slightly lower production value.

What is it that 2e changed that was so drastic? Amd why does,it turn so many people away from the game that they rate 2e significantly lower on the totem pole of favorites?
What was wrong with 2e? What's wrong? I will tell you sonny! Now where was I? Ah yes. ..What was wrong is that I was a DAMN FOOL! I never played 2e so I can't rate it.:smallfrown:
You see I had played a little oD&D, some Holmes Basic, and a lot of 1e AD&D before 2e came out. In 1985 "Unearthed Arcana" came out, which I read in the store and passed on because I thought it made the game I loved even more complex and unbalanced. When 2e came out I assumed it would be more of the same so I never played it! By that time my gaming circle was mostly trying other genres (Traveller, Champions etc.) and those that still would play a fantasy/Swords and Sorcery RPG wanted more "realism" (blows raspber:smalltongue:ry) and were switching from D&D to Rolemaster and Runequest.
Later the only RPG's anyone in my area would play were Cyberpunk, and Vampire, which I played for a little bit, but then the pointlessness of RPG'ing in settings that just seemed too much like real life got to me and I left the hobby and got more into motorcycles and "punk" rock instead.
Now I pretty much feel that:

If the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!
And after recently leafing through a reprint edition of the 2e PHB, I wish I had tried harder to find a D&D table when it was still the current edition, as it seems like a good game. Oh well I'm having fun with 5e (while it ruins my "old school cred", I'm in the tank for class balance which at least at low levels 5e seems to have).
But whatever the edition if the game has dragons in dungeons, I won't even ask the edition, just hand me the dice and a pencil (please just don't expect me to accurately remember any rules that weren't in the 1977 "blue book").

Quertus
2016-04-12, 02:48 PM
I've only played a little 2e, but it seems like you'd need to rewrite most of its rules with the philosophy behind the change you mentioned to get it to the point where 3e's balance and options were its only advantages. By then, you'd probably be closer to 3e than not.

Well, we could start with 3e, and give every class it's own XP table. Make iterative attacks use full attack bonus, and remove iterative attacks from non-fighter classes. Give ranged weapons their own iterative attacks, irrespective of class level. Make the save DCs static. Give the fighter all good saves. Make everyone roll their stats, and roll for HP starting at level 1 (so that even the fighter could start with only 1 HP - and you die at 0 HP). Remove magic item Wal-Mart. Make it take 100x the XP to advance a level.

Give the game a completely different balance point. Rewrite all classes so that imbalance is guaranteed in every party, but where that imbalance is / who it favors can vary by level, by adventure, by DM, or even by player. But, that imbalance should be much smaller than in 3.x. Make all races LA +0, 0HD when taken by a PC (but still full HD when taken by an NPC).

Don't make things cost XP - make them either cost constitution, or years off the user's life.

Don't have the world level up with the PCs - ancient red dragons are perfectly acceptable level 1 random encounters.

Add a base time of 2d6 months to magic item creation. If the PCs are making something truly amazing, like a +5 vorpal holy avenger staff of the magi, add a couple of weeks. Change magic item creation to no longer cost XP - make it give XP instead. However, make magical items require special components, like rare ore or butterfly dreams, to create. Remember that these cannot be bought at magic item Wal-Mart.

.....

Why do I love 2e so much? :smalltongue:

2D8HP
2016-04-12, 03:08 PM
Why do I love 2e so much? :smalltongue:
:) Because :smallsmile:

Levels used to mean something!

Straybow
2016-04-12, 03:16 PM
Personally, though, I've always felt like hitpoints should go down instead of up, and that levels should be measured logarithmically. I've also never understood why XP has to be measured in base 10.

Levels should be varied by function. So when for an AD&D style fighter you'd start at 1.0 and go up by tenths until you achieve the nominally 7th level that gets 3/2 attacks, which is 2.0. Fighters would progress slowly.

Wizards start at 1.0 and then 1.1, and then up to 2.0 with 2nd level spells, etc. Now, of course that means your level can vary by Intelligence. If you had Int 14 and got to the nominally 9th level, you would be 4.2 instead of 5.0 because you wouldn't have 5th level spells.

oxybe
2016-04-12, 05:04 PM
who dropped this 2nd edition chart here?

http://i.imgur.com/uDOirGx.jpg?1

yes, in 2nd ed both wrestling and boxing were completely random and could Knock Out an opponent regardless of hit dice. or monster it is.

now, i'll go on a limb and go "well, obviously this is humanoid VS humanoid" but the devs didn't expect gamers to think like gamers and go "IMMA PUNCH DER DARGON!" and hoping to (Dempsy) roll the fight in seconds with their supersecret tech.

It was full of this weird little stuff that most people either ignored or forgot about. Note that, as i stated in my initial post on this thread I started with 2nd ed.

I will also say that failed expectations might also be a contribution to my moving away from 2nd ed, wherein it gave Hercules as a reasonable example of a Fighter one could hope to emulate.

martixy
2016-04-12, 05:32 PM
I've come to the recent realization that I'm a 3.5 grognard.
I don't even make apologies for it.

I like the breadth of that system, I'm invested in it. And I'm too young to be an AD&D grognard. My only exposure to that has been the Infinity Engine games(which got me into D&D in the first place).
I sort of thrive on complexity(not unnecessary amounts, but when it has a point). E.g. THAC0 is too esoteric for my tastes.

I like tinkering with systems. In 5e, which has, I concede, a lot of good design, I'd probably just end up messing with the systems to the point where it stops being 5e.
And I perceive it as an example of game design philosophy that seems to permeate a lot of modern games, which I hate - that of dumbing down games, for the benefit of the stupid masses.

I like Cypher as a mechanics lite system that still has a bit of that old-school optimization flavour to it.

Cluedrew
2016-04-12, 06:18 PM
However, make magical items require special components, like rare ore or butterfly dreams, to create. Remember that these cannot be bought at magic item Wal-Mart.This is my favourite part of the old editions. Out of everything I have seen in every D&D edition actually. It put some magic into magic. Hopefully that makes sense.


3.5 (and Pathfinder and even 3.0) is the gold standard and there's nothing wrong with it. Casters with 9 spell levels are not a bug, they are a feature.Every time I hear that "Quadratic casters are a feature not a bug" I can't help but think "so linear martials are the bug".

johnbragg
2016-04-12, 07:20 PM
who dropped this 2nd edition chart here?

http://i.imgur.com/uDOirGx.jpg?1

yes, in 2nd ed both wrestling and boxing were completely random and could Knock Out an opponent regardless of hit dice. or monster it is.

now, i'll go on a limb and go "well, obviously this is humanoid VS humanoid" but the devs didn't expect gamers to think like gamers and go "IMMA PUNCH DER DARGON!" and hoping to (Dempsy) roll the fight in seconds with their supersecret tech.

It was full of this weird little stuff that most people either ignored or forgot about. Note that, as i stated in my initial post on this thread I started with 2nd ed.

I will also say that failed expectations might also be a contribution to my moving away from 2nd ed, wherein it gave Hercules as a reasonable example of a Fighter one could hope to emulate.

We actually made that that Boxing table work at our table, with only some homebrew. We were using the Weapon Proficiency and Weapon Specialization rules, and I had a half-ogre DMPC. (HE started as a random encounter, an ogre who I rolled crap for hit points. Then I started thinking about him, and he became a half-ogre--S 18/00, good Con & Dex, 6-8 for Int and Wis, 12 Cha for some reason)

I ruled he wasn't smart enough to use most weapons. So all of his weapon proficiencies were spent on "club/mace/morningstar specialist", and "Boxing specialist" You could pour extra proficiencies and over-specialize. Punching Specialization, which let you adjust your result on that table, up or down 1. So he could pretty much always adjust to 2 + 6 points of damage. I don't know if we bothered with the KO percentage--if 3 shots in 2 rounds wasn't going to take you down, he'd have been using the morningstar.

Ogie the Basher was a lot of fun.

BayardSPSR
2016-04-12, 08:44 PM
Ogie the Basher was a lot of fun.

Pronounced O.G., I assume?

johnbragg
2016-04-12, 09:32 PM
Pronounced O.G., I assume?

Actually, rhymes with Bogey. Ogie was such an O.G., he was played before OGs were a thing.

(I'm not 100% sure this is true. It's been a while.)

JAL_1138
2016-04-13, 03:18 AM
I didn't see anyone answer this question, so I'll take a stab at it.

1. Classes other than Jedi are viable.
1a. Lightsabers are good without being 2-3 times stronger than any other weapon.
2. Powers actually work. In the previous d20 edition, for example, a Jedi could only deflect a blaster bolt if it was going to miss him anyway (therefore making the power useless) and only if it missed by less than 5. Saga edition simply makes it an opposed check of the Jedi's Use the Force skill vs. the attack roll to determine success or failure.
3. Saga doesn't use the vitality/wounds system, which means your PCs won't die to a random critical hit. Neither will the BBEG, so you aren't cheated out of that climactic final battle.
4. Force powers are their own category of abilities rather than using the d20 skill system, so Force users can still have skills other than using the Force, and don't need to have genius-level intelligence to be decent at more than a small handful of Force powers.
5. Force powers work a lot like maneuvers in 3.5's Tome of Battle system. Not the exact same, but if you're familiar with that it's a good reference point. And you don't have to sacrifice hit points to use them anymore.
6. The condition track can model injuries or other conditions that reduce your effectiveness, so that there's a middle ground between fully functional and completely unconscious. It isn't a perfect system and it can be abused if you try, but it's simple and easy to understand.
7. The product line covers the original trilogy, prequel trilogy, and the EU as far back as the KOTOR games and as far forward as the Legacy era comics. All it's really missing is the Clone Wars cartoon and everything that's come out since then, because the RPG line ended around that time.

The system is not without flaws by any means, which we can go into if you want. And I know some people prefer the old WEG version or the newer Fantasy Flight game. But Saga is unquestionably the best d20 iteration of the Star Wars RPG.




RPG hipster, maybe? :smallbiggrin:


Hm. I kinda liked Vitality, one of the only systems in it I cared much for, and the possibility for a random vibroshiv in the kidneys or a stray blaster bolt to end a character. I know it's a little at odds with the movies, but it's not that farfetched for the EU.

The Revised edition of WEG D6 had something that allowed for that kind of thing with "exploding" dice (although Revised also made character generation a bit slower by increasing the size of the skill list).

Modeling prequel material isn't a big draw for me; I'm one of those people who pretends they never existed, although modeling the KOTOR era would be nifty.

Solving the "All Jedi or No Jedi" problem without lightsaber-proof Wookies (in WEGD6, minmaxed properly, a Wookie could boost a particular stat high enough to shrug off lightsabers, blasters, grenades, etc; it's become a meme / running gag of sorts) or dedicated "Jedi hunters" using specialized weaponry like flamethrowers, certain grenades, and Stokhli sticks (and who could likely still just get mind-tricked, IIRC) would be a big draw. Granted, in WEG D6 it could be a bit more like division of labor; a non-Jedi character could definitely still fill a valuable role in the party, but probably wasn't ever going to be the guy to go toe-to-toe with a dark-sider without being purpose-built for it to the expense of other skills (and funding). I didn't really mind being the mook-sweeper who took out the crowd while the Jedi dueled, or the pilot, or what have you, but they were a balance issue. And Force powers were generally wonky, as I recall.

Not too familiar with ToB. I wasn't a big 3e player; my TSR-era grognardism kicked in long before ToB came out. Although I know enough to know the Iron Heart Surge meme. :smalltongue:

A big issue I have with a lot of d20 System games is the fiddliness of combat rules (WEG could bog down in combat itself, without using static numbers as shortcuts for mook dodge and soak, due to number of rolls), and the crunch of the enemy statistics. As soon as I start having to cross-reference a half-dozen feats and non-spell abilities instead of just running out of a statblock, or if making an individual enemy (and for that matter, not having a large bestiary of ready-to-run enemies) starts taking longer than 5 minutes or so, I get really put off. How does SAGA stack up in that regard?

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-13, 08:02 AM
Hm. I kinda liked Vitality, one of the only systems in it I cared much for, and the possibility for a random vibroshiv in the kidneys or a stray blaster bolt to end a character. I know it's a little at odds with the movies, but it's not that farfetched for the EU.

The Revised edition of WEG D6 had something that allowed for that kind of thing with "exploding" dice (although Revised also made character generation a bit slower by increasing the size of the skill list).

Modeling prequel material isn't a big draw for me; I'm one of those people who pretends they never existed, although modeling the KOTOR era would be nifty.

Solving the "All Jedi or No Jedi" problem without lightsaber-proof Wookies (in WEGD6, minmaxed properly, a Wookie could boost a particular stat high enough to shrug off lightsabers, blasters, grenades, etc; it's become a meme / running gag of sorts) or dedicated "Jedi hunters" using specialized weaponry like flamethrowers, certain grenades, and Stokhli sticks (and who could likely still just get mind-tricked, IIRC) would be a big draw. Granted, in WEG D6 it could be a bit more like division of labor; a non-Jedi character could definitely still fill a valuable role in the party, but probably wasn't ever going to be the guy to go toe-to-toe with a dark-sider without being purpose-built for it to the expense of other skills (and funding). I didn't really mind being the mook-sweeper who took out the crowd while the Jedi dueled, or the pilot, or what have you, but they were a balance issue. And Force powers were generally wonky, as I recall.

Have you considered using Fate for Star Wars? There's nothing to stop you from ruling 'defeat in an armed combat means dead', and unless built for it characters start taking serious damage after one or two hits (unless we are talking about SotC, in which case characters are tough). Non Jedi are also competitive, because you can simply make the force cost Fate Points, Refresh, Skill Ranks or Stunts, with skill ranks significantly reducing Jedi competence and Stunts making them almost exactly the same as non-Jedi.

JAL_1138
2016-04-13, 08:57 AM
Have you considered using Fate for Star Wars? There's nothing to stop you from ruling 'defeat in an armed combat means dead', and unless built for it characters start taking serious damage after one or two hits (unless we are talking about SotC, in which case characters are tough). Non Jedi are also competitive, because you can simply make the force cost Fate Points, Refresh, Skill Ranks or Stunts, with skill ranks significantly reducing Jedi competence and Stunts making them almost exactly the same as non-Jedi.

I'd need to play it first. Just reading it, I don't think I'd like it much--I generally need something more concrete and defined--but I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong by table experience (I certainly have been before) and am looking for a local game to join to give it a go. The one I know of is full up, but I'm on the lookout for an opening in that one and talking to the players and GM to see if they know any others. I don't want to dislike it, but it's written so vaguely that I'm not even sure how it works, much less see advantages to using it.

For instance, Aspects are still something I'm not sure of--practically anything can be an Aspect, and I honestly don't know what works and what doesn't--and the notion of Compels just bugs me, a bias largely due to the way they're written up in Accelerated.

Fate Core at least has sidebars Accelerated doesn't, saying you can refuse a compel if it really, really bothers you, but I still get peeved at the idea someone besides me has any say in how my character behaves absent insanity or mind-control. E.g., my Paladin might change alignment and lose his Paladinhood, or even become an evil NPC, if he decides to, say, murder a priest, but nobody gets to Compel his Aspect of "Defender of the Faith" and actually stop me unless I pay a Fate Point, and be unable to refuse if I'm out of them. There's just consequences, not someone else deciding what he does or doesn't do. Now, I know you're not supposed to troll people with them, and it might be something I don't mind nearly as much as I think I do once I'm at the table, and I might be misinterpreting how they work, but with my current understanding they bug me.

There's a list of Stunts in Fate Core, but they're only examples, and there's only some general guidelines not to have the Stunt overshadow the base ability for others. I don't really have a good baseline for when a Stunt works or doesn't, and don't really want to write up and/or approve two dozen new ones for Star Wars.

I also don't really want to write up a system to play. I liked WEG, and while I don't have the books currently and haven't read it in years, I could pick it up again quickly. For all its flaws, I could pick it up and run it as a tailor-made Star Wars system that functions reasonably well, particularly with a little streamlining of mook combat rolls and some tweaking of how Strength lets you resist damage to avoid grenade-proof Wookies. I'd have to homebrew Star Wars onto Fate, homebrewing a whole system of Force powers, a metric crapton of gear and technology, systems for hyperspace travel and space combat that take into account ship differences, droids and alien races, and then homebrew every enemy statblock, all with no clear "feel" for how it's supposed to work. It looks to me like there'd be a lot of work going into just adjusting the system to work for Star Wars, which I'm frankly almost too lazy to do when I can pick up and run another system that has all that done for me, unless I see a massive advantage to Fate I currently don't.

But, if I can get into a game and get some experience with the Fate system, I might feel differently and start seeing advantages to it (and be able to grok how it actually works) once I've used it. So I'm not ruling it out, but am not going to use it until I've played it enough to get a solid grasp on the ins and outs of it.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-13, 09:09 AM
I'd need to play it first. Just reading it, I don't think I'd like it much--I generally need something more concrete and defined--but I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong by table experience (I certainly have been before) and am looking for a local game to join to give it a go. The one I know of is full up, but I'm on the lookout for an opening in that one and talking to the players and GM to see if they know any others. I don't want to dislike it, but it's written so vaguely that I'm not even sure how it works, much less see advantages to using it.

For instance, Aspects are still something I'm not sure of--practically anything can be an Aspect, and I honestly don't know what works and what doesn't--and the notion of Compels just bugs me, a bias largely due to the way they're written up in Accelerated.

Fate Core at least has sidebars Accelerated doesn't, saying you can refuse a compel if it really, really bothers you, but I still get peeved at the idea someone besides me has any say in how my character behaves absent insanity or mind-control. E.g., my Paladin might change alignment and lose his Paladinhood, or even become an evil NPC, if he decides to, say, murder a priest, but nobody gets to Compel his Aspect of "Defender of the Faith" and actually stop me unless I pay a Fate Point, and be unable to refuse if I'm out of them. There's just consequences, not someone else deciding what he does or doesn't do. Now, I know you're not supposed to troll people with them, and it might be something I don't mind nearly as much as I think I do once I'm at the table, and I might be misinterpreting how they work, but with my current understanding they bug me.

There's a list of Stunts in Fate Core, but they're only examples, and there's only some general guidelines not to have the Stunt overshadow the base ability for others. I don't really have a good baseline for when a Stunt works or doesn't, and don't really want to write up and/or approve two dozen new ones for Star Wars.

I also don't really want to write up a system to play. I liked WEG, and while I don't have the books currently and haven't read it in years, I could pick it up again quickly. For all its flaws, I could pick it up and run it as a tailor-made Star Wars system that functions reasonably well, particularly with a little streamlining of mook combat rolls and some tweaking of how Strength lets you resist damage to avoid grenade-proof Wookies. I'd have to homebrew Star Wars onto Fate, homebrewing a whole system of Force powers, a metric crapton of gear and technology, systems for hyperspace travel and space combat that take into account ship differences, droids and alien races, and then homebrew every enemy statblock, all with no clear "feel" for how it's supposed to work. It looks to me like there'd be a lot of work going into just adjusting the system to work for Star Wars, which I'm frankly almost too lazy to do when I can pick up and run another system that has all that done for me, unless I see a massive advantage to Fate I currently don't.

But, if I can get into a game and get some experience with the Fate system, I might feel differently and start seeing advantages to it (and be able to grok how it actually works) once I've used it. So I'm not ruling it out, but am not going to use it until I've played it enough to get a solid grasp on the ins and outs of it.

Fair enough, but bare in mind that you can compel yourself to get a Fate Point, and people have to justify compelling your aspects. It sounds like you just prefer a less narrative game.

JAL_1138
2016-04-13, 09:37 AM
Fair enough, but bare in mind that you can compel yourself to get a Fate Point, and people have to justify compelling your aspects. It sounds like you just prefer a less narrative game.

I'm not sure; I haven't played them. Though I've got no issue with self-Compels, which sounds like a very solid RP mechanic, it just bugs me that other people can. My character, and my character's story, is mine, and how the character behaves is my decision unless there's an outright external force compelling them or they're afflicted with some form of madness.

A bigger issue is the vagueness. Fate feels like a toolkit to build a game on, that I don't entirely grasp how to use. I can't read it and immediately grasp how it works because so much is under-defined or not concrete; reading through it just leaves me puzzled. If there were a "Big F'ing List" of Aspects like a point-buy systems traits and flaws, it might work for me on a read-through, I dunno.

But if I can play it and get a clearer idea how it works than the write-up gives, I might change my tune, so I'm trying to find a game to join. My complaints might turn out to largely be with the write-up rather than the actual system mechanics (e.g., as an AD&D 2e fan, I'll still readily admit there are massive problems in the writing and organization of the rules; it works better than it reads).

obryn
2016-04-13, 10:49 AM
The thing about THAC0 is that you shouldn't use THAC0. Subtraction is inherently a more complex operation than addition.

Whenever I run BECMI or AD&D, I've switched to the Target 20 system. You have a normal attack bonus which calculates as 20 - THAC0. Everything else that's a bonus is a bonus - specialization/mastery, strength, magic weapons, etc.

Roll 1d20. Add your total attack bonus. DM adds the target's AC. Total of 20 or more, and you hit. Easy-peasy, and it requires no conversion during play.

Gamgee
2016-04-13, 12:24 PM
Thanks for helping explain it JAL. I finally get it. And I hate it even more. :smallmad: Why would anyone make such an obtuse way of doing things. There's retro and there's obsolete. Retro is something cool you can go back and play and its always enjoyable and accessible. Obsolete is something you never want to go back to. I couldn't see any modern gamer ever wanting to use that rule in a million years.

I respect the early grognards but damn. I hate that rule. It's about as easy to make someone understand that rule as it is trying to explain parsecs in star wars. I mean yeah you can do it but its sure an obtuse way of saying how fast you traveled.

https://rgtamaki.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/comedian.gif

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-13, 12:53 PM
Thanks for helping explain it JAL. I finally get it. And I hate it even more. :smallmad: Why would anyone make such an obtuse way of doing things. There's retro and there's obsolete. Retro is something cool you can go back and play and its always enjoyable and accessible. Obsolete is something you never want to go back to. I couldn't see any modern gamer ever wanting to use that rule in a million years.

I respect the early grognards but damn. I hate that rule. It's about as easy to make someone understand that rule as it is trying to explain parsecs in star wars. I mean yeah you can do it but its sure an obtuse way of saying how fast you traveled.

https://rgtamaki.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/comedian.gif

There is nothing obtuse about THAC0. If THAC0 is obsolete, than BAB is obsolete. I propose that we find a way to roll attacks without applying anything to the roll.

THAC0 is just 'BAB, but counting down' with a different progression. If it's such a problem for you, 20-THAC0=attack bonus and 20-AC=ascending AC. It's that simple and clear, I don't get how people delude themselves into thinking it's complicated, probably all this stupid maths-hating that seems to be going on at the moment.

Oh, and for the record, I believe I'm younger than 2e. I didn't play D&D until after 3e had been released (although my very first sessions were BECM), although I played a bit of Baldur's Gate without understanding it, and I only picked up 2e within the last year.

And you know what? Once you get past the poor organisation, 2e is better than 3.5. So is 4e for that matter. Not certain about 5e, I'm not happy that I spent £30 on that, but 2e and 4e are the two best editions of D&D to me.

LibraryOgre
2016-04-13, 01:11 PM
Personally, I find the way later D&D's attack rolls work to be unnecessarily time-consuming as well, which is why I'm perpetually on the hunt for faster, more intuitive combat systems that don't sacrifice verisimilitude.

The number of times I've add to hand-hold someone through the addition of 3 or more numbers...

Other Player: So, I rolled a 17, and have a +4 from BAB, and a +2 from Attribute and a +3 because of this thingie, and a +1 from that thingy...
Me: For crying out loud, it's 27. Where did you go to school?

Delwugor
2016-04-13, 02:11 PM
I'm not sure; I haven't played them. Though I've got no issue with self-Compels, which sounds like a very solid RP mechanic, it just bugs me that other people can. My character, and my character's story, is mine, and how the character behaves is my decision unless there's an outright external force compelling them or they're afflicted with some form of madness.
I understand and have the same attitude about my characters as well.
As a GM in Fate, I would not run compels in a manner that it tells the characters what to do. Take a Trouble aspect of "Arrogant SOB", in a situation where the character is trying to convince someone he is right.

As a Self-Compel:
PC: I am right and only a ^($# idiot would not do as I say.
NPC: You are an Arrogant SOB. *walks away*
PC: IDIOT

A GM Compel:
PC: I am right and you need to consider what I say.
NPC: I heard you were an Arrogant SOB. *walks away*
PC: What did I say?

In the second case, it's not telling the character what to do, but how the NPC interacts with the character that has the aspect. Same result but different reasons for it happening.


A bigger issue is the vagueness. Fate feels like a toolkit to build a game on, that I don't entirely grasp how to use. I can't read it and immediately grasp how it works because so much is under-defined or not concrete; reading through it just leaves me puzzled. If there were a "Big F'ing List" of Aspects like a point-buy systems traits and flaws, it might work for me on a read-through, I dunno.
Fate Core is a toolkit, so I can understand why people have problems with it. My big complaint along that line is it doesn't have a good spell system, I understand why but that gets in the way of a quick pickup fantasy session sometimes.
As for the "Big List", there are lists of common aspects and stunts on the Evil Hat wiki site, the stunts are useful but I find the aspects too general. I personally wouldn't use someone else's character aspects for my characters. They need to match me, my character and the game setting, general aspects don't do that well.


Other Player: So, I rolled a 17, and have a +4 from BAB, and a +2 from Attribute and a +3 because of this thingie, and a +1 from that thingy...
Me: For crying out loud, it's 27. Where did you go to school?
Me: I'm here to play a game, not sit in a math class. After the game we can discuss the types and uses of differential manifolds if you want. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously math that doesn't add to the game turns me off, it's my biggest problem with playing Mathfinder. Lot's of great character creation options which I love, then get dragged down into mundane math when playing.
D&D 5E does a good job of putting the math where it adds to the game. Advantages/disadvantages tend to remove most of the situational math while playing. To me that speeds up play and lets me concentrate on my character and his actions.

JAL_1138
2016-04-13, 02:23 PM
The number of times I've add to hand-hold someone through the addition of 3 or more numbers...

Other Player: So, I rolled a 17, and have a +4 from BAB, and a +2 from Attribute and a +3 because of this thingie, and a +1 from that thingy...
Me: For crying out loud, it's 27. Where did you go to school?

I probably have an extremely-mild form of learning issue with math. Sequences in general, in some ways. Numbers I haven't memorized get really jumbled in my head, even before I start messing with them via arithmetic; I can keep them straight if I write them down and can see them, but if you tell me, say, a phone number, I'll get it turned around and wrong. I can work out simple arithmetic like 17+24=41 on paper quickly, but I'll be really slow doing it in my head. And while I can memorize things eventually, I can mainly do it in order--if I memorized 17+24=41, giving it to me as 24+17 would throw me for a moment until I caught it. To add anything up that isn't written down I usually have to count on my fingers and break it up into 10s or 5s where possible. I suppose that's part of why THAC0 involving subtraction isn't significantly worse than additive systems to me; I'm pretty much equally bad at all mental arithmetic.

Oddly, I have a similar problem with spelling--I can barely tell someone how to spell a polysyllabic word I know and use often, and will frequently get lost halfway through, but I can write the word out correctly without any hesitation every time. I can trace the letters out with my finger if I don't have anything to write with, too.


Thanks for helping explain it JAL. I finally get it. And I hate it even more. :smallmad: Why would anyone make such an obtuse way of doing things. There's retro and there's obsolete. Retro is something cool you can go back and play and its always enjoyable and accessible. Obsolete is something you never want to go back to. I couldn't see any modern gamer ever wanting to use that rule in a million years.

I respect the early grognards but damn. I hate that rule. It's about as easy to make someone understand that rule as it is trying to explain parsecs in star wars. I mean yeah you can do it but its sure an obtuse way of saying how fast you traveled.

https://rgtamaki.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/comedian.gif

Glad I could help clarify it. I personally don't think it's that bad compared to BAB, since like I said above I'm nearly equally bad at either form of mental arithmetic, and it's very nearly the same thing (including mathematically, as Anonymouswizard said), but I have my own issues with math and some rules (I could never get the hang of segments in 1e, for instance) and certainly don't begrudge them in others.

martixy
2016-04-13, 02:32 PM
I respect the early grognards but damn. I hate that rule. It's about as easy to make someone understand that rule as it is trying to explain parsecs in star wars. I mean yeah you can do it but its sure an obtuse way of saying how fast you traveled.

https://rgtamaki.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/comedian.gif

Nitpicky nerd note: Parsecs are an actual, real-life unit of distance(not speed), though its definition is very Earth-centric. However it's still conceivable to compare distances in a variety a plausible contexts that could apply to star wars.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-13, 02:39 PM
Me: I'm here to play a game, not sit in a math class. After the game we can discuss the types and uses of differential manifolds if you want. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously math that doesn't add to the game turns me off, it's my biggest problem with playing Mathfinder. Lot's of great character creation options which I love, then get dragged down into mundane math when playing.
D&D 5E does a good job of putting the math where it adds to the game. Advantages/disadvantages tend to remove most of the situational math while playing. To me that speeds up play and lets me concentrate on my character and his actions.

Do you have a problem with simple arithmetic. Say, 245+781? (for the record, it's 1026)

Because I could, if I tried, create a game that actually used complex maths. No I'm not talking about algebra, how do you like the idea of logarithmically scaling damage interacting with quadratic hp? Or maybe we can differentiate to discover if the attack hits? I'm particularly fond of my calculus-based spell system.

The maths in about 99% of games is stuff you learn before you've finished year 3 over here, you haven't done maths this simple in a maths class for ages. Maybe you have dyscalculia, that's fine, I allow calculators at my table because even people without it are just more competent with one, I can even bring mine if you need one (although I only have a scientific one, I don't have the funds to buy another graphing calculator at the moment). The only game I've seen use secondary school maths (specifically, Key Stage 3 for me, although I know some people did it for their GCSEs) is FATAL with it's quadratic equations (which they really could have presented in a nicer form, but weren't hard as maths problems go). There is no reason to bring up maths being hard, although also no reason to get annoyed at someone for taking a long time doing it unless they just consistently get it wrong, although I totally understand why you would get annoyed.

For what it's worth, in my experience the more maths-capable somebody is the more numbers they have pre-calculated on their sheet. I'd never say 'so I rolled a 15 with +3 for my Int, +4 for proficiency, +1 for this item...' I'd say, 'I rolled a 23, including bonuses'.

What annoys me even more is 'what dice do I roll' (:smallmad: it's die, otherwise you'd use which). That's the number one reason I've stopped running D&D, and only use systems that have one type of die in them.

EDIT: I should probably mention here that I'm somewhat naturally talented at maths, my entire family is, but I'm only about average at mental arithmetic, which really annoyed me when I was about 10. I have pulled out my calculator in game before, at one point to keep track of my hp electronically, which I still do occasionally.

JAL_1138
2016-04-13, 02:59 PM
I understand and have the same attitude about my characters as well.
As a GM in Fate, I would not run compels in a manner that it tells the characters what to do. Take a Trouble aspect of "Arrogant SOB", in a situation where the character is trying to convince someone he is right.

As a Self-Compel:
PC: I am right and only a ^($# idiot would not do as I say.
NPC: You are an Arrogant SOB. *walks away*
PC: IDIOT

A GM Compel:
PC: I am right and you need to consider what I say.
NPC: I heard you were an Arrogant SOB. *walks away*
PC: What did I say?

In the second case, it's not telling the character what to do, but how the NPC interacts with the character that has the aspect. Same result but different reasons for it happening.


Yeah, that I wouldn't mind. It makes sense and makes it a combination of the character's own actions and reputation, without making my character behave any differently than I want them to. So that's an instance of something I don't like in the write-up, but wouldn't bother me once I saw it in use.



Fate Core is a toolkit, so I can understand why people have problems with it. My big complaint along that line is it doesn't have a good spell system, I understand why but that gets in the way of a quick pickup fantasy session sometimes.
As for the "Big List", there are lists of common aspects and stunts on the Evil Hat wiki site, the stunts are useful but I find the aspects too general. I personally wouldn't use someone else's character aspects for my characters. They need to match me, my character and the game setting, general aspects don't do that well.

I think that's part of my issue--I might like a Fate system already customized to a particular game, rather than a toolkit to build one. I'd likely feel similarly toward WEG D6 if it was just the D6 system and I had to build Star Wars onto it. I generally don't mind tweaking a system that's already close, like running Star Wars with D6 Space, but the bare D6 game engine would be a little too generic. Is there a Fate Fantasy or a Fate Sci-Fi with some of that building already done that's worth picking up?
I'll look into the list of aspects and stunts on the wiki though, it may clarify them for me. Thanks!


Me: I'm here to play a game, not sit in a math class. After the game we can discuss the types and uses of differential manifolds if you want. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously math that doesn't add to the game turns me off, it's my biggest problem with playing Mathfinder. Lot's of great character creation options which I love, then get dragged down into mundane math when playing.
D&D 5E does a good job of putting the math where it adds to the game. Advantages/disadvantages tend to remove most of the situational math while playing. To me that speeds up play and lets me concentrate on my character and his actions.

Ditto. Dis/Advantage and streamlining the combat round (and especially the monsters, when trying to run it) is a big draw of 5e over 3.PF for me, and the bonuses stay small enough not to give me fits. THAC0 aside, I felt like 2e did that as well for the most part--some things were a bit more granular, like shields, but that did add something--wearing a shield on your back helped protect from backstabs, for instance. Roll-under was kind of nice in its own way because you knew what the necessary roll was--is it under your stat (or, rather, stat as modified by bonus or penalty) ? If it is, you don't need to add anything to the roll; look at the die roll and see whether it's below the number, and you're done.

JAL_1138
2016-04-13, 03:06 PM
Nitpicky nerd note: Parsecs are an actual, real-life unit of distance(not speed), though its definition is very Earth-centric. However it's still conceivable to compare distances in a variety a plausible contexts that could apply to star wars.

Parsecs are a unit of distance in Star Wars, too. The explanation is that...ok, this takes a bit.

Near the (dwarf) planet Kessel, there's a (highly-improbable, possibly even artificial) cluster of black holes called the Maw. The faster a ship goes, the closer it can get to the mass shadows of the black holes without being caught, yanked out of hyperspace, and destroyed by the Maw. Getting closer to the Maw cuts distance off the Kessel Run. So a shorter distance on the run means you were flying much faster.

Gamgee
2016-04-13, 03:26 PM
Nitpicky nerd note: Parsecs are an actual, real-life unit of distance(not speed), though its definition is very Earth-centric. However it's still conceivable to compare distances in a variety a plausible contexts that could apply to star wars.
Which is why I used it as an example. :smallsmile:

Scots Dragon
2016-04-13, 03:34 PM
I have a simpler explanation.

Substract your THAC0 from 20. You now have your BAB. You add it to your attack rolls. (You might want to write it down somewhere.)
Substract your modified attack rolls from 20. You hit any AC higher than this result. (Because lower AC are better in the THAC0 system.)

Even faster is to just subtract all ACs from 20 as well, which creates a mathematically identical but easier to run BAB system.

Your 5th level fighter with Str 17, has a +1 from their strength score, and THAC0 16. This becomes a base attack bonus of +4, and a modified melee attack bonus of +5.

Your average goblin has an AC of 6 from their armour and shield, which becomes 14.

For what it's worth, I prefer THAC0 'cause I'm a grognard at heart.

Delwugor
2016-04-13, 03:55 PM
Is there a Fate Fantasy or a Fate Sci-Fi with some of that building already done that's worth picking up?
I'll look into the list of aspects and stunts on the wiki though, it may clarify them for me. Thanks!

I only know a couple for fantasy, I tend to use other systems than Fate Core. I do have The Fate Freeport Companion though I've never used it, they change things up a bit to give it more of a D&D type of feel. I also have Aperita Arcana though haven't played it, Fate Core with an OSR feel. I had heard a few good things about Ehdrigohr, but haven't even read it and I think an Arthurian types of game - Age of Arthur?

Now Science Fiction is a different ball game.
Bulldogs! - great game, get it play it love it :smallbiggrin:
Diaspora - really good hard science fiction game, based on older Fater.
Atomic Robo - from the comic, good fun
Mindjammer - huge toolkit that I would get if I could find players for it.
Fate Worlds - has a setting to run space mecha knights of the round table style and a WWI fighter plane setting easily converted to BSG
Star Blazer Adventures - based on older Fate
Nova Praxis
Eclipse Phase
Strange Stars
Dawning Star

BayardSPSR
2016-04-13, 04:47 PM
The number of times I've add to hand-hold someone through the addition of 3 or more numbers...

dyscalculia,

It's one of those funny things you only run into in narrowly specific contexts. Like recommending a long novel to someone with dyslexia, and then realizing it's going to be six months before you get to hear their opinion on it.

GreatWyrmGold
2016-04-13, 11:14 PM
And I perceive it as an example of game design philosophy that seems to permeate a lot of modern games, which I hate - that of dumbing down games, for the benefit of the stupid masses.
First off, I don't feel like 5e is dumbed-down. It certainly has fewer options, but the part of that which isn't due to the lack of sourcebooks is because when they gave us freer choice we broke the game (and complained about it).
Second off, the question of "dumbed-down" is a bit overstated. I'd like to point out this (https://youtu.be/BWFzFsHc75U?t=2m41s) video by Extra Credits, which explains some important things to consider. In order for an RPG to be sold to anyone that wasn't already a fan—and fans already have an edition they like—it needs to be approachable. The easiest way to do that is to dumb it down, but it doesn't feel like Next is doing that; it feels like they're trying to make it so the game doesn't have so many high-skill-level tricks that make an optimized character so easily overshadow anything built by a new player. There is a difference, by the way.
I also appreciate the attempt at introducing rules for backgrounds and whatnot; it's sort of a tutorial for roleplaying. It's hardly a perfect system, but A for effort.


If there were a "Big F'ing List" of Aspects like a point-buy systems traits and flaws, it might work for me on a read-through, I dunno.
This makes me think of GURPS, which I'd call my favorite RPG engine.


D&D 5E does a good job of putting the math where it adds to the game. Advantages/disadvantages tend to remove most of the situational math while playing. To me that speeds up play and lets me concentrate on my character and his actions.
And yet, for all that I logically recognize it makes Next a better system, something feels off. Maybe it's how situational bonuses don't change the possible ranges, but the likely, meaning that good circumstances never let you achieve things you couldn't otherwise. Maybe it's the lack of granularity. Whatever it is, my head sees why but my gut doesn't like it.
D&D Next is full of that for me, and it bothers me that I can't pin down why.


Parsecs are a unit of distance in Star Wars, too. The explanation is that...ok, this takes a bit.

Near the (dwarf) planet Kessel, there's a (highly-improbable, possibly even artificial) cluster of black holes called the Maw. The faster a ship goes, the closer it can get to the mass shadows of the black holes without being caught, yanked out of hyperspace, and destroyed by the Maw. Getting closer to the Maw cuts distance off the Kessel Run. So a shorter distance on the run means you were flying much faster.
Real explanation: Whoever wrote the system messed up.
(The funny thing is, the actors' performances makes it plausible that Han messed it up, not having any idea what a parsec is.)

BayardSPSR
2016-04-14, 12:13 AM
(The funny thing is, the actors' performances makes it plausible that Han messed it up, not having any idea what a parsec is.)

This version of the script (http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Star-Wars-A-New-Hope.html) includes the following line after Han says it:


Ben reacts to Solo's stupid attempt to impress them with obvious misinformation.

martixy
2016-04-14, 06:05 PM
First off, I don't feel like 5e is dumbed-down. It certainly has fewer options, but the part of that which isn't due to the lack of sourcebooks is because when they gave us freer choice we broke the game (and complained about it).
Second off, the question of "dumbed-down" is a bit overstated. I'd like to point out this (https://youtu.be/BWFzFsHc75U?t=2m41s) video by Extra Credits, which explains some important things to consider. In order for an RPG to be sold to anyone that wasn't already a fan—and fans already have an edition they like—it needs to be approachable. The easiest way to do that is to dumb it down, but it doesn't feel like Next is doing that; it feels like they're trying to make it so the game doesn't have so many high-skill-level tricks that make an optimized character so easily overshadow anything built by a new player. There is a difference, by the way.
I also appreciate the attempt at introducing rules for backgrounds and whatnot; it's sort of a tutorial for roleplaying. It's hardly a perfect system, but A for effort.

I find getting referred to an EC video somewhat ironic. I've seen all of them probably 3 or 4 times over the years.

The problem is, along with complexity, they're axing depth as well. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU) (See I can do it too.)

I guess it would be more accurate to say I am disappointed that deep games and high production values are mutually exclusive, due to the fact that the latter requires mass market appeal from a business perspective.

BayardSPSR
2016-04-14, 06:11 PM
I guess it would be more accurate to say I am disappointed that deep games and high production values are mutually exclusive, due to the fact that the latter requires mass market appeal from a business perspective.

I don't follow. Could you clarify?

charcoalninja
2016-04-15, 06:19 PM
Wouldn't Pathfinder be an example of a deep game with high production values?

I mean if something as sprawling as Pathfinder isn't deep I shudder at the thought of what IS!

Scots Dragon
2016-04-16, 04:23 AM
Wouldn't Pathfinder be an example of a deep game with high production values?

I mean if something as sprawling as Pathfinder isn't deep I shudder at the thought of what IS!

Well there's deep and there's The Eternal Howling Abyss

Pathfinder seems to be somewhat on the latter end of that gradient.

Raimun
2016-04-16, 09:25 AM
This is my favourite part of the old editions. Out of everything I have seen in every D&D edition actually. It put some magic into magic. Hopefully that makes sense.

Every time I hear that "Quadratic casters are a feature not a bug" I can't help but think "so linear martials are the bug".

Okay, martials could be better. That said, if someone combines countless fighting classes to make the strongest possible martial character they can in 3.5 and regularly overshadows wizards by supplexing dragons and tarrasques to death, they should be just allowed to roll with it, no questions asked. Except maybe: "How could I do amazing stuff like that?"


who dropped this 2nd edition chart here?

http://i.imgur.com/uDOirGx.jpg?1

yes, in 2nd ed both wrestling and boxing were completely random and could Knock Out an opponent regardless of hit dice. or monster it is.

now, i'll go on a limb and go "well, obviously this is humanoid VS humanoid" but the devs didn't expect gamers to think like gamers and go "IMMA PUNCH DER DARGON!" and hoping to (Dempsy) roll the fight in seconds with their supersecret tech.


Okay. If I ever get roped to play that game again (2nd edition? AD&D? 2nd edition AD&D? I can never keep track of them) I'm only going to roll fighters and paladins who punch dragons and supplex hydras... perhaps combined with the most dreaded weapon of the game, ie. darts? That actually sounds like fun. I thank you, good sir.

Velaryon
2016-04-16, 04:53 PM
Hm. I kinda liked Vitality, one of the only systems in it I cared much for, and the possibility for a random vibroshiv in the kidneys or a stray blaster bolt to end a character. I know it's a little at odds with the movies, but it's not that farfetched for the EU.

I liked it at first, but the problem I have with Vitality is that the random death to a stray blaster or shiv is less a matter of if it happens and more a matter of when. If a campaign goes on long enough, everyone is hit with a critical sooner or later, at least in any system where a roll of 20 is an automatic hit regardless of your defenses. Since this system gave you wound points equal to your Constitution and nothing else unless you spent feats to increase the total (I think there was a feat, anyway), and we're in a system where base blaster damage ranged from 3d4 for holdout blasters to 3d8 for blaster rifles without anything else modifying the damage, one hit kills were a near-certainty over time.

It also makes for anti-climactic BBEG fights when the party Jedi lops the Sith Lord's head off in the first round with a critical hit, which happened far too many times to count.

A friend of mine introduced a house rule that gave one extra Wound Point per character level and that helped a lot. It resulted in only two character deaths during the campaign instead of eight or nine like it would have been otherwise. And it allowed important villains to usually survive one lucky hit so that high-stakes battles wouldn't end anticlimactically.




Modeling prequel material isn't a big draw for me; I'm one of those people who pretends they never existed, although modeling the KOTOR era would be nifty.

Even leaving out the storyline of the prequels, there's a lot to be said for the vehicles, technology, and alien species introduced in that era's movies, books, etc. Also, the Saga books served as a combination era guide and splatbook most of the time, so they were worth having anyway.



Solving the "All Jedi or No Jedi" problem without lightsaber-proof Wookies (in WEGD6, minmaxed properly, a Wookie could boost a particular stat high enough to shrug off lightsabers, blasters, grenades, etc; it's become a meme / running gag of sorts) or dedicated "Jedi hunters" using specialized weaponry like flamethrowers, certain grenades, and Stokhli sticks (and who could likely still just get mind-tricked, IIRC) would be a big draw.

This you can do pretty well. The scariest character I've seen in Saga was a killer droid who used reinforced limbs to dual-wield heavy weapons while generating an energy shield strong enough to stop all but the heaviest of return fire cold.



A big issue I have with a lot of d20 System games is the fiddliness of combat rules (WEG could bog down in combat itself, without using static numbers as shortcuts for mook dodge and soak, due to number of rolls), and the crunch of the enemy statistics. As soon as I start having to cross-reference a half-dozen feats and non-spell abilities instead of just running out of a statblock, or if making an individual enemy (and for that matter, not having a large bestiary of ready-to-run enemies) starts taking longer than 5 minutes or so, I get really put off. How does SAGA stack up in that regard?

This is where Saga might lose your interest. It's less cumbersome than 3.X D&D with regard to feats and other abilities, but it's got the same basic structure. There are plenty of ready-to-run enemies, and you can make generic enemy builds to use, but feats are still a thing. Classes give talent trees similar to d20 Modern but with better choices (basically you choose your class abilities and some are prerequisites for others), and all base classes also give bonus feats.

Since the ToB example wasn't useful to you: Force powers are drawn from a list by taking a feat called Force Training that gives you X amount of powers based on your Wisdom stat. Each power is a single-use, though IIRC you can take multiple uses of a single power if you choose to, and can take the feat more than once for more powers. Once a Force power is expended it's used up for the encounter, unless you roll a natural 20 on your Use the Force skill, which gives you all your power uses back. There might be other special circumstances where you'd get them back as well but that's the main thing. And simply being Force-sensitive gives you a couple more abilities as well.

Like I said, I can't compare it to WEG or Fantasy Flight because I haven't played those, but I think it's easily the best of the d20 Star Wars games.

oxybe
2016-04-16, 05:10 PM
Okay. If I ever get roped to play that game again (2nd edition? AD&D? 2nd edition AD&D? I can never keep track of them) I'm only going to roll fighters and paladins who punch dragons and supplex hydras... perhaps combined with the most dreaded weapon of the game, ie. darts? That actually sounds like fun. I thank you, good sir.

I just realized that the scariest martial guy in 2nd ed ADnD is the drunk at the bar who plays darts all night long and gets in fistfights...

JAL_1138
2016-04-16, 05:17 PM
[snip]

Edit: Sudden and near-guaranteed character death is kind of a selling point for a system for me; I'm fond of AD&D and thought Tomb of Horrors was great fun to play through. I've lost characters to such things as a barnyard goat or a small number of squirrels. :smalltongue: Though I can certainly see the other side of the coin, and a little more insulation from sudden death doesn't necessarily put me off.

Just having some of the 3e structure doesn't necessarily take Saga out of the running for me; 5e bears a lot of similarity to 3e, but is my second-favorite edition of D&D, because while it shares a lot of the structure (for PCs; enemies aren't built on the same chassis, generally), it takes most of the fiddliness and extensive prep-time out. I'll take a gander at it and see how the crunch-level looks if I can find it at the used-book store; might give it a shot. Thanks!

Velaryon
2016-04-16, 05:56 PM
Edit: Sudden and near-guaranteed character death is kind of a selling point for a system for me; I'm fond of AD&D and thought Tomb of Horrors was great fun to play through. I've lost characters to such things as a barnyard goat or a small number of squirrels. :smalltongue: Though I can certainly see the other side of the coin, and a little more insulation from sudden death doesn't necessarily put me off.

Just having some of the 3e structure doesn't necessarily take Saga out of the running for me; 5e bears a lot of similarity to 3e, but is my second-favorite edition of D&D, because while it shares a lot of the structure (for PCs; enemies aren't built on the same chassis, generally), it takes most of the fiddliness and extensive prep-time out. I'll take a gander at it and see how the crunch-level looks if I can find it at the used-book store; might give it a shot. Thanks!

Cool! I'd love to know how your experience goes. I think Saga falls somewhere in between 3.5 and 5e in terms of fiddliness. I must admit though, that while I've played many Saga games, I've never actually GMed the system myself. There are I believe sixteen books in the Saga line, most of which had a handful of prestige classes, a few pages of feats and talents, and a little bit of new gear. It's definitely possible to spend a long time digging through books to build a character, but it's nowhere near the splatbook bloat of 3.5.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-16, 06:03 PM
I just realized that the scariest martial guy in 2nd ed ADnD is the drunk at the bar who plays darts all night long and gets in fistfights...

I forget, does 2e have rules for drunkenness. I fear it giving a bonus to attack rolls now...

Cluedrew
2016-04-16, 06:09 PM
I just realized that the scariest martial guy in 2nd ed ADnD is the drunk at the bar who plays darts all night long and gets in fistfights...And this is why I think martials could use an upgrade*. I think the scariest martial is the one who has trained and killed so much s/he can make a level 1's heart explode just by exerting battle presence. OK maybe not quite that... but something like that.

Raimun's "everything together" martial might do it, but the thing is I don't think any of the martials really have what they need to seem like a proper level 20 character. Of course I should admit I have never played a campaign in any system (including D&D) that has made it to high levels. But just looking at the options martials in D&D, even if mechanically balanced, always seem to lack awesomeness in their high level options.

*Although I don't believe that casters had quite the power back then they do now.

Arbane
2016-04-16, 07:11 PM
There is nothing obtuse about THAC0. If THAC0 is obsolete, than BAB is obsolete. I propose that we find a way to roll attacks without applying anything to the roll.


You roll attack, opponent rolls parry/dodge? Works well enough in RuneQuest.

oxybe
2016-04-16, 07:39 PM
casters in old editions had a similar peak in power as they do in contemporary D&D... however there was a lot of jumping through hoops.

in short: they "balanced" casting through making it a hassle. the more powerful spells took rounds to cast, getting hit would interrupt your spell, preparing spells took 10 min/spell lever per spell, etc... in addition it took more XP to level up a caster then a non-caster.

however if you managed to circumvent those issues you could generally go about unrestrained and playing a caster was usually about either working around those limitations or being frustrated because you can't really use your spells (ie: likely the reason you picked a spellcasting class). all in all, IMO, it was a badly designed system that could cut out a lot of the hassles if the devs took the extra time to put limits on what magic can do in the game rather then hodgepodge any given effect into "magic" and give it to the casters... then again hindsight being what it is...

our D&D campaigns usually end between 12-15, though the first one we did together stopped at 21 and everyone agreed that the end game was on the dumb end of the power band as the GM was having difficulty challenging the party with fluctuating power levels and versatility.

at this point we tend to end our games between 12-15, as frustration and difficulty of making adventures is starting to set in at around that time and most published modules we do run cap out there also.

Cosi
2016-04-16, 07:44 PM
Well there's deep and there's The Eternal Howling Abyss

Pathfinder seems to be somewhat on the latter end of that gradient.

Pathfinder is addicted to "here's a list of a hundred abilities, pick two". That's a problem at the best of times, because it is annoying to playtest, evaluate, or use. But it's compounded by huge volumes of chaff, pointlessly complicated abilities, and bad designers. For example, you can spend a feat (of which you get ten) for the ability to find the digital root of a spell, roll a Knowledge check against a DC derived from that root, and get ... +1 CL if you succeed.


Edit: Sudden and near-guaranteed character death is kind of a selling point for a system for me; I'm fond of AD&D and thought Tomb of Horrors was great fun to play through. I've lost characters to such things as a barnyard goat or a small number of squirrels. :smalltongue: Though I can certainly see the other side of the coin, and a little more insulation from sudden death doesn't necessarily put me off.

Character death is fine, but you can't just make a system more lethal and expect that to work out well. If characters are going to die frequently, they need to be quick to replace and should probably come in groups (so that you can keep using your other characters after one of them gets insta-gibbed by a tiger). So more like X-COM than any (recent) version of D&D.


Raimun's "everything together" martial might do it, but the thing is I don't think any of the martials really have what they need to seem like a proper level 20 character. Of course I should admit I have never played a campaign in any system (including D&D) that has made it to high levels. But just looking at the options martials in D&D, even if mechanically balanced, always seem to lack awesomeness in their high level options.

That's because the people who design and play D&D think that a 20th level Wizard should be the most bad-ass guy they can think of who uses magic (for example: Rand al'Thor) and a 20th level Fighter should be the most bad-ass guy they can think of who uses a sword (for example: Conan). As Conan and Rand are at radically different levels of power, there is a strong tendency for Wizards to be better than Fighters. For Fighters to get high level abilities, they need to stop being Conan or Aragorn and start being Goku or Superman. Because the casters are Doctor Strange and Pretender Gods.

JAL_1138
2016-04-16, 07:57 PM
To be fair, in older D&D, the high-level Fighter got a small army of well-equipped troops the Wizard didn't, and could easily pass the saving throw against most of the Wizard's best tricks. So Conan could shrug off Rand's spells and just run up and murder him, or hang back and join in with ranged weapons when his army starts shooting (multiple times per round each) while the wizard's busy trying to stand perfectly still and get one spell off without getting hit once.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-16, 08:13 PM
You roll attack, opponent rolls parry/dodge? Works well enough in RuneQuest.

Oh, I actually like that, I personally prefer the WH40kRPG version where you get one dodge or parry a round, it gives a different feel to duels and to melee (and, of course, I never have mooks use their reaction unless they are well trained, whereas even an untrained PC gets theirs). It's just that most of the arguments I've seen against THAC0 are that it's obsolete now we have BAB, which is entirely false (although I'll agree that BAB is more intuitive than THAC0 because humans think high numbers=good, it's why I run all d% systems as 'degrees of success=number on dice' which also mitigates the value of cheating).

Now are the WH40kRPGs well designed? No, there's quite a bit of horrible design in there, including Dark Heresy giving you very incompetent starting characters (I like to throw them an extra 3-5 skills), the fact that PCs are fragile or tanks based off of who they're facing as much as what gear they have, the fact that there's a talent that is basically a waste of space (I've met nobody who thinks that Sound Constitution is a good expenditure of XP, especially as bigger enemies probably deal more than just a handful of extra damage, maybe if it was (Toughness Modifier) extra wounds?), many skills that might not be worth taking for more than flavour (although many do have decent, I love the Blather skill and it's use as a distraction), an XP system that either lets me handwave it or requires me to go back over the session and evaluate every encounter, and so on. But a d% system is always viable, I'd actually argue it's a more solid base than d20, and the game plays well and represents the setting better than any universal system I own.

That does bring up an interesting idea though, which is the 40k method of balancing casters. I think we can all agree that this is terrible game design, especially in cases like 5e's Wild Mage where you potentially have a 0.1% chance of dropping a fireball that causes a TPK whenever you cast a spell, and in fact I like that while 40k might have several Perils of the Warp results that are dangerous to the other PCs, there's nothing that's immediately deadly to anyone bar the psyker, and all the results are indiscriminate (still bad, but better than it could be). I don't think it works in any game not made to handle it, which is to say, if playing one of the 40k games, make sure psykers know that using powers above fettered comes with a chance of their character dying. Oh, and make sure your villains aren't psykers, nothing's worse than to introduce the big villain of the plotline and then rolling Warp Feast in the second round of combat (yes, I've had that happen, it's extremely anticlimactic).

BayardSPSR
2016-04-16, 08:17 PM
To be fair, in older D&D, the high-level Fighter got a small army of well-equipped troops the Wizard didn't, and could easily pass the saving throw against most of the Wizard's best tricks. So Conan could shrug off Rand's spells and just run up and murder him, or hang back and join in with ranged weapons when his army starts shooting (multiple times per round each) while the wizard's busy trying to stand perfectly still and get one spell off without getting hit once.

Balance: older than you'd think.

oxybe
2016-04-16, 09:06 PM
Balance: older than you'd think.

It's not really balanced though, especially if you were the type to dislike playing fantasy middle-management and just wanted to continue adventuring like you did the level previous.

Then there's also the minor issue that one high level wizard is far more mobile then a fighter with ~100 or so level 0 mooks with a couple handful level 1-5 guys as his closest guard that you'll likely need to engage the wizard on his terms... I highly doubt Wizzy Wizard who managed to get to level 10 (and likely has a good intelligence score) would somehow let himself get randomly jumped by level 10 Fighty Fighterson and his personal army in flat, open plains.

High level D&D has usually been a matter of "who gets the jump on who first?" and "who can unleash their nuke first?"

A high level wizard getting the drop on Fighty's Army can absolutely sow chaos inbetween them, doubly so if did his research and prepped stuff like stoneskin beforehand.

GreatWyrmGold
2016-04-16, 09:23 PM
I find getting referred to an EC video somewhat ironic. I've seen all of them probably 3 or 4 times over the years.
The problem is, along with complexity, they're axing depth as well. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU) (See I can do it too.)
I guess it would be more accurate to say I am disappointed that deep games and high production values are mutually exclusive, due to the fact that the latter requires mass market appeal from a business perspective.
Didn't expect to see another EC fan.
There is that. However, I'd argue that a lot of the depth in a good RPG comes more from playstyle than rules. I mean, sure, you can find depth in building the perfect OP Batman Wizard or Hulking Hurler or Pun-Pun or whatever, but in my opinion RPGs are better-suited to more abstract depth (particularly now that they need to compete with video games, which can have as much or more or that kind of depth with less bookkeeping and more engaging play).


And this is why I think martials could use an upgrade*. I think the scariest martial is the one who has trained and killed so much s/he can make a level 1's heart explode just by exerting battle presence. OK maybe not quite that... but something like that.
Thanks to you and Team Four Star, my train of thought went on a track that lead to imagining a setting with a Western-fantasy kingdom full of elves and wizards in conflict with an anime-style one with supernatural martial arts.


casters in old editions had a similar peak in power as they do in contemporary D&D... however there was a lot of jumping through hoops.
[snip]
Reminds me of Grod's Law (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?328767-More-realistic-D-amp-D-Economy/page2&p=17613518#post17613518). This is a little better since some of the annoyance is more in-character than out-, but it still applies.

Cosi
2016-04-16, 09:57 PM
To be fair, in older D&D, the high-level Fighter got a small army of well-equipped troops the Wizard didn't, and could easily pass the saving throw against most of the Wizard's best tricks. So Conan could shrug off Rand's spells and just run up and murder him, or hang back and join in with ranged weapons when his army starts shooting (multiple times per round each) while the wizard's busy trying to stand perfectly still and get one spell off without getting hit once.

That solves part of the problem, and even then I've heard of various abilities that trivialized Fighters (something about Druid summons?). But it's not just that the Fighter is sub-par in a fight. It's that he has nothing to do outside a fight. The Wizard can fly, breath under water, see the future, teleport across the world, or travel to distant planes. The Fighter gets an army. That's problematic (it's actually problematic in both directions, as there are characters with magic and armies), because there's really very little you can do with a hundred guys with swords you couldn't do with one guy with a sword and a lot of time and/or luck.


It's not really balanced though, especially if you were the type to dislike playing fantasy middle-management and just wanted to continue adventuring like you did the level previous.

Also a problem. The game should be balanced in such a way as to support maximally many play-styles. That means that no matter what your character concept is (swordsman, mage, assassin), you should be able to play it at high level with however much micro-management you want. Sometimes the guy who just wants to blow stuff up will play the Wizard, and the guy who wants to run a country will play the Fighter. But at least as often it will be the reverse, and it does the game a disservice if you can't play a reasonably effective swordsman without an army.

JoeJ
2016-04-16, 10:08 PM
That's problematic (it's actually problematic in both directions, as there are characters with magic and armies), because there's really very little you can do with a hundred guys with swords you couldn't do with one guy with a sword and a lot of time and/or luck.

Except everything that involves being in more than one place at a time.

BayardSPSR
2016-04-17, 12:11 AM
It's not really balanced though, especially if you were the type to dislike playing fantasy middle-management and just wanted to continue adventuring like you did the level previous.

Then there's also the minor issue that one high level wizard is far more mobile then a fighter with ~100 or so level 0 mooks with a couple handful level 1-5 guys as his closest guard that you'll likely need to engage the wizard on his terms... I highly doubt Wizzy Wizard who managed to get to level 10 (and likely has a good intelligence score) would somehow let himself get randomly jumped by level 10 Fighty Fighterson and his personal army in flat, open plains.

High level D&D has usually been a matter of "who gets the jump on who first?" and "who can unleash their nuke first?"

A high level wizard getting the drop on Fighty's Army can absolutely sow chaos inbetween them, doubly so if did his research and prepped stuff like stoneskin beforehand.

I would say that it's differently balanced, in that the Fig can kill Wiz at level 1 without breaking a sweat, and that Fig will hit 10 before Wiz does.

Arbane
2016-04-17, 02:16 AM
Thanks to you and Team Four Star, my train of thought went on a track that lead to imagining a setting with a Western-fantasy kingdom full of elves and wizards in conflict with an anime-style one with supernatural martial arts.


Shadow Skill?

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-17, 04:40 AM
That solves part of the problem, and even then I've heard of various abilities that trivialized Fighters (something about Druid summons?). But it's not just that the Fighter is sub-par in a fight. It's that he has nothing to do outside a fight. The Wizard can fly, breath under water, see the future, teleport across the world, or travel to distant planes. The Fighter gets an army. That's problematic (it's actually problematic in both directions, as there are characters with magic and armies), because there's really very little you can do with a hundred guys with swords you couldn't do with one guy with a sword and a lot of time and/or luck.

The weird thing is though, once you take spells out of the equation (and in 2e high level spells are a precious resource) the Fighter really isn't behind in the out-of-combat department. They get a decent number of NWP, although not as much from their intelligence, and probably have an out of combat area that's their specialty. The 2e fighter was not as focused as the 3.X fighter.


I would say that it's differently balanced, in that the Fig can kill Wiz at level 1 without breaking a sweat, and that Fig will hit 10 before Wiz does.

That's not balance (and for that matter at level 1 the Fighter is essentially just as fragile), because the wizards that do avoid housecats eventually get to bend reality with their little finger.

Cosi
2016-04-17, 08:15 AM
Except everything that involves being in more than one place at a time.

You'll note that I didn't say it offered no new abilities.

And even insofar as it supports "be in more than one place", it really doesn't. You can't communicate particularly quickly (because you don't have magic), even if you could you can't travel particularly quickly (because you don't have magic), and it's useless for force projection against meaningful opposition (because the mooks are, well, mooks).


The weird thing is though, once you take spells out of the equation (and in 2e high level spells are a precious resource) the Fighter really isn't behind in the out-of-combat department. They get a decent number of NWP, although not as much from their intelligence, and probably have an out of combat area that's their specialty. The 2e fighter was not as focused as the 3.X fighter.

Any defense of the Fighter that starts with "ignoring spells" does not strike me as particularly compelling.


That's not balance (and for that matter at level 1 the Fighter is essentially just as fragile), because the wizards that do avoid housecats eventually get to bend reality with their little finger.

This is true. It's also bad design even if it is nominally balanced, because it is balanced in exactly one type of campaign: the one where you start at level 1 (where the Wizard sucks) and progress to level 10 (where the Fighter sucks)*. It's not balanced if you start at high level. It's not balanced if you stop at low level. It's not balanced if you don't progress (a la Conan or Superman). It's limiting the number of potential campaigns the game supports for no reason.

*: Obviously, simplified to not use AD&D advancement.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-17, 08:41 AM
Any defense of the Fighter that starts with "ignoring spells" does not strike me as particularly compelling.

Oh, I agree, I just find it interesting that 3e managed to make the Fighter far more incompetent in 'martials only' games.


This is true. It's also bad design even if it is nominally balanced, because it is balanced in exactly one type of campaign: the one where you start at level 1 (where the Wizard sucks) and progress to level 10 (where the Fighter sucks)*. It's not balanced if you start at high level. It's not balanced if you stop at low level. It's not balanced if you don't progress (a la Conan or Superman). It's limiting the number of potential campaigns the game supports for no reason.

*: Obviously, simplified to not use AD&D advancement.

Oh, I totally agree here. I'm currently looking at Legends of the Wulin, and the only balance issue I can immediately find is that the Warrior's Art and the Scholar's Art are more difficult to use than the other three, but they still appear balanced (because Scholar does the same thing as the other 3, just on a different scale, and Warrior gives interesting options for increasing your power).

Quertus
2016-04-17, 12:40 PM
managed to get to level 10 (and likely has a good intelligence score) would somehow let himself get randomly jumped by level 10 Fighty Fighterson and his personal army in flat, open plains.

Of course not! He fights them in a large, open room, where there is space for his summons, and to throw his AoE spells without hitting himself. Because he certainly doesn't want to fight them one at a time - he doesn't have enough spell slots for that.

That is, of course, assuming that the wizard has any tactical talent - something which should be a given for fighters; not so much for wizards.

Cluedrew
2016-04-17, 01:22 PM
Thanks to you and Team Four Star, my train of thought went on a track that lead to imagining a setting with a Western-fantasy kingdom full of elves and wizards in conflict with an anime-style one with supernatural martial arts.I wasn't thinking supernatural martial arts (although that fits in some cases particularly for some monks & rangers) but rather just cranking it up a lot. "Battle aura" is sort of on the line between supernatural and the merely super, so I'll pull it in even more. For instance what is something real fighters do when fighting each other? They move in and out of range, side to side, bob and weave to get a better position. This seems like a useless skill when a wizard can point at you, say die, and you die. However, a high level fighter should be good enough at weaving back and forth that pointing at them long enough to say die is a non-trivial exercise.

There are other examples but there are a lot of ways to bring fighters and other martials up without making them magical. Now they will not be realistic but the fellow in the other corner throws fireballs.


Any defense of the Fighter that starts with "ignoring spells" does not strike me as particularly compelling.I agree, save that for the raging barbarian.

But any class that reaches a high level is going to have ways of dealing with the dangers of the world and this includes the other classes. For barbarians it is rage and raw power; fighter use technical ability; rogues guile and stealth; sorcerers have instinct and magic; wizards have knowledge and magic; bards have music and charm; clerics and paladins have devotion. All of these will work and yet each can (or should) be overthrown by the others in the right situation.

JAL_1138
2016-04-17, 02:09 PM
Realistic =/= verisimilitude. As long as it doesn't break the verisimilitude of "This is a normal person who has become exceptionally strong, resilient, and skilled, but is still a non-supernatural being" then you can get away with plenty of action-movie or comic-book-isms. E.g., Batman shouldn't have functional knees, working hands, any intact ligaments in his arms, or a single uncompressed spinal disk anymore, but nobody much blinks at Batman being "not superpowered."

oxybe
2016-04-17, 02:23 PM
Of course not! He fights them in a large, open room, where there is space for his summons, and to throw his AoE spells without hitting himself. Because he certainly doesn't want to fight them one at a time - he doesn't have enough spell slots for that.

That is, of course, assuming that the wizard has any tactical talent - something which should be a given for fighters; not so much for wizards.

a level 10 wizard with no tactical talent? highly doubtful.

unless we're falling into the "this is an npc so he doesn't need to follow the xp gaining rules" and both characters gained all 10 levels in a strictly academic environment (fighter at fighter school and wizard at wizard school), a typical adventurer wizard would have just as much tactical acumen as an adventurer fighter due to various experiences they've both encountered, but also have it paired with what is likely a higher intelligence and a larger scope of abilities to make use of it.

plus, not every fighter is tactical genius or even trained in tactics nor should it be expected for them to be. Our theoretical fighter could just as well be a thug who's strength attracted lesser thugs just as easily as him being actual Sun Tsu II (electric boogaloo) as the 2nd ed fighter class was, quite literally, "the class everyone who didn't qualify for any other class" due to stat requirements... it's kinda like the community college for PCs that takes in just about everyone to boost it's enrollment numbers: yeah there are a few people there who are genuinely talented, but it accepts darn near everyone.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-17, 02:31 PM
Realistic =/= verisimilitude. As long as it doesn't break the verisimilitude of "This is a normal person who has become exceptionally strong, resilient, and skilled, but is still a non-supernatural being" then you can get away with plenty of action-movie or comic-book-isms. E.g., Batman shouldn't have functional knees, working hands, any intact ligaments in his arms, or a single uncompressed spinal disk anymore, but nobody much blinks at Batman being "not superpowered."

This so much, and an important thing to remember is that setting and genre conventions have a big impact on what you can get away with. For me:

-Comic Book Setting: I have limits for how fast/strong a 'normal human' can be, but I wouldn't blink at Batman taking a full force punch from Superman and then just standing back up with only a few scratches.
-D&D-style fantasy: warriors should be able to punt the Tarrasque and survive a full from orbit by the time they reach high levels (yes, I see surviving re-entry as a feature, not a bug), partially because they have to stand up to insanely powerful casters, but also because a fighter should have a decent chance of taking down a Dragon of his level alone (possibly without any magic).
-Wuxia: ordinary people can be as fast, strong, and magical as needed, but with a preference to the low end.
-Science Fiction: characters should be able to survive more punishment than real life, but go down to a laser hit or two. Armour shouldn't have a major effect because weapons are so strong, with speed ruling.
-Warhammer 40k: to give an example of how a specific setting can change it, here characters should be a little tougher than real life but start taking serious wounds within a couple of hits, except when they are wearing armour. To me it's not 40k if good armour doesn't boost your survivability, from a Space Marine game where flak armour is nearly worthless and you want Power or Terminator armour, to a Dark Heresy game where flak armour gives a good boost to your survivability and carapace is a thing to aim for. Speed is nowhere near as important as getting into cover and staying there, no matter what Games Workshop wants to say.

Note that of these, my favourite is Wuxia, because it has the awesome martial people that PCs can become, but this is specifically exceptional, followed by the highly brutal and armour focused Warhammer 40k (in fact, I love any game where armouring up is your best option for survival, but I'm willing to tolerate speed-based combat).

Cluedrew
2016-04-17, 03:04 PM
a level 10 wizard with no tactical talent? highly doubtful.Agreed, all PCs will have competence roughly equal with their [power] level.


plus, not every fighter is tactical genius or even trained in tactics nor should it be expected for them to be.Agreed, not all PCs are competent in the same way.


Our theoretical fighter could just as well be a thug who's strength attracted lesser thugs just as easily as him being actual Sun Tsu IIAnd if there is anyone in the world who can beat someone who by all reason and logic should win it is a street thug who has climbed to the top.

On Realism vs. Verisimilitude: I agree but I don't even have much to add.

JAL_1138
2016-04-17, 07:13 PM
This so much, and an important thing to remember is that setting and genre conventions have a big impact on what you can get away with. For me:

-Comic Book Setting: I have limits for how fast/strong a 'normal human' can be, but I wouldn't blink at Batman taking a full force punch from Superman and then just standing back up with only a few scratches.
-D&D-style fantasy: warriors should be able to punt the Tarrasque and survive a full from orbit by the time they reach high levels (yes, I see surviving re-entry as a feature, not a bug), partially because they have to stand up to insanely powerful casters, but also because a fighter should have a decent chance of taking down a Dragon of his level alone (possibly without any magic).
-Wuxia: ordinary people can be as fast, strong, and magical as needed, but with a preference to the low end.
-Science Fiction: characters should be able to survive more punishment than real life, but go down to a laser hit or two. Armour shouldn't have a major effect because weapons are so strong, with speed ruling.
-Warhammer 40k: to give an example of how a specific setting can change it, here characters should be a little tougher than real life but start taking serious wounds within a couple of hits, except when they are wearing armour. To me it's not 40k if good armour doesn't boost your survivability, from a Space Marine game where flak armour is nearly worthless and you want Power or Terminator armour, to a Dark Heresy game where flak armour gives a good boost to your survivability and carapace is a thing to aim for. Speed is nowhere near as important as getting into cover and staying there, no matter what Games Workshop wants to say.

Note that of these, my favourite is Wuxia, because it has the awesome martial people that PCs can become, but this is specifically exceptional, followed by the highly brutal and armour focused Warhammer 40k (in fact, I love any game where armouring up is your best option for survival, but I'm willing to tolerate speed-based combat).


I know it's popular to say that the D&D fighter needs to be Goku to keep up, but I've never liked that idea much. Once you start punting tarrasques, you're into supernatural, physics-breaking territory, and the verisimilitude for "non-magical person" is gone (for me). At that point, I can't accept that someone surviving reentry or punting a Tarrasque is not supernatural. They're demigods or superheroes/Mutants at that point, because whatever their strength derives from, it isn't ordinary human biology anymore. Which isn't a bad thing in itself as long as the system calls them that, and gives me a clear line where I can say "Yeah, it's epic levels after this point, because you've gone from human to demigod."

And I'd rather like to have a "Badass Normal" be possible and still, well, normal enough to pass for normal.

(As a tangent, I'd call shenanigans on Batman taking a full force punch from Superman. A full-force punch from Supes should leave a fist-sized hole in any human he hits, if it isn't going to atomize them altogether or launch them into the stratosphere (dead from the sudden acceleration). Supes can move entire planets when he feels like it, depending on the era. Batman only survives because he's always got Kryptonite handy and plans ahead, and Superman doesn't punch at full force against humans under normal circumstances. A system that puts Batman and Superman together without giving Batman some kind of narrative power to always pull a necessary defense like Kryptonite out of his utility belt is going to be badly balanced. It either needs to own up to being imbalanced as a design decision, a'la Rifts, or pull something narrativist rather than simulationist like that).

The 5e Battlemaster goes a long way toward making a versatile, useful Fighter (especially given how useful extra feats the Fighters get are in 5th), although I'd have rather seen a die roll chance for Maneuvers to represent opportunities for use instead of X-per-rest (since the fighter shouldn't ever get too tired to say "hey, over here!" to an ally if s/he's not too tired to swing a greataxe accurately four times a round indefinitely). They could use an Expertise and/or some extra tool proficiencies, I kinda think. Less than the Rogue (since skillmonkey is kinda the Rogue's schtick), but a little more than they've got.

I like to keep magic magical enough to be worth the hassle, and non-magic not obviously supernatural, personally. That a wizard can plane shift doesn't in itself make a skilled, strong "normal person" irrelevant, even outside of combat.

That's not to say 5e is without issues in that department--there are several broken spells and a few class features (*cough* Moon Druid *cough* ) that need toned down for better parity.

(As an aside, apologies for the rambly, disorganized, somewhat incoherent and possibly poorly-thought-out response. I'm typing this on a cell phone while decidedly south of sober. :smalltongue: )

Quertus
2016-04-17, 10:01 PM
a level 10 wizard with no tactical talent? highly doubtful.

plus, not every fighter is tactical genius or even trained in tactics nor should it be expected for them to be. Our theoretical fighter could just as well be a thug who's strength attracted lesser thugs just as easily as him being actual Sun Tsu II (electric boogaloo) as the 2nd ed fighter class was, quite literally, "the class everyone who didn't qualify for any other class" due to stat requirements... it's kinda like the community college for PCs that takes in just about everyone to boost it's enrollment numbers: yeah there are a few people there who are genuinely talented, but it accepts darn near everyone.


Agreed, all PCs will have competence roughly equal with their [power] level.

Agreed, not all PCs are competent in the same way.

And if there is anyone in the world who can beat someone who by all reason and logic should win it is a street thug who has climbed to the top.

True, depending on the game / edition, not all fighters have to be tactical geniuses. Everyone should probably be competent at something, perhaps somewhat in relation to their level... but it doesn't have to be tactics for fighters.

My signature character is my tactically-inept academia mage. Yes, he's been adventuring forever, but he still has no concept of good tactics. So, yes, high level wizards with no tactical talent do exist.

As to whether that's realistic... IME, yes. Even people with decades of experience in a field can be bad at certain aspects of it. Most everybody can relate, by having had a teacher who... probably shouldn't have been a teacher.

Arbane
2016-04-17, 10:31 PM
And I'd rather like to have a "Badass Normal" be possible and still, well, normal enough to pass for normal.


Therein lies the problem - you want to have someone who can pull their weight alongside weakly omnipotent spellcasters, without actually having any abilities to DO so, aside from lots of damage taking and giving capacity. [3.5]It's like the casters get to the full 20 levels but the fighters are stuck playing E6.[/3.5]

Gettles
2016-04-17, 11:59 PM
Yadda Yadda Yadda

Well what does "reasonably baddass but still essentially human" do against and Elder Dragon, or a Super Demon, or a Tarrasque other than die in short order? Because the traditional D&D answer has been some combination of nothing much/die pitifully/hope the wizard does something which seems a bit on the unbadass side for what is described as a badass character. The normal methods of pushing the character into being relevant at that level are either "throw more dice at balance issue till it fixes itself" or magic items both of which seem uninspired as far as character concepts go.

If a level 20 fighter is technically weaker than a mannequin wearing his clothing does he actually have any strength?

goto124
2016-04-18, 01:07 AM
Maybe we shouldn't be talking about level 20, but the levels at which campaigns are more likely to be played at? Level 3, or 5, or 7?

digiman619
2016-04-18, 01:14 AM
Well what does "reasonably baddass but still essentially human" do against and Elder Dragon, or a Super Demon, or a Tarrasque other than die in short order? Because the traditional D&D answer has been some combination of nothing much/die pitifully/hope the wizard does something which seems a bit on the unbadass side for what is described as a badass character. The normal methods of pushing the character into being relevant at that level are either "throw more dice at balance issue till it fixes itself" or magic items both of which seem uninspired as far as character concepts go. If a level 20 fighter is technically weaker than a mannequin wearing his clothing does he actually have any strength? This is why I play pathfinder with Path of War and Spheres of Power. It pulls the mages down from Tier 1 and the martials up from Tier 5.

Knaight
2016-04-18, 01:44 AM
Maybe we shouldn't be talking about level 20, but the levels at which campaigns are more likely to be played at? Level 3, or 5, or 7?

There's no issue in any of them at those levels, at least not regarding core design concepts (individual spells, sure).

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-18, 02:04 AM
I know it's popular to say that the D&D fighter needs to be Goku to keep up, but I've never liked that idea much. Once you start punting tarrasques, you're into supernatural, physics-breaking territory, and the verisimilitude for "non-magical person" is gone (for me). At that point, I can't accept that someone surviving reentry or punting a Tarrasque is not supernatural. They're demigods or superheroes/Mutants at that point, because whatever their strength derives from, it isn't ordinary human biology anymore. Which isn't a bad thing in itself as long as the system calls them that, and gives me a clear line where I can say "Yeah, it's epic levels after this point, because you've gone from human to demigod."

And I'd rather like to have a "Badass Normal" be possible and still, well, normal enough to pass for normal.

The problem is that when going up against D&D wizards a 'badass normal' cannot compete. If we remove D&D style magic and add a more limited system I actually agree with you, I love Unknown Armies where the strength of character options are theoretically normal<avatar<adept, but in practice the avatar ends up slightly better than the normal, who isn't as limited as the adept. Even at Cosmic levels the normal is still useful due to having an additional skill/two (our normal seemed impossible to take down, at Street level, although she had little out of combat utility).


(As a tangent, I'd call shenanigans on Batman taking a full force punch from Superman. A full-force punch from Supes should leave a fist-sized hole in any human he hits, if it isn't going to atomize them altogether or launch them into the stratosphere (dead from the sudden acceleration). Supes can move entire planets when he feels like it, depending on the era. Batman only survives because he's always got Kryptonite handy and plans ahead, and Superman doesn't punch at full force against humans under normal circumstances. A system that puts Batman and Superman together without giving Batman some kind of narrative power to always pull a necessary defense like Kryptonite out of his utility belt is going to be badly balanced. It either needs to own up to being imbalanced as a design decision, a'la Rifts, or pull something narrativist rather than simulationist like that).

Oh, I agree that it should happen, I was using Supes as shorthand for 'thing that should reasonably kill humans'. But it never happens because Batman spends a Fate Point and makes up an excuse.


The 5e Battlemaster goes a long way toward making a versatile, useful Fighter (especially given how useful extra feats the Fighters get are in 5th), although I'd have rather seen a die roll chance for Maneuvers to represent opportunities for use instead of X-per-rest (since the fighter shouldn't ever get too tired to say "hey, over here!" to an ally if s/he's not too tired to swing a greataxe accurately four times a round indefinitely). They could use an Expertise and/or some extra tool proficiencies, I kinda think. Less than the Rogue (since skillmonkey is kinda the Rogue's schtick), but a little more than they've got.

Remember that the wizard is still just better than the Fighter at higher levels, although it's much closer. The wizard also has more in-combat options, which just rubs me the wrong way.


I like to keep magic magical enough to be worth the hassle, and non-magic not obviously supernatural, personally. That a wizard can plane shift doesn't in itself make a skilled, strong "normal person" irrelevant, even outside of combat.

You can have magic be magical without it being overpowering, while nonmagical characters shouldn't be left quite so far behind versatility-wise.


That's not to say 5e is without issues in that department--there are several broken spells and a few class features (*cough* Moon Druid *cough* ) that need toned down for better parity.

(As an aside, apologies for the rambly, disorganized, somewhat incoherent and possibly poorly-thought-out response. I'm typing this on a cell phone while decidedly south of sober. :smalltongue: )

Eh, fair enough.

Milo v3
2016-04-18, 02:48 AM
Maybe we shouldn't be talking about level 20, but the levels at which campaigns are more likely to be played at? Level 3, or 5, or 7?
20 represents the highest power level a campaign will go without using Epic level rules so it's a decent enough benchmark of "what's the best a mundane warrior can do?" to "what's the best a mage can do?".

Quertus
2016-04-18, 05:54 AM
Remember that the wizard is still just better than the Fighter at higher levels, although it's much closer. The wizard also has more in-combat options, which just rubs me the wrong way.


So, how about some old school D&D? Where the fighter gets to choose between his flame tongue, his frost brand, his sun blade, his long sword +1 +2 vs lycanthropes, his mace, his dagger, his gem bow, his darts, his poisoned crossbow bolt, his blessed crossbow bolt, his flask of oil, his bag of marbles, and his bag of flour? Meanwhile, the wizard gets to choose between wasting one of his few precious, precious spells... or poking it with a stick. And should generally choose "poke it with a stick".

And, after the battle, when they loot the thing, the fighter gets to add "kukri +2, +5 vs mammals", "arrows +2", and "that thing's skull" to his list of options, while the wizard grumbles about how illiteracy is the default state for the universe, so there's never anything good to read, let alone new spells to learn. He dreams of the day when he collects enough loot to research a custom spell, so that he finally has something to memorize in those 4th level slots that have been sitting there empty for the past 6 months.

Would that be more fun than these modern min-maxed, single-tactic rocket tag fighters adventuring alongside wizards with abundant spells and options?

Raimun
2016-04-18, 11:24 AM
I just realized that the scariest martial guy in 2nd ed ADnD is the drunk at the bar who plays darts all night long and gets in fistfights...

*Ding-ding!* And in time 1:28, we have a winner!

This is the only 2nd ed AD&D character I will ever play. Like all good characters, it almost writes itself. :smallcool:

oxybe
2016-04-18, 01:11 PM
So, how about some old school D&D? Where the fighter gets to choose between his flame tongue, his frost brand, his sun blade, his long sword +1 +2 vs lycanthropes, his mace, his dagger, his gem bow, his darts, his poisoned crossbow bolt, his blessed crossbow bolt, his flask of oil, his bag of marbles, and his bag of flour? Meanwhile, the wizard gets to choose between wasting one of his few precious, precious spells... or poking it with a stick. And should generally choose "poke it with a stick".

And, after the battle, when they loot the thing, the fighter gets to add "kukri +2, +5 vs mammals", "arrows +2", and "that thing's skull" to his list of options, while the wizard grumbles about how illiteracy is the default state for the universe, so there's never anything good to read, let alone new spells to learn. He dreams of the day when he collects enough loot to research a custom spell, so that he finally has something to memorize in those 4th level slots that have been sitting there empty for the past 6 months.

Would that be more fun than these modern min-maxed, single-tactic rocket tag fighters adventuring alongside wizards with abundant spells and options?

red stick, blue stick, glow stick, dog stick, stick stick, not stick, shoot stick, tiny stick, sick stick, glow stick 2 : divine boogaloo, and three options that would get you laughed out of any combat where those sticks are baseline requirement for play and open to everyone (not just the fighter can use these things).

your fighter's options all boil down to "pick the right stick to poke with" and none are really that interesting in play. is it weak to fire? poke it with a red stick. ice? poke with blue stick. evil to it's core? shoot it with the bright ones. immune to stick... throw some flour at it and hope it wants to bake cookies because you have nothing else you can do.

honestly no, it wouldn't be more fun... it's one of the reasons I rarely ever play fighter types, regardless of edition (noting well that I started with 2nd and got quickly disillusioned with the class). even if you have a wide variety of sticks to pick from, if the core function of the class is "hit with stick for damage" without any real features outside of "hit harder".

I will be the first to admit the D&D wizard is a dumb and horribly designed class. it has too many options and many of them have too wide a scope or come along far too early in the wizard's career and mucking up gameplay, but I much rather the wizard's more interesting, if borked, gameplay and variety of options then, when boiled down to it's core, playing medieval Tiger Woods reaching into his golf bag for his +1 stick, +2 vs putting on the green, and hitting the ball... repeat for rest of career.

soldersbushwack
2016-04-18, 01:21 PM
In my personal fantasy heartbreaker I explicitly have the following tier list:

Level 1-4: Commoner
Level 5-8: Professional
Level 9-12: Heroic
Level 13-16: Demigod
Level 17-20: God

In fact, Clerics and similar classes can grant spells starting at level 7 and become demigods at level 13. Not sure how I am going to handle the other classes. Maybe I'll may spell granting be a feat.

Cluedrew
2016-04-18, 04:13 PM
I love the description "my personal fantasy heartbreaker". Also why not have the other classes ascend at level 13 as well? They would be a different sort of demigod/supernatural being but it could still work. Plus I the idea of a level 20 barbarian being the source of barbarian rage amuses me. That's it.

Quertus
2016-04-18, 05:28 PM
red stick, blue stick, glow stick, dog stick, stick stick, not stick, shoot stick, tiny stick, sick stick, glow stick 2 : divine boogaloo, and three options that would get you laughed out of any combat where those sticks are baseline requirement for play and open to everyone (not just the fighter can use these things).

your fighter's options all boil down to "pick the right stick to poke with" and none are really that interesting in play. is it weak to fire? poke it with a red stick. ice? poke with blue stick. evil to it's core? shoot it with the bright ones. immune to stick... throw some flour at it and hope it wants to bake cookies because you have nothing else you can do.

honestly no, it wouldn't be more fun... it's one of the reasons I rarely ever play fighter types, regardless of edition (noting well that I started with 2nd and got quickly disillusioned with the class). even if you have a wide variety of sticks to pick from, if the core function of the class is "hit with stick for damage" without any real features outside of "hit harder".

I will be the first to admit the D&D wizard is a dumb and horribly designed class. it has too many options and many of them have too wide a scope or come along far too early in the wizard's career and mucking up gameplay, but I much rather the wizard's more interesting, if borked, gameplay and variety of options then, when boiled down to it's core, playing medieval Tiger Woods reaching into his golf bag for his +1 stick, +2 vs putting on the green, and hitting the ball... repeat for rest of career.

Between grappling, KO punches, disarming, and all the different "sticks" you get as random treasure (and only the fighter can become proficient in most of them, and different classes take different non-proficiency penalties, and other classes advance their "To Hit" more slowly than in 3e... so it just makes sense that the fighter collects all the sticks), let alone silly tricks like pouring oil or marbles on the floor, or throwing flour on invisible foes, I have never felt that I had "nothing else to do" as a 2e fighter.

Also, different people have different style preferences. I enjoy the coolness of the walking arsenal, or the coolness of using nothing but oil and rope to defeat an epic monster. But that's not everyone's style of play. Thus, my response was, "How about 2e?", rather than, "You obviously need to play 2e."

Because, yeah, where I see cool options, some people may just see different color sticks. :smallamused:

Knaight
2016-04-18, 05:47 PM
And, after the battle, when they loot the thing, the fighter gets to add "kukri +2, +5 vs mammals", "arrows +2", and "that thing's skull" to his list of options, while the wizard grumbles about how illiteracy is the default state for the universe, so there's never anything good to read, let alone new spells to learn. He dreams of the day when he collects enough loot to research a custom spell, so that he finally has something to memorize in those 4th level slots that have been sitting there empty for the past 6 months.

Would that be more fun than these modern min-maxed, single-tactic rocket tag fighters adventuring alongside wizards with abundant spells and options?

The whole matter of equipment power versus character power thing aside, it's not like these are the only two options.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-18, 06:07 PM
For martial versus magic options I'd prefer something like Legends of the Wulin: warriors are slightly better in combat, other Archetypes are slightly more versatile out of combat. However everybody is free to dabble in each other's thing if they want. Although the available magic is rather useful, the archetype with the greatest power is really the Scholar (and a clever Courtier can get the same effects as a Daoist priest, unless you bring in Extraordinary techniques).

Cosi
2016-04-19, 09:22 AM
Oh, I agree, I just find it interesting that 3e managed to make the Fighter far more incompetent in 'martials only' games.

That's just "different editions are different". Every version of the game has had different classes rock and different classes suck. In 2e, Fighters and Wizards were good. In 3e, Rogues and Wizards were good. In 4e, Rangers and Wizards were good. The constants are basically that Wizards are good and non-casters who have a bunch of attacks (to count damage buffs multiple times) are good.


-Comic Book Setting: I have limits for how fast/strong a 'normal human' can be, but I wouldn't blink at Batman taking a full force punch from Superman and then just standing back up with only a few scratches.

I would. Batman doesn't fight Superman on even terms. He gets speedblitzed unless he has one of the crazier batsuits and/or kryptonite. Because Batman is a guy with a bat fetish, and Superman is a god.


I like to keep magic magical enough to be worth the hassle, and non-magic not obviously supernatural, personally. That a wizard can plane shift doesn't in itself make a skilled, strong "normal person" irrelevant, even outside of combat.

Yes it does. Because the bad guy is on another plane and no amount of strength allows you to do anything to him. Even if you could get to that plane, it is on fire, or freezing, or full of negative energy, or hostile to human life in any number of ways. When the environment you fight in is magic, and the mechanism to get there is magic, you need some damn magic.


Maybe we shouldn't be talking about level 20, but the levels at which campaigns are more likely to be played at? Level 3, or 5, or 7?

Why shouldn't we talk about 20th level? If the game is going to present "20th level Fighter" and "20th level Wizard" as things you can aspire to be, you should be able to be those things without the game breaking down.

Also, we don't need to talk about 7th level, because the game is fine at 7th level. 7th level (in D&D) is within, if at the upper end of, where a guy with a sword can compete with a guy with magic.


You can have magic be magical without it being overpowering, while nonmagical characters shouldn't be left quite so far behind versatility-wise.

You can have magic that isn't overpowering, but I think it's pretty clear that people want D&D magic to scale past the point where "guy with a sword" is not a reasonable life choice.


Would that be more fun than these modern min-maxed, single-tactic rocket tag fighters adventuring alongside wizards with abundant spells and options?

Why not just make the Fighter not suck? The Warblade has a bunch of options he can use, and it doesn't require that you make the Wizard suffer through not getting to cast spells when he gets a new level of spells. 2e treasure is probably better, but even if skewing treasure towards swords and away from scrolls balances the Wizard and the Fighter, it sure doesn't balance the Cleric and the Fighter. Because the Cleric has magic and can also use a sword.


For martial versus magic options I'd prefer something like Legends of the Wulin: warriors are slightly better in combat, other Archetypes are slightly more versatile out of combat. However everybody is free to dabble in each other's thing if they want. Although the available magic is rather useful, the archetype with the greatest power is really the Scholar (and a clever Courtier can get the same effects as a Daoist priest, unless you bring in Extraordinary techniques).

Having Fighters be better in combat and Wizards be better out of combat is stupid. It means the game only works if you have the exact ratio of combat challenges to non-combat challenges the designers did. If you run a hack and slash campaign (where every encounter is a fight), the Fighter is overpowered. If you run an intrigue campaign (where almost no encounters are fights), the Wizard is overpowered. Just have Fighters = Wizards in a fight and Wizards = Fighters out of a fight. Then the game is balanced for any combination of combat and non-combat encounters.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-19, 10:48 AM
You can have magic that isn't overpowering, but I think it's pretty clear that people want D&D magic to scale past the point where "guy with a sword" is not a reasonable life choice.

The problem there is that if 'guy with a sword' is presented as an option than it should be a reasonable lifestyle choice (I believe that 2e wasn't meant to be played for more than a couple of levels past 'fighter is relevant', it just included higher levels and let you choose to use them). Now at this point you need to either restrict the 'guy with magic' to 'guy with a small variety of spells' or let 'guy with sword' become "guy with awesome kung Fu powers'. The wizard can fly? Well you can jump 200 feet in 6 seconds. Wall of Stone? Your expert strikes can pulverise a wall in a full round action. Enervate? Unfortunately you forgot to take energy resistance, but your friend Bob is immune.

(By the way, I plan to one day use the Sorcerer class and take only touch spells and buffs, then play a 'monk')


Having Fighters be better in combat and Wizards be better out of combat is stupid. It means the game only works if you have the exact ratio of combat challenges to non-combat challenges the designers did. If you run a hack and slash campaign (where every encounter is a fight), the Fighter is overpowered. If you run an intrigue campaign (where almost no encounters are fights), the Wizard is overpowered. Just have Fighters = Wizards in a fight and Wizards = Fighters out of a fight. Then the game is balanced for any combination of combat and non-combat encounters.

In Legends of the Wulin every archetype begins approximately equal in combat, dependant on player expenditure on internal an external styles. Characters then get Secret Arts.

Most characters use their secret arts to apply conditions to people, which either gives them a bonus when they act like it describes or gives them a penalty when they don't. These usually aren't related to combat, but can be if it's justifiable. This makes Doctors, Courtiers, and Priests best when influencing people

Warriors instead mainly use their secret art to apply conditions to themselves, which are normally related to combat (which, like other Secret Arts, can apply to out of combat situations if it fits the description). In theory the only case the warrior falls behind is manipulating people, because it's hard to apply their Secret Art to unwilling people.

Scholars apply conditions to the world. This makes them very powerful, but hard to pull it off.

Note that you also can buy other Secret Arts, although it slows your Chi cultivation slightly. It is worth a Warrior starting with basic Courtiers techniques, or a Priest picking up Scholar predictionism.

GreatWyrmGold
2016-04-19, 11:38 AM
This is true. It's also bad design even if it is nominally balanced, because it is balanced in exactly one type of campaign: the one where you start at level 1 (where the Wizard sucks) and progress to level 10 (where the Fighter sucks). It's not balanced if you start at high level. It's not balanced if you stop at low level. It's not balanced if you don't progress (a la Conan or Superman). It's limiting the number of potential campaigns the game supports for no reason.
I think the bigger problem is that this kind of "balance" relies on everyone being inadequate for a similar amount of time, rather than, I dunno, avoiding anyone feeling inadequate?


I wasn't thinking supernatural martial arts (although that fits in some cases particularly for some monks & rangers) but rather just cranking it up a lot. "Battle aura" is sort of on the line between supernatural and the merely super, so I'll pull it in even more. For instance what is something real fighters do when fighting each other? They move in and out of range, side to side, bob and weave to get a better position. This seems like a useless skill when a wizard can point at you, say die, and you die. However, a high level fighter should be good enough at weaving back and forth that pointing at them long enough to say die is a non-trivial exercise.
I'm not what you think of when you say "battle aura" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BattleAura), but I think of something like this (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/r2qGQxlvbFs/maxresdefault.jpg), complete with Goku.


Maybe we shouldn't be talking about level 20, but the levels at which campaigns are more likely to be played at? Level 3, or 5, or 7?
If the game breaks down by level 10, there's no reason to print anything for levels 11+. Creating a game where half of the content is so deeply flawed is nothing short of stupid. Besides, if high levels aren't how the game is "meant to be played," shouldn't they have been prevented as optional rules, the way levels 21+ were in 3.5?
Discussing high levels is relevant, even if most players won't play a 1-20 campaign.

Going with the rant a bit lower in the post, I'd say that the game is balanced between spellcasters and normals at low levels because the game is closer to the low-fantasy end of the spectrum than the high-fantasy end.


So, how about some old school D&D? Where the fighter gets to choose between his flame tongue, his frost brand, his sun blade, his long sword +1 +2 vs lycanthropes, his mace, his dagger, his gem bow, his darts, his poisoned crossbow bolt, his blessed crossbow bolt, his flask of oil, his bag of marbles, and his bag of flour? Meanwhile, the wizard gets to choose between wasting one of his few precious, precious spells... or poking it with a stick. And should generally choose "poke it with a stick"...
Having played a little 2e: That's not old-school D&D, that's the DM giving all the toys to the fighter and nothing to the wizard. And the wizard being unusually stingy with his spells.
To say nothing of how rolling the dice and applying a different set of modifiers to perform essentially the same action isn't exactly a diverse experience in any but the most mechanical sense.


I would. Batman doesn't fight Superman on even terms. He gets speedblitzed unless he has one of the crazier batsuits and/or kryptonite. Because Batman is a guy with a bat fetish, and Superman is a god.
Also levels of insane planning that make a paranoiac look like a naive child, which any Batman fanboy will tell you lets Batman beat anyone "with preparation". (He also has money, the greatest superpower.)

Which ties back to the discussion at hand: If high-level fighters (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BadassNormal) are going to compete with high-level spellcasters (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityWarper), they need something special.




Fighters need to be 100% mundane!

As long as you limit high-level fighters to being really good at hitting people with sharp sticks, and allow spellcasters to be increasingly good at warping the fabric of reality, you're going to have balance problems. One is simply more useful than the other. That's part of why Conan and Gandalf live in separate universes, and for that matter why Raistlin and Crysania in the Dragonlance books never use their powers to the extent they would in a typical D&D campaign.
The only ways to solve this problem are to limit what high-level wizards can do or to give even "mundane" classes the ability to perform supernatural feats. In a literary setting, you can have your mundane characters have skills which the mages don't (like prestige, tactical/diplomatic skills, not being feared by commonfolk, etc), but this is generally a lot harder to pull off in the context of an RPG. Since D&D seems dedicated to high fantasy, where top-tier spellcasters can raise the dead, teleport, see the future, and so on, the "mundanes" need similar tricks.
It isn't just a matter of DPS or HP or evasion or whatever, it's a matter of versatility. Who cares if a well-played fighter can kill a wizard in two rounds if a well-played wizard can predict the fighter's intent before using scry-and-die? In the context of an actual game, who cares if the fighter can kill a demon in a few hits if the wizard can do it with a single Power Word Kill, or if the cleric can banish it back to whence it came? (To say nothing of how superhuman it would be to kill massive supernatural creatures by poking them a few times in the shins.)
This isn't to say that fighters need to be Som Goku, or Kal-El, or anything like that. That's basically the "throw bigger numbers until it balances" approach, and it simply doesn't work. What we need is a reconceptualization of what it means to be a fighter. If the Fighter class is good at nothing but bashing enemies with sharp sticks, it will never be balanced against high-fantasy spellcasters.

JAL_1138
2016-04-19, 12:16 PM
I said Fighters you're calling mundane need to be mundane, and if they become demigods, there needs to be a point where that's openly acknowledged, so that the system can be neatly divided between "badass normal is feasible" and "now they're demigods." I'm asking that a system not break the verisimilitude of mundanes as mundanes and also give me a system where badass normal is viable without stripping magic of its magicalness and wonder. I didn't say any edition of D&D has done that perfectly. I'll grant you it didn't come through too clearly due to a bit much Wild Turkey. I did not mean to imply that the balance in 3.X (which I didn't even mention, and is so far beyond simply "broken" that it's been hit with a metamagic'd Disintegrate) or even 5e (which goes a long way toward addressing the issue but not far enough) is somehow exactly right.

I also said casters need scaled back a bit (and neglected to mention I think magic needs to be more onerous to use than it is in current editions), to keep magic as something remarkable and wondrous but not be vastly out of parity. I also said that the Fighter could use a boost in utility, like an Expertise. 5th went a fair distance toward addressing it but still has some major issues, e.g., Moon Druid class features (and some Druid features generally). And I'm also of the opinion that there are several problem spells that need reworked from the ground up or scrapped outright.

(Tangent on Plane Shift--it's too easy to use, but in the Great Wheel cosmology, there are three non-soellcasting ways to achieve the same thing: Portals to Sigil, the Infinite Staircase, and Yggdrasil. Leaving the Great Wheel skews it one way or the other--it can be rendered useless, e.g. Athas or Ravenloft, or the mundane can get screwed over if your setting doesn't include portals, Yggdrasil, or the Staircase.)

That a class can do something another class can't is not inherently a problem, nor is the fact that magic can do something nonmagic can't. But the execution is often sorely wanting.

Hope that clears up my views a bit.

Mordar
2016-04-19, 02:58 PM
I'm asking that a system not break the verisimilitude of mundanes as mundanes and also give me a system where badass normal is viable without stripping magic of its magicalness and wonder.

I also said casters need scaled back a bit (and neglected to mention I think magic needs to be more onerous to use than it is in current editions), to keep magic as something remarkable and wondrous but not be vastly out of parity. I also said that the Fighter could use a boost in utility, like an Expertise. 5th went a fair distance toward addressing it but still has some major issues, e.g., Moon Druid class features (and some Druid features generally). And I'm also of the opinion that there are several problem spells that need reworked from the ground up or scrapped outright.

That a class can do something another class can't is not inherently a problem, nor is the fact that magic can do something nonmagic can't. But the execution is often sorely wanting.

Hope that clears up my views a bit.

I think there's a really important point here...magic in all versions of D&D I've seen/played has been utterly stripped of magicalness and wonder (great words, btw). The expectation of magic-users in every group flinging spells with great frequency really does make magic just another stick in the toolbox. That in some editions those same magic users become so powerful and flexible that they bypass any "mundane" options (scry-and-die) or do things better than another class that really only does that thing (CoDZilla) makes magic such a force as to be the default "norm" and other options to be utterly secondary. The components necessary for a spell were once intended to help manage magic...but became ignored/trivial for all but the most powerful of spells. Removing this kind of cost or limitation furthers the "magic is the answer to everything" mindset.

My experience with 4e kind of leveled the field here...but now everyone is kind of a "magic user", doing resource allocation management (encounter/daily powers) and so again it strips magic of magic.

Some of the Chaosium games (Call of C'thulhu and Stormbringer) seemed to do a nice job of keeping magic magical, with different levels of consequence and effort required to enact magic. That keeps magic magical...but is it too far the other way? Healing can be a real chore in these games...that seems to be a necessary component of dungeon-crawl style games.

So, what to do? Can a game with a wizard and cleric in every party have a system that keeps magic magical? Or keeps mundanes as important as wizards and clerics? How much can broadening the skills available to "mundane" characters accomplish - make every non-caster a skillmonkey? What kind of spell list hits the sweet spot and keep casters from being one-trick-ponies or perfect toolboxes? What system requires "enough" cost to doing magic to keep it from being the answer to every question? It kind of looks hopeless sometimes...

- M

Cluedrew
2016-04-19, 04:27 PM
I'm not what you think of when you say "battle aura" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BattleAura), but I think of something like this (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/r2qGQxlvbFs/maxresdefault.jpg), complete with Goku.Yeah, there is a couple of differences between my vision and your more standard comics book "battle aura". Which is part of the reason I switched to a different example, because I realized other people would think something else.

I also agree with a lot of your points. But I would like to say something about "D&D 3.5e Level 20 Theoretical Optimization Wizard Power Level Characters" which shall be referred to from here on out as OP. First I would like to point out that most high-fantasy spellcasters don't even approach OPs in strength. In fact the only examples I could think of were the Planeswalkers from Magic: The Gathering.

Also I'm not sure if fighters should be 100% mundane (although if you have a 100% mundane class might as well be the fighter), rather there should be plausible deniability that it is 100% mundane. What is the difference? Glad you asked. That means that there is a connection from the ability back to mundane (physical, mental...) skill through a series of links that make a kind of intuitive sense.

My favourite example is "mastery of the two layers", which is a striking technique works by striking something twice in rapid (<1/75 second) succession. The first strike removes its physical resistance and the second demolishes it. Now the physics behind this simply does not work, but is sounds like it could.

Another is "dance of the falling leaf" in which you disappear by standing in an enemy's blind spots. That one makes sense, except people manage to pull it off while standing in front of their target and that I don't understand.

This to me feel mundane, even though you would have to bend reality to make them work.

Bohandas
2016-04-19, 04:32 PM
Reminds me of Grod's Law (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?328767-More-realistic-D-amp-D-Economy/page2&p=17613518#post17613518). This is a little better since some of the annoyance is more in-character than out-, but it still applies.


Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.


Speaking of spellcasters and grod's law, does anybody else think the whole vancian magic + must rest the full eight hours to regain spells is a violation of this? It's meant as a balancing factor but In practice it just leads to clearing dungeons in a series of semi-comical but annoying 5 minute raids

Mordar
2016-04-19, 05:19 PM
Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.


Speaking of spellcasters and grod's law, does anybody else think the whole vancian magic + must rest the full eight hours to regain spells is a violation of this? It's meant as a balancing factor but In practice it just leads to clearing dungeons in a series of semi-comical but annoying 5 minute raids

Sicne we're in the "Get off my lawn" thread...back in the day there wasn't free-and-easy rest via 'porting home...none of this "save and log out" stuff, anyway. Rest meant fortifying a space in a hostile environment, posting guards and hoping for good luck on the by-goodness-random-encounter tables. Sure, there were a few rope-trick like things out there, but camping in the dungeon was a thing that you had to do and for which you had to be prepared.

So sure, it might no longer be a concern (sadly much like casting time and spell components), but that doesn't mean the rule/mechanism didn't have at least decent logic supporting the implementation. At least that's how my doddering old mind remembers it...

- M

LibraryOgre
2016-04-19, 05:59 PM
Sicne we're in the "Get off my lawn" thread...back in the day there wasn't free-and-easy rest via 'porting home...none of this "save and log out" stuff, anyway. Rest meant fortifying a space in a hostile environment, posting guards and hoping for good luck on the by-goodness-random-encounter tables. Sure, there were a few rope-trick like things out there, but camping in the dungeon was a thing that you had to do and for which you had to be prepared.


AND you didn't just study for an hour and get all your spells back. You studied for 10 minutes per spell level. The Teleport without Error you used would take an hour, by itself... two, if you wanted to go there and back. So your "Ten minute work day" became a "ten minute work week", as you returned home to recover the spells you spent in that ten minute work day.

Milo v3
2016-04-19, 06:42 PM
magic in all versions of D&D I've seen/played has been utterly stripped of magicalness and wonder (great words, btw).
The only way you can stop this is either basically have freeform rules for magic, invoke grods law and add in something really annoying like 1 in 20 chance to summon orcus or explode, while also saying "No dave you cannot play a magic class because steve picked one already".

Also, considering how when realworld individuals did occult rituals and stuff, they don't see it something that "has to be magical and wonder filled" since that directly goes against the whole point of practicing and studying magic...

Cosi
2016-04-19, 08:40 PM
I said Fighters you're calling mundane need to be mundane, and if they become demigods, there needs to be a point where that's openly acknowledged, so that the system can be neatly divided between "badass normal is feasible" and "now they're demigods."

I agree with this. This is one of the issues where 4e actually had the right idea. You should just have Tiers. And LotR or GoT can be Heroic Tier, while Chronicles of Amber or Mistborn is Paragon Tier. And Planeswalkers or Pretender Gods can be Epic Tier. And then we can stop having this conversation about how Conan should be able to adventure with Dresden or whether teleport is acceptable to have in the game. Conan can adventure with Gandalf, Dresden can adventure with Jace, and you can get teleport when "a really long trip" is no longer something you care about.


And I'm also of the opinion that there are several problem spells that need reworked from the ground up or scrapped outright.

The only spell I've seen that is conceptually unworkable is ice assassin. I would be interested in your explanation of what needs to be scrapped.


(Tangent on Plane Shift--it's too easy to use, but in the Great Wheel cosmology, there are three non-soellcasting ways to achieve the same thing: Portals to Sigil, the Infinite Staircase, and Yggdrasil. Leaving the Great Wheel skews it one way or the other--it can be rendered useless, e.g. Athas or Ravenloft, or the mundane can get screwed over if your setting doesn't include portals, Yggdrasil, or the Staircase.)

Those aren't mundane solutions. They're low level solutions. The entire point of Sigil is to let you have planar adventures when you are too low level to cast plane shift, so proposing it as a solution to the problem of "eventually, the Wizard becomes hard core enough to cast plane shift and the Fighter doesn't" is missing the entire point.


I think there's a really important point here...magic in all versions of D&D I've seen/played has been utterly stripped of magicalness and wonder (great words, btw).

What does it mean for magic to be "magical"? I don't think things that are "hard to use" or "prone to failure" are wondrous or magical, I think they are crappy. When the wi-fi network I'm using crashes, it doesn't feel "wondrous". It feels cheap. The fact that you can use magic to raise the dead, speak with the gods, or teleport across the world feels totally wondrous when the chance of being eaten by a demon for trying it is 0% and it does not feel any more wondrous as that chance rises.


Removing this kind of cost or limitation furthers the "magic is the answer to everything" mindset.

Magic is an answer to whatever the set of things you can do with magic is. And it is the answer to those things if it is the best answer or there are no other answers. So "use magic" will always (barring some transhuman settings), be the solution to "how do I bring this dead guy back to life". But the limitations on the effects of magic (rather than the ease or the consistency of magic) influence what things it is a solution to. If teleport can't transport a large group, it will never be the solution when you need to get an army somewhere. If magical stealth is inferior to mundane stealth, it can be trivial to use without ever being the solution to "sneak into the castle".


Or keeps mundanes as important as wizards and clerics?

D&D postulates that you will eventually go to Hell and fight Demons (well, Devils). Once you are fighting in a place that is magic, which you traveled to using magic, fighting enemies who are magic and fight with magic, the idea that you can simply not be magic is basically absurd.


I also agree with a lot of your points. But I would like to say something about "D&D 3.5e Level 20 Theoretical Optimization Wizard Power Level Characters" which shall be referred to from here on out as OP. First I would like to point out that most high-fantasy spellcasters don't even approach OPs in strength. In fact the only examples I could think of were the Planeswalkers from Magic: The Gathering.

Couple of things.

First, you haven't defined your terms well enough. Even within the group "optimized 20th level 3e spellcasters", there are a bunch of different power levels. The guy who is running around with a suite of personal buffs and using AoE save or dies is powerful, but not nearly as much so as the guy abusing wish/gate/shapechange/ice assassin.

Second, while the effects of D&D magic scale quite impressively, the scope basically doesn't scale at all. wail of the banshee can kill more than a dozen people at the level you get it. But it can't kill an army. Both because it can't kill twenty people and because it can't kill two people who are more than 80ft apart. So while a 20th level 3e Wizard would face-crush a Second Apocalypse mage, it would actually be harder for him to blast an army apart.

Third, there are actually a bunch of settings with characters that powerful. Osiris (from Creatures of Light and Darkness) controls the flow of life across the universe. Ruin and Preservation (Mistborn trilogy) have the power to reshape the surface of the planet, alter human genetics, change planetary orbits, and create magic just by existing. Rand al'Thor (Wheel of Time) uses balefire to retroactively un-create people. Supposedly, Anomander Rake (Malazan: Book of the Fallen) fully unleashing his power could destroy the world. Various comic-book magicians (who are for some reason all Doctors) including Doctor Fate (Respect Thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/respectthreads/comments/3ivloe/respect_doctor_fate_dc_preflashpoint/)) and Doctor Strange (Respect Thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/respectthreads/comments/30yg2b/respect_dr_strange_the_sorcerer_supreme/)). Pretender Gods from Dominions can summon demon lords or dead gods and turn off the sun. I assume some people from the Dresden Files can throw down on this level, as well as various characters from Riftwar novels, but I think you get the point.

If you relax the constraints somewhat, there are an even larger number of characters who are merely "very powerful" and capable of adventuring with competent casters in the 7th level spells and up range. High Lords (Codex Alera), the Lord Ruler (Mistborn trilogy), Kellhus (Second Apocalypse), Predeii (Powder Mage trilogy), and Elric (Elric stories). Mid-high grade mages from The Dresden Files, The Codex Alera, Malazan, Wheel of Time, Riftwar, Second Apocalypse, or The Chronicles of Amber probably can too.


AND you didn't just study for an hour and get all your spells back. You studied for 10 minutes per spell level. The Teleport without Error you used would take an hour, by itself... two, if you wanted to go there and back. So your "Ten minute work day" became a "ten minute work week", as you returned home to recover the spells you spent in that ten minute work day.

So? Either the enemy's plan advances constantly (in which case you don't pull 5 minute work-days in 3e, and why do I care?) or it doesn't (so there's no penalty for resting in AD&D, and why do I care?). Or maybe you actually need that firepower, and you rest regardless of penalties. If you want PCs to rest less you need to put them on a clock or give them abilities that can be recharged during the day.

JAL_1138
2016-04-19, 08:52 PM
The only way you can stop this is either basically have freeform rules for magic, invoke grods law and add in something really annoying like 1 in 20 chance to summon orcus or explode, while also saying "No dave you cannot play a magic class because steve picked one already".

Also, considering how when realworld individuals did occult rituals and stuff, they don't see it something that "has to be magical and wonder filled" since that directly goes against the whole point of practicing and studying magic...



Things that are ordinary in-universe may still be extraordinary to the audience. Take FTL travel or transporters in Star Trek (to borrow Extra Credits' example from a tangential topic). These are things that are wondrous and amazing pieces of technology to 20th and 21st century viewers, but in-universe are just how you go to work in the morning.

Cluedrew
2016-04-19, 09:08 PM
First, you haven't defined your terms well enough.Fair enough. The best way I can put it is "Emperor Tippy Level Optimization" does that help?


Second, while the effects of D&D magic scale quite impressively, the scope basically doesn't scale at all.So a D&D wizard can't kill an army. They are still really strong compared to many other representations of magic users.


Third, there are actually a bunch of settings with characters that powerful.Oh undoubtedly, the Planewalkers were the only ones I could think of at the time (just remembered the Anti-Monitor). Still they are relatively uncommon. I've written a few myself and if you don't do it right they just break the setting.

However you actually hit an aside point, the main thing I was going for was the plausibility deniability thing.

Milo v3
2016-04-19, 09:10 PM
Things that are ordinary in-universe may still be extraordinary to the audience. Take FTL travel or transporters in Star Trek (to borrow Extra Credits' example from a tangential topic). These are things that are wondrous and amazing pieces of technology to 20th and 21st century viewers, but in-universe are just how you go to work in the morning.
That may work with mediums where the authors of the stories are not simulatenously the audience, but I don't think it works when the people who know the "Rules behind the setting" are the audience. That's the reason why "magic in all versions of D&D I've seen/played has been utterly stripped of magicalness and wonder" because the players need to know the rules in order to use the magic rules, meaning they (The audience) know the stuff that is meant to be extraordinary. There is no mystery, because it's right there on pages that you have to read if you want to play as a caster.

obryn
2016-04-19, 09:24 PM
The only way you can stop this is either basically have freeform rules for magic, invoke grods law and add in something really annoying like 1 in 20 chance to summon orcus or explode, while also saying "No dave you cannot play a magic class because steve picked one already".

Also, considering how when realworld individuals did occult rituals and stuff, they don't see it something that "has to be magical and wonder filled" since that directly goes against the whole point of practicing and studying magic...
Why not look to other RPGs with more "magical" magic systems instead of D&D's rather static one?

Dungeon Crawl Classics, for example.

Cosi
2016-04-19, 09:29 PM
Fair enough. The best way I can put it is "Emperor Tippy Level Optimization" does that help?

That's fair, but I don't think it's typical. Also, I think most people won't defend shapechange stacking or ice assassin chains as intended, so using them as a benchmark is kind of lame.


So a D&D wizard can't kill an army. They are still really strong compared to many other representations of magic users.

I didn't mean that. They can totally kill an army. It's just that they can't really kill an army with magic. A 20th level Wizard can cast shapechange and turn into a dragon which will have no trouble killing an army. Or he can cast gate and summon something which kills an army. But his options to actually blast an army apart are fairly spare. Off the top of my head, it's basically the locate city nuke or that spell from BoVD that turns artifacts into huge AoE magic damage.

Compare that to, say, the Second Apocalypse. Against enemies without Chorae a schoolman can fly up into the air and kill an essentially unlimited number of foes with magic. That same schoolman will get smacked down pretty hard if he tries to step to even a mid-op 20th level Wizard, but his magic is much better suited to blowing up an army.


Oh undoubtedly, the Planewalkers were the only ones I could think of at the time (just remembered the Anti-Monitor). Still they are relatively uncommon. I've written a few myself and if you don't do it right they just break the setting.

Nothing about high-powered characters is inherently dangerous to the setting. The problem is adding things to the setting without thinking about their implications. Governments, for example, work rather radically differently if the king is powerful enough that he doesn't care about the people rebelling (see: Mistborn).


That may work with mediums where the authors of the stories are not simulatenously the audience, but I don't think it works when the people who know the "Rules behind the setting" are the audience. That's the reason why "magic in all versions of D&D I've seen/played has been utterly stripped of magicalness and wonder" because the players need to know the rules in order to use the magic rules, meaning they (The audience) know the stuff that is meant to be extraordinary. There is no mystery, because it's right there on pages that you have to read if you want to play as a caster.

Pretty much. In any game, you have to understand things well enough to predict what will happen. If anything can happen at any time for no reason, I'm not playing a game. I'm mashing buttons.

I'm also not sure how you're supposed to capture the "feel" of magic in a game. Magic is, by definition, stuff that does not actually exist. As such, I don't really know how anything that exists (in the game) could be said to feel "like magic".

Cluedrew
2016-04-19, 09:41 PM
Nothing about high-powered characters is inherently dangerous to the setting. The problem is adding things to the setting without thinking about their implications. Governments, for example, work rather radically differently if the king is powerful enough that he doesn't care about the people rebelling (see: Mistborn).That is the danger though, characters like this add things to the setting that people forget, and the world (that D&D games seem to be played in) doesn't really seem to account for high- (or even mid-) level characters. In all the D&D books I read, very few of them had characters that were even close to 20 (Elminster and some others were exceptions).

The portrayal of D&D characters in literature could be its own thread, I was just trying to skim over it. But there is a lot you can say.

Bohandas
2016-04-19, 09:43 PM
without stripping magic of its magicalness and wonder.

Personally I would say that having a setting where magic exists and is real but isn't stripped of it's magicalness and wonder would constitute a plot hole and an inconsistency. The most believable fantasy setting I've ever encountered is Ghostbusters, because that's the only one where the supernatural is handled in a realistic manner; it's investigated, understood, and tamed and it becomes controllable, just like rivers or lightning

JAL_1138
2016-04-19, 09:49 PM
That may work with mediums where the authors of the stories are not simulatenously the audience, but I don't think it works when the people who know the "Rules behind the setting" are the audience. That's the reason why "magic in all versions of D&D I've seen/played has been utterly stripped of magicalness and wonder" because the players need to know the rules in order to use the magic rules, meaning they (The audience) know the stuff that is meant to be extraordinary. There is no mystery, because it's right there on pages that you have to read if you want to play as a caster.

There's no mystery to the warp drive or the transporter either. Trek goes to great pains to explain how they work. For instance, they detail how the warp drive uses matter and antimatter reactions mediated by nonreactive dilithium crystals to create a high-energy plasma that gets shunted into the warp coils to generate a bubble of warped space-time to allow a ship to move faster than light without violating relativity (which, although Trek's version is not 100% accurate to real-world physics, works on the same principle behind the Alcubierre drive, a real-world theoretical system which would use exotic forms of matter to create the same kind of space-time bubble and allow for FTL, although it's currently unfeasible to produce because it would take an amount of matter the size of Jupiter under Alcubierre's original calculations, since modified by NASA/JPL's Harold White to require a vastly smaller amount about the size of Voyager 1)...and it's still remarkable.

Knowing how it works isn't necessarily a factor in how wondrous something is. "Wondrous" in this context is not meant to indicate mystery in any way, as if in "I wonder how that works." "Marvelous" or "remarkable" are the applicable synonyms for "wondrous" in this context, rather than "mysterious."

To use an exaggerated example, I don't wonder how the Grand Canyon was made; the Colorado River carved it out through erosion over millions of years, in essentially the same way as heavy rain creates rivulets that wear trenches in my yard, except in rock instead of soil and over a much longer time frame. There is precisely zero mystery to it. But I feel a sense of wonder when I observe it, because it's a marvelous and beautiful geological formation.

Milo v3
2016-04-19, 10:01 PM
Why not look to other RPGs with more "magical" magic systems instead of D&D's rather static one?

Dungeon Crawl Classics, for example.
I wasn't just considering D&D, I simply haven't found any that didn't count as "taking away the magic" that doesn't do as I mentioned. In what way does Dungeon Crawl Classics make it more magical.


I'm also not sure how you're supposed to capture the "feel" of magic in a game. Magic is, by definition, stuff that does not actually exist. As such, I don't really know how anything that exists (in the game) could be said to feel "like magic".
There are a few different feels that magic could have. Strangely "Mysterious and wondrous" isn't actually one that exists anywhere but fantasy novels. Doesn't exactly exist in mythology or occultism, which prefer for their practices to work than "Be dramatically mysterious".


Knowing how it works isn't necessarily a factor in how wondrous something is. "Wondrous" in this context is not meant to indicate mystery in any way, as if in "I wonder how that works." "Marvelous" or "remarkable" are the applicable synonyms for "wondrous" in this context, rather than "mysterious."

To use an exaggerated example, I don't wonder how the Grand Canyon was made; the Colorado River carved it out through erosion over millions of years, in essentially the same way as heavy rain creates rivulets that wear trenches in my yard, except in rock instead of soil and over a much longer time frame. There is precisely zero mystery to it. But I feel a sense of wonder when I observe it, because it's a marvelous and beautiful geological formation.
In that context, I don't know why something like D&D magic wouldn't apply, since whether that context applies is 100% subjective and how you use the magic system.

JAL_1138
2016-04-19, 11:11 PM
What I'm looking for is to keep that feel instead of toning the wizard down by reducing them down so far that there is essentially no point to magic. Have it be something marvelous without making it simply tacking on "oh, er, but it's magic" to what is mechanically identical to a mundane crossbow bolt or an AC boost from a shield or what have you. It needs to be more than a somewhat pointless weapon or a worse (or even just functionslly identical) way of doing things normally done the mundane way.

To have it still do phenomenal and amazing things...but without going so far as, say, breaking the economy by abusing Fabricate; or self-buffing to the point there's no reason to bother training in weapons or armor instead; or (picking on the 5e Moon Druid) being able to turn into an elemental that can evade anything a Fighter could possibly do, at-will, instantaneously, an unlimited number of times per day (so that even if you do get stabbed, you can't get killed that way); or simply pop into another dimension whenever a combat starts going south; or turn into an ancient dragon in the span of a six-second combat round and lay waste to cities; or bring back the dead with no effort or drawback besides (a relatively paltry amount of) money; or flood the world with Simulacra of yourself; etc., etc.

Resurrection in recent editions (and even in 2e, despite the Con penalty and system shock roll) of a problem in the implementation but not the idea itself. It should probably be possible in the system. But the way it's handled currently, death is cheap. Literally. It costs less than middlin' armor. There's no reason a ruler of a powerful, prosperous nation should ever fear mundane assassins when he could simply hire some mid-level clerics for bodyguards. A knife in the kidneys or a slit throat or a crossbow bolt from the balcony can just be solved by a diamond and a spell slo from one of his clerics. Even with relatively low-level clerics, in 5e, you've got to take an internal organ with you and fend off the clerics for a full ten rounds to prevent easy, cheap, instant resurrection with a third-level slot. (Heck, you can't poison his food either, because his cleric bodyguards can just Purify Food and Drink his every meal for a first-level slot).

Speak with Dead should probably be possible, because it's cool and to some extent a staple of the fantasy genre. But it shouldn't be so easy and so reliable that no murder mysteries are possible unless the party doesn't have access to someone with that spell, the killer wears a mask or something, or the killer isn't seen at all.

EDIT: Or heck, a low-level example. Removing poison from food and drink should probably be possible, but you shouldn't just be able to take a level of cleric and never fear poison in your wine again. Likewise, divine magic should be able to cure diseases and heal people, but not to the extent of a second-level spell slot curing literally any disease, giving sight to the blind, letting the paralysed walk, letting the deaf hear, and curing any poison under the sun, in six seconds, for no other cost.

Bohandas
2016-04-19, 11:49 PM
Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.



Sicne we're in the "Get off my lawn" thread...back in the day there wasn't free-and-easy rest via 'porting home...none of this "save and log out" stuff, anyway. Rest meant fortifying a space in a hostile environment, posting guards and hoping for good luck on the by-goodness-random-encounter tables. Sure, there were a few rope-trick like things out there, but camping in the dungeon was a thing that you had to do and for which you had to be prepared.

So sure, it might no longer be a concern (sadly much like casting time and spell components), but that doesn't mean the rule/mechanism didn't have at least decent logic supporting the implementation. At least that's how my doddering old mind remembers it...

- M

I've heard (secondhand) of some published tabletop modules explicitly describing rather preposterous places as being safe to rest in. Like, any place in the dungeon that's already been cleared, just like in a videogame.

EDIT:
And also, in terns of editions and videogames, the 3e games I've played have been more sensible in regard to resting not being convenient than some of the 2e videogames. The 2e game Champions of Krynn has probably the best example I've seen of resting being too convenient; towards the end of the first dungeon all the minions are described as frantically packing everything up and the place being abuzz with activity, but despite this you can rest in that area with no more than the usual chance of being accosted, and no matter how long you rest they'll never finish their packing and get away

EDIT:
Also, it could be argued that, for most types of dungeons (anything that's in a building inhabited by living people), camping inside the dungeon is if anything even more preposterous than commuting there

Bohandas
2016-04-20, 12:45 AM
I didn't mean that. They can totally kill an army. It's just that they can't really kill an army with magic. A 20th level Wizard can cast shapechange and turn into a dragon which will have no trouble killing an army. Or he can cast gate and summon something which kills an army. But his options to actually blast an army apart are fairly spare. Off the top of my head, it's basically the locate city nuke or that spell from BoVD that turns artifacts into huge AoE magic damage.

It changes at level 21 though, with epic spellcasting and he Rain of Fire spell


I'm also not sure how you're supposed to capture the "feel" of magic in a game. Magic is, by definition, stuff that does not actually exist. As such, I don't really know how anything that exists (in the game) could be said to feel "like magic".

I don't think that's actually an essential part of the definition. It doesn't exist; there are many popular concepts of magic that can't exist, in any possibly world due to being self contradictory and/or inherently absurd (such as definitions that rely on it being unexplainable and/or outside the rules of the universe); It is not necessarily however defined by not existing

goto124
2016-04-20, 08:15 AM
How to balance magic and mundane?

How about making magic defeatable by mundane? Teleportation requires an open sky since it relies on the stars. Flight fails when there's fire nearby. Smack wizards when they're in the middle of casting their spells and said spells go poof.

Which systems do variations of these?

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-20, 08:19 AM
There's no mystery to the warp drive or the transporter either. Trek goes to great pains to explain how they work. For instance, they detail how the warp drive uses matter and antimatter reactions mediated by nonreactive dilithium crystals to create a high-energy plasma that gets shunted into the warp coils to generate a bubble of warped space-time to allow a ship to move faster than light without violating relativity (which, although Trek's version is not 100% accurate to real-world physics, works on the same principle behind the Alcubierre drive, a real-world theoretical system which would use exotic forms of matter to create the same kind of space-time bubble and allow for FTL, although it's currently unfeasible to produce because it would take an amount of matter the size of Jupiter under Alcubierre's original calculations, since modified by NASA/JPL's Harold White to require a vastly smaller amount about the size of Voyager 1)...and it's still remarkable.

Knowing how it works isn't necessarily a factor in how wondrous something is. "Wondrous" in this context is not meant to indicate mystery in any way, as if in "I wonder how that works." "Marvelous" or "remarkable" are the applicable synonyms for "wondrous" in this context, rather than "mysterious."

To use an exaggerated example, I don't wonder how the Grand Canyon was made; the Colorado River carved it out through erosion over millions of years, in essentially the same way as heavy rain creates rivulets that wear trenches in my yard, except in rock instead of soil and over a much longer time frame. There is precisely zero mystery to it. But I feel a sense of wonder when I observe it, because it's a marvelous and beautiful geological formation.

To (mis)quote CPG Grey, Trek is full of technobabble that means nothing. The warp drive does follow physics to a certain extent (although the explanation I heard had to do with subspace), and while we can extrapolate how the transporter must work it's still unclear how it does what it does. (For that matter teleportation of any kind is problematic, unless there's a speed of light delay)

obryn
2016-04-20, 08:57 AM
I wasn't just considering D&D, I simply haven't found any that didn't count as "taking away the magic" that doesn't do as I mentioned. In what way does Dungeon Crawl Classics make it more magical.
Three main ways - (1) There's a percentile table (mercurial magic) which makes it so that two wizards with the same spell hardly ever actually have the same spell in all the details. (2) Casting requires rolling with variable results, so that it's not consistently insert coin/get fireball. (3) On certain failures, corruption and mutation are possible.

These combine together to make magic really feel like something that's violating the rules of reality.

martixy
2016-04-20, 09:15 AM
There is that. However, I'd argue that a lot of the depth in a good RPG comes more from playstyle than rules. I mean, sure, you can find depth in building the perfect OP Batman Wizard or Hulking Hurler or Pun-Pun or whatever, but in my opinion RPGs are better-suited to more abstract depth (particularly now that they need to compete with video games, which can have as much or more or that kind of depth with less bookkeeping and more engaging play).

I agree - you work with the strengths of the medium. That kind of abstract depth is a unique thing for TT games(not even RPGs specifically).

However, these aspects are not mutually exclusive.

It just requires you manually do, what someone else did for you in video games.

Excel, Javascript and Python, I've found are excellent tools for the job.
Obviously, not a playstyle suitable for everybody, but it is one that's possible.


Didn't expect to see another EC fan.
On that note, on the off chance you're not aware of it, let me plug All Your History (https://www.youtube.com/show/allyourhistory).

JAL_1138
2016-04-20, 09:25 AM
How to balance magic and mundane?

How about making magic defeatable by mundane? Teleportation requires an open sky since it relies on the stars. Flight fails when there's fire nearby. Smack wizards when they're in the middle of casting their spells and said spells go poof.

Which systems do variations of these?

AD&D has the "smack them while they're casting" thing. Spells had a casting time, and if you're hit at all before it goes off, the spell fizzles and you lose the preparation of it for the day.



I like your idea, quite a bit. Magic can still do amazing, marvelous things, but only situationally. This actually crops up a lot in myths, so it doesn't diminish the "magicalness" of it.

For example, in Scottish folklore, why should you seek shelter when the Cú Sìth howls? (If it was out hunting, and bayed three times, you would die on the third howl). But even if you can still hear the howling through the walls of your house, being indoors keeps the howl from killing you.

Or in various legends an unbroken line of salt can't be crossed by a ghost or evil spirit (maybe any ethereal creature, in a game?).

And of course cold iron wards off the Fair Folk. (So perhaps in such a magic system, meteoric iron could disrupt certain types of magic favored by them in a radius around it? I dunno).

I suppose the trick to such a system would be balancing it out so magic still retains some utility at all. But it'd be a good way to restrict it from being the all-powerful force it often is in D&D.

Cosi
2016-04-20, 09:28 AM
There are a few different feels that magic could have. Strangely "Mysterious and wondrous" isn't actually one that exists anywhere but fantasy novels. Doesn't exactly exist in mythology or occultism, which prefer for their practices to work than "Be dramatically mysterious".

Things could feel like various proposed systems for magic. If you used wands and called out all your attacks, that would feel "like Harry Potter". If magic involved a lot of chanting and geometry, that would feel "like occultism". But what "magic" (or more broadly, "the supernatural") means is stuff "outside nature". Anything that exists is, by definition, a part of nature and as such cannot feel like "magic" in the general sense.


To have it still do phenomenal and amazing things...but without going so far as, say, breaking the economy by abusing Fabricate;

fabricate doesn't break the economy. It just produces goods from inputs at a rate. That rate is faster than a medieval economy, but it's not super impressive in a modern economy. Frankly, changing the world is exactly what magic should do if it is supposed to feel "wondrous". If the culture and setting looks exactly like historic Europe because magic doesn't do anything to effect society, it feels pretty boring.


or self-buffing to the point there's no reason to bother training in weapons or armor instead; or (picking on the 5e Moon Druid) being able to turn into an elemental that can evade anything a Fighter could possibly do, at-will, instantaneously, an unlimited number of times per day (so that even if you do get stabbed, you can't get killed that way); or simply pop into another dimension whenever a combat starts going south; or turn into an ancient dragon in the span of a six-second combat round and lay waste to cities; or bring back the dead with no effort or drawback besides (a relatively paltry amount of) money; or flood the world with Simulacra of yourself; etc., etc.

It sounds like you would like to play a low level campaign. And that is totally fine. But all of that is stuff you could reasonably ask to do if your party was the Lord Ruler, Harry Dresden, and Corwin of Amber. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be excluded. I have no desire to play a Monk, but I also have no problem with Monks existing. I don't understand why people repeatedly hold powerful magic to a different standard. No one comes to your house and beats you up if you don't play 13th level characters.


There's no reason a ruler of a powerful, prosperous nation should ever fear mundane assassins when he could simply hire some mid-level clerics for bodyguards.

Sure there is. A Thinaun blade traps the soul of anyone it kills, preventing resurrection unless the caster has the weapon handy. It's expensive, but you're killing the king.


Speak with Dead should probably be possible, because it's cool and to some extent a staple of the fantasy genre. But it shouldn't be so easy and so reliable that no murder mysteries are possible unless the party doesn't have access to someone with that spell, the killer wears a mask or something, or the killer isn't seen at all.

speak with dead requires assassination plots to be more complicated than "some guy killed this dude, find out who and kill him back". That's fine. It doesn't reveal motive. It doesn't reveal location. It doesn't reveal employer. It doesn't reveal identity in absolute terms. There's plenty of information you don't get from using it. Also, the spell requires the corpse to have a mouth, so you can foil speak with dead with 100% efficiency if you just cut off people's heads and take them with you after you kill them.


It changes at level 21 though, with epic spellcasting and he Rain of Fire spell

Sure, but Epic Spellcasting is stupid. And even with Epic Spellcasting, it's still easier to turn yourself into a monster or summon a bunch of outsiders than it is to blast an army apart (mostly because those things can be done in downtime).


How about making magic defeatable by mundane? Teleportation requires an open sky since it relies on the stars. Flight fails when there's fire nearby. Smack wizards when they're in the middle of casting their spells and said spells go poof.

How does that do anything good? Even open sky only teleport solves 100% of the plot of LotR instantly. The correct way to solve the problem of magic v mundane is to just accept that at some point everyone is magic, and not let people have magic abilities that destabilize mundane plots before that point. So until you get to Paragon Tier, you can't have any abilities that significantly warp a mundane economy (i.e. fabricate), let you personally kill an army (i.e. apocalypse from the sky), or solve the plot of LotR without having to actually do the overland journey (i.e. teleport). And then you can actually have mundane and magic be balanced there, and not have people be mundane later, and you have solved 100% of the problem without needing to work on a specific mundane counter for every magic ability.

Milo v3
2016-04-20, 09:45 AM
These combine together to make magic really feel like something that's violating the rules of reality.
Not exactly wondrous though....

In my experience, it actually decreases wonder since it just becomes more of a hassle than it is interesting enough for players to actually Want to interact with it.


But what "magic" (or more broadly, "the supernatural") means is stuff "outside nature". Anything that exists is, by definition, a part of nature and as such cannot feel like "magic" in the general sense.
One of the reasons I dislike when things call stuff magic in-setting when they know what it is, rather than giving it an actual term for what it is, since if it exists.... then it's not magic. D&D shouldn't have supernatural as a thing, since... if it exists... it's not really supernatural. Unless it is something like a golem, I could see that as supernatural. But an elemental or fey shouldn't be considered supernatural beings. A dragon breathing fire isn't supernatural, it's natural, just because it doesn't use real-world physics or biology doesn't mean it's supernatural in that setting, it just means it doesn't use real world physics or biology.

goto124
2016-04-20, 09:51 AM
Even open sky only teleport solves 100% of the plot of LotR instantly. The correct way to solve the problem of magic v mundane is to just accept that at some point everyone is magic, and not let people have magic abilities that destabilize mundane plots before that point. So until you get to Paragon Tier, you can't have any abilities that significantly warp a mundane economy (i.e. fabricate), let you personally kill an army (i.e. apocalypse from the sky), or solve the plot of LotR without having to actually do the overland journey (i.e. teleport). And then you can actually have mundane and magic be balanced there, and not have people be mundane later, and you have solved 100% of the problem without needing to work on a specific mundane counter for every magic ability.

Wasn't I trying to figure out how to design magic abilities that don't destabilize mundane plots? *headscratch*


AD&D has the "smack them while they're casting" thing. Spells had a casting time, and if you're hit at all before it goes off, the spell fizzles and you lose the preparation of it for the day.



I like your idea, quite a bit. Magic can still do amazing, marvelous things, but only situationally. This actually crops up a lot in myths, so it doesn't diminish the "magicalness" of it.

For example, in Scottish folklore, why should you seek shelter when the Cú Sìth howls? (If it was out hunting, and bayed three times, you would die on the third howl). But even if you can still hear the howling through the walls of your house, being indoors keeps the howl from killing you.

Or in various legends an unbroken line of salt can't be crossed by a ghost or evil spirit (maybe any ethereal creature, in a game?).

And of course cold iron wards off the Fair Folk. (So perhaps in such a magic system, meteoric iron could disrupt certain types of magic favored by them in a radius around it? I dunno).

I suppose the trick to such a system would be balancing it out so magic still retains some utility at all. But it'd be a good way to restrict it from being the all-powerful force it often is in D&D.

JAL_1138
2016-04-20, 10:03 AM
Wasn't I trying to figure out how to design magic abilities that don't destabilize mundane plots? *headscratch*




Perhaps go the AD&D route and also add a chance of horrible death to teleporting someplace you haven't been, or go further and outright restrict it to someplace you've personally been (that may be getting too restrictive, though).

(EDIT: Thanks for the quote/bump, stuff at the bottom of the prior page tends to get missed)

Cosi
2016-04-20, 10:15 AM
One of the reasons I dislike when things call stuff magic in-setting when they know what it is, rather than giving it an actual term for what it is, since if it exists.... then it's not magic. D&D shouldn't have supernatural as a thing, since... if it exists... it's not really supernatural. Unless it is something like a golem, I could see that as supernatural. But an elemental or fey shouldn't be considered supernatural beings. A dragon breathing fire isn't supernatural, it's natural, just because it doesn't use real-world physics or biology doesn't mean it's supernatural in that setting, it just means it doesn't use real world physics or biology.

I don't have that much of a problem with using shorthand like that, as long as there is an in-setting term. So you can all the stuff Wizards do "magic" as long as people in the setting have a term (like "Wizardry") to refer to it by.


Wasn't I trying to figure out how to design magic abilities that don't destabilize mundane plots? *headscratch*

No. You're trying to restrict magic abilities so that they don't disrupt mundane plots, which is stupid coming and going. It means that every time you want to do a "overland trek" adventure, none of the important points can be open to the sky. And it also means that whenever you do an adventure where people are expected to teleport around, all of the important points have to be open to the sky. Neither of those restrictions are good. You should just not give people teleport until you are comfortable with them having teleport.


Perhaps go the AD&D route and also add a chance of horrible death to teleporting someplace you haven't been, or go further and outright restrict it to someplace you've personally been.

No. Getting teleport means you no longer have to do "overland trek" adventures. I have zero interest in the game forcing me to unlock new cities like I was playing damn Pokemon. If you don't want teleport, play E8. Don't demand that the version of teleport I play with is gimped to suit your tastes. I'm not insisting the Fighter start magic at 1st level, am I?

goto124
2016-04-20, 10:20 AM
Sounds like an all or nothing thing. Either unrestricted Teleport, or no Teleport.

I now have no time to think further, though.

Knaight
2016-04-20, 11:43 AM
It's worth observing that magical abilities also enable plots that wouldn't otherwise be available, the same way that greater technology and similar can. Something like rapid long distance communication allows for a great deal of things, near instantaneous movement allows for a great deal of things, etc. These are big things that morph settings, and play in these settings will create different stories. Teleportation would prevent the plot of Lord of the Rings. The absence of teleportation prevents a great deal of what happened in Star Trek.


No. Getting teleport means you no longer have to do "overland trek" adventures. I have zero interest in the game forcing me to unlock new cities like I was playing damn Pokemon. If you don't want teleport, play E8. Don't demand that the version of teleport I play with is gimped to suit your tastes. I'm not insisting the Fighter start magic at 1st level, am I?
There are games where having to "unlock" new cities and the like makes a lot of sense, though for a game in that style I'd be more inclined to go with unexplored territory with the occasional island in a big ocean than cities qua cities, with the barrier being more that you don't know where the location is than teleport failures. Similarly, there are games where fighters absolutely should start magic at first level. However, as D&D isn't a generic game or even a generic fantasy game, and as it has been consistently designed using mechanics that are much better for archetype emulation than setting variability, it's going to exclude some things.

obryn
2016-04-20, 01:08 PM
Not exactly wondrous though....
Then define wondrous? It feels like you're retreating to that term without considering what would qualify as "wondrous" or else defining it in such a way that doesn't make sense in an RPG.

DCC basically eliminates the three main factors that make D&D magic so humdrum. First, there isn't really a set spell list due to mercurial magic's effects. Second, magic isn't reliable. Third, it isn't safe.

Cosi
2016-04-20, 01:35 PM
Sounds like an all or nothing thing. Either unrestricted Teleport, or no Teleport.

Not necessarily. It's just that "restrictions" are a bad way to try to shoehorn Rand al'Thor and Jorg Ancrath into the same party. It warps the adventures you have at low level (because they all have to comply with the restrictions that stop Rand from wiping them) and it warps the adventures you have at high level (because they can't have any of the restrictions that kept Rand in a low level party). It is 100% better to just have Jorg adventure with Conan, Gandalf, and Jon Snow in an adventure where no one has teleport and no restrictions on teleport are necessary, and have Rand adventure with Anomander Rake, Doctor Strange, and Urza in an adventure where no one cares if you have teleport.

You can have restrictions on teleport. forbiddance is fine, having teleport take a longer time is fine. The problem is expecting those restrictions to balance magic and mundane, and having those restrictions warp the kinds of adventures that are possible.


DCC basically eliminates the three main factors that make D&D magic so humdrum. First, there isn't really a set spell list due to mercurial magic's effects. Second, magic isn't reliable. Third, it isn't safe.

Magic feels wondrous because of the effects, not because those effects are inconsistent or the process is risky. We put a man on the moon. And it was wondrous. But it was wondrous because we put a man on the moon. Not because there was a 30% chance NASA would get eaten by demons, or because we were unsure if rocket fuel actually combusted.

Consider, for example, the Taltos novels. In those novels, assassination (not assassination attempts) is considered a warning because of how common resurrection magic is. That feels more wondrous than any amount of "and this time, the magic turned him into a toad and lit your eyebrows on fire" would.

Mordar
2016-04-20, 01:54 PM
What does it mean for magic to be "magical"? I don't think things that are "hard to use" or "prone to failure" are wondrous or magical, I think they are crappy. When the wi-fi network I'm using crashes, it doesn't feel "wondrous". It feels cheap. The fact that you can use magic to raise the dead, speak with the gods, or teleport across the world feels totally wondrous when the chance of being eaten by a demon for trying it is 0% and it does not feel any more wondrous as that chance rises.

I didn't suggest "hard to use" or "prone to failure". I think "rare and special" might be good adjectives, and maybe "revolutionary" or "awe inspiring" (but that might be something like how "sufficiently advanced technology will appear as magic to less advanced"). You're right - crashed wi-fi doesn't feel wondrous. You know what else doesn't feel wondrous? Uncrashed Wi-fi. McDonald's has wifi. Practically everywhere I go has wi-fi and I don't exactly live in the advanced technological mecca of the world. When it was first a thing? Yup. Now? Now the expectation is that everyone has it and it always works. No part of that is magic. When we stop to think about it, though, it is pretty darn special (just like airplanes, microwave ovens and Slurpees). So it is a conundrum, I guess.


Magic is an answer to whatever the set of things you can do with magic is. And it is the answer to those things if it is the best answer or there are no other answers. So "use magic" will always (barring some transhuman settings), be the solution to "how do I bring this dead guy back to life". But the limitations on the effects of magic (rather than the ease or the consistency of magic) influence what things it is a solution to. If teleport can't transport a large group, it will never be the solution when you need to get an army somewhere. If magical stealth is inferior to mundane stealth, it can be trivial to use without ever being the solution to "sneak into the castle".

Exactly correct - magic is "an" answer to whatever the set of things you can do with magic is. And when that set has been set to encompass just about everything any "adventurer" would want to do, it becomes an answer to everything. And when it allows the user to do almost all of those things better than a "mundane" doing them, it becomes *the* answer to everything. That's well and good in a game like Mage where everyone is pretty much by default a wizard type. Less so in a game where that is not the case. Again, you mention ease and consistency...I don't recall suggesting "random spell failure" as the solution...was that pointed elsewhere? You suggest limitations on spell effects are the way to go...but later seem to decry nerfing spells.


D&D postulates that you will eventually go to Hell and fight Demons (well, Devils). Once you are fighting in a place that is magic, which you traveled to using magic, fighting enemies who are magic and fight with magic, the idea that you can simply not be magic is basically absurd.

And the idea that once you reach a point your mechanically well-built non-caster characters is completely outclassed in what they are built to do by an equal level caster character isn't absurd? I guess you could argue "non casters are only built to keep casters alive to mid-level and then carry the casters laundry for them henceforth"...okay, clearly an exaggeration. You know, I'm not an AD&D fanboy or anything like that...but AD&D had those same trips to outer planes and same fights with scarybad magic monsters...but they didn't trivialize all characters that don't have [primary caster] as a class. The use of magic equipment was necessary, of course, but not the necessity of the actual character being magic/wizardly.


It sounds like you would like to play a low level campaign. And that is totally fine. But all of that is stuff you could reasonably ask to do if your party was the Lord Ruler, Harry Dresden, and Corwin of Amber. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be excluded. I have no desire to play a Monk, but I also have no problem with Monks existing. I don't understand why people repeatedly hold powerful magic to a different standard. No one comes to your house and beats you up if you don't play 13th level characters.

It sounds like you only want to play in games where the primary caster is the Easy Button (tm). I don't know if that is accurate, but it is the impression I am left with. Paraphrasing to clarify my point, it sounds like "I don't have any issue with a lesser class existing, so you shouldn't have any problem with me playing a class that trivializes all other classes and effectively renders them sideshow attractions to my main event." I have gotten to participate in a couple of games with fairly high-op mid and high level casters...when they are coupled with non-casters regardless of optimization, even in groups that are well vested in non-mechanical sides of the game, the caster dominates the field during those mechanical segments unless they otherwise choose to "handicap" themselves. I've gotten to run two caster-only games that were fantastic because everyone was on similar footing.

Perhaps your experience varies significantly, but in the 3.x games I've played beyond the very first levels of the very first "campaign", there has been a tacit understanding at the table that primary casters are "easy mode" and the players of those characters should "allow" other classes their spheres of influence. Of course, the GM has the primary role of making sure the players all get to be engaged both mechanically and non-mechanically...but having players who don't view any dampeners as nerfing helps.


How does that do anything good? Even open sky only teleport solves 100% of the plot of LotR instantly. The correct way to solve the problem of magic v mundane is to just accept that at some point everyone is magic, and not let people have magic abilities that destabilize mundane plots before that point. So until you get to Paragon Tier, you can't have any abilities that significantly warp a mundane economy (i.e. fabricate), let you personally kill an army (i.e. apocalypse from the sky), or solve the plot of LotR without having to actually do the overland journey (i.e. teleport). And then you can actually have mundane and magic be balanced there, and not have people be mundane later, and you have solved 100% of the problem without needing to work on a specific mundane counter for every magic ability.


No. You're trying to restrict magic abilities so that they don't disrupt mundane plots, which is stupid coming and going. It means that every time you want to do a "overland trek" adventure, none of the important points can be open to the sky. And it also means that whenever you do an adventure where people are expected to teleport around, all of the important points have to be open to the sky. Neither of those restrictions are good. You should just not give people teleport until you are comfortable with them having teleport.

[LATER]

No. Getting teleport means you no longer have to do "overland trek" adventures. I have zero interest in the game forcing me to unlock new cities like I was playing damn Pokemon. If you don't want teleport, play E8. Don't demand that the version of teleport I play with is gimped to suit your tastes. I'm not insisting the Fighter start magic at 1st level, am I?

So how to provide "mundanes" with a meaningful role past mid level? Scrap them? Require prestige classes that mimic caster powers in their chosen field so they can actually compete with the primary caster in the mundane character's original role? Relegate them to henchmen and handywomen for the primary caster? Or, I guess the best answer: There is no such method. Metagame it, or find a different system/edition.

- M

obryn
2016-04-20, 02:05 PM
Magic feels wondrous because of the effects, not because those effects are inconsistent or the process is risky. We put a man on the moon. And it was wondrous. But it was wondrous because we put a man on the moon. Not because there was a 30% chance NASA would get eaten by demons, or because we were unsure if rocket fuel actually combusted.

Consider, for example, the Taltos novels. In those novels, assassination (not assassination attempts) is considered a warning because of how common resurrection magic is. That feels more wondrous than any amount of "and this time, the magic turned him into a toad and lit your eyebrows on fire" would.
No, magic in D&D is a plot coupon that you play. There's little challenge or wonder to it. You scratch off the spell or slot and the thing happens and maybe you roll some dice.

If I could leave my house and walk to the moon in 10 minutes, there's no wonder in that. The moon would just be one neighborhood over.

And the point of the Taltos novels isn't that resurrection is 'wondrous.' It's the opposite, by my reading - it's utterly mechanistic and predictable. When raising the dead is a routine matter, it's hard to call it miraculous or wonder at the occurrence. It's got all the wonder of going to the dentist and getting a cavity filled.

But let's look at the Apollo missions. I agree; they were wondrous. But it wasn't merely because of the destination, it was because of the process, labor, genius, and, yes, riskiness of the entire endeavor. If they could snap their fingers and get there, then that's kind of missing the entire point.

JAL_1138
2016-04-20, 02:20 PM
I agree that at a certain point, you can't plausibly have Rand Al'Thor as a PC in the same party as Conan, no matter how good Conan is with a sword (or any other mundane method of doing things). Rand is simply so powerful, and can employ that power so easily and quickly (even if it does have the potential to drive him insane through much of the storyline) that it's simply no longer plausible. At a certain point, you do have to go with "everybody's supernatural." The Fighter needs to be on par with Cu Culhain to properly keep up with him. Where we differ is that I'd like a system that stretches that a little further and puts some different limits on magic than D&D often does, so that it can still do some big and/or amazing things while Conan is still a viable PC, and a system that also has a clearer cutoff point for "You Must Be This Demigodly To Ride" than D&D does.

This isn't solveable for my personal tastes by e6 or e8, because a) I don't use 3.5 and they don't translate quite as well to other systems, and b) if trying to apply them in either of the systems I do currently use, they cap mundanes too low in terms of class features, and cap the available magic that can exist in the world such that the party can effectively deal with it if an antagonist has it, at too low a point, for my personal preferences. So I'm thinking of how a different system with different magic rules would potentially work. I still think it's possible to come up with something where magic can do some of those high-level amazing things without completely altering the world or making schmuck-with-a-sword a non-viable career path, and I don't think using some different limitations on what's possible with magic or how magic works than D&D does in order to help with that is "stupid."

That said, I'd also agree that it's the end result that's the wondrous part. Limits on it like those Obryn mentioned, that DCC uses, can be very thematic and make it feel more...mystical? eldritch? or something like that....but don't result in it feeling more wondrous. Those are two different qualities. It's still something I'd like to mess around with sometime, because unreliable/mercurial/dangerous magic has its own merits in terms of the feel it gives.


No, magic in D&D is a plot coupon that you play. There's little challenge or wonder to it. You scratch off the spell or slot and the thing happens and maybe you roll some dice.

If I could leave my house and walk to the moon in 10 minutes, there's no wonder in that. The moon would just be one neighborhood over.

And the point of the Taltos novels isn't that resurrection is 'wondrous.' It's the opposite, by my reading - it's utterly mechanistic and predictable. When raising the dead is a routine matter, it's hard to call it miraculous or wonder at the occurrence. It's got all the wonder of going to the dentist and getting a cavity filled.

But let's look at the Apollo missions. I agree; they were wondrous. But it wasn't merely because of the destination, it was because of the process, labor, genius, and, yes, riskiness of the entire endeavor. If they could snap their fingers and get there, then that's kind of missing the entire point.

Would it not be a wondrous element of a fictional universe, to a reader, if people could snap their fingers and go to the moon?

Part of the point of fantasy and sci-fi is that things that are ordinary in-universe are extraordinary to us. Dragons and laser-guns and elves and FTL travel and people shooting lightning from their hands. It's wondrous that resurrection in the Taltos novels is like going to the dentist. It's wondrous that ships in Star Trek can travel from one planet to another faster than light to do routine deliveries of cargo. Even the mere fact that these things are routine in these settings can be wondrous in itself. Wondrous in-universe and wondrous to the audience are not the same thing. Ordinary, normal parts of daily life in the fictional world may be wondrous to the audience reading it or playing it.

Cosi
2016-04-20, 02:42 PM
So it is a conundrum, I guess.

If magic is useful (which it obviously must be for a magic specialist of any stripe to be a valuable team member), it will not feel wondrous. That's just how things work.


You suggest limitations on spell effects are the way to go...but later seem to decry nerfing spells.

Limits on what spells you have. If you want to play a game where the Ranger's ability to reduce travel times on an overland journey is important, that game must not have teleport. It could totally have know direction or fireball. Just as that game also can't have technological solutions to that problem (for example, airlines). But there's no reason for or benefit from teleport existing, but only working on Tuesdays (or whatever). It still warps the experience for people who want viable mundanes, but it also warps the game for people who want to play after everyone is magic because of held-over limitations.


And the idea that once you reach a point your mechanically well-built non-caster characters is completely outclassed in what they are built to do by an equal level caster character isn't absurd?

There shouldn't be "non-casters" in high level games. Every single Planeswalker has a big pile of magic. Because that is what it means to be a high level character. That doesn't mean that everyone has to be the same. The game could (and should) support Binders and Psions and Incarnates and Assassins (in the vein of the Night Angel trilogy) and Warlocks and Summoners and Paladins and Beastmasters and Gishes and Wizards and Warmages and Druids and Artificers and Illusionists and Clerics. And those characters can feel totally different. Some of them can use swords, some of them can have at-will abilities, some of them can start out as savage barbarians or talented farmboys and only become magic when necessary. But they all can be magic.


You know, I'm not an AD&D fanboy or anything like that...but AD&D had those same trips to outer planes and same fights with scarybad magic monsters...but they didn't trivialize all characters that don't have [primary caster] as a class. The use of magic equipment was necessary, of course, but not the necessity of the actual character being magic/wizardly.

But that is a character who is magic. His power source is "sword" and his powers are "whatever his sword does".


"I don't have any issue with a lesser class existing, so you shouldn't have any problem with me playing a class that trivializes all other classes and effectively renders them sideshow attractions to my main event."

I don't have any issue with people who are low level not being able to participate in high level adventures. Because obviously. Similarly, I don't have any issue with people who are high level trivializing low level adventures. Again, because obviously. My issue is insisting that your low level character ("guy who is, like, really good with a sword") gets to play in a high level game. And I have the exact same objection to insisting your high level character (Urza) getting to play in a low level game. Just like I object to playing "modern beat cop" in a heroic fantasy game or "savage barbarian" in a police procedural.


I have gotten to participate in a couple of games with fairly high-op mid and high level casters...when they are coupled with non-casters regardless of optimization, even in groups that are well vested in non-mechanical sides of the game, the caster dominates the field during those mechanical segments unless they otherwise choose to "handicap" themselves.

This argument is fallacious. Even if we accept that Casters > Non-Casters (note: I am totally willing to accept that), that doesn't mean casters are overpowered. Just like a cheeseburger being healthier than a bacon cheeseburger doesn't necessarily make it healthy.


So how to provide "mundanes" with a meaningful role past mid level? Scrap them?

Yes. Just as you are forced to use technology in the modern world if you want to perform tasks like "be a corporate executive" or "travel to the moon" or "defeat the US army", you are required to use magic in D&D if you want to perform tasks like "fight demons" or "travel to hell" or "turn the sun back on".


And the point of the Taltos novels isn't that resurrection is 'wondrous.' It's the opposite, by my reading - it's utterly mechanistic and predictable. When raising the dead is a routine matter, it's hard to call it miraculous or wonder at the occurrence. It's got all the wonder of going to the dentist and getting a cavity filled.

Yes, and magic working like that is wondrous. Because the people who feel the wonder are the actual players playing the actual game. And they think things are wondrous to the degree that they are different from the real world. If magic is not consistent enough to change the world, it doesn't feel wondrous. It feels pointless.


Where we differ is that I'd like a system that stretches that a little further and puts some different limits on magic than D&D often does, so that it can still do some big and/or amazing things while Conan is still a viable PC, and a system that also has a clearer cutoff point for "You Must Be This Demigodly To Ride" than D&D does.

I think that's solvable.

The cut-off thing is super easy. Just have tiers, like 4e. Then have a list of sources for each tier (for example: Heroic is Conan/LotR/GoT/Broken Empire), and explanations of how the story is expected to change in each tier. In Paragon Tier, you start traveling to other planes and destroying armies. In Epic Tier, you can make a credible attempt to become a god. And so on.

For having magic that does "crazy crap" but doesn't overshadow Conan, just take inspiration from the Conan stories and have a ritual system that lets you do crazy crap by combining spell seeds. This is very easy, because every system that combines spell seeds to get effects has let you do crazy crap. Probably have it shackled by default (i.e. you need to sacrifice a slot of level X to get an effect based on a spell of level X, to avoid bootstrapping), with optional rules that allow people to punch above their weight.

And that lets things scale somewhat elegantly. In Heroic Tier, if Thulsa Doom wants to turn off the sun he needs an ancient tome, seven virgins, the scales of a dead great wyrm, and a pile of cultists. Even then, he'd have to do the ritual on a leyline over the course of the three days of the new moon. Then you get to Paragon Tier and Corwin can do it with a day long ritual that takes specific but accessible stuff like a hanged man's left thumb or a newborn goat. And in Epic Tier you can turn off the sun by declaring you are going to do that and burning a pile of death gems.


That said, I'd also agree that it's the end result that's the wondrous part. Limits on it like those Obryn mentioned, that DCC uses, can be very thematic and make it feel more...mystical? eldritch? or something like that....but don't result in it feeling more wondrous. Those are two different qualities. It's still something I'd like to mess around with sometime, because unreliable/mercurial/dangerous magic has its own merits in terms of the feel it gives.

Yes. I would totally support having magic be risky and inconsistent if your goal was for the game to be "like Lovecraft" or "like Warhammer". Because in those settings, I am 100% on board with magic being something risky and soul-warping. But it doesn't make it more "wondrous". Just like making magic more like Harry Potter (by requiring wands) or more like Second Apocalypse (by having Chorae) or whatever would just make it more like those things rather than more wondrous.

Knaight
2016-04-20, 03:45 PM
But there's no reason for or benefit from teleport existing, but only working on Tuesdays (or whatever). It still warps the experience for people who want viable mundanes, but it also warps the game for people who want to play after everyone is magic because of held-over limitations.

There's plenty of reasons, starting with how that creates fundamentally different setting forces. Working on Tuesdays doesn't have any real charm to it, but lets take a few hypothetical spells that have a more fantasy feeling limitation, both of which involve teleportation within limits. The examples:

Path of the Eclipse: At the very beginning of a solar eclipse, a circle of 10 mages can send up to 6 people anywhere in the world. As long as the eclipse lasts, they maintain communication with those they send, and may pull them back at any time. When the eclipse ends, they are stranded at the new location.
Moon Gate (Version I): During a night with a full moon, a caster may walk through any natural pool which reflects moonlight, and come out in any other natural pool. They may bring more people with them, with the number dependent on the strength of the caster (in D&D something like CL could be used here).
Moon Gate (Version II): During a night with a full moon, a caster may teleport once, to any location shone on by the same moon. They may bring more people with them, with the number dependent on the strength of the caster (in D&D something like CL could be used here).


The first observation here is that all of these feel inherently setting specific; they're spells that fit much better with some sort of in-setting organization with ties to celestial beings than anything. As for where they fit: Path of the Eclipse is by far the most limited. It requires an organization of mages, it is very infrequent, and it's entirely possible that relatively few people can even figure out when it's going to happen next. It's extremely appropriate for some sort of magical organization, particularly some sort of sketchy cult given the negative associations of eclipses. It also has the potential to make eclipses a very scary occurrence for some people, particularly anyone worried about being assassinated, and that can be used by various people in setting. There's uses for it for things like secret and infrequent meetings, which end up highly limited in length. So on and so forth.

The Moon Gate spells have some similarities. Starting with version 2, many of the same threats and opportunities posed by Path of the Eclipse show up again. However, full moons are much more predictable than eclipses for typical people, along with much more frequent. There are opportunities presented by the frequency (such as goods transportation) that wouldn't otherwise be there. Transitioning to version 1, the limitation of a natural pool is a significant one. There's much fewer access points on both ends, which makes casters more predictable. There's implications here regarding interception, areas being unavailable, even paranoid rulers methodically combing their territories modifying every natural pool until it no longer qualifies as one. It also has a different feel due to the restriction, suddenly seeming more like a spell that might be used by a druid instead of a city dwelling astronomy focused scholarly mage.

One side note - I'd argue that all three of those feel more wondrous than Teleport. The limitations are part of that, the way it ties into the world another.

Mordar
2016-04-20, 04:14 PM
Limits on what spells you have. If you want to play a game where the Ranger's ability to reduce travel times on an overland journey is important, that game must not have teleport. It could totally have know direction or fireball. Just as that game also can't have technological solutions to that problem (for example, airlines). But there's no reason for or benefit from teleport existing, but only working on Tuesdays (or whatever). It still warps the experience for people who want viable mundanes, but it also warps the game for people who want to play after everyone is magic because of held-over limitations.

Again, I haven't advocated for spell failure. What is your position on things like resource use (material components) and the like, OOC? Slightly aside: You clearly dislike spell failure. I assume an enemy resisting or "saving" against an effect is okay (every sword swing "works" but not all damage, every spell cast "works" but not all are effective). I think it is the idea of certain outcomes that is different in magic...those attack spells have a chance of failure (actually being resisted), but those environment-impacting spells don't. Everything the barbarian or rouge does mechanically has a chance of failure. I wonder if that plays into the disparity.


There shouldn't be "non-casters" in high level games. Every single Planeswalker has a big pile of magic. Because that is what it means to be a high level character. That doesn't mean that everyone has to be the same. The game could (and should) support Binders and Psions and Incarnates and Assassins (in the vein of the Night Angel trilogy) and Warlocks and Summoners and Paladins and Beastmasters and Gishes and Wizards and Warmages and Druids and Artificers and Illusionists and Clerics. And those characters can feel totally different. Some of them can use swords, some of them can have at-will abilities, some of them can start out as savage barbarians or talented farmboys and only become magic when necessary. But they all can be magic.

[later]

But that is a character who is magic. His power source is "sword" and his powers are "whatever his sword does".

[later]

I don't have any issue with people who are low level not being able to participate in high level adventures. Because obviously. Similarly, I don't have any issue with people who are high level trivializing low level adventures. Again, because obviously. My issue is insisting that your low level character ("guy who is, like, really good with a sword") gets to play in a high level game. And I have the exact same objection to insisting your high level character (Urza) getting to play in a low level game. Just like I object to playing "modern beat cop" in a heroic fantasy game or "savage barbarian" in a police procedural..

Are you using level as "character level" or more as "tier"? Are you okay with the level 16 pure fighter with a nice array of magic arms, armor and equipment? And that gear makes them magic? The second to last bit sounds like it...but then we still have the problem of that level 16 pure fighter with nice array of gear being overshadowed by the level 16 pure cleric going CoDZilla and still having plus still excelling in other roles.

But the last bit has me thinking you meant tiers...that level 16 fighter is like really good with a sword...and not a whole lot else (other than getting smacked by other people who are good at hitting things with things).

Under no circumstance am I saying that level 4 fighter should get to be on even footing with that level 12 wizard (or level 12 fighter for that matter). I'm saying that a game the purports to have characters across classes able to adventure and advance together should appropriately accommodate them at level 4 and level 12. Not in the exact same fashion or same way, but within reasonable bounds. And yes, that "reasonable bounds" is a space of much arguing.


This argument is fallacious. Even if we accept that Casters > Non-Casters (note: I am totally willing to accept that), that doesn't mean casters are overpowered. Just like a cheeseburger being healthier than a bacon cheeseburger doesn't necessarily make it healthy.

I didn't say overpowered...I did say high-op (optimized), so not sure if that is the confusion here. Specifically I said the pure casters dominate the mechanical segments of the game once you hit mid level and up. That's based on the Casters > Non-Casters. Overpowered is a matter of taste. To tie it to your example, in a pool of people who are (a) concerned about food healthiness and (b) forced to regularly consume cheeseburgers either with or without bacon, the selection of the burger without bacon will dominate (though not be exclusive, and is predicated on the accuracy of the statement that the given bacon burger is less healthy than the non-bacon burger). Wow, lot of clauses there.


Yes. Just as you are forced to use technology in the modern world if you want to perform tasks like "be a corporate executive" or "travel to the moon" or "defeat the US army", you are required to use magic in D&D if you want to perform tasks like "fight demons" or "travel to hell" or "turn the sun back on".

But the guy who is really good at using modern technology can't suddenly be better at negotiation, or finance, or sales management by turning on a gadget. I guess this one kind of spins into "use" vs "cast". I don't have to build the rocket to be able to fly to the moon...but I do have to have the rocket. This example in the context of this discussion seems like it would more apply from the angle that the engineers who built the rocket are able to be as good (or better) pilots than the person who has spent a significant portion of their life preparing to be a pilot by nature of the fact that the engineer is able to design the rocket.


Yes, and magic working like that is wondrous. Because the people who feel the wonder are the actual players playing the actual game. And they think things are wondrous to the degree that they are different from the real world. If magic is not consistent enough to change the world, it doesn't feel wondrous. It feels pointless.

Yes. I would totally support having magic be risky and inconsistent if your goal was for the game to be "like Lovecraft" or "like Warhammer". Because in those settings, I am 100% on board with magic being something risky and soul-warping. But it doesn't make it more "wondrous". Just like making magic more like Harry Potter (by requiring wands) or more like Second Apocalypse (by having Chorae) or whatever would just make it more like those things rather than more wondrous.

I don't know if you are a sports fan or participant at all...but things sometimes not working is really part of the magic of sports. Trying to use a round bat to hit a round ball moving at 75mph - 101mph with lateral and vertical movement thrown by someone trying to keep you from hitting it in a place not covered by a defender, and succeeding at that 3 times in 10 is pretty freaking wondrous. When people can do it 10 times in 10, not so much. It isn't pointless that it can't be done every time.

I really like your point in the final paragraph...and maybe that is why I like the discussion overall so much. It touches on balance a lot, but it also touches on the colloquial or personal definitions and expectations of magic. For me, it has been shaped by a wide array of games (and sources, but the games are more appropriate for this conversation) and with a certain bias towards particular games. Interestingly, my two favorite fantasy games have both "almost always works and is fairly commonplace" and "is so rare as to be seldom encountered and greatly feared" as the frequency/consistency of magic.

- M

Cluedrew
2016-04-20, 05:12 PM
On Spell Failure: Is there any edition of D&D that has spell failure? Maybe that would move it from "no, sorry, the spell doesn't work this time" to "you slipped up" and make it more palatable. Because then it is like the fighter hitting with a sword, the thief picking locks or the bard winning friends.

On Magic as Technology: This metaphor made me realize something. If a wizard is to magic as an engineer is to magic, why does the fighter have to be the Amish (or otherwise not use technology)? Now this may just be my take on what makes someone a magic user. Lets say a fighter takes out the scale of a great serpent he slayed, offers it to the spirits of the river and they transport him some great distance through the water. That to me is not some great act of magic, that is a business transaction where the other party happens to be some sentient aspect of the landscape.

Now this particular example doesn't fit with your (or rather my) standard D&D setting, but I have seen some stories where this thing would work. The only real problem is that D&D magic works because it does, there isn't really a way to do that half way. Actually...

On Magic Being Wondrous: Actually D&D magic's biggest fault flavour wise for me is that it works because it does. Now it is supposed to work for reasons too complex to understand, but outside of spell components, older item creation rules and maybe how you copied spell back then, not a lot gives me that feeling. To wonder you need just enough information to ponder it, but not enough to reach a solid conclusion. D&D is on the too little side for it to be wondrous to me.

Milo v3
2016-04-20, 06:38 PM
You know what else doesn't feel wondrous? Uncrashed Wi-fi.
Hmmm.... Maybe that's one of the reasons why I have trouble in "magic in x setting/game isn't magical" discussions, since I do find stuff like Wi-Fi and trains wondrous.

Jay R
2016-04-20, 06:50 PM
If a wizard is to magic as an engineer is to magic, why does the fighter have to be the Amish (or otherwise not use technology)?

That's just not the case, if the fighter can use magic swords, bracers of giant strength, rings, and many other magic items. But a fighter can't decide on her own magic to use.

That's like somebody with a computer who can't program. She can use a packaged program, but can't write one, and so can't do as much as a computer geek can.

Similarly, consider wands and staves to be like all those buttons on the remote that almost nobody ever learns to use.

Cluedrew
2016-04-20, 07:00 PM
To Jay R: Yes exactly. I guess I'm expanding on the idea a bit, because there is room between Mac and Linux, that's Windows. Does that metaphor make any sense or is that just some computer folks I know? OK cars, I'm saying in addition to driving the car, let the fighter perform simple oil checks as well, maybe pump air into the tires.

Cosi
2016-04-20, 08:22 PM
There's plenty of reasons, starting with how that creates fundamentally different setting forces. Working on Tuesdays doesn't have any real charm to it, but lets take a few hypothetical spells that have a more fantasy feeling limitation, both of which involve teleportation within limits. The examples:

Path of the Eclipse: At the very beginning of a solar eclipse, a circle of 10 mages can send up to 6 people anywhere in the world. As long as the eclipse lasts, they maintain communication with those they send, and may pull them back at any time. When the eclipse ends, they are stranded at the new location.
Moon Gate (Version I): During a night with a full moon, a caster may walk through any natural pool which reflects moonlight, and come out in any other natural pool. They may bring more people with them, with the number dependent on the strength of the caster (in D&D something like CL could be used here).
Moon Gate (Version II): During a night with a full moon, a caster may teleport once, to any location shone on by the same moon. They may bring more people with them, with the number dependent on the strength of the caster (in D&D something like CL could be used here).


That kind of proves exactly my point. Those spells provide some character to the setting, but they do it at the cost of limiting the degree to which power can scale. If that is how teleport works in the setting, you can't have adventures where people use teleport casually. And that may be totally fine for the game, but it is a limitation that emerges from forcing conditions onto spells. And those conditions don't make teleport not obviate the plots it obviates. It just means you have to wait until a full moon.


Again, I haven't advocated for spell failure.

Sure, but that argument isn't completely aimed at you. Also, "spell failure" is kind of the wrong term for what people want. Knaight's proposal for how teleport can work isn't "spell failure", it's just a bunch of conditions. There are reasons for that kind of limitation (setting depth, genre imitation), but the originally proposed reason of "balancing magic and mundane" was not a good one. Neither is the proposed goal of "making magic feel wondrous".


What is your position on things like resource use (material components) and the like, OOC?

Material components specifically are stupid. Resource management, on either a tactical or strategic level could easily be its own thread. I'm personally a fan of most encounter-ish powers (like the Binder, Incarnate, Warblade, or Crusader) because I think the design space works out better, but I also see the appeal of daily limits in some cases (downtime abilities, supermoves).


Are you okay with the level 16 pure fighter with a nice array of magic arms, armor and equipment? And that gear makes them magic?

There's nothing mechanically wrong with the Fighter getting his powers from magic items. That said, there are obvious conceptual issues. Most notably, why don't you just give the items the Fighter has to the Cleric and add another Wizard (or whatever) to the party? For "items" to be a reasonable power source for the Fighter, there needs to be some compelling reason he's uniquely effective with them.


I didn't say overpowered...I did say high-op (optimized), so not sure if that is the confusion here.

I'm not sure what describing casters as "easy mode" is supposed to imply other than them being overpowered.


This example in the context of this discussion seems like it would more apply from the angle that the engineers who built the rocket are able to be as good (or better) pilots than the person who has spent a significant portion of their life preparing to be a pilot by nature of the fact that the engineer is able to design the rocket.

That sounds like you're trying to take the analogy farther than it actually goes.


On Magic Being Wondrous: Actually D&D magic's biggest fault flavour wise for me is that it works because it does. Now it is supposed to work for reasons too complex to understand, but outside of spell components, older item creation rules and maybe how you copied spell back then, not a lot gives me that feeling. To wonder you need just enough information to ponder it, but not enough to reach a solid conclusion. D&D is on the too little side for it to be wondrous to me.

The problem you seem to be touching on here is that D&D magic basically isn't a thing. You can't interact with "magic" in the D&D rules, because nothing is nailed down. Spells don't work in AMFs unless they do (invoke magic). They require material components unless they don't (Eschew Materials, some specific spells). And so on forever. As a result, it is all but impossible for anything to feel "wondrous" (to people in the setting) because anything magic can do is just a thing magic does. If you show up with a new form of teleportation, people aren't going to go "holy crap, that shouldn't be possible". They're going to go "oh, yet another 6th level spell". If you want things to feel wondrous (in setting), there needs to be a baseline. Shadowrun, for example, does a pretty good job of laying down consistent metaphysics from which you could deviate to produce wonder. That has its own problems (in that doing it too often is self-defeating), but it creates wonder way better than "random things are random" does.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-20, 08:22 PM
In the setting I'm currently making, there are no magic items. I use Weapon and Armour Ratings though (it's a Fate setting), so warriors wielding two-handed weapons are deadly.

The magic in the world comes in one form, summoning. A human can call upon and use various beings from another dimension in order to generate effects. No wave your hands and blast fire, instead you might summon up a fire frog.

Oh, did I mention that summons can cause damage to the world? Because I'm using Voidcalling from the Fate System Toolkit. But that's besides the point, I chose the system because I wanted something that felt more mystical and occult for a darker fantasy world. (It's relatively safe, the being gets a few 'something bad' points but it's PC-safe)

Priests also have magic, but it's a heck of a lot more subtle. A mage might release a lighting worm of their belt at you (it's a Weapon:2 attack, about as good as an arming sword), while a priest will curse you. It's not really as obvious or quantifiable as summoning wound eating beetles, but it is at least believed to work in setting.

Knaight
2016-04-20, 08:57 PM
That kind of proves exactly my point. Those spells provide some character to the setting, but they do it at the cost of limiting the degree to which power can scale. If that is how teleport works in the setting, you can't have adventures where people use teleport casually. And that may be totally fine for the game, but it is a limitation that emerges from forcing conditions onto spells. And those conditions don't make teleport not obviate the plots it obviates. It just means you have to wait until a full moon.
Which means that any time you have less than until the next full moon (or eclipse) and need to get somewhere fast, overland travel is suddenly the best option again. It means that teleport can't be casually used to bounce between multiple distant locations at a high frequency. One of the three allows for blocking off areas from teleportation, between large parts of most deserts and paranoid rulers building specialized infrastructure. It closes some options, opens some new options, and reopens some options that teleport closed.


Sure, but that argument isn't completely aimed at you. Also, "spell failure" is kind of the wrong term for what people want. Knaight's proposal for how teleport can work isn't "spell failure", it's just a bunch of conditions. There are reasons for that kind of limitation (setting depth, genre imitation), but the originally proposed reason of "balancing magic and mundane" was not a good one. Neither is the proposed goal of "making magic feel wondrous".
It does help with both of these though. If spells are less reliable (in that you can only cast them given particular conditions), then having better non-spell options helps get stuff done. A wilderness guide is much more useful when your best long distance travel option is Path of the Eclipse than when it is Teleport Without Error. As for making magic feel wondrous, better genre imitation, especially on the mythology end can help with that.

JoeJ
2016-04-20, 09:00 PM
There's nothing mechanically wrong with the Fighter getting his powers from magic items. That said, there are obvious conceptual issues. Most notably, why don't you just give the items the Fighter has to the Cleric and add another Wizard (or whatever) to the party? For "items" to be a reasonable power source for the Fighter, there needs to be some compelling reason he's uniquely effective with them.

You mean like giving the Belt of Giant Strength to the 11th level fighter who can attack three times per round (or six times, once per short rest) with his greatsword vs. the cleric's once, and also has twice the crit. range, gets to reroll any damage dice that come up 1 or 2, has proficiency in Athletics, and already adds half his proficiency bonus to any Strength rolls that wouldn't ordinarily add proficiency?

JAL_1138
2016-04-20, 09:18 PM
I think that's solvable.

The cut-off thing is super easy. Just have tiers, like 4e. Then have a list of sources for each tier (for example: Heroic is Conan/LotR/GoT/Broken Empire), and explanations of how the story is expected to change in each tier. In Paragon Tier, you start traveling to other planes and destroying armies. In Epic Tier, you can make a credible attempt to become a god. And so on.

For having magic that does "crazy crap" but doesn't overshadow Conan, just take inspiration from the Conan stories and have a ritual system that lets you do crazy crap by combining spell seeds. This is very easy, because every system that combines spell seeds to get effects has let you do crazy crap. Probably have it shackled by default (i.e. you need to sacrifice a slot of level X to get an effect based on a spell of level X, to avoid bootstrapping), with optional rules that allow people to punch above their weight.

And that lets things scale somewhat elegantly. In Heroic Tier, if Thulsa Doom wants to turn off the sun he needs an ancient tome, seven virgins, the scales of a dead great wyrm, and a pile of cultists. Even then, he'd have to do the ritual on a leyline over the course of the three days of the new moon. Then you get to Paragon Tier and Corwin can do it with a day long ritual that takes specific but accessible stuff like a hanged man's left thumb or a newborn goat. And in Epic Tier you can turn off the sun by declaring you are going to do that and burning a pile of death gems.



So perhaps much of where we disagree has mainly been a terminology and/or miscommunication problem, maybe?

Thulsa Doom being able to blacken the sun is awesome and wondrous, and for Conan to be able to do anything about it and be a viable character, it needs to be very difficult for Thulsa Doom to do that. It has some strict limits at that tier--and yet still does some spectacular things, compared to, say, D&D, where magic scales at such a rate that by the time some of the big stuff is possible, Conan isn't viable anymore (and Thulsa Doom, who requires a complex ritual to do something like call down fire on a huge area, isn't viable in a party with Rand al'Thor, who can do it when he feels like it and/or goes crazy enough, either). Making the big stuff easier in higher tiers (where Badass Normal is out the window and Cu Culhain is more of the model for the fighter) does seem like a good way to scale it, too. I like this concept.

Cosi
2016-04-20, 09:34 PM
I was thinking about making magic feel "wondrous", and I got to thinking about Sanderson's Cosmere. The basic idea is that there are a bunch of different magic systems, all of which are individually predictable, but which not everyone knows about. So if you show up on Sel with Allomancy, that's mysterious and wondrous both in character (because people in Sel don't know what Allomancy is or how it works) and out of character (because it gives you super-strength and lets you control people's emotions). So if you want magic to feel "wondrous" the solution is not to have magic be inconsistent or dangerous, it is to have there be a bunch of different types of magic and have most cultures only know about one. So the Elves have plant magic, and if you show up with Dwarven stone magic they will be all "wow man, what's that?" and "how are you doing that?". And ditto if you do some Elven plant magic for Dwarves. This setup also has the added benefit of providing the possibility of going on an adventure to discover the true nature of magic, and why there are all these different variants.


Which means that any time you have less than until the next full moon (or eclipse) and need to get somewhere fast, overland travel is suddenly the best option again. It means that teleport can't be casually used to bounce between multiple distant locations at a high frequency. One of the three allows for blocking off areas from teleportation, between large parts of most deserts and paranoid rulers building specialized infrastructure. It closes some options, opens some new options, and reopens some options that teleport closed.

I'm not denying that it does something. I'm just saying it doesn't do the thing goto wanted it to do. It also has the side effect of stopping all the stories which have either a relatively generic teleport or a specific teleport that isn't that exact one.


It does help with both of these though. If spells are less reliable (in that you can only cast them given particular conditions), then having better non-spell options helps get stuff done. A wilderness guide is much more useful when your best long distance travel option is Path of the Eclipse than when it is Teleport Without Error. As for making magic feel wondrous, better genre imitation, especially on the mythology end can help with that.

Sure, it helps. But it still doesn't solve the problem. LotR is solved by Gandalf waiting until the appropriate time, then teleporting to Mount Doom. It makes "go here, then go there, then go back, then do it again" workable, but any specific journey is still better off being done by magic.


You mean like giving the Belt of Giant Strength to the 11th level fighter who can attack three times per round (or six times, once per short rest) with his greatsword vs. the cleric's once, and also has twice the crit. range, gets to reroll any damage dice that come up 1 or 2, has proficiency in Athletics, and already adds half his proficiency bonus to any Strength rolls that wouldn't ordinarily add proficiency?

Well, in that particular game you sell the belt and hire some archers because nothing in the world can stand up to the combined might of the Yorkshire Archery Club. Also, the Fighter cries because he isn't a Necromancer.


Thulsa Doom being able to blacken the sun is awesome and wondrous, and for Conan to be able to do anything about it and be a viable character, it needs to be very difficult for Thulsa Doom to do that.

I don't think it needs to be difficult for Conan to be viable. Fighting without the sun is almost exactly like fighting at night, and that's something you can do at 1st level. The reason it's needs to be rare is, IMHO, much more a question of genre emulation. Obviously Thulsa Doom has to do a huge and complicated ritual to shut off the sun, because that is exactly what Thusla Doom would have to do to shut off the sun in a Conan story. Much like how when Urza and Yawgmoth throw down, it is reasonable for "it is always night" to be something that Yawgmoth just does passively.

Also, while things like "it's always night" or "permanent winter" are not in and of themselves problems for Conan, having those things be easy to do implies an entirely different level of power from what Conan could expect to fight.

JoeJ
2016-04-20, 09:48 PM
Well, in that particular game you sell the belt and hire some archers because nothing in the world can stand up to the combined might of the Yorkshire Archery Club. Also, the Fighter cries because he isn't a Necromancer.

No need to sell the belt, archers are cheap. And why in the world would the fighter want to be a necromancer?

GreatWyrmGold
2016-04-20, 09:50 PM
Also I'm not sure if fighters should be 100% mundane (although if you have a 100% mundane class might as well be the fighter), rather there should be plausible deniability that it is 100% mundane...
First off, you have a much higher tolerance for "No, this is totally mundane!" than I would.
Second, that doesn't work unless magic is properly balanced to the new mundane. Sure, you can have magic do more than if you were restricting the fighter-types to actually mundane actions, but you still won't be able to sustain high-fantasy god-mages.
Third, the examples you gave still boil down to increasing numbers. One makes armor matter less (increasing damage indirectly), the other makes it harder for enemies to hit you. Just saying.


Speaking of spellcasters and grod's law, does anybody else think the whole vancian magic + must rest the full eight hours to regain spells is a violation of this? It's meant as a balancing factor but In practice it just leads to clearing dungeons in a series of semi-comical but annoying 5 minute raids
In principle, it's a balancing factor. In theory, you could abuse it like that. In play, you're never going to. Aside from a few unusual instances (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0145.html), characters will end up fighting multiple encounters in one day. Either someone at the table will say "No, that's dumb," or the GM will throw in reasons for the characters to hurry (they need to get the McGuffin before the vampire lord rises in three days, the enemies will run and take their loot with them if they keep losing a few people every night, the innkeeper is sick of you adventurers freeloading, etc).
But it's definitely a lot more irritating and variable than how magic is balanced in most other systems.


Magic is an answer to whatever the set of things you can do with magic is. And it is the answer to those things if it is the best answer or there are no other answers. So "use magic" will always (barring some transhuman settings), be the solution to "how do I bring this dead guy back to life". But the limitations on the effects of magic (rather than the ease or the consistency of magic) influence what things it is a solution to. If teleport can't transport a large group, it will never be the solution when you need to get an army somewhere. If magical stealth is inferior to mundane stealth, it can be trivial to use without ever being the solution to "sneak into the castle".

D&D postulates that you will eventually go to Hell and fight Demons (well, Devils). Once you are fighting in a place that is magic, which you traveled to using magic, fighting enemies who are magic and fight with magic, the idea that you can simply not be magic is basically absurd.
Very true.
(Though I'd argue that the distinction between Hell and the Abyss, or between demons and devils, is minimal for such conceptual things. And you could probably find some tanar'ri in Baatezu.)


Various comic-book magicians (who are for some reason all Doctors)
I imagine it has something to do with the amount of learning that goes into becoming a master magician. I'd be surprised if a master's degree cut it.


Nothing about high-powered characters is inherently dangerous to the setting. The problem is adding things to the setting without thinking about their implications. Governments, for example, work rather radically differently if the king is powerful enough that he doesn't care about the people rebelling (see: Mistborn).
If the magic level (or anything else) doesn't let you tell the kind of story you want to tell, it's broken your setting. The more powerful the magic, the fewer kinds of settings can exist, the more they're centered around that magic, and the fewer stories you can tell there (usually).


Personally I would say that having a setting where magic exists and is real but isn't stripped of it's magicalness and wonder would constitute a plot hole and an inconsistency. The most believable fantasy setting I've ever encountered is Ghostbusters, because that's the only one where the supernatural is handled in a realistic manner; it's investigated, understood, and tamed and it becomes controllable, just like rivers or lightning
That depends on the culture of the world, in particular how deeply the scientific method has been ingrained into the public consciousness. In the Middle Ages, things we consider mundane today (e.g, disease or natural disasters) were ascribed to supernatural causes. Even today, even in the First World, we see people explaining all sorts of things with appeals to the supernatural—even things we have perfectly valid scientific explanations for.


-snip-
That's all nice, but if you don't prepare it carefully you're going to have problems implementing characters who can't perform such marvelous feats.
So, either you need to allow "mundanes" to perform such feats similarly beyond the reach of common men (with ancestral magical artifacts, or divine blood, or with social rank, or whatever); or you need to attach some kind of downside to using magic (while simultaneously preventing magicians from using mundane alternatives, at least as well as the mundanes).
The former essentially turns everyone into someone with some kind of supernatural power; this isn't inherently bad, but it can be tricky. The first problem that comes to mind is how one would prevent every option from feeling identical ("Did you get your spells from a demonic pact, or divine blood, or a divine pact, or study, or an ancestral sword, or..."), while simultaneously balancing all of the incomparables which come up.
The second option is also hard to balance, due to that same issue of incomparables. Take Shadowrun; in the editions I've played, magicians had a variety of spells plus some other special toys (spirits, astral projection, a couple foci not directly related to said spells); on the other hand, they couldn't have cyberware, and had, on average, slightly lower numbers. The special abilities (astral projection in particular) tend to outweigh the lower numbers by a wide margin, particularly if your spell focus doesn't overlap with what the mundanes do. Speaking of which, while the lack of cyberware was a disadvantage, it wasn't a major one; magicians could (for instance) shoot enemies almost as well as the street samurai if they wanted. Riggers (despite not technically being magical) had similar balance issues; for a relatively small cost, they got access to a variety of tricks which are vastly different from what the street samurai gets, potentially while being almost as good at shooting as the street samurai.


How to balance magic and mundane?
How about making magic defeatable by mundane? Teleportation requires an open sky since it relies on the stars. Flight fails when there's fire nearby. Smack wizards when they're in the middle of casting their spells and said spells go poof.
It's an interesting idea, but you'd probably need to build the magic system around it. You would also need to shape player and GM expectations properly, to make sure that both PCs and NPCs would find situations suitable or unsuitable for their or opposing magic.


I agree - you work with the strengths of the medium. That kind of abstract depth is a unique thing for TT games(not even RPGs specifically). However, these aspects are not mutually exclusive.
It just requires you manually do, what someone else did for you in video games.
Excel, Javascript and Python, I've found are excellent tools for the job.
Obviously, not a playstyle suitable for everybody, but it is one that's possible.
Hm. It's something to consider...the natural questions being what to automate, and how to convince my tablemates to allow it...


On that note, on the off chance you're not aware of it, let me plug All Your History (https://www.youtube.com/show/allyourhistory).
I'll take a look!


-snip-
You can write plots for high-magic settings, and worlds which fit them, but only a fool would claim that the presence of such magic doesn't restrict options more than it opens them.
High magic prevents a medieval-esque setting from working. Raise dead and the like prevent anyone who can't afford special soul-trapping weapons (which probably cost a king's ransom) for their assassins (who would probably need to be permanently employed rather than hired, given the value of said weapon) from assassinating people with enough money, which (combined with similar issues) makes it harder for lower levels of society to scheme against the upper crust. Speak with dead makes off-the-cuff, improvised assassinations impossible, and hence cuts down on the range of assassination plots one can run. The same principle applies to many spells, though divination spells are by far the worst offender.


No. You're trying to restrict magic abilities so that they don't disrupt mundane plots, which is stupid coming and going. It means that every time you want to do a "overland trek" adventure, none of the important points can be open to the sky. And it also means that whenever you do an adventure where people are expected to teleport around, all of the important points have to be open to the sky. Neither of those restrictions are good. You should just not give people teleport until you are comfortable with them having teleport.
Isn't keeping some travel-based adventures at teleport levels better than not keeping any? And how many adventures depend on teleportation, and how many would it be impractical to make sure each area was reasonably near an aboveground spot?

Not to mention that you're poking holes in a random example he picked. There are many ways one could restrict any given spell. It was a general concept, not a specific solution.


No. Getting teleport means you no longer have to do "overland trek" adventures. I have zero interest in the game forcing me to unlock new cities like I was playing damn Pokemon. If you don't want teleport, play E8. Don't demand that the version of teleport I play with is gimped to suit your tastes. I'm not insisting the Fighter start magic at 1st level, am I?
Considering that he's discussing the kind of game he wants to play, rather than (say) demanding that 6th edition's teleport be limited like that, this is a non sequiter with no purpose other than shutting down discussion. Or, perhaps, gimping it to suit your tastes?


It's worth observing that magical abilities also enable plots that wouldn't otherwise be available, the same way that greater technology and similar can. Something like rapid long distance communication allows for a great deal of things, near instantaneous movement allows for a great deal of things, etc. These are big things that morph settings, and play in these settings will create different stories. Teleportation would prevent the plot of Lord of the Rings. The absence of teleportation prevents a great deal of what happened in Star Trek.
That's true to an extent, but one can write around the lack of such supernatural stuff more easily than its presence. For instance, think of how many plots in Star Trek which relied on the transporters being disabled, damaged, or forgotten. Not think of how many would have been just the same if the crew used their shuttle to get around.


You know, I'm not an AD&D fanboy or anything like that...but AD&D had those same trips to outer planes and same fights with scarybad magic monsters...but they didn't trivialize all characters that don't have [primary caster] as a class. The use of magic equipment was necessary, of course, but not the necessity of the actual character being magic/wizardly.
1. Whenever someone says "I'm not X, but..." I immediately suspect that they're lying to themselves (and the rest of us). "I'm not racist, but..." is the classic example, but it seems potentially valid here.
2. I've played D&D, in multiple editions, and I've rarely felt that fighters (and whatnot) were all that outclassed in practice. It came down to a combination of player etiquette (mainly how none of the players being skilled or inclined to break the system) and how player skill often overshadowed any differences in character power. I can't help but suspect that your experiences might have been driven by differences in out-of-character forces rather than any rules differences.


No, magic in D&D is a plot coupon that you play. There's little challenge or wonder to it. You scratch off the spell or slot and the thing happens and maybe you roll some dice.
If I could leave my house and walk to the moon in 10 minutes, there's no wonder in that. The moon would just be one neighborhood over.
And the point of the Taltos novels isn't that resurrection is 'wondrous.' It's the opposite, by my reading - it's utterly mechanistic and predictable. When raising the dead is a routine matter, it's hard to call it miraculous or wonder at the occurrence. It's got all the wonder of going to the dentist and getting a cavity filled.
But let's look at the Apollo missions. I agree; they were wondrous. But it wasn't merely because of the destination, it was because of the process, labor, genius, and, yes, riskiness of the entire endeavor. If they could snap their fingers and get there, then that's kind of missing the entire point.
Somehow, I don't see getting a player excited about playing a magic-user if his spells are as hard to pull off as the Apollo program (even if it was in-character). For a few, rare, plot-important Epic Magics? Sure. In a game systems where none of the players are expected to use? Sure. But the set of assumptions which D&D relies on simply don't allow for all (or even much) magic to be so difficult to use.


There shouldn't be "non-casters" in high level games. Every single Planeswalker has a big pile of magic. Because that is what it means to be a high level character. That doesn't mean that everyone has to be the same. The game could (and should) support Binders and Psions and Incarnates and Assassins (in the vein of the Night Angel trilogy) and Warlocks and Summoners and Paladins and Beastmasters and Gishes and Wizards and Warmages and Druids and Artificers and Illusionists and Clerics. And those characters can feel totally different. Some of them can use swords, some of them can have at-will abilities, some of them can start out as savage barbarians or talented farmboys and only become magic when necessary. But they all can be magic.
That's all fine and dandy in theory, but how the unliving frak could you get that to work in play?


Yes, and magic working like that is wondrous. Because the people who feel the wonder are the actual players playing the actual game. And they think things are wondrous to the degree that they are different from the real world. If magic is not consistent enough to change the world, it doesn't feel wondrous. It feels pointless.
It seems like this is focusing on "the presence of magic is wondrous," which is a bit different from "magic is wondrous" itself. The presence of the Internet is wondrous, when seen from without, but the Internet itself is mundane.
I think I've figured out one reason why RPGs tend to have "less wondrous" magical presence than other media. In a book or a film or even a typical video game, the audience doesn't need to understand how the world works on a deep level. If it works fundamentally different from our own, that's the author's problem and the characters', but not the audience's. But in RPGs (and a few video games), a deep understanding of how the world works is required—and RPGs don't have an opening cutscene or tutorial to help give you a feel before you're dropped into the world. So RPG worlds need to be more relatable to the players, which means they can't be as different from our world, which means magic can't be as wondrous.


Yes. I would totally support having magic be risky and inconsistent if your goal was for the game to be "like Lovecraft" or "like Warhammer". Because in those settings, I am 100% on board with magic being something risky and soul-warping. But it doesn't make it more "wondrous". Just like making magic more like Harry Potter (by requiring wands) or more like Second Apocalypse (by having Chorae) or whatever would just make it more like those things rather than more wondrous.
I'd argue that it would also work for making magic feel more dangerous/unknown/mystical. None of those are wondrous, but they're certainly more than "like X".


I don't think it needs to be difficult for Conan to be viable. Fighting without the sun is almost exactly like fighting at night, and that's something you can do at 1st level.
So? A fighter can't turn the sun back on.

Cosi
2016-04-20, 10:29 PM
No need to sell the belt, archers are cheap. And why in the world would the fighter want to be a necromancer?

animate dead, magic jar, Real Ultimate Power.


If the magic level (or anything else) doesn't let you tell the kind of story you want to tell, it's broken your setting. The more powerful the magic, the fewer kinds of settings can exist, the more they're centered around that magic, and the fewer stories you can tell there (usually).

I don't think that's particularly true. There are plenty of settings that are "high magic" and fairly compelling, and high-level spells open up at least as many adventures as they destroy. For example, every planar adventure depends on magic.


Raise dead and the like prevent anyone who can't afford special soul-trapping weapons (which probably cost a king's ransom) for their assassins

One would imagine anyone rich enough to afford resurrection would presumably also be rich enough that killing them would still be a profitable prospect even if you had to pay for an assassin with a blade that traps souls. Also, that blade is a fixed cost and the assassin doesn't have to recoup it all at once.


Speak with dead makes off-the-cuff, improvised assassinations impossible, and hence cuts down on the range of assassination plots one can run.

No it doesn't. Taking your victim's head 100% prevents speak with dead. The Cleric has to go all "alas, poor Yorick" with the dead guy, and he can't do that without a skull. Also, taking the head is probably just good practice. It proves that the dude in question is dead, and that you killed him. I, at least, would consider that fairly useful to an assassin hoping to get paid for his work.

I think you need to find some better examples to convince me that magic is inherently problematic from a setting-building an story-telling perspective.


Isn't keeping some travel-based adventures at teleport levels better than not keeping any? And how many adventures depend on teleportation, and how many would it be impractical to make sure each area was reasonably near an aboveground spot?

Why? What benefit is there to never being able to just go wherever you are going? FFS, I can get a plane ticket and fly to basically anywhere in the world, and I am a random dude. I would like for my character to be able to aspire to at least that much agency in the world.


That's all fine and dandy in theory, but how the unliving frak could you get that to work in play?

You do it like 4e, but better. Base classes work pretty much like they do now, except they all have some way to scale into being magic. So the Barbarian (maybe Berserker) eventually gets totemic visions, bestial rage, or whatever. He still might be mundane in Heroic Tier, but he will eventually become magic in some way that doesn't violate his character concept. You eventually pick up a Paragon Path (which gives you powers that you need to deal with expanded vistas of Paragon Tier, plus some supermoves) and an Epic Destiny (ditto, but for epic). So a character might look something like this:

Base Class: Ranger. Specifically, the Swift Hunter type Ranger, who gets some mobility powers. Eventually in Paragon Tier, that's walking on clouds or teleporting, but for now it's probably just some repositioning abilities and a pile of skirmish damage.
Paragon Path: Mind Lord. He gets some thralls (allowing him to play the kingdom management/mass battle minigames that default to this tier), some immunities and utility abilities to help with planar travel, and probably a 1/day Mind Blast or Enthrall.
Epic Destiny: Lord of War. He gets something approximating divine ranks, and a portfolio. In this case: war.


So? A fighter can't turn the sun back on.

That's not super relevant to why it needs to be rare. Just as the sun was turned off by something that is in this tier basically a plot device, it will presumably be turned back on by the same thing. Also, most Conan-type stories have the main character disrupting the the ritual before it finishes.

JoeJ
2016-04-21, 12:35 AM
animate dead, magic jar, Real Ultimate Power.

A bunch of cheap magic tricks are far from Real Ultimate Power. Magic jar is dishonorable; you should face your enemies in open combat, not try to possess them from hiding. With animate dead, well maybe the fighter could use a skeleton to hold his cloak or something while he kills the BBEG. Wizards still have a lot of versatility (although I prefer conjurers or illusionists), but this is the version where fighters are actually the best at fighting.

But more to the point, since this exchange started with asking why the fighter would be the best party member to get magic items, are you really going to try and argue that the Belt of Giant Strength from my example should go to the necromancer?

Cluedrew
2016-04-21, 07:26 AM
First off, you have a much higher tolerance for "No, this is totally mundane!" than I would.
Second, that doesn't work unless magic is properly balanced to the new mundane. Sure, you can have magic do more than if you were restricting the fighter-types to actually mundane actions, but you still won't be able to sustain high-fantasy god-mages.
Third, the examples you gave still boil down to increasing numbers. One makes armor matter less (increasing damage indirectly), the other makes it harder for enemies to hit you. Just saying.

Mundane for a setting doesn't mean viable in our world. I could try to work out what I'm going for exactly but roughly it just means "not a spell caster".
Yes, I understand that. But by that time fighters should start to transcend their mortal bounds as well. I think the idea of a wizard being that powerful through memorization alone is... stupid.
I fail to see how at-will touch disintegrate* and even limited invisibility** are a matter of numbers. I know that is how most things with mundane characters work out, but not in this case.

*OK, more shatter, the pieces are still left.
**One target at a time. Great for one-on-one matches.

On the other hand I really like some of the things you said about magic restricting stories, in fact I'm about to restate some of those things in my own way.


The problem you seem to be touching on here is that D&D magic basically isn't a thing.More or less. I feel like they wrote the mechanics first and thought about the flavour later.

On How Power Disables Plots: A bunch of things have been said about this already but I would like to add to the point.

Teleport has come up so what does straight point A to point B no time requirement just have to know where we are going teleport disable? It disables any adventure in which travel is a major component/challenge, because travel is trivialized. And I can think of some high-fantasy stories where travel and the challenges associated with it are major parts of the story, Lord of the Rings, Belgarid, a couple of the chronicles of Narnia and so on.

In fact the whole reason this came up is because it a wizard's power makes it harder to tell a story where "the guy who swings a sword" and "the guy who memorizes from a book" are equal members of a party at a high level. Which is one of the archetypical stories in Dungeons & Dragons.


I don't think that's particularly true. There are plenty of settings that are "high magic" and fairly compelling, and high-level spells open up at least as many adventures as they destroy. For example, every planar adventure depends on magic.OK, third example will then be plane shift. Magic (which here means things that don't work in our world) is needed but that doesn't mean a wizard's plain shift. For instance if you travel up the coast for a few days you can get to Port Peter which has a cave that leads to Oceaciana (a plane) and from there you can catch a bone-ship to the boiling sea and get to hell. To me that is almost a more interesting adventure than "the wizard spends an hour preparing plain shift".

So really you can tell most of these stories with lower levels of magic, even if you want to skip that trip you can just gloss over it from a story-telling prospective and arrive at the action. However if you want to tell the story of the journey to hell, you can't do that with plain shift.

So there are three examples of how high power levels can negatively effect narrative. And it gets even worse as you approach Read Ultimate Power. There are some particular cases where it helps, but with larger and more varied samples in tends towards hurting the story.

goto124
2016-04-21, 07:33 AM
It's just that "restrictions" are a bad way to try to shoehorn Rand al'Thor and Jorg Ancrath into the same party.

and Jon Snow in an adventure where no one has teleport and no restrictions on teleport are necessary, and have Rand adventure with Anomander Rake, Doctor Strange, and Urza in an adventure where no one cares if you have teleport.

You can have restrictions on teleport. forbiddance is fine, having teleport take a longer time is fine. The problem is expecting those restrictions to balance magic and mundane, and having those restrictions warp the kinds of adventures that are possible.

So there're only two types of acceptable games, no-magic or full-force-god-level magic?

Many many systems have restrictions on magic. They all work rather fine, and nowhere near as clumsily as DnD does.

If your issue is "restrictions on magic for magic-mundane balance", what do you think restrictions on magic should be for? What result should magic restrictions be looking at?

Cosi
2016-04-21, 08:42 AM
And I can think of some high-fantasy stories where travel and the challenges associated with it are major parts of the story, Lord of the Rings, Belgarid, a couple of the chronicles of Narnia and so on.

Sure, but I can also think of stories where travel is basically unimportant. For example, Lord of Light. There are also instances where travel is a challenge that are compatible with teleport. For example, needing to move an army around doesn't benefit from teleport. Or cases where the challenge is calibrated to people with teleport.


In fact the whole reason this came up is because it a wizard's power makes it harder to tell a story where "the guy who swings a sword" and "the guy who memorizes from a book" are equal members of a party at a high level. Which is one of the archetypical stories in Dungeons & Dragons.

Not really. Anomander Rake has a sword, and he is totally capable of engaging in any story you might want to tell in D&D. Having a character with a sword is easy. Rake has a sword, Rand has a sword, Harry Potter has a sword, Gandalf has a sword. I don't know if Dresden has a sword, but at least some wizards in that story do. Really, from a genre perspective, the weird thing is that the people with swords don't have magic and the people with magic don't have swords.


For instance if you travel up the coast for a few days you can get to Port Peter which has a cave that leads to Oceaciana (a plane) and from there you can catch a bone-ship to the boiling sea and get to hell. To me that is almost a more interesting adventure than "the wizard spends an hour preparing plain shift".

That's because the adventure in that case is going to hell rather than doing something in hell. And frankly, it's like a 1st level adventure. Nothing is stopping you from walking over to a plot-device cave at 1st level, because your abilities don't matter to the progress of the adventure "find the right plot device".


So there're only two types of acceptable games, no-magic or full-force-god-level magic?

I just don't see the point of having those kinds of restrictions on magic in D&D. Restricting when you can use teleport doesn't do much to help mundane/caster balance, and it warps any game with teleport around whatever use restrictions you have. That's good if you're doing a setting specific game (for example, in Mistborn, magic should be restricted to require metal), but it's not at all clear to me that D&D is that kind of game. That doesn't mean that you have to go from Conan directly to Rand. There are definitely intermediate stages. But for D&D (or similar games) "teleport" or "teleport, but with warning on the other side" are going to be a better fit than "teleport to an area under an open sky".

Beheld
2016-04-21, 10:20 AM
A bunch of cheap magic tricks are far from Real Ultimate Power. Magic jar is dishonorable; you should face your enemies in open combat, not try to possess them from hiding. With animate dead, well maybe the fighter could use a skeleton to hold his cloak or something while he kills the BBEG.

You possess something with the ability to kill things in open combat, or you possess something that allows you to stand around laughing while your skeletons do it.

A Necromancers skeletons are infinity times better than a Fighter at actually killing the BBEG. A Necromancer's skeletons can kill things that the Fighter could never ever kill. That means they are better than him at it, so if he really wanted to be good at fighting, he should have been a Necromancer.


Wizards still have a lot of versatility (although I prefer conjurers or illusionists), but this is the version where fighters are actually the best at fighting.

Except that thing where the Necromancer is much better than him at fighting.


But more to the point, since this exchange started with asking why the fighter would be the best party member to get magic items, are you really going to try and argue that the Belt of Giant Strength from my example should go to the necromancer?

Yes, obviously the Belt of Giant Strength should go to the guy who can possess a Werewolf and be immune to weapons instead of the guy who dies to a hail of arrows before ever even reaching the enemies.

Mordar
2016-04-21, 12:19 PM
There's nothing mechanically wrong with the Fighter getting his powers from magic items. That said, there are obvious conceptual issues. Most notably, why don't you just give the items the Fighter has to the Cleric and add another Wizard (or whatever) to the party? For "items" to be a reasonable power source for the Fighter, there needs to be some compelling reason he's uniquely effective with them.

I'm not sure what describing casters as "easy mode" is supposed to imply other than them being overpowered.

You agree that casters are more powerful than non-casters, so much so that they are the only viable option in high-character-level games. Thus non-casters are less powerful and less flexible, and thus it is more difficult to play through similar challenges with those characters. It is easier to complete generic challenges in mid-level or higher games with pure casters than non-pure casters. Thus, Easy Mode. If the casters trivialize all generic challenges, then that is overpowered...but that's not what I am saying. You can still lose games on "easy mode" and you can still fail to overcome challenges in Easy Mode.


1. Whenever someone says "I'm not X, but..." I immediately suspect that they're lying to themselves (and the rest of us). "I'm not racist, but..." is the classic example, but it seems potentially valid here.
2. I've played D&D, in multiple editions, and I've rarely felt that fighters (and whatnot) were all that outclassed in practice. It came down to a combination of player etiquette (mainly how none of the players being skilled or inclined to break the system) and how player skill often overshadowed any differences in character power. I can't help but suspect that your experiences might have been driven by differences in out-of-character forces rather than any rules differences.

Generally a reasonable suspicion. In this case, not so much. I just wanted to go back to a time point when to my recollection there wasn't such a power gap between pure casters and non-casters. I didn't play 2e, so AD&D was the available option. Haven't played AD&D in...26 years? So that might exclude me from fanboy status.

Your point #2 highlights something I mentioned earlier...player etiquette/choice is all that keeps the non-casters from dominating games. The system is easily breakable (to use your term), and given players with equitable skills above say "advanced novice" some of the breaks are pretty clear. In the first game my group really witnessed caster dominance it was actually one of the less-experienced players who showed the major power gap (Cleric, for the record, so a bit easier to discover the power organically than Batman Wizard). Social compacts did come into play along with a bit more cleaving to characterization over capability.

I do freely admit that my experience may not be the same as everyone's, but I think there's pretty strong evidence of class tiers and overshadowing.

- M

JoeJ
2016-04-21, 12:20 PM
A Necromancers skeletons are infinity times better than a Fighter at actually killing the BBEG. A Necromancer's skeletons can kill things that the Fighter could never ever kill. That means they are better than him at it, so if he really wanted to be good at fighting, he should have been a Necromancer.

No they're not. Not even close.


Except that thing where the Necromancer is much better than him at fighting.

That might have been the case in previous editions, but in this one it's not even close to true.


Yes, obviously the Belt of Giant Strength should go to the guy who can possess a Werewolf and be immune to weapons instead of the guy who dies to a hail of arrows before ever even reaching the enemies.

You carry around a werewolf in your backpack? And even if you do, giving the belt to a CR3 werewolf over an 11th level fighter would be incredibly sub-par.

Cluedrew
2016-04-22, 04:40 PM
So I was writing away a post and was almost done when I realized something.
Sure, but I can also think of stories where travel is basically unimportant. For example, Lord of Light. There are also instances where travel is a challenge that are compatible with teleport. For example, needing to move an army around doesn't benefit from teleport. Or cases where the challenge is calibrated to people with teleport.Yes. But in the first case you can gloss over the travel (or not travel at all, many stories stay in one place even), in the second the existence of teleport doesn't effect it either way then. In the third case, usually the situation was scaled up just because teleport existed or the teleport is much weaker than the D&D teleport. There may be some cases where neither apply.


Really, from a genre perspective, the weird thing is that the people with swords don't have magic and the people with magic don't have swords.... What do you mean when you say high-fantasy? I would not describe Harry Potter as high-fantasy, nor all settings of D&D for that matter.


That's because the adventure in that case is going to hell rather than doing something in hell. And frankly, it's like a 1st level adventure. Nothing is stopping you from walking over to a plot-device cave at 1st level, because your abilities don't matter to the progress of the adventure "find the right plot device".
In this case (plane shift allowing adventures in different planes) abilities are plot devices.
Who said getting to that cave was easy? ... OK that part was insinuated to be easy, but the last leg of the journey across the boiling sea sounds brutal.
So what if it is a low level adventure. Still a planar one that doesn't use plane shift.



But for D&D (or similar games) "teleport" or "teleport, but with warning on the other side" are going to be a better fit than "teleport to an area under an open sky".I think this is the ultimate issue, and it sort of is a non issue. You like the god-wizard who through study and knowledge can bend reality with a flick of his mind... ... ... {A realization has occurred.}When I realized what this is all about.

This has morphed into "Hey you darn kids get off my play style!"

Let me explain why I think this:

On one side we have the "god-wizard" group. They want to play and tell stories about god-wizards who bend reality at a whim. Not necessarily to the exclusion of everything else but if something gets in the way of that sort of story, such as limiting the wizards power, it will have to go.

On the other side we have the "ultimate mundane" group. They want to play and tell stories about people who have climbed to the top while still being, at their core, regular "normal" people. Similarly to the above, things that get in the way, such as mundane characters getting over shadowed by casters, has to go.

Note: I am not attributing either of these exact positions to anybody, I'm just trying to highlight how these to general play styles play against each other, as a lot of people in this debate have shown roughly one or the other.

Now the problem is we can't really reconcile these two play styles in the same system. The current model... sort of works but has some serious problems that have been discussed and I will skip repeating them. Adjusting the fighter's (a.k.a. the mundane archetype) power up will eventually rob it of the feel of a mundane (particularly (as I have discovered) for people with a stricter definition of mundane then I). Adjusting the wizards power down gets rid of the whole got wizard thing. Playing at different levels doesn't work either because level 6 is not the top. 4e tiers may help by creating cut offs so you can say "the top of mortals" or something similar, or they may not.

So if we can't reconcile the two stories, we will have to get rid of one, but which one? A lot of these arguments have these undercurrents in them but there is no right answer. Plus D&D's answer seems to be accommodate as much as possible just well enough. (Sometimes you need to tweak something to make it work.) So we got all of these stories stepping on each others toes.

I guess I should say where I fall in this scale. I fall into the "ultimate mundane" camp but I have a more liberal definition of what a mundane is (maybe I should just say martial, as in powered by the body, not "as in real life"). I'm also willing to play with the god-wizard story, but D&D's variant of it bores me because magic is bland and doesn't make sense to me.

Finally I should admit I just made all this up and could be wrong, but there you go.

JAL_1138
2016-04-22, 06:28 PM
Waaaay back on the thread's original topic, then:

Dagnabbed whippersnappers nowadays getting so attached to their special snowflake characters that they need to have three failed saves before the character dies, and they take max HP at first and average after that, and they keep gaining by their HD after 10th, and save-or-die effects are nearly gone.

Back in my day we died like flies and we liked it, dagnabbit! I've lost first-level characters to nonsense like a couple-three squirrels, a housecat, a barnyard goat, or falling down the stairs at the inn we were all meeting at! We rolled for our HP at first level, and we died instantly at 0HP, and just about everything could kill us! We brought stacks of spare character sheets, stacks of 'em, dadgummit! Characters were hapless fools to feed to the meat-grinder until one lucky and paranoid sonofab*** actually managed to live long enough to earn his glory! Characters didn't survive because we thought they were cool, we thought they were cool because they survived! These consarned young'uns nowadays don't even know what a 10ft pole is for, and would flip the table and whine about how bad the DM is at the entrance to the Tomb of Horrors.

Now git off my edition, dagnabbit!

soldersbushwack
2016-04-22, 06:40 PM
Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be
allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively
weak and work up to the top, ie.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon
would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards
in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign
referee.
The RAW of it.

2D8HP
2016-04-22, 07:30 PM
Waaaay back on the thread's original topic, then:

Dagnabbed whippersnappers nowadays getting so attached to their special snowflake characters
-snip-
Now git off my edition, dagnabbit!
JAL_1138,
I want a frame of your post, as it just maybe
THE BEST POST EVER!

JoeJ
2016-04-22, 07:51 PM
On one side we have the "god-wizard" group. They want to play and tell stories about god-wizards who bend reality at a whim. Not necessarily to the exclusion of everything else but if something gets in the way of that sort of story, such as limiting the wizards power, it will have to go.

On the other side we have the "ultimate mundane" group. They want to play and tell stories about people who have climbed to the top while still being, at their core, regular "normal" people. Similarly to the above, things that get in the way, such as mundane characters getting over shadowed by casters, has to go.

Note: I am not attributing either of these exact positions to anybody, I'm just trying to highlight how these to general play styles play against each other, as a lot of people in this debate have shown roughly one or the other.

That's a good insight, and I think the disconnect between the two is exacerbated by the fact that the D&D Zero-to-Hero pattern means that both sides start at about the same level. So you have people who expect to advance from the dude next door to the A Team, and other people who expect to go from the dude next door to the Justice League.

In most other games the PCs start much closer to where they end up, power wise, so the disconnect doesn't show up: the A Team group and the JLA group simply play at different tables (and probably different games, too).