PDA

View Full Version : The 30 Million Dollar Game



Hadrian_Emrys
2007-07-10, 04:43 AM
With all these threads about stuff being broken, fluff fighting mechanics, and how 3.5 beta testers seem to have dropped the ball on working the kinks out of the system... I just get to wondering, what the heck would you all do if you were given a shot at rebuilding DnD?

There have been all sorts of ideas batted around my groups about changing the game to suit our needs better and perhaps with your help we can cook up something interesting to play test.

I am really curious as to what you all have in mind? It can be something as simple as allowing monks to flurry as a standard action to changing the way the undead template works. I'm curious about it all.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-10, 04:48 AM
There's a bunch of minor tweaks, but there's no way any amount of playtesting would have found all of them.

Big changes? I'd add optional rules for playing without a battle grid because action scenes can be much faster that way.

And I'd rework the skill system because it's overly random.

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-07-10, 05:08 AM
One idea we batted around for a skill system involved bonus skill points equal to your attribute bonus which only applied to skills related to said attributes. we also added that every skill was a class skill unless you had a negative modifier to an attribute, then all skills related to said attribute were treated as cross-class.

Swooper
2007-07-10, 05:10 AM
Big changes? I'd add optional rules for playing without a battle grid because action scenes can be much faster that way.Dude, my group has never played with a battlemap, it's worked fine. A bit hard to strategize, place AoE spells and so on, but on the upside, those full attacks are easier to get somehow.

As for reworking D&D... I guess the whole spellcasting system is what needs help. And replacing the melee classes with something that works more like ToB.

Attilargh
2007-07-10, 05:12 AM
And I'd rework the skill system because it's overly random.
It also breaks down at about fifth level. Dedicated skill-users routinely attract extraplanar attention with their performances, break world records in athletics and recite epic sagas by memory by that point.

For comparison, a party of fifth-level adventurers should have trouble facing two miffed grizzlies.

Ędit: Okay, I might be exaggerating it a bit, now that I've done some math. The skill DCs are still pretty low.

Jimmy Discordia
2007-07-10, 05:13 AM
Well, I'd have to give the matter some thought to really come up with anything too broad, but the first thing that comes to mind is that I miss high ability scores being really special. Now, I don't mean high starting ability scores, necessarily... I was using the "4d6 drop lowest, then assign" method back when it was an optional rule. I just miss the feeling of having a score over 19 being a rare and special thing. In 3.5e (and 3e), starting as a half-orc with a good Strength roll, you can easily have 24 Strength by 16th level (and probably even earlier, since if you're the party's big bruiser it's not unimaginable that you're going to get any magic items that add to Strength). In 2e, without a belt of storm giant strength or similar, that would be more or less unthinkable, and scores over 25 had to be house-ruled if they were allowed at all. I'd mention more legacy mechanics that I liked the flavor of, but honestly my memory of 2e isn't what it once was... in high school, I could recite most of the core rules and a lot of the extra stuff forward and back.

Geez, 23 years old and already talking about the "good old days" 'cos I cut my teeth DMing 2e. I bet people older than me can come up with even more, even older mechanics they miss.

Swooper
2007-07-10, 05:14 AM
we also added that every skill was a class skill unless you had a negative modifier to an attribute, then all skills related to said attribute were treated as cross-class.
With all due respect, I find that a bad houserule. In a relatively high powered game, every skill becomes a class skill for everyone.

Personally, I see no problem with the skill system.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-10, 05:32 AM
Personally, I see no problem with the skill system.

The problem is this:

Take an easy task, that would be difficulty ten. An unskilled person (0 ranks) has a 50% chance of succeeding. A "highly skilled" person (5 ranks is highly skilled to anyone who isn't an adventurer) has 75% chance. That's silly for an easy task. A talented adventurer (10 ranks) automatically succeeds.

Take a difficult task, that would be 20. An unskilled person can't do it period (ok, 5% for a lucky roll). A "highly skilled" person can do it 25% of the time. That doesn't make much sense either. And the skilled adventurer can only do it 50% of the time.

Taking 10 and taking 20 is essentially a hack trying to cover for the above. And it doesn't really help, because now an unskilled person can succeed at any difficult task given enough time.

The point is that the spread of the dice roll (1-20) is far too large as compared to the spread of the skill points. A side effect of this is that individual skill ranks are meaningless, in that it getting a +1 to a skill does not make a real difference at any time. Something as simple as using 2d6 rather than 1d20 would be a step in the right direction.

Attilargh
2007-07-10, 06:01 AM
I personally like the Take 10 mechanic, because even though I would not have any ranks in Use Rope in D&D terms, I still can tie my shoelaces.

Take 20, however, does stretch it a bit. It's based on the assumption that if the chance of success is one in twenty, it takes twenty tries to get it right, which is really not correct. (The chance of failure is still about 36%, if I remember my math right.)


Funny fact: Humans can be better artists than elves, better cooks than halflings and just as good smiths than dwarves. Why? Because humans get a free feat, which can be used for bumping up a skill. A dedicated level 1 human can easily have a skill modifier of +10 in any given skill, which is pretty damn good. Other races usually lag about a point or two behind.

JellyPooga
2007-07-10, 06:03 AM
If I were given a shot at rebuilding D&D, I would scrap 3.X completely and remodel it in the image of the Mechwarrior 3rd Ed. RPG...that's a system with balls:

1)No level based character advancement.
2)"Adventurers" are just people, not some kind of god.
3)Combat is swift and brutal and based on skills rather than a separate 'combat system' of abilities.
4)Skills work on a sane level, rather than the slightly bizarre one that d&d works by.

My d&d specifics would be to add the following:

4)Undead would not be the pansies they are in 3.X, they would be gnarly and hard to kill
5)Magic (and Magic Items) would be relatively rare, as opposed to being required for "game balance".
6)"Game balance" would not exist (it doesn't exist in the real world now does it?)
7)The mundane would be more common than the bizarre (after all, that's what makes it mundane).

...that's all I got for the moment, but yeah, there's a lot wrong with d&d as it stands IMO...doesn't stop me playing it though! :smallbiggrin: :smallwink:

ReluctantDragon
2007-07-10, 06:12 AM
If I were given a shot at rebuilding D&D, I would scrap 3.X completely and remodel it in the image of the Mechwarrior 3rd Ed. RPG...that's a system with balls:

1)No level based character advancement.
2)"Adventurers" are just people, not some kind of god.
3)Combat is swift and brutal and based on skills rather than a separate 'combat system' of abilities.
4)Skills work on a sane level, rather than the slightly bizarre one that d&d works by.

My d&d specifics would be to add the following:

4)Undead would not be the pansies they are in 3.X, they would be gnarly and hard to kill
5)Magic (and Magic Items) would be relatively rare, as opposed to being required for "game balance".
6)"Game balance" would not exist (it doesn't exist in the real world now does it?)
7)The mundane would be more common than the bizarre (after all, that's what makes it mundane).

...that's all I got for the moment, but yeah, there's a lot wrong with d&d as it stands IMO...doesn't stop me playing it though! :smallbiggrin: :smallwink:

Not to be insulting, but that's not D&D in any version. D&D is at its heart a high fantasy game, with lots of magic, and elements that atleast pretend at balance.(whether or not those elements work, is the crux of the issue)
Now the better part of D&D is that in terms of flavor, you can take it in virtually any direction, while being much more limited in mechanics.

To be honest what you described is more like Iron Heroes. Minus the balanced part. You might want to give that a shot.

As far as what I'd change, I think the Vancian magic system is archaic, and needs to go. I'd see Sorcerors as the new base arcane class with a spell point system in place, much like psionics functions. Its just easier, and much more intuitive.

I'd see a 'toning down' of magic but not a crippling of it. Make spell cost be based on effect rather than level. Utility spells are relatively cheap to cast, buffing spells more expensive, damaging spells even more so, debuffs are more expensive, and finally save-or-suck top the list in terms of how much you must invest. Obviously there would be exceptions to this, but I'd think it would be pretty neat.

RD

Attilargh
2007-07-10, 06:23 AM
6)"Game balance" would not exist (it doesn't exist in the real world now does it?)
There is not much of that in D&D, either. :smallwink:

But really, is it really good for the game if A Wizard Does It while the fighter and bard play some cards in the corner? If the two-handed Power Attacking shock trooper carves a path through the goblin horde while the two-weaponer does not and gets his head caved in? If the old second level half-elf just talks the dragon into submission every time the party meets one?

Jack_Simth
2007-07-10, 06:24 AM
The problem is this:

Take an easy task, that would be difficulty ten. An unskilled person (0 ranks) has a 50% chance of succeeding. A "highly skilled" person (5 ranks is highly skilled to anyone who isn't an adventurer) has 75% chance. That's silly for an easy task. A talented adventurer (10 ranks) automatically succeeds.

Only when distracted. Under normal circumstances, take 10, it's a routine task. If someone is shooting at you, you might very well goof up on tying your shoelaces. A "Talented Adventurer" has practiced enough that it doesn't matter (for such a normal task, anyway) if someone is shooting at him or not - he'll still do it right.


Take a difficult task, that would be 20. An unskilled person can't do it period (ok, 5% for a lucky roll). A "highly skilled" person can do it 25% of the time. That doesn't make much sense either. And the skilled adventurer can only do it 50% of the time.

Taking 10 and taking 20 is essentially a hack trying to cover for the above. And it doesn't really help, because now an unskilled person can succeed at any difficult task given enough time.

The point is that the spread of the dice roll (1-20) is far too large as compared to the spread of the skill points. A side effect of this is that individual skill ranks are meaningless, in that it getting a +1 to a skill does not make a real difference at any time. Something as simple as using 2d6 rather than 1d20 would be a step in the right direction.

For difficult tasks, people pick up bonuses from other places. Masterwork tools (+2), Aid Another checks (+2 per person who makes their DC 10 roll), and so on, or simply take their sweet time about it and make sure they do absolutely everything perfectly (e.g., take 20).

Take a computer game.

One programmer, working alone, can make a reasonable game in six months of dedicated effort. It will probably have one of: Good story, Good Graphics & Sound, Good Mechanics, no game-breaking bugs, and tying everything together. If said programmer gets a really good compiler, he maybe doesn't need to worry about game-breaking bugs anymore (compiler gets them). If said programmer has an "effects specialist" on hand, the effects specialist takes care of the graphics and sound, so the programmer only needs to get the mechanics, story, and tying everything together right. If said programmer also has a professional scripter, all the programmer needs to worry about is the mechanics and tying everything together. If the programmer also has someone who is really good at balancing game mechanics, the programmer merely needs to worry about tying everything together.

Five +2 bonuses (4 aid another, 1 masterwork tools) and the programmer (with a +5 modifier - +1 ability, four ranks, say) has gone from a reasonable game (DC 15, taking 10) to a good game (DC 25, taking 10).

Said programmer could also spend ten years tackling every aspect one piece at a time, looking everything needed up as he goes along, making sure it is perfect before moving on to the next piece (in other words, taking 20) and make that same DC 25 game.

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-07-10, 06:29 AM
Swooper: Our group as a whole is comprised with creative types who, more often than not, like to solve problems (even combat) skillfully rather than with brute force. Such being the case, this alternate system allows even the likes of the party fighter to be crafty in his/her approach to the game. I personally don't see the problem with a high Int rogue knowing every single skill in the game, or close to it. As a DM it makes the challenge of keeping things interesting, well... interesting and as a player I LOVE having the freedom to be able to be more than a one trick pony as a typically less skill based class. I'm not saying it's for everyone though, it just works for us.

Jelly Pooga:
1) For that, the Serenity system is great. Well, that and anything by White Wolf.
2) I think a redone DnD should at least be flexible to allow for both "adventurers" and "demi-gods" styles of game play. It makes the system a more sound investment.
3) Again, systems like in response 1 fill my needs of that. Serenity in particular is brutally fast.
4) Yes. The skill system is off in the game. Trying to find a healthy balance between flexibility and challenge is a pain though.
5) Undead, as they stand, ARE tough to take down. Without a cleric, fighting undead is all but a waking nightmare at times.
6) I agree whole heartedly. The trick is making it so that somehow magic classes and the mundane ones actually are balanced somehow.
7) In a world where magic is toned down, or at least less readily obtained, the mundane really should be what's the norm. However, the average person deals in average situations, but heroes... well live is a bit different for them. Wouldn't you agree?

Fixer
2007-07-10, 06:33 AM
I have always disliked the level concept of D&D (and been playing since 1980, I have had time to ponder the issue). I understand it is a historical remnant, but I believe that basing things off a character's level is where it breaks down the fourth wall a bit.

Instead of levels or classes you keep the ranks concept and select a focus (or class focus, if you want to keep the name). Skills (including combat BAB and saves) within your focus cost you fewer experience points to advance while those outside cost you more. Feats can be purchased as well, with some feats costing less than others.

Spells would have difficulty numbers to cast and the character's skill would represent their ability to successfully cast the spells as they want them to work. Mild failures mean the spell fails. Worse failures result in some strange magical effect (which the GM can decide if it is helpful, hurtful, or just strange). No more 'spell levels'; just spell difficulties.

Hit points would be gone. In keeping with the fantasy element (while trying to keep bookkeeping to a minimum) your character has various stages of injury. Injuries (like fireballs, sword swings, tarrasque bites) would have a DC that your character would have to roll a save against and if you fail you take a certain number of stages of injury. Critical hits simply up the DC rating. Damage Reduction would be a bonus to the save roll versus certain types of damage.

You end up with a more flexibility than present but also allow for greater specialization for those characters who want to be a 'fighter with access to some healing magic' as opposed to a fighter that dips into one level of cleric.

JellyPooga
2007-07-10, 06:33 AM
Not to be insulting, but that's not D&D in any version. D&D is at its heart a high fantasy game, with lots of magic, and elements that atleast pretend at balance.(whether or not those elements work, is the crux of the issue)
Now the better part of D&D is that in terms of flavor, you can take it in virtually any direction, while being much more limited in mechanics.

To be honest what you described is more like Iron Heroes. Minus the balanced part. You might want to give that a shot.

As far as what I'd change, I think the Vancian magic system is archaic, and needs to go. I'd see Sorcerors as the new base arcane class with a spell point system in place, much like psionics functions. Its just easier, and much more intuitive.

I'd see a 'toning down' of magic but not a crippling of it. Make spell cost be based on effect rather than level. Utility spells are relatively cheap to cast, buffing spells more expensive, damaging spells even more so, debuffs are more expensive, and finally save-or-suck top the list in terms of how much you must invest. Obviously there would be exceptions to this, but I'd think it would be pretty neat.

RD

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that D&D is high fantasy and all that, but even in previous editions of it Magic was somewhat rarer. I wouldn't see it practically eliminated from the game...just a little more scarce than every Adventuring party having Magic Items with the total value of small cities on their person. As far as casting magic goes, I really hate the vancian system (or whatever it's called)...I would much rather see a more GURPS-like system based on skills and fatigue.

And just because it's High fantasy, doesn't mean that combat is easy...LotR is High Fantasy; if it were D&D, the Fellowship of the Ring probably could have killed every orc in Moria...they couldn't. Why? because contrary to what 3.X would have us believe, a small group of people, no matter how buff they are at combat, cannot hold off a sustained attack from a significantly larger, but individually weaker force for very long. D&D doesn't even have rules for getting fatigued from combat...possibly the most exhausting activity one can undertake, but d&d adventurers can fight literally all day without tiring (according to the rules). Gah! I hate the combat rules for D&D :smallannoyed:

Sorry about that. Anyways, as I was saying before I got sidetracked onto the whole combat thing...although D&D (as far as I'm aware) has always been a level-based system, I would see it scrapped. It's a system that works...but only just. It's a system that's designed to have "balanced encounters" and "wealth by level" and such-like. These things are not required, as proven by every RPG that isn't level based (which is almost all of them, but D&D...in fact, I can't think of an RPG that is level based except D&D...not that I know of anyway).

The Undead thing is just something that's always kinda bugged me...in my mind Undead should be really hard to defeat, more so than living foes (how do you kill something that's already dead?), but D&D has always made them on a par or even below par with everything else.

Morty
2007-07-10, 06:40 AM
As far as what I'd change, I think the Vancian magic system is archaic, and needs to go. I'd see Sorcerors as the new base arcane class with a spell point system in place, much like psionics functions. Its just easier, and much more intuitive.

Also boring and uninventive.
Sorry, but spellpoint system is fine for hack'n'slash video games like Diablo or maybe Oblivion. In such games, wizard hurls fireballs until he runs out of mana. But I belive that the concept of D&D mages is that wizard isn't hurling fireballs, even if he does use damaging spells he saves them for right occasion. Not to mention mages in D&D have got dozens of non-combat spells. So for D&D-style RPG, preparation system -that I'm very fond of and have no idea what people have against it- or skill check system like that in WFRPG is much better. Spell points will turn arcane spellcasters into trigger-happy blasters, and we don't want that.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-10, 06:42 AM
Only when distracted. Under normal circumstances, take 10, it's a routine task.
Yes, I am aware. I hope you're not telling me that people need checks for something as trivial as tying their shoes, though.



For difficult tasks, people pick up bonuses from other places. Masterwork tools (+2), Aid Another checks (+2 per person who makes their DC 10 roll),
Yes, I'm aware, but that doesn't make the numbers any less wrong. A skilled person will fail at a moderate task way too often. Also, the suggestion that you can do things better if you take more time for them is generally false in real life, and is really a backwards abstraction from players just rolling the dice until they get it right. You're missing my point here - the mechanic is extremely unrealistic, and the existence of a few modifiers doesn't change that at all.



Take a computer game.

Oooh, bad metaphor. No, one programmer taking six months for a reasonable game is ludicrous. A rookie programmer can't do it period, a skilled programmer can do it in a week, depending on the size and scope of your game. Programming skill is entirely irrelevant to story, graphics and sound. And compilers don't work the way you think they do. No, this entire example does not work at all, is not representative for D&D, and is not well-represented by d20 mechanics. At all.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-10, 06:47 AM
I'd see a 'toning down' of magic but not a crippling of it.


This would seem to be a difference between 2nd ed and 3rd ed. In 2nd ed, high scores and magical items were more of a rarity, whereas 3rd ed seems to assume that every class will stock up on +items and stat boosters from the magical black market. Likewise 3rd ed characters are so dependent on their main ability that they're pretty much assumed to start at 18 and boost to 25 as soon as feasible; this was less important in 2nd ed. Newer edition, higher power level.

Zel
2007-07-10, 07:00 AM
The only real problem I have with D&D is the disparity in the DCs of certain tasks. There are some things that are essentially impossible for any human to do (jump 30 feet, climb a wall of slick glass) which can be done in D&D with some effort. And these super-human specimens aren't able to fight naturally with 2 weapons at the same time or throw a baseball-sized object 50ft with reliable accuracy?

The combat system seems to have been created by people with poor hand-eye coordination and athletic deficiency. The most egregious errors are, very quickly:

1. Fighting with 2 weapons, or throwing a weapon while holding something in your other hand means less accuracy. I disagree with this notion and believe that attacking with 2 weapons would be increasingly effective at overcoming a target's defensive. In addition, it doesn't take a physical genius to throw an object accurately to within 5 ft, and it's certainly not any harder if you happen to be holding an axe or grocery-bag full of cans. Consider the DC of an outfielder throwing to home plate under D&D rules.

2. 2 Handed weapons are amazing damage dealers with no penalty for hitting somebody. Putting aside the ridiculous weight and length of these fantasy weapons, I just think they do too much damage from a game-balancing standpoint. Power attack makes you less accurate but it is twice as good with a two hander than a single weapon, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

3. Unable to do much with a shield. Yes you can specialize in shield-bashing and put spikes on it, but I feel the basic rules don't account for the great versatility (both offensive and defensive) that a shield affords the wielder. Shield-man with a short sword will overcome a man with a 20 ft spear almost every time.

Despite this I enjoy the game system and think it does a good job of enabling people to get together and have some fun. No system is perfect but if I could change a few things it would be to tweak the combat system and skill DCs to be a little more "realistic" (a dangerous word to throw around).

Attilargh
2007-07-10, 07:30 AM
1. Fighting with 2 weapons, or throwing a weapon while holding something in your other hand means less accuracy. I disagree with this notion and believe that attacking with 2 weapons would be increasingly effective at overcoming a target's defensive.
I'm in no way deificient in my hand-eye coordination (:smallwink:), and I can tell you it's not as easy as it sounds. I've done some boffering, and I can tell you that it's hard to use two weapons in a way you don't open yourself, get your weapons in each others' way or just strike inefficiently. Meanwhile the opponent is basically fighting a bit faster opponent, which means he must concentrate a bit more on the defense.

SilverClawShift
2007-07-10, 09:30 AM
Breaking down a door in D&D requires a Strength check. So the first thing we need to understand is the distribution of ability scores in the general population.

According to the DMG, defaults NPCs in D&D are built on one of two arrays: The elite array and the average array. The elite array is used for exceptional individuals. The average array is… well, average.

Elite Array: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8

Average Array: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8

Using the point buy system, the elite array is built on 25 points. The average array is built on 15 points.

John Kim demonstrates that the elite array is, in fact, the statistically typical result of rolling 4d6-drop-the-lowest (the default character generation) if you round down fractional results. Similarly, although John doesn’t show it, the average array is the statistically typical results of a 3d6 roll.

The DMG doesn’t tell us how common an elite character will be, but they are supposed to be a “cut above the average”. I think it’s safe to say that they’re supposed to be rare. There are a number of approaches you can take to figuring out exactly how rare. For example, I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations using the DMG demographic information regarding how many characters are of a level high enough to suggest exceptional accomplishment in the real world (as we’ll discuss later). I also ran the numbers from MENSA (which accepts only those who intellectually qualify in the top 2% of the population) and then compensated to include the non-intellectual ability scores. And so forth. But, consistently, these inferences got me a figure right around 5%.

What does all this mean? It means that the vast majority of people you meet will be lucky to have a single +1 bonus in any of their ability scores. Most of them will, in fact, have straight 10’s and 11’s across the board.

So, with that in mind, let’s go back and talk about breaking down a door.

Breaking down a simple wooden door – like the doors you might find inside a typical house – is a DC 13 check. This means that the average person (with a +0 Strength modifier) will succeed at breaking open the door about 40% of the time. This means that one or two strong kicks from just about anybody will kick the door open.

This matches our real life experience: Interior doors just aren’t that sturdy.

Next, let’s take a look at something sturdier. For example, a well-made front door with its deadbolt secured. This would be a DC 18 check in D&D (for a “good wooden door”). This is a lot harder to bust open: The average person will only have a 10% of knocking it open on the first attempt. It’s going to typically take five or six really solid kicks for the average person to get through such a door.

Again: This matches our real life experience. Front doors are strong, but the fact that they’re not impervious to breaking-and-entering is evidenced by thousands of burglaries every year.

But once you take a thick wooden beam and use it to bar the door shut with solid iron construction (Break DC 25), it becomes impossible for the average person to simply throw their shoulder against the door and break it open.

And, again, this matches the real world. Breaking a six-inch thick beam would be nearly impossible for all but the strongest among us. Breaking such a beam without hitting it directly (instead diffusing our impact through a door) is essentially impossible.

Breaking down doors is a simplistic example, but it shows how much thought has gone into make the system consistent with the real world, even when it comes to the small details.

It’s also interesting to look at various magical effects in the system and seeing what they mean in real world terms. For example, a hold portal spell adds +5 to the Break DC of a door. So a hold portal spell is basically equivalent to adding a deadbolt to a door (make sense). An arcane lock spell, on the other hand, adds +10 to the Break DC of a door, so it’s basically the equivalent of barring the door shut.

So if the necromancer rushes through a portal and magically seals it behind him, what does it feel like when the party’s fighter throws himself against it? Now you know.

(And knowing is half the battle. Go Joe!)


http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

I think anyone discussing the 'numbers' of D&D should at least glance over this article. It's a really good read, and it explains why so many people sum up levels in D&D with "1-3 = normal person, 4-6 = olympic athlete or uber scientist, above that = exceptional"

It's because that's how it breaks down. Most of the population is SUPPOSED to be 1st or 2nd level commoners, experts, aristocrats.
A few exceptional people are 3rd level +, with 5th level being essentially the best average people can hope to acheive.
Anything above that, and it's hero time :smallbiggrin:

WhiteHarness
2007-07-10, 09:35 AM
Armour should be represented with DR instead of AC. And I don't mean the half-@$$ variant found in Unearthed Arcana--I'd like to see each armour type's full Armour Bonus used as stackable DR. Thus, full plate would get DR 8/-, and that would stack with DR from other sources, so someone with the Armour Specialization feat wearing full plate would get DR 10/-.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-10, 09:45 AM
DR 10/- is a bit overpowering. That actually grants immunity to normal physical attacks, which is why the IH variant uses dice for that. I.e. 1d10.

Anyways, it sounds like some people want to use the 3d6 variant, which is somewhere in the SRD.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-10, 09:46 AM
http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html


Yeah, it's been pointed out and discussed before. It doesn't work, though. It's easy to explain real-world results as the outcome of some D&D roll, but these kind of essays neglect the fact that the common D&D roll outcomes (and spread thereof) would be rather ludicrous if translated back to real-world results.

If a master craftsman (level 3, 6 skill ranks, skill focus, mw tools) can take 10 to create a masterwork object (diff 20), then by D&D logic a guild of twenty total rookies (level 1, zero ranks and whatnot) can do the same because one of them will roll a 20.

Ironically, "taking 10" is a better system for skill checks than rolling 1d20 - precisely because of what I said earlier, that the spread in the dice roll is too large when compared to the spread of the skill points. By removing said spread you improve the system. By not taking 10, the result is highly random mostly irrespective of how skilled you are.

SilverClawShift
2007-07-10, 09:55 AM
For comparison, a party of fifth-level adventurers should have trouble facing two miffed grizzlies.

To maybe throw this into numerical perspective for some people...

Have you ever SEEN a grizzly bear? :smallwink:

Ever seen a MAD grizzly bear? :smallamused:

How willing would you be to strap on some arms & armor (no guns) can go fight a bear with three of your friends?
Two bears. Two bears with three of your friends.

Killing two bears is freaking immpressive without a powerful rifle. Surviving a two-bear vs. four-person fight is something noteworthy.

Attilargh
2007-07-10, 10:14 AM
To maybe throw this into numerical perspective for some people...
Okay, okay, I'm rather horrible at this kind of stuff. :smalltongue:

Nonetheless, MacGyver could probably do it.

Tormsskull
2007-07-10, 10:20 AM
I would, as a previous poster mentioned, reduce the number of magical items that D&D 3e assumes characters are to have, and reduce the disparity between really good stats and average stats.

I would reduce the power level of magic severely, and I would probably make it cost more experience to level, and reduce the amount of levels in the game (or spread the power obtained in 10 levels across 20).

I think spells that have extraordinary effects should cost the caster dearly for using them. Either through massive exp drains, or years of life thrown away, or permanent Constitution reductions, etc.

I would probably add in some rules specifically dealing with an opponent facing multiple opponents (such as 1 v 2, the 2 get a bonus to hit, 1 v 3, the 3 get a progressively better bonus, etc)

WhiteHarness
2007-07-10, 11:41 AM
DR 10/- is a bit overpowering. That actually grants immunity to normal physical attacks...


Not so. Someone with, say, a greataxe and a hefty Strength bonus using Power Attack can still harm somebody with DR 10/-. He's just not necessarily going to do so on every single attack, which, IMO, better represents the effects of armour.

Another change I'd make would be to seriously reduce the power level of rust monsters and the rusting grasp spell. There's no reason their effects should just arbitrarily completely ruin your armour. Moreover, mundane rust-proofing techniques should grant immunity to such effects.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-10, 12:14 PM
When I say normal, I mean army style. That makes full plate render you immune to regular arrows, to longswords, to anything but a strong character with a really powerful weapon. That, combined with greater fortification, and a few levels of say, dwarven defender, = immune to army. You can stand still, and watch the mooks try to get natural 20's, and when they do, they do nothing. Just seems a bit odd that you can be literally immune to all mundane attack by non-optimized builds of doom.

Seriously, DR 19/- or so? (8 from armour, 6 from dwarven defender, 3 from adamantine, 2 from armour specialization).

(Watches 1'st level 18 str half orc power attacking with greataxe). So, he hits 1/20, and deals 1 damage 1/12 of the time?

I wonder if I can rest to recover HP faster. 20'th level, so 1 hp/240 turns..wow. I lie down and rest for 8 hrs, and recover that much health.

Now, of course that does little to nothing against a shock trooper leap attack Barbarian (CC lion totem) FB thrikreen or some-such (up to 1600 PA damage on one charge!), but still, immunity to the army is scary.

Counterspin
2007-07-10, 12:33 PM
I'd do a lot of the things the new Star Wars RPG did. Remove iterative attacks to speed up combat, add level based bonus damage, use of the condition track to eliminate the need for all the confusingly named conditions. Make magic feat based, to allow for more flexibility and remove the problem of casters never being able to multiclass. Get rid of dead levels by using talent trees. Simplify the skill system, getting rid of skill points.

I'd also strip the classes of their fluff, but add in the old fluff restrictors as feats (druidic oath, paladin oath, one each for alignment appropriate bard/barbarian/hexblade/warlock/etc) with some sort of enticement.

I also vote for toning down the importance of magic items, but more from a book keeping standpoint. Ideally the added class flexibility will make up for the tactical choices that are removed along with the magic items.

Person_Man
2007-07-10, 01:08 PM
There are a lot of little rules that need to be changed: Mounted Combat, Grapple, Polymorph, etc.

My primary big rule change would be how classes are set up.

I believe that the Beguiler, Duskblade, and Knight are the best guide. Each class is playable from levels 1-20. There are no dead levels, and an impressive 20th level capstone ability of some kind. Spellcasters have specific, limited lists of spells that are not expanded, which avoids codex creep and makes game balance game balance. And if you leave the class for a PrC, you're giving up real abilities, not just familiar or animal companion progression.

My second primary rule change would be to eliminate No Save spells, and spells that still have an effect even if you make the Saving Throw. This is the primary reason why magic is considered so broken.

WhiteHarness
2007-07-10, 01:22 PM
Oh yeah.

Knights should have a Good Fortitude Save, too. The lack of one is the only thing that ruins the class, IMO.

Saph
2007-07-10, 01:22 PM
I dunno. It can be fun to have expanded spell lists - paging through books to find an extra few spells for your Wizard can be interesting. Kind of makes you feel like a real one. :) I'd say keep the full-list casters, just weaken them a bit in other ways.

Other than that, I really don't think I'd change much. Nerf various spells, deal with a few loopholes, slightly rebalance the classes, etc, but nothing major. I already really enjoy playing D&D, so I wouldn't want to change anything fundamental.

- Saph

Prometheus
2007-07-10, 04:19 PM
I second a lot of what JellyPooga said.
I think level advancement is a great way to keep a character interesting and give a sense of progress to the game, but being able to withstand just about anything when the average person can't withstand falling from 10 feet doesn't seem very realistic or necessary.
Instead I would make level advancement primarily focused on achieving other special abilities and preventing deadly blows rather than withstanding them. And expert with a rapier shouldnt' get cut once, not be the person who can walk around with them stuck like a pin cushion.
While I'm reworking levels, I would redesign the class system so it is more fluid, because no one has each class report back to their respective guilds anymore anyway. There would be no Fighter, only someone who trains more in combat related skills. Obviously, there would be the same advantages to specialization, however.
All and all, these changes are difficult to do well and I think that aside for the minor changes, the folks have done a great job.

horseboy
2007-07-10, 08:31 PM
http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html

I think anyone discussing the 'numbers' of D&D should at least glance over this article. It's a really good read, and it explains why so many people sum up levels in D&D with "1-3 = normal person, 4-6 = olympic athlete or uber scientist, above that = exceptional"

It's because that's how it breaks down. Most of the population is SUPPOSED to be 1st or 2nd level commoners, experts, aristocrats.
A few exceptional people are 3rd level +, with 5th level being essentially the best average people can hope to acheive.
Anything above that, and it's hero time :smallbiggrin:

"Dahahahaha! Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh harder! Dahahahahaha!" -Bender Bending Rodriquez

Maybe, just maybe if the fighter, this whole time, had been subconsciously using magic to fuel his feats; IF there was an ACTUAL cap at 5th level that in order to break it, the players had to go on an epic adventure to gain (un)divine favor to be granted powers surpassing that of "mortal" humans, then maybe this guy might be somewhere in the right solar system. All he does is show how quickly this game breaks down.

For me? Well, first off, No alignments, no SoD spells.
Second, we increase the amount of skill points per level. Bab, Saves, spells and skills would be bought out of those points.
Third rework the whole hit point/damage thing so that 5' of naked, sharp steel is actually scary.

Matthew
2007-07-10, 08:46 PM
Laugh all you like, it's not far off the mark at all. Once Player Characters pass Level 5, they're pretty much in 'Hero' to 'Super Hero' territory, regardless of the mechanisms that got them there. How you organise your expectations of what D&D offers in light of that is up to you.

That article says nothing that isn't already laid out in the DMG (and contradicted by it as well). The observation that Characters break the game at high levels is indeed nothing new, but it is helpful to have some recognition of that within an easily linked to article.

D&D 3.x, by making progression from Level 1 to 20 a normal result of playing a campaign, has broken many of the conventions that its predecessors operated on. That has had serious repercussions in terms of expectations, because Characters in (A)D&D above 12th Level were a pipe dream (outside of The Forgotten Realms, anyway), now they are a fact of normal campaign operations.

I don't see anything laughable within that article or unsupported by the Core Rules of the game.

That's not to say D&D makes sense, there are plenty of problems.

horseboy
2007-07-10, 09:01 PM
Laugh all you like, it's not far off the mark at all. Once Player Characters pass Level 5, they're pretty much in 'Hero' to 'Super Hero' territory, regardless of the mechanisms that got them there. How you organise your expectations of what D&D offers in light of that is up to you.

That article says nothing that isn't already laid out in the DMG (and contradicted by it as well). The observation that Characters break the game at high levels is indeed nothing new, but it is helpful to have some recognition of that within an easily linked to article.

Level 5 is considered high now?


D&D 3.x, by making progression from Level 1 to 20 a normal result of playing a campaign, has broken many of the conventions that its predecessors operated on. That has had serious repercussions in terms of expectations, because Characters in (A)D&D above 12th Level were a pipe dream (outside of The Forgotten Realms, anyway), now they are a fact of normal campaign operations.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????
I think Phantak O'catsul the 18lvl paladin that's been around from red book to 2.5 would disagree with this completely. You're going to need to extrapolate here.


I don't see anything laughable within that article or unsupported by the Core Rules of the game.

That's not to say D&D makes sense, there are plenty of problems.

That's what so laughable. Rather than recognize the problem he defends the problem. "Sure D&D works, but you've got to institute a glass ceiling policy" is all this says.

Matthew
2007-07-10, 09:23 PM
Level 5 is considered high now?

The DMG tells us that the overwhelming majority of NPCs are levels 1-5, with the majority of them being levels 1-2. It then goes on to contradict itself with absurd (in the context of the previous statement) claims about how NPCs gain experience, but there you go. Basically, yeah, Level 5 is high level relative to the overwhelming majority of campaign inhabitants. Level 6+ is Hero to Super Hero territory.


?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????
I think Phantak O'catsul the 18lvl paladin that's been around from red book to 2.5 would disagree with this completely. You're going to need to extrapolate here.

Honestly, Phantak O'catsul the 18th Level Paladin sounds like the kind of Character that would have had me asking some serious questions about where he got his Experience Points (not to mention his name). I mean, 2.5 Million Experience Points? How many Greater Pit Fiends do you have to solo to get them? The levelling mechanic in (A)D&D was variable, but by default, it was very slow. [Edit] To be clear, I'm not saying it was impossible, I'm just saying that Phantak must have really 'seen some things', you must have played him a *very* long time and through a lot of adventures (multiple campaigns, I would have thought, unless you had a very generous DM).


That's what so laughable. Rather than recognize the problem he defends the problem. "Sure D&D works, but you've got to institute a glass ceiling policy" is all this says.

He's not really defending D&D, he's pointing out where reality breaks down and why people find it confusing that their Level 18 Paladins are so far above the capabilities of the literary archtypes they are mentally comparing them to.

Jack_Simth
2007-07-10, 09:30 PM
Yes, I am aware. I hope you're not telling me that people need checks for something as trivial as tying their shoes, though.

Have you ever seen someone in the process of learning how to tie shoes? It is a trained skill. Different people's tied shoelaces will take more stress than others (some are better at it than others). The DC for a normal shoe-tie is probably no more than about 5; it's a trivial task. Even people with very low hand-eye coordination can do it.

When you stack the penalties sufficiently, there's problems. Ever seen someone who was very, very drunk try to tie their shoes? They'll probably get it wrong a time or two, then stop, make very sure of what they're doing, and tie their shoes VERY SLOWLY (e.g., take 20).

It's a trivial task - like most such, the game mechanics actually expect you to be taking 10 when you do it. You don't normally require a roll for such trivial tasks. When you've got other things to pay attention to (like that guy in plate swinging his sword in your direction) you might just get distracted enough to fail occasionally (but then, what are you doing trying to tie your shoelaces in combat?).



Yes, I'm aware, but that doesn't make the numbers any less wrong. A skilled person will fail at a moderate task way too often.
A skilled person generally does tasks that are well within their skill - the 55% success mark is the 100% success mark, remember; that's when it becomes routine, and you can start taking 10. Most the time, you spend your time doing stuff that you know - things where taking 10 is enough.

Also, the suggestion that you can do things better if you take more time for them is generally false in real life, and is really a backwards abstraction from players just rolling the dice until they get it right.
That's the choice for the time, yes; there's about a 65% chance that, in 20 rolls on a fair d20, a given possible number will show up at least once.

The system is an abstraction. They had to pick a "best possible" timeframe to keep the game from being held up while someone just rolls and rolls until they get the best one. With the nature of the system, they pretty much had to pick one way to select the timeframe - which they chose as 20 times the base time for the task.

Do note, though, that while it says you do it many times, it doesn't specify that you attempt the task 20 times over. It models perfectly well as a brief once-over, then going through step by step everything you can possibly think of that might go wrong.

You're missing my point here - the mechanic is extremely unrealistic, and the existence of a few modifiers doesn't change that at all.That is true of all models. In most cases, you either know how to configure a given network card, or you don't (and must look up the specifics). It's binary. a 3d6 model is totally unrealistic. You need a specific slot for every aspect of everything you can do.

Of course, that's way too much paperwork, so we abstract a bit more.

In the abstraction, we lose realism.

Happens to all models.



Oooh, bad metaphor. No, one programmer taking six months for a reasonable game is ludicrous. A rookie programmer can't do it period, a skilled programmer can do it in a week, depending on the size and scope of your game.
If the size and scope of the game is sufficient, it will take six months. Perhaps we simply have decidedly different definitions of what makes a "reasonable" game - I'm fond of Final Fantasy VII and Nethack, for instance; ignoring that aspect, though....

Programming skill is entirely irrelevant to story, graphics and sound. And compilers don't work the way you think they do.
There are compilers (sorry, I should say programming suites - but I'm loose with language sometimes) that will display an essentially meaningless error and crash to OS when something goes awry. There are compilers that will do a stack dump of memory pointers on the same event. There are compilers that will name the function calls those memory pointers are in. There are compilers that will stop and say "Oh, by the way, it looks like you're trying to do X" - and be right - and walk you through how to do X.

I've seen them.

Granted, none will give you a logic error (that you accidentally included Willpower in your hand-to-hand damage calculation, and left out strength) but they can be crazy-useful in tracking such stuff down when you've got a suite that will let you set halt-points in the code and then tell you the current value of each variable, what it's pointing to and what that target's value is hiding (when using pointers).

No, this entire example does not work at all, is not representative for D&D, and is not well-represented by d20 mechanics. At all.
What they all have is Craft(Computer Game). They can all do it, but they're better at some things than others. The skill encompasses a bunch of sub-skills. The specific skill ranks are a form of average.

What, you think Craft(Woodworking) is hemoginous? That your ability to make a straight corner out of wood also is completly and utterly tied to your ability to put filigree work on the door so that it looks pretty? That your ability to put filigree work on the door so that it looks pretty has complete control over your ability to set proper framing for a door? That your ability to set proper framing for a door has complete control over your ability to hang rafters?

Any such skill has a myriad of sub-skills. Again, working out everyone's ability in every single given area would simply be too much paperwork. So they abstract more than that. But abstraction leads to holes in realism.

It's a known issue, but it's fundamentally a feature, not a bug.

horseboy
2007-07-10, 10:11 PM
The DMG tells us that the overwhelming majority of NPCs are levels 1-5, with the majority of them being levels 1-2. It then goes on to contradict itself with absurd (in the context of the previous statement) claims about how NPCs gain experience, but there you go. But basically, yeah, Level 5 is high level relative to the overwhelming majority of campaign inhabitants. Level 6+ is Hero to Super Hero territory.

I must have missed where now in the game system 6+ is unobtainable by human means. This is a completely new concept introduced into this game. I believe this is because of the skill system.


Honestly, Phantak O'catsul the 18th Level Paladin sounds like the kind of Character that would have had me asking some serious questions about where he got his Experience Points. I mean, 2.5 Million Experience Points? How many Greater Pit Fiends do you have to solo to get them? The levelling mechanic in (A)D&D was variable, but by default, it was very slow. [Edit] To be clear, I'm not saying it was impossible, I'm just saying that guy must have really 'seen some things' and you must have played him a *very* long time and through a lot of adventures (multiple campaigns, I would have thought).

Pffft!! You must have over looked the whole "1gp=1xp" part of the rules. :smallamused: :smallsmile: But yeah, bout 10 years or so. At no point was there ever a concept of a "glass ceiling" even considered.


He's not really defending D&D, he's pointing out where reality breaks down and why people find it confusing that their Level 18 Paladins are so far above the capabilities of the literary archtypes they are mentally comparing them to.

Because until 3.x it was commonly believed that Arigorn would be around 15-18th level. Now, all of a sudden they're trying to claim "Oh, no, he was 5th" Just to justify the new skills system.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-07-10, 10:21 PM
Spellcasting is the biggest pet peeve I have. To fix it, I'd:

1) Use a point system (akin to a sorcerer or psionic class)
2) Get rid of Save-or-Die, No-Save, and Save-or-Suck spells
3) Get rid of the main "broken" spells: Polymorph, Gate, etc.
4) Get rid of the spells that allow a spellcaster to do a non-spellcaster's job--including a large number of the utility spells

That's right, the utility spells. How fun is it to play a rogue when you know the wizard could just Knock the door that you're trying to pick? Why even bother to put ranks in Open Lock? There's many skills that are worthless, just because there's an easy (often a level 1 or 2 spell) that can replace it. I'd get rid of these spells, and make the skillmonkeys' abilities more valuable. Meanwhile, spells that allow the wizard to tank (let alone the Cleric or Druid) make the melee classes rather pointless. It's not fun knowing that everything you can do, the spellcasters can do better; and then do other stuff that you can't.

Talya
2007-07-10, 10:25 PM
This would seem to be a difference between 2nd ed and 3rd ed. In 2nd ed, high scores and magical items were more of a rarity, whereas 3rd ed seems to assume that every class will stock up on +items and stat boosters from the magical black market. Likewise 3rd ed characters are so dependent on their main ability that they're pretty much assumed to start at 18 and boost to 25 as soon as feasible; this was less important in 2nd ed. Newer edition, higher power level.

Minor Quibble: It is not 3rd edition that assumes that every class will stock up on +items and stat boosters from the magical black market. It's 3rd edition players and DMs that assume this. Encounters are not balanced with people being able to go out and buy whatever gear they want in mind. (Encounters aren't really balanced at all, but still...)

Piccamo
2007-07-10, 10:40 PM
Minor Quibble: It is not 3rd edition that assumes that every class will stock up on +items and stat boosters from the magical black market. It's 3rd edition players and DMs that assume this. Encounters are not balanced with people being able to go out and buy whatever gear they want in mind. (Encounters aren't really balanced at all, but still...)

As far as I had heard it was otherwise. This is especially when you consider you can trade a magic item as though it were a trade good (i.e. at its value, rather than half).

Roog
2007-07-10, 10:41 PM
Minor Quibble: It is not 3rd edition that assumes that every class will stock up on +items and stat boosters from the magical black market. It's 3rd edition players and DMs that assume this. Encounters are not balanced with people being able to go out and buy whatever gear they want in mind. (Encounters aren't really balanced at all, but still...)

The DMG does seem to be written with that assumption in mind.

Piccamo
2007-07-10, 10:43 PM
Spellcasting is the biggest pet peeve I have. To fix it, I'd:

1) Use a point system (akin to a sorcerer or psionic class)
2) Get rid of Save-or-Die, No-Save, and Save-or-Suck spells
3) Get rid of the main "broken" spells: Polymorph, Gate, etc.
4) Get rid of the spells that allow a spellcaster to do a non-spellcaster's job--including a large number of the utility spells

That's right, the utility spells. How fun is it to play a rogue when you know the wizard could just Knock the door that you're trying to pick? Why even bother to put ranks in Open Lock? There's many skills that are worthless, just because there's an easy (often a level 1 or 2 spell) that can replace it. I'd get rid of these spells, and make the skillmonkeys' abilities more valuable. Meanwhile, spells that allow the wizard to tank (let alone the Cleric or Druid) make the melee classes rather pointless. It's not fun knowing that everything you can do, the spellcasters can do better; and then do other stuff that you can't.

This is why a point-based character creation and advancement system is sometimes favorable. If you want to be a utility character you can choose abilities that do so.

Diggorian
2007-07-10, 10:46 PM
Actually Talya, monsters are designed from the perspective that wealth by level is being maintained. I like to keep magic items rare and special, therefore I tweak monsters down a bit to factor my style preference.

The 5th lvl. Fellowship is nothing new. A 1978 Dragon article argued that Gandalf could be modeled by a 5th lvl magic user, based on the spells he's described as using. It was controversial then too.

Alexandrian's article doesnt describe a "glass ceiling" at level 6. It simply states that 5th level characters in our world would be phenomenal folks. It doesnt seem that way in D&D because their are so many fictional creatures that are capable of eating phenomenal people. Consider that the highest CR of a creature that actually exists is CR 5 for the Orca. The giant squid is higher, but Architeuthis is hard to random encounter in medieval times. If we had to contend with dinosaurs we may have gone extinct. :smallamused:

I think of it this way: 1-5th lvl campaigns are historical fiction and level 6 or higher campaigns are action movies. So I disagree with the OP.

How I'd do D&D forms the houserules of whatever campaign I'm running. Rule 0 indicates that I have the power to make a D&D game for my players better suited to our tastes than anything published in RAW (Guidelines as written, GAW to me).

My current setting, sigged below, shows many of them so I wont elaborate here. (Shameless plug? No, it's free! Take a look. :smallbiggrin: )

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-07-10, 11:59 PM
The question of magic comes down to personal taste. Point systems are more flexible and allow for for fluid casting, but it lacks the current feel, which is unique to D&D. Does this vague "feel" really override the possibility of improved playability though? I mean, sure, point systems are all that one sees in video games and has it's place in the realm of table top, but could that not just mean that it is so prolific simply because it works? It's clean, simple, and makes altering effects a much less retarded affair than meta-magic feats.

horseboy
2007-07-11, 12:20 AM
Alexandrian's article doesnt describe a "glass ceiling" at level 6. It simply states that 5th level characters in our world would be phenomenal folks. It doesnt seem that way in D&D because their are so many fictional creatures that are capable of eating phenomenal people. Consider that the highest CR of a creature that actually exists is CR 5 for the Orca. The giant squid is higher, but Architeuthis is hard to random encounter in medieval times. If we had to contend with dinosaurs we may have gone extinct. :smallamused:

I think of it this way: 1-5th lvl campaigns are historical fiction and level 6 or higher campaigns are action movies. So I disagree with the OP.

You might be able to get me to believe that 6+ would be "action movie". It's farfetched but within the realm of plausibility. Or more to the point, should be.
However, using this article and RAW then all we should have to do is get two teams of scientists. One to genengineer owl bears and one to mow them down with AK's. In short work they'd have enough skill points to be able to solve the FTL conundrum. We know this can't be, yet this is the situation the current system would put us in. A (much) greater refinement in the skill system is needed for a new edition.

dragonwings
2007-07-11, 12:36 AM
Heh... I would get rid of monks entirely, not because I dislike them, but for the simple fact it would enrage on of my friends and cause him to throw a hissy fit. Oh, and to make him throw a bigger hissy fit... fire would not longer be an element. Stupid? Yes. Amusing to me and me alone? Most assuredly.

As far as fixing things goes, I would have the most stupidly detailed Monster Manuals ever. Seriously. A body-builder would only be able to pick up two, possibly three. Why? I would not make monsters have a challenge rating. I would make monsters fit challenge ratings. Want a CR1 gold dragon fight? Done. The dragon is newly hatched and has several disabilities. Want a CR22 shocker lizard? Sure. He's Thor's most beloved pet. His name is Sparky.

I would also have almost every critter in there other than plain, non-awakened animals with a level progression chat. Want to play a sphinx bard? Okay. That'll make for an awesome back story. Care to test out an imp sorcerer? Alrighty. Is this completely stupid? Yup. But this is just what I would do. I never said it would work.

Oh, and I would include a feat to give druids the options of getting more animal companions. I have a Cajun druid that just needs two alligators as companions for flavor.

Diggorian
2007-07-11, 01:16 AM
However, using this article and RAW then all we should have to do is get two teams of scientists. One to genengineer owl bears and one to mow them down with AK's. In short work they'd have enough skill points to be able to solve the FTL conundrum. We know this can't be, yet this is the situation the current system would put us in.

The time required for scientific innovation (as opposed to new applications of existing knowledge) seems to take years. The time required for the checks needed to make an owlbear would likely exceed the lifespan of the scientists, assuming you could get a whole team to work on such a ridiculous concept: "Owl ... bears? Why should we throw away our careers to make ... feathered, beaked bears? I dont care if this game company is funding it!" :smalltongue:

Getting XP for killing captive owlbears is as silly as raising chickens to slaughter for the experience. By RAW, XP is given for challenges.


A (much) greater refinement in the skill system is needed for a new edition.

What do you suggest, the reduced variance 2d6 + mod?

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-07-11, 01:19 AM
Oh, and I would include a feat to give druids the options of getting more animal companions. I have a Cajun druid that just needs two alligators as companions for flavor.

:smallbiggrin: If I had not read the rest of your post, those two lines alone would have me in agreement with you. Personally, I like the Guild Wars approach to updating and patching the game in order to make it a living system that grows and changes to match the players. So really, with an ever altering set of online source books one COULD make MMs that freaking huge.

Draz74
2007-07-11, 01:58 AM
If I ever finish Gyzaninar, you'll have a good deal of your answer ...

- Generic classes
- Spellcasting based on nerfed Psionics mechanics, and/or Tome of Magic magic
- Vitality and Wound points to make combat much more realistic (though still not perfect)
- Feats that allow warriors to do a lot of the same stuff as Tome of Battle, without including a whole new system for Maneuvers and so on

Talya
2007-07-11, 05:40 AM
Actually Talya, monsters are designed from the perspective that wealth by level is being maintained...

...and rolled randomly, by the DM, or at least DM assigned. The idea of being able to go buy anything you'd like is NOT assumed.

Encounters are wonderfully easy at upper levels if you get to go buy most of your gear under Wealth-by-level guidelines. That's when people start that extra layer of "optimizing." Which was never part of game design...

Kurald Galain
2007-07-11, 05:54 AM
LD&D 3.x, by making progression from Level 1 to 20 a normal result of playing a campaign, has broken many of the conventions that its predecessors operated on. That has had serious repercussions in terms of expectations, because Characters in (A)D&D above 12th Level were a pipe dream

That's baloney. Earlier editions also had normal levels up to twenty (including many of those nifty ninth-level spells, plus quest magic), and special things above that, and plenty of players who were using that based on the amount of information on it on the smallish internet back then. Heck, the Dark Sun handbooks had epic rules for transforming you into a friggin' dragon by level thirty or so.

What's laughable about that article is the extremely arrogant assumption that everything in a "regular-up-to-20" D&D campaign is four times as high-level (i.e. several orders of magnitude more powerful) than, say, Olympic athletes, or Illiad heroes, or anything from Middle Earth.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-11, 06:09 AM
I mean, 2.5 Million Experience Points? How many Greater Pit Fiends do you have to solo to get them?
Experience works differently in earlier editions. For one, big monsters were worth way more; for another, you got bonus XP depending on your character class, and fighter types got a substantial bonus for any monsters splutted.



It's a trivial task - like most such, the game mechanics actually expect you to be taking 10 when you do it.
You're proving my point again, which is that "taking 10" is a better mechanic for skill resolution than "rolling 1d20". Yes, many skils are way more binary. It's plausible to say "if you have five ranks in computer engineering, you know how to configure a given network card; if not, you don't" (direction sense worked that way in 3.0). It's not plausible to have anyone who cares to try roll an int check.



The system is an abstraction.
Yes, it's a backwards abstraction. The take-20 rules are based upon the mechanic of rolling a d20, and are thus a step further removed from reality, rather than a step closer to reality.



There are compilers (sorry, I should say programming suites
Please make up a better metaphor. I'd hate to say this, but from your example it's obvious that you don't know much about computer game design. At any rate it's way too complex, a better example for a craft skill would be writing a story, or pottery.


Minor Quibble: It is not 3rd edition that assumes that every class will stock up on +items and stat boosters from the magical black market.
I refer you to the list of "sample NPC classed characters by level" in the DMG. It does stock them with progressively better +armor/+weapon/+save things. But it's good that some DMs think otherwise.

Oh, and wrt the original topic, I would definitely ditch alignment. Heck, I haven't used alignment in my campaigns for over twelve years now.

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-07-11, 06:18 AM
Kurald: No kidding. I HATE alignments. I'm especially upset about restrictions to classes based upon them. Hell, multi-classing restrictions alone get me hot under the collar. I like players to be free to be what they will.

Morty
2007-07-11, 06:25 AM
Yes, alignments should be buried 6 feet under ground and forgotten about. Let's say NO to black-and-white objective moralty. Of course, it'd casue problems with Clerics and Paladins.

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-07-11, 06:38 AM
I think it makes for great story if two "lawful good" styled Paladins go at each other for being on opposite sides of a moral dispute with neither one losing abilities. because both are acting according to the tenets of their cause or god.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-11, 06:58 AM
multi-classing restrictions alone get me hot under the collar. I like players to be free to be what they will.

Heh. Check out 2nd ed. You can be a fighter/thief, but only if you're a half-elf, and only up to level 12. You can be an illusionist, but not if you're an elf. That was weird. Well, I never had any players who wanted to multiclass in those days, otherwise I'd have allowed them anyway. I recall a cleric/wizard char which kicked serious ass back then (because you're effectively one level lower at both, rather than half level).

That said, for some classes it does kind of make sense that you're not allowed to multi with them - most notably the paladin.

Matthew
2007-07-11, 07:04 AM
I must have missed where now in the game system 6+ is unobtainable by human means. This is a completely new concept introduced into this game. I believe this is because of the skill system.

Nah, it's the level system and the elimination of 0-Level Characters. It used to be that the vast majority of NPCs were Level 0, now they're Levels 1-5. Personally, I preferred it the old way, but now everyone has a Level and a Class.


Pffft!! You must have over looked the whole "1gp=1xp" part of the rules. But yeah, bout 10 years or so. At no point was there ever a concept of a "glass ceiling" even considered.

Sadly, that was only usual in First Edition, though there was the option to do so in 2.x as well. In Second Edition you generally got no experience for Gold, unless your DM decided to award them or used the optional rules and you were a Rogue. Warriors got a bonus of 10/XP per level for every Hit Dice of creature defeated, over and above the experience gained from the encounter, but that was it.
There was a glass ceiling concept introduced in High Level Campaigning, where it was officially recognised that Level 10+ demanded a different type of campaign from lower levels.
Anywho, yeah, there is a huge difference between getting a Paladin to level 18 over ten years and getting him there in eighteen sessions (which seems to be the norm now) or one campaign path.


Because until 3.x it was commonly believed that Arigorn would be around 15-18th level. Now, all of a sudden they're trying to claim "Oh, no, he was 5th" Just to justify the new skills system.

As Diggorian says, there were different views even then. I never really thought of Aragorn and company as being very high level.


That's baloney. Earlier editions also had normal levels up to twenty (including many of those nifty ninth-level spells, plus quest magic), and special things above that, and plenty of players who were using that based on the amount of information on it on the smallish internet back then. Heck, the Dark Sun handbooks had epic rules for transforming you into a friggin' dragon by level thirty or so.

Heh, but how many Player Characters did you actually run from level 1 to level 20? How many did you see get that high? There were rules for it, but it wasn't expected to be the result of playing one campaign path/arc.
High Level Campaigning was published to deal with the endemic problems of high level play (which was defined as Level 10-30), and pretty much recognised that it required a different paradigm.


What's laughable about that article is the extremely arrogant assumption that everything in a "regular-up-to-20" D&D campaign is four times as high-level (i.e. several orders of magnitude more powerful) than, say, Olympic athletes, or Illiad heroes, or anything from Middle Earth.

Er, what article did you read? That's not what it says. It says that up to level five the game models the real world fairly closely, after level five it doesn't. What's so hard to believe about that?


Experience works differently in earlier editions. For one, big monsters were worth way more; for another, you got bonus XP depending on your character class, and fighter types got a substantial bonus for any monsters splutted.

I'm familiar with the way it worked, the bonus was pretty low. 10 XP/Level per Hit Die or +4,000 XP at Level 20 for killing a 20 Hit Dice Monster [10 x 20 x 20]. It conventionally took a long time to get up to 10th level in (A)D&D. Probably ten times longer than in D&D 3.x (though advance rate was variable in (A)D&D). Even the really big Monsters, like Pit Fiends, only resulted in 60,000 XP, which when divided amongst the party is not much when you need 250,000 to go up a level.
According to the 2.x DMG, an average rate of advancement was 3-6 Adventures per Level, which roughly translates to 30 to 60 Adventures to get to Level 10 and 60-120 Adventures to get to level 20. Without an 'average adventure length', it's hard to say anything definitive about this, but it's clearly very different from the 3.x default advancement rate.

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-07-11, 07:24 AM
Kurald: I guess I really can't argue seeing as how I just don't know what I'd do to a paladin to make it appeal to me as a class in the first place. Maybe make it a template or something similar that can be used like a series of class variants.

DementedJester
2007-07-11, 07:43 AM
Most of the problems that I see coming up and be fixed with one simple thing:

http://mutantsandmasterminds.com/


Now I only have the edition that's copyright 2004... I know they revised the rules and power sets, looked like they made things a lot more complicated, which may or may not be a bad thing. In the meanwhile, mutants and masterminds can make for great fun, fast-paced action. One drawback, skills aren't worth the investment, which is an easy fix. Make them cheaper to buy.

otherwise, this feels like a thread with a lot of anger. Maybe that's just my perception, I dunno. Maybe it's cause I don't see the current D&D rules as broken. Has there been power-creep since the release and revision? of course there has. This is all easily Zero Ruled though. limit books available, have a smart DM. I like to think of it in terms of "anything you can do, I can use against you later" when I'm running games. Let the players pull out crazy, frenzied-berzerker, leap-attacking, shock-trooper battle-gods. Sucks to be mind controlled though, eh? Now that you are, though, best get about beating the hell out of your old friends.

And that's an extreme case. Or maybe not so extreme... start checking out third party publishers for stuff that's extreme in every direction. Over-powered? easy to find. Way under-powered? Also easy. And most of the time, third party stuff comes only in one of those two varieties. The stuff that's awesome flavor, but nobody would ever roll cause it's weak as hell and you'd get splatted by a semi-tough monster in a heartbeat, or the stuff that makes you king-god of Sigil the second you set foot there, as everyone around you bows down in recognition of your total awesomeness.

Having seen all of that stuff, I gotta say that what we've been given by WotC is pretty cool. Sure, level-based systems are kinda wonky. You want balance and accuracy? Play GURPS. That right there's a great system, skills matter, when you don't know how to do something you'll fail, whether it's gonna kill you to fail or not. You can get all kinds of supernatural capabilities with a wink and a nod from your GM, and you can have all kinds of fun. It's balanced in it's very nature. Every 200 point character will be the same, even if it comes down to versatility of one character versus the laser-fine focus of another. Everyone will advance the same, cause every point cost has been figured and re-figured over years and years.

Drawbacks? It'll take you hours to make a character, EVERY TIME. I'm not talking agonizing over the backstory of your tortured anti-hero. I mean coming out with the stats. Deciding which skills are important. Constantly re-evaluating exactly how good you want to be at something.
And if you're running the game, you have such an incredible depth of rules that you have to be aware of that it's nearly mind-boggling. That being said, once you're past the huge set-up time, you're golden. It's a system that plays pretty fast, lethality is reasonably well-represented, vampires are hard to kill, humans are scared of guns and intimidated by knives, but a hero can suck it up and come out with wits and bravado and take a sword to the lungs and get through, but not be too happy about it.


OR you could go the other direction. The Wildcard system, www.peginc.com is level based, designed to fit into any kind of setting you could want with only minor tweaking for personalization. Characters are easy to make, stories are fun, fast-paced. Mass combat is a no-brainer and no more time-consuming than one-on-one.
But your character is gonna be at least a little bit generic without a VERY significant investment in supplements. Everything you do in the game, GM or PC, will be at least a little bit generic. Hell, there aren't even really knowledges. You can say "my character probably knows something about that, can I get a general knowledge check?" and shooting a pistol uses the same skill as shooting a rocket launcher uses the same skill as shooting a bow.


Or even take a different direction, and go with http://www.white-wolf.com/ and their storyteller system. Any variation of this system is fairly balanced, although the NWoD is the most stream-lined and smooth. This is a great system for telling collaborative stories, where your characters make choices that affect the micro- and the macrocosm, but let's be honest here. A guy with three in dex and two in fire-arms is gonna shoot ok, and a guy with four in dex and five in fire-arms is gonna shoot better... but not really all THAT better. Luck is a bigger factor, botches happen to everyone, and werewolves will ruin your day, even if you ALSO happen to be a werewolf.


Or you can play D&D. Current edition, cause I'm in the mood to be specific. Making characters is pretty easy. Combat is pretty streamlined when you want it to be. Magic is cool, Gods can come down to have a chat with you, and when you're a badass, you're definetely better than most peole you meet, at whatever it is you do.

Drawbacks? Cats are a real and genuine threat to 1st level commoners and adventurers alike, and if you're sickly then Tabby is gonna eff you up so bad it might take days to recover. For the sake of ease, certain things couldn't be represented completely realistically. For the sake of balance, other things also couldn't be represented realistically. If you feel like really getting into it, combat can be a time-sucking she-hound, and it can be so unimaginative and lifeless that you might as well be playing Zork (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zork) at four in the morning while hung-over. When things manage to get complicated in D&D, it tends to be in some cascading, geometrically increasing manner, wherein even the calmest of us finds out that we've suddenly spent eight years getting a degree and have passed the bar exam, because we are the canniest rules-lawyers around. Magic is probably TOO cool... even though, y'know, magic is cool. Nobody plays a fighter anymore (except for a buddy of mine who has a die that will crit for him like it's actually saving the world. He doesn't care what he plays, so long as it gets to make attack rolls.), and druids can do everything better than you.


I'll now point out that some of those drawbacks aren't really D&D specific. Why is that? Why can't we simulate real-life perfectly through a series of physical random event generators?

Because that's dumb. We're here to play a game. If you crave perfect balance, go play chess or, better yet, tic-tac-toe. If you want realism, go DO it. We're here because we want adventure, we want damsels (or dandies) in distress, we want words to alter the fundamental laws of reality, and we want to be the ones doing it, by all the gods.

I've spent years and years bashing D&D. My first system was Deadlands, a wonderfully complicated to learn, easy to play, incredibly-flavored and well-managed setting/system/love. Eventually I broadened my horizons to other systems. BESM. White-Wolf. Even, eventually, D&D, and GURPS, and, gods-forbid any of you from ever laying hands on it, RIFTS. You wanna see a broken game that doesn't care that it's broken? Go play RIFTS. I could pump out a character in nearly any system in a matter of minutes, until I ran into that game, and it's rules were labyrinthine in nature to such a terrible degree that I sometimes wake up shaking, screaming out "No! Not another Percentile Roll to climb a tree!" like some Agent-Oranged vet coming into a heroin withdrawal. But still I disparaged D&D.

Then I started to really look at it. Yeah, alignment restrictions aren't always all THAT sensible, and multi-classing penalties are so dumb that I've never even MET anyone that actually used them. Maybe dual-wielding IS a lot easier to get in a hit with, especially against an inexperienced foe. Maybe AC IS kinda silly when you think about it, especially as hardly anyone really describes your plate armor protecting you from a blow, but instead simply states that "they missed." And sure, blunt-force trauma DOES bypass armors easier, especially solid pieces of metal. Maybe Bards are so silly to me and my friends that none of us have played one since 2nd Ed. And, gods, WHO decided in that one variant that pistols should be a ranged touch attack?

But I've had some of the most entertaining nights of my life playing this game. And that can be said for me about rpg's in general, too. But this one, and a few others, always stand out. Partially because of the Zero Rule. If you don't like it, fix it or throw it out. Partially because there's so much history in D&D. It's really almost like nerd esperanto. We can all connect to stories about D&D, we can all share them. That's what the d20 system is, it's not about perfection of system. There will never be a perfect system, because life is not perfect. No two people will always agree on how everything should be in every simulation and theoretical exercise. But this one is pretty darn good, and it means that I can share experiences with people, and relate to people, whom I would absolutely never have managed to without it.


Somewhere along the lines I found myself a soap-box and started making a speech. I'm probably well outside the intent of this thread now, for which I apologize. The main gist of what I'm trying to say, though, is that I wouldn't change anything about this game as written. I will always change things about this game as played, and that's as it should be. It's a set of suggestions. In my opinion, when you are looking at something in this system, and you can't get over the fact that you hate it, then what's the big deal? Don't use it. Or, even better, try and broaden your understanding of it. Try and think about it differently, come at it froma different angle, as it were. This is a skill that could come in handy in real life, too.


/soap box descended

Matthew
2007-07-11, 08:09 AM
Ah, Rifts. It took us a whole day to build three Characters. That game was awesome...

Kurald Galain
2007-07-11, 08:28 AM
Heh, but how many Player Characters did you actually run from level 1 to level 20? How many did you see get that high? There were rules for it, but it wasn't expected to be the result of playing one campaign path/arc.
Seems to me you're just making assumptions about how things were "expected" to be. I could make counterassumptions the other way, which would get us exactly equally as far. Based on the existence of high-level modules, low-to-high level adventure series, internet stories, and netbooks, I see no reason to assume that a smaller percentage of 2nd ed players played full campaigns from level one to epic. The absolute number is smaller only because there are more players these days.


Probably ten times longer than in D&D 3.x
Another assumption - based on what, exactly? In my experience it's 3-4 sessions per level, rising to 6-ish at high levels. Obviously this depends highly on the DM, but I doubt players will appreciate leveling only every ten sessions or so.
Incidentally, the rate of advancement for 3E Living Greyhawk boils down to about six sessions per level, on average, assuming you are succesful at all those sessions and get most of the XP. I suspect most campaigns run a bit faster than that, so the numbers end up remarkably similar.


Er, what article did you read? That's not what it says. It says that up to level five the game models the real world fairly closely, after level five it doesn't. What's so hard to believe about that?
The fact that up to level five it doesn't model the real world closely either, although admittedly it gets worse at higher levels. It's too bad the Joe Genero and Murphy's Rules strips aren't around any more, they'd have something to say about that.

Oh and yeah, most other systems aren't necessarily realistic either, but those systems tend to consider that no big deal since, you know, it's a game and all - whereas for some reason people insist on claiming that D&D is realistic, or good at portraying real world issues, or better at realism than those other systems, even when it blatantly obviously isn't.

The point isn't that D&D is bad, 'cause it's not - the point is that people are making spurious claims, and that leads to arguments, because this is the internet and all of us have nothing more important to do than discuss such vital issues :smallamused:

Matthew
2007-07-11, 08:35 AM
Seems to me you're just making assumptions about how things were "expected" to be. I could make counterassumptions the other way, which would get us exactly equally as far. Based on the existence of high-level modules, low-to-high level adventure series, internet stories, and netbooks, I see no reason to assume that a smaller percentage of 2nd ed players played full campaigns from level one to epic. The absolute number is smaller only because there are more players these days.

Not really, I'm asking a question. How many did you actually play from Level 1 to 20? How many did you see?


Another assumption - based on what, exactly? In my experience it's 3-4 sessions per level, rising to 6-ish at high levels. Obviously this depends highly on the DM, but I doubt players will appreciate leveling only every ten sessions or so.
Incidentally, the rate of advancement for 3E Living Greyhawk boils down to about six sessions per level, on average, assuming you are succesful at all those sessions and get most of the XP. I suspect most campaigns run a bit faster than that, so the numbers end up remarkably similar.

How so? If in (A)D&D an average rate was 3-6 Adventures per level, as the DMG indicates, how does that correlate with 3-6 Sessions in 3.x?
I didn't assume anything, I just said 'probably ten times longer', which is just a guess based on my experience of playing, reading Dragon and Dungeon Magazines, and what I gather from reading 3.x and (A)D&D Websites. [Edit] I don't know why you isolated that comment from its context.
[Edit]
Just for comparison, the last (A)D&D Campaign I ran was 90 Sessions or so over three years, with Characters progressing from Level 1 to Level 6. The players still talk about how great they thought it was. Of the seven or so fully fledged (A)D&D Campaigns I have run over the years, that was pretty typical of my experience.


The fact that up to level five it doesn't model the real world closely either, although admittedly it gets worse at higher levels. It's too bad the Joe Genero and Murphy's Rules strips aren't around any more, they'd have something to say about that.

Oh and yeah, most other systems aren't necessarily realistic either, but those systems tend to consider that no big deal since, you know, it's a game and all - whereas for some reason people insist on claiming that D&D is realistic, or good at portraying real world issues, or better at realism than those other systems, even when it blatantly obviously isn't.

The point isn't that D&D is bad, 'cause it's not - the point is that people are making spurious claims, and that leads to arguments, because this is the internet and all of us have nothing more important to do than discuss such vital issues :smallamused:
I don't get what you're saying here at all. Levels 1-5 are laid out in the DMG as being the levels that the overwhlming majority of the NPC population are restricted to. The Article presents some reasonable maths to show that Levels 1-5 can indeed model the real world reasonably well - i.e. for an abstract game.

To be clear, I'm not a big fan of D&D 3.x, it doesn't really 'do it' for me, but these claims are not spurious, they are supported by the game books and they are mathematically demonstrable [i.e. that the game becomes significantly less 'reasonable' after Level 5].

[Edit]
I am yet to meet one person who considers D&D 'realistic', I cannot think where you might have come across that claim. All that this article is saying is that there are degrees of realism within D&D and that they change as levels increase.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-11, 09:03 AM
I don't get what you're saying here at all. Levels 1-5 are laid out in the DMG as being the levels that the overwhlming majority of the NPC population are restricted to. The Article presents some reasonable maths to show that Levels 1-5 can indeed model the real world reasonably well - i.e. for an abstract game.

No, it can't, because by RAW an untrained non-agile peasant can walk a tightrope if he does it slowly, and a group of entirely unskilled laborers working synchronously can create masterwork items at a steady rate, and you can learn a new language in a single day, and an olympic-level athlete will fail at trivial tasks a disproproportionate amount of times if stressed.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-11, 09:10 AM
Actually, the peasant can't, because there's a penalty for failing, so no taking 20. Same with the untrained labourers. If you have enough, one will make something perfect (about 400 non-retarded laborers) (for a MW tool)

Matthew
2007-07-11, 09:11 AM
Well, you're entitled to your opinion of what is 'reasonable'. Nobody is talking about realism here, just what can be achieved within the context of levels 1-5.

Just out of interest, where are these Tightrope walking rules?

Nobody is saying it's a perfect system, just that levels 1-5 are reasonable approximations of the real world within the context of the game.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-11, 09:22 AM
Actually, the peasant can't, because there's a penalty for failing, so no taking 20.
So he could do it, but only if the rope is one foot above the floor. Point still stands.


Same with the untrained labourers. If you have enough, one will make something perfect (about 400 non-retarded laborers) (for a MW tool)
They weren't taking twenty. If you have 20 non-retarded laborers, one will simply roll a twenty. If they have +1 int bonus (not too unreasonable given random stat distribution) you need only ten of them.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-11, 09:30 AM
Actually, the thing about the peasents is the fail rate. If you have 10 peasants, one will make 40 gp worth of progess, 2 will get nothing done, and 7 will waste 1/6 of the base cost. Then, another week, 1 will make 40 gp progress.... etc. To make an item will take (Cost/4gp) weeks. But then they'll all be done.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-11, 09:55 AM
Thankfully, there are plenty of items that cost less than 40 gp including such niceties as hourglasses, chains, fishnet, average-quality locks, mirrors, whistles, tents, courtier's clothing, thief tools, saddles, wagons, studded leather armor, tower shields, tiny-sized scale mail, light crossbows, longswords, and dwarven waraxes. All of this can be created in a week's time by entirely unskilled laborers. And that's only because acid can only be made by a spellcaster, for some reason. That's pretty nifty, no?



Oh, here's a fun detail. Suppose mr. Average Unskilled Peasant is trying to make something simple, like oh say a bedroll, or a lamp, or a flask of oil, or ten of those leaden sling bullets we were discussing the other day. The craft DC of those nifties is 10. Now this guy with no attribute bonuses and no skill ranks has a 55% chance of succeeding, which means he'll be done within one or two hours depending on his roll (72-144 minutes to be precise). However, if he fails, he can't do anything else for the remainder of the day.

He can also roll by the week, which gets the progress done faster should he succeed, but he can do nothing else for the remainder of the week if he fails.

And of course, if Mr. Zero Ranks gets to take ten on this...

Arbitrarity
2007-07-11, 09:56 AM
Holy water requires bless water, and so can't be crafted.

:smallbiggrin:

Jothki
2007-07-11, 10:16 AM
If you want adventurer levelling to scale more smoothly and not lead to them easily becoming godlike, why not rescale the range of NPC levels to something much higher, and adjust the difficulty of skill checks to match? That way, you get both a wider range of abilities for NPCs and a way for adventurers to gain power without quickly becoming ridiculous.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-07-11, 02:42 PM
I would make low-end constructs NOT cost fifty thousand gp. I would make the Nimblewright more expensive.

I mean really, a level 1 human warrior skeleton is like 25gp. A level 1 human warrior effigy is 2,000gp for the body and 2,000gp for its hit die. This seems slightly unfair to people who want a horde of loyal minions without resorting to raiding graveyards.

Fixer
2007-07-11, 03:13 PM
I would make low-end constructs NOT cost fifty thousand gp. I would make the Nimblewright more expensive.

I mean really, a level 1 human warrior skeleton is like 25gp. A level 1 human warrior effigy is 2,000gp for the body and 2,000gp for its hit die. This seems slightly unfair to people who want a horde of loyal minions without resorting to raiding graveyards.

Being Good costs.....

Diggorian
2007-07-11, 03:41 PM
...and rolled randomly, by the DM, or at least DM assigned. The idea of being able to go buy anything you'd like is NOT assumed.

Given that to make magic items only needs level-required feats, and that high level NPCs exist plentifully in large cities, and that wizards can easily access and learn any spell in the game, and that even randomly generated treasure leaves the PCs with tons of surplus gold, it's a safe assumption that PCs can buy just about whatever they if they're rich enough and can travel far enough. I myself have houserules to prevent or hinder such, but that's me.

I play in a low magic item homebrewed setting at level 9, if the DM didnt tweak the MM monsters or choose fitting challenges given our party's capabilities, we'd have TPKed some time ago.


Encounters are wonderfully easy at upper levels if you get to go buy most of your gear under Wealth-by-level guidelines. That's when people start that extra layer of "optimizing." Which was never part of game design...

... but is a consequence of game design.

I agree with your opinion on this Talya, but not with your points.

horseboy
2007-07-11, 04:43 PM
Seems to me you're just making assumptions about how things were "expected" to be. I could make counterassumptions the other way, which would get us exactly equally as far. Based on the existence of high-level modules, low-to-high level adventure series, internet stories, and netbooks, I see no reason to assume that a smaller percentage of 2nd ed players played full campaigns from level one to epic. The absolute number is smaller only because there are more players these days.

Yeah, pretty much every "old school" player has at least one character that controls 2-3 planes of Hell, is a Time Lord (that started at level -3) became a lord in Ravenloft, or what have you. Mine couple of high level ones never quite made it that high level because I tended to DM more, and switched games out.


Another assumption - based on what, exactly? In my experience it's 3-4 sessions per level, rising to 6-ish at high levels. Obviously this depends highly on the DM, but I doubt players will appreciate leveling only every ten sessions or so.
Incidentally, the rate of advancement for 3E Living Greyhawk boils down to about six sessions per level, on average, assuming you are succesful at all those sessions and get most of the XP. I suspect most campaigns run a bit faster than that, so the numbers end up remarkably similar.

Pffft!:smallmad: They wish.
VERIntro6-cc Paper Chase, VERIntro6-02 Forest for the Trees, CORS5-02 Mines of the Eye, COR6-03 Riders of the Grave. One session, level 3. It takes longer to do the paperwork than it takes to play the mods. :smallfurious:


The fact that up to level five it doesn't model the real world closely either, although admittedly it gets worse at higher levels. It's too bad the Joe Genero and Murphy's Rules strips aren't around any more, they'd have something to say about that.

QFT. Plus the fact that in less than one game year of adventuring and suddenly your mundane character is nigh impervious to the laws of physics and physiology, that just screams something is broken here.

Matthew
2007-07-11, 06:10 PM
Yeah, pretty much every "old school" player has at least one character that controls 2-3 planes of Hell, is a Time Lord (that started at level -3) became a lord in Ravenloft, or what have you. Mine couple of high level ones never quite made it that high level because I tended to DM more, and switched games out.

Well then, perhaps me and mine are the exception, but I have to say I have never encountered any 'old school' players of this type, with the exception of the occasional Munchkin who rode rough shod over some hapless DM. Guess I'll just have to chalk that up to experience.


QFT. Plus the fact that in less than one game year of adventuring and suddenly your mundane character is nigh impervious to the laws of physics and physiology, that just screams something is broken here.

Absolutely it's broken, but the article is not calling that into question. D&D isn't a realistic model, everybody knows that, but it is more realistic at low levels than high levels, ergo the whole realistic fantasy characters must be low level argument.

horseboy
2007-07-11, 07:34 PM
Absolutely it's broken, but the article is not calling that into question. D&D isn't a realistic model, everybody knows that, but it is more realistic at low levels than high levels, ergo the whole realistic fantasy characters must be low level argument.

Or in other words "Because D&D is so broken, it can only be used at low level to describe realistic things".
Yeah, that would have to be fixed in my edition of this game.

Matthew
2007-07-11, 09:46 PM
Heh, it's been 30+ years and they have only succeeded in making matters worse, it's pretty much an unavoidable product of the Class and Level System.

Does anybody know what the level cap was in (O)D&D? It just occurred to be that the Basic/Classic Red Box D&D Game had a cap of about level four...

horseboy
2007-07-11, 09:52 PM
Heh, it's been 30+ years and they have only succeeded in making matters worse, it's pretty much an unavoidable product of the Class and Level System.

Does anybody know what the level cap was in (O)D&D? It just occurred to be that the Basic/Classic Red Box D&D Game had a cap of about level four...

Well, I've seen class level based systems that work MUCH better.

If I remember right:
Red (Basic)box 1-3
Blue (Expert) box 4-10
Teal (Companion) Box 11-15(?)
Black (Can't remember, Masters?)16-20
Gold (Immortals) 21+

Matthew
2007-07-11, 09:55 PM
Which sytems do you have in mind?

Yeah, that looks about right. I'm wondering about (O)D&D, though, i.e. this:

http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd/dd-obox.jpg

kjones
2007-07-12, 01:04 AM
The biggest problem in D&D melee combat is that wielding a weapon two handed whilst power attacking simply wins over everything else. WotC desperately needs to balance this combat option with sword-and-board, etc. (TWF is a pet peeve of mine, since any and all representations within D&D are extraordinarily unrealistic, not in a "this is a fantasy RPG game and I can do whatever I want" sense, but in the "that just doesn't make any flipping sense" sense.) There shouldn't be a "right" way to play a melee combatant. (Or anything else, for that matter, but one step as a time.)

This wouldn't really be a new edition, but what if fighters got Combat Styles like rangers did, only with more options available, and all those options were balanced? I know, I know, Tome of Battle... get off my freakin' back, you yammerheads.

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-07-12, 02:07 AM
The thing about ToB is that is presented a style of giving new options to melee characters, but that's it, a style. It isn't the end all, and in some ways it's a poor approach in that instead of focusing on what makes a front liner different from a skill monkey, caster, or heal bot, it bled them into all three. The ideal middle ground, I imagine, would involve overcoming the primary issues of mobility and limited options without going so far as to introducing abilities beyond Ex.

Rimx
2007-07-12, 01:22 PM
Well, I've seen class level based systems that work MUCH better.

If I remember right:
Red (Basic)box 1-3
Blue (Expert) box 4-10
Teal (Companion) Box 11-15(?)
Black (Can't remember, Masters?)16-20
Gold (Immortals) 21+

Actually, it was

Basic 1-3,
Expert 4-14,
Companion 15-25,
Master 26-36,
I'm not sure about the Immortals box, but the update Wrath of the Immortals had characters going 1-36 deity levels.

Diggorian
2007-07-12, 02:27 PM
The biggest problem in D&D melee combat is that wielding a weapon two handed whilst power attacking simply wins over everything else. WotC desperately needs to balance this combat option with sword-and-board, etc. (TWF is a pet peeve of mine, since any and all representations within D&D are extraordinarily unrealistic, not in a "this is a fantasy RPG game and I can do whatever I want" sense, but in the "that just doesn't make any flipping sense" sense.) There shouldn't be a "right" way to play a melee combatant. (Or anything else, for that matter, but one step as a time.)

I'm not sure that I'd agree that this is the biggest problem, atleast not to me ... yet :smallamused: , but a solution is easy to imagine.

Lets line up Power Attack (PA) with it's "opposite" feat, Combat Expertise (CE). PA = more damage for less hit. CE= more defense for less hit.

We can Nerf PA to match CE bettter: -1 hit = +1 damage for all weapons regardless of wielding style and the minus is limited to 5, not your full BAB. Maybe also raise the Str requirement to 15, since 13 is not a big stretch for a melee type to have unlike Int 13.

Or, we can empower CE to match PA: -1 hit = +2 AC if you're using a heavy shield and the minus is limited by your BAB.

For TWF, I could see a reduction in the Dex requirement for Improved and Greater. They should also to be compared with the requirements of Feats on the Power attack tree like shock trooper and the like.

horseboy
2007-07-12, 04:15 PM
Which sytems do you have in mind?

Yeah, that looks about right. I'm wondering about (O)D&D, though, i.e. this:

Good Lord, that predates even me, sorry, can't help with that one.

For some Heresy how about this for a mechanic:
Your character has a total # of hit points still. If they hit 0 you're uncon, if it's -10 dead. When you level up you check a chart with a sliding scale that shows how many hp each body part has. If that body part's hp are reducded to 0, it becomes useless, -10 mangled/severed. 0 in head or chest = uncon. Armour works as DR, Different armours provided different DR's to different parts of the body. Instead of extra damage, crits negate dr. Sneak attack provides a modifier to the roll of where you hit rather than extra damage. Massive damage (fire balls) would be clumped into 5 point or so clusters.
Exact numbers would be determined by ACTUAL playtesting, rather than what the Hell ever Hasbro pulls.

horseboy
2007-07-12, 04:30 PM
I'm not sure that I'd agree that this is the biggest problem, atleast not to me ... yet :smallamused: , but a solution is easy to imagine.

Lets line up Power Attack (PA) with it's "opposite" feat, Combat Expertise (CE). PA = more damage for less hit. CE= more defense for less hit.

We can Nerf PA to match CE bettter: -1 hit = +1 damage for all weapons regardless of wielding style and the minus is limited to 5, not your full BAB. Maybe also raise the Str requirement to 15, since 13 is not a big stretch for a melee type to have unlike Int 13.

Or, we can empower CE to match PA: -1 hit = +2 AC if you're using a heavy shield and the minus is limited by your BAB.

For TWF, I could see a reduction in the Dex requirement for Improved and Greater. They should also to be compared with the requirements of Feats on the Power attack tree like shock trooper and the like.

Hmm, or we could give a parry combat option that would allow you to give up an attack to try and roll higher than your opponent did. Shields wouldn't be affected by the rules for 2 weapon fighting for this and could possibly even provide a bonus, depending on play testing findings.

kjones
2007-07-12, 05:22 PM
The problem with embiggening Combat Expertise is that it hampers the fighter's ability to do the one thing he's good at: hitting things with a stick for MASSIVE DAMAGES. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but unfortunately it seems like it would be like all the other ideas for alternatives to a straight-up Power Attack-ing fighter: when you crunch the numbers, Power Attack is simply better.

There's nothing wrong with optimizing, but there shouldn't be a "right" way to play a class. This is why straight Fighters are thought of as boring. They can only do one thing, no matter what.

I just don't understand why it seems like nobody at WotC has figured this out yet. (Or have they?) If a feat is so good that there's no reason why anybody wouldn't take it (Power Attack, Natural Spell, etc.) then it's too good.

Matthew
2007-07-12, 05:32 PM
Good Lord, that predates even me, sorry, can't help with that one.

Ah well.


For some Heresy how about this for a mechanic:
Your character has a total # of hit points still. If they hit 0 you're uncon, if it's -10 dead. When you level up you check a chart with a sliding scale that shows how many hp each body part has. If that body part's hp are reducded to 0, it becomes useless, -10 mangled/severed. 0 in head or chest = uncon. Armour works as DR, Different armours provided different DR's to different parts of the body. Instead of extra damage, crits negate dr. Sneak attack provides a modifier to the roll of where you hit rather than extra damage. Massive damage (fire balls) would be clumped into 5 point or so clusters.
Exact numbers would be determined by ACTUAL playtesting, rather than what the Hell ever Hasbro pulls.

Armour as DR is quite good at low levels and makes virtually no difference at High Levels. Hard to decide. I tend towards granting Armour DR in addition to regular AC.


Hmm, or we could give a parry combat option that would allow you to give up an attack to try and roll higher than your opponent did. Shields wouldn't be affected by the rules for 2 weapon fighting for this and could possibly even provide a bonus, depending on play testing findings.

Active Defence is by far my preferred solution. Here's a list of Home Brews that've attempted to address it:

Talanic & Erk [Interception]
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44108
Tough Tonka [D20 Parry]
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38214
Elliott20 [Parry System]
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36139
Magic8Ball [A parry type feat]
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34053
Munchy [Fighter Parry Feats]
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23175&page=2
Matthew [Active Block]
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22979&page=2

I use an Active Defence Variant for my House Ruled and Home Brewed (A)D&D Game and it works great.


The problem with embiggening Combat Expertise is that it hampers the fighter's ability to do the one thing he's good at: hitting things with a stick for MASSIVE DAMAGES. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but unfortunately it seems like it would be like all the other ideas for alternatives to a straight-up Power Attack-ing fighter: when you crunch the numbers, Power Attack is simply better.

They just don't care. I suspect that they use their own House Rules in their own campaigns. I like the Star Wars Saga idea of dumping Full Attacks and Iterations in favour of Bonus Damage by BAB. Power Attack I would be inclined to scale back. All in all, though, this problem is the result of 3.x's upping Hit Points and Damage to compensate. Reducing Hit Points and Damage would probably be a more elegant solution, but it's not for everyone.

There's nothing wrong with optimizing, but there shouldn't be a "right" way to play a class. This is why straight Fighters are thought of as boring. They can only do one thing, no matter what.

I just don't understand why it seems like nobody at WotC has figured this out yet. (Or have they?) If a feat is so good that there's no reason why anybody wouldn't take it (Power Attack, Natural Spell, etc.) then it's too good.

horseboy
2007-07-12, 05:41 PM
I just don't understand why it seems like nobody at WotC has figured this out yet. (Or have they?) If a feat is so good that there's no reason why anybody wouldn't take it (Power Attack, Natural Spell, etc.) then it's too good.

It's not just Hasbro, other game companies have the same problem (example: Necron Resurrection Orb). As far as I can understand they must just consider it to be too intrinsic to the concept for them to feel comfortable with nerf batting.

Matthew
2007-07-12, 05:49 PM
Hmmn. I didn't write that. That was Kjones. Anyway, the 3.5 changes to Power Attack just weren't play tested properly.

Diggorian
2007-07-12, 05:56 PM
Hmm, or we could give a parry combat option that would allow you to give up an attack to try and roll higher than your opponent did. Shields wouldn't be affected by the rules for 2 weapon fighting for this and could possibly even provide a bonus, depending on play testing findings.

Personally, I wouldnt want to slow down combat by making it another option. I could see tying that Two Weapon Defense, maybe.

[EDIT-more info] OK, so Nerfing PA would be a better solution to most it seems.

I like Combat Exp cause I pair it with advancement in the Weapon Focus tree. Let's me get a big bonus for hard to hits foes, and allows be to swap out that bonus for Defense based on the scenario. Also, factor that in games I play in Magic Items are rare and random.

Matthew
2007-07-12, 05:59 PM
Hmmn. In 3.x that might be a problem. it depends what kind of variant you use. One option is to make it like Deflect Arrows and Block Arrow (i.e. Automatic).

Kurald Galain
2007-07-12, 07:06 PM
[EDIT-more info] OK, so Nerfing PA would be a better solution to most it seems.


Perhaps the simplest solution is to use 3.0 PA rather than 3.5 PA. It would seem that the "extra damage for two-handers" was inserted by someone who thought it sounded cool, just like the sling is a crappy weapon because the writers thought of a Dennis the Menace sling rather than a hunting sling.

Matthew
2007-07-12, 07:25 PM
You have to address Two Weapon Fighting when reverting to 3.0 Power Attack, as well. In 3.0, Improved and Greater Two Weapon Fighting had higher Base Attack Bonus requirements.

kjones
2007-07-12, 07:49 PM
Be that as it may, 3.5 TWF is a vast improvement over 3.0 TWF, and an even vaster improvement over 2.x TWF. I mean, sure, fighting with two weapons should be hard, but if you have to burn two feats just to get your penalty down to -2/-2, you're relegating it solely to the realm of rangers.

My larger beef with TWF is not that it is underpowered, but that nobody ever actually fought like that. If you used two weapons, the off-hand weapon was used for parrying, not attacking. It just doesn't make sense.

Matthew
2007-07-12, 08:07 PM
Not quite. As I understand it, the main benefit for Two Weapon Fighting was that you could alternate between how you employed the weaponry. It wasn't a static case of one hand attacks whilst the other hand parries. So, the idea of having two attacks from using two weapons isn't too bad, just fairly abstract.

The penalties in both 3.0 and 3.5 were pretty ridiculous. A good version lies somewhere imbetween 2.0 and 3.5.

horseboy
2007-07-12, 08:17 PM
Hmmn. I didn't write that. That was Kjones. Anyway, the 3.5 changes to Power Attack just weren't play tested properly.

Odd, it shows it at the end of your post. Weird.
What in this game was play tested properly? :smallfurious:

Matthew
2007-07-12, 08:21 PM
It's just like what Sword Guy was saying a while back about the way the game was intended and what the game facilitates. I have no doubts that D&D 3.0 worked fine for the guys who developed it and that can be said of just about any version of D&D. However, it didn't work fine for everyone. They changed a bunch of things in 3.5, but whilst they fixed some things, they failed to address others and made some parts even worse.

In a system this complex, it's no real surprise that it doesn't work when heavily playtested. It's probably the whole reason Rule 0 exists. Some stuff (like 3.5 Power Attack) is just inexcusably rubbish.

psychoticbarber
2007-07-12, 08:24 PM
To address some of the realism comments (I'm not going hunting for quotes now), I would like to say this:

Is it realistic for giant scaled lizards to fly, be intelligent, and breathe fire (acid, cold, etc.)?
Is it realistic to wave your hands, say the right words, let go of some stuff, and have magic happen?
Is it realistic to dance or sing and have your friend suddenly be better at picking locks?

I could go on, but I think the point is made. D&D isn't supposed to be realistic. Some rules do a poor job of modelling the real world, yes, but I think that what really needs to be asked is "Does this poor job of modelling the real world increase or decrease general fun from the game?"

I can't remember who now, but I read something written by a Science Fiction author who said "Be careful about using real-world science in your writing. Sometimes people will find it easier to suspend their disbelief about 'reversing the polarity' than they will about how things really work."

And never forget rule 0. If you want a more complicated, realistic system, go nuts, make your game like that. Or buy the Hero system. I'm quite familiar with it, and I love it, but it's a pretty big beast of a point-buy system where the first character you ever create can take upwards of 6 hours.

So I think that the argument should focus on not the realism but the integrity of the game as a game.

horseboy
2007-07-12, 08:36 PM
To address some of the realism comments (I'm not going hunting for quotes now), I would like to say this:

Is it realistic for giant scaled lizards to fly, be intelligent, and breathe fire (acid, cold, etc.)?
Is it realistic to wave your hands, say the right words, let go of some stuff, and have magic happen?
Is it realistic to dance or sing and have your friend suddenly be better at picking locks?
Within the parameters of the game we're discussing, yeah it can be.


I could go on, but I think the point is made. D&D isn't supposed to be realistic. Some rules do a poor job of modelling the real world, yes, but I think that what really needs to be asked is "Does this poor job of modelling the real world increase or decrease general fun from the game?"

Yes, when you're scratching your head going "WTF" every other round or so because it's not following it's own internal consistency nor does it appropriately define it's own reality, that only leads to confusion and I don't find confusion to be fun.


I can't remember who now, but I read something written by a Science Fiction author who said "Be careful about using real-world science in your writing. Sometimes people will find it easier to suspend their disbelief about 'reversing the polarity' than they will about how things really work."

Never heard that one. I am familiar with the one that truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.


And never forget rule 0. If you want a more complicated, realistic system, go nuts, make your game like that. Or buy the Hero system. I'm quite familiar with it, and I love it, but it's a pretty big beast of a point-buy system where the first character you ever create can take upwards of 6 hours.

So I think that the argument should focus on not the realism but the integrity of the game as a game.
In a game replete with "I WIN" buttons as this, integrity HAS to introduced. Why reinvent the wheel? The laws of physics work fine, why not model them?

psychoticbarber
2007-07-12, 08:45 PM
Within the parameters of the game we're discussing, yeah it can be.


Granted. I should have been more specific. I was talking about that in relation to "The Game being too unrealistic"



Yes, when you're scratching your head going "WTF" every other round or so because it's not following it's own internal consistency nor does it appropriately define it's own reality, that only leads to confusion and I don't find confusion to be fun.


Fair enough. I'm pretty open to what the game does around that that kind of stuff. I'm a GM of 6 years used to tweaking a touch on the fly, though, so that might have something to do with my opinion.



Never heard that one. I am familiar with the one that truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.


Essentially the same idea.



In a game replete with "I WIN" buttons as this, integrity HAS to introduced. Why reinvent the wheel? The laws of physics work fine, why not model them?

I've got no problem with that, what I do have a problem with is when the realistic interpretation of the laws of physics gets in the way of my fun. Which I would then rule 0 away, were I GMing, but I'm picky and I want something that strikes a balance between internal consistency and realism and something that I enjoy playing.

horseboy
2007-07-12, 09:26 PM
Granted. I should have been more specific. I was talking about that in relation to "The Game being too unrealistic"

Within the definitions of the game, no, it's fine. Why do dragons exist? So players can kill them.


Fair enough. I'm pretty open to what the game does around that that kind of stuff. I'm a GM of 6 years used to tweaking a touch on the fly, though, so that might have something to do with my opinion.

You and I have a GREAT difference in what defines "tweaking". For me, tweaking amounts to giving someone playing a t'skrang the first rank in swim for free. It amounts to just saying base hits is your con mod, used as a percentage of your Con score plus your con mod as a whole number. Having to go through with a big black marker and block out whole pages to make a game playable is not my idea of "tweaking". Having to go through and rewrite core classes to make them playable because nobody bothered to playtest them is not what I consider "tweaking."

psychoticbarber
2007-07-12, 09:58 PM
Within the definitions of the game, no, it's fine. Why do dragons exist? So players can kill them.

Entirely granted. Haha.



You and I have a GREAT difference in what defines "tweaking". For me, tweaking amounts to giving someone playing a t'skrang the first rank in swim for free. It amounts to just saying base hits is your con mod, used as a percentage of your Con score plus your con mod as a whole number. Having to go through with a big black marker and block out whole pages to make a game playable is not my idea of "tweaking". Having to go through and rewrite core classes to make them playable because nobody bothered to playtest them is not what I consider "tweaking."

I don't know, maybe we have a different opinion of what "playable" means. I haven't gone through to rewrite the core classes as a "tweak" (Though I am redoing the monk, I wouldn't call it a "tweak"). Perhaps it's because I and my fellow players don't often go with the optimized route. I'm not saying the optimized route is wrong, by any stretch of the imagination, but it's never been of great interest to me (even though recently I have been making some better "optimized" builds, but that's just to better challenge my players with).

I'll admit that as far as my pure knowledge of the entirety of the source material, I'm somewhat... lacking. I couldn't tell you what a t'skrang is offhand (but I'm the son of a librarian, so I could damn well look it up :smallwink:).

I don't really think you're wrong, to be honest. I just worry that taking D&D and making it "fitter, happier, more productive", uh, "better", could remove a lot of the fun for us more casual gamers who aren't looking for a complicated realistic system. Not that I don't get the craving, occasionally, but that's what I have the Hero system book for.

Swooper
2007-07-13, 10:37 AM
(up to 1600 PA damage on one charge!)
22,537 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=401662)* :smalltongue:

Google "Grim'n'Gritty". Should give you variant combat rules (I think it's from Samurai Empire or something like that) where armour bonus = DR, ACP goes to AC and your HP are really low unless you're big. You might enjoy it - I did.

warmachine
2007-07-13, 01:49 PM
I would have double the skill points and cross-class skills means max ranks is half normal but still costs normal. As a lot of useful skills, such as Spot and Listen, are cross-class for many classes, such classes become pathetic at them at high level, rather than merely outclassed by those who're meant to be good at them.

This causes minimal disruption to mechanics whilst making heroes more competant in out-of-combat situations and without breaking class niches. It would encourage fuller character concepts, such a Fighter who knows something about the nobility or a Rogue who is a multi-lingual con-artist.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-13, 02:02 PM
My attack was a basic (4HF pounce, leap attack, x4 PA ratio (with supreme power attack), 14 attacks, so a lot. Except I screwed up the supreme power attack, so it's actually a bit less :smallmad:).

Swooper, you link has the double Http:// problem.

horseboy
2007-07-13, 02:16 PM
I would have double the skill points and cross-class skills means max ranks is half normal but still costs normal. As a lot of useful skills, such as Spot and Listen, are cross-class for many classes, such classes become pathetic at them at high level, rather than merely outclassed by those who're meant to be good at them.

This causes minimal disruption to mechanics whilst making heroes more competant in out-of-combat situations and without breaking class niches. It would encourage fuller character concepts, such a Fighter who knows something about the nobility or a Rogue who is a multi-lingual con-artist.

QFT. After all, a fighter that worked in the military, or was a mercenary, would probably want some knowledge: Nobility, to know which one he was talking to, their preferred tactics and who pays best; who's army is that coming over the rise and are they friend or foe. All valid fighter questions.

Matthew
2007-07-13, 02:23 PM
The Skill System, Feat System and Magic System all need serious revision, sadly. One of the most fundamental things I would do is ditch Iterative Attacks, worst mechanical idea 3.x introduced. Star Wars Saga Edition is a good sign in that regard. I would also like to consider dropping the Combat Round to 3 Seconds.

Skjaldbakka
2007-07-13, 02:31 PM
My exprerience with trying to pick up two-weapon fighting, and talking to people that are good with that style:

1: It has a dex requirement, which I ain't got. I couldn't do anything other holding my off hand weapon pommel up as a shield.

2: 2WF is more of a counter-attack style. You attack, which leaves an opening. I parry your attack with one hand, and then use my off-hand to take advantage of your opening. All in one smooth motion, which the people I talked to could pull off, I can't. If I had a shield, I could do the same thing (block with shield, strike with sword). If I am strictly better than the other guy, I can parry and strike at the same time with just one sword, which is hard to do reliably against someone of equal skill.

3: 2WF can force openings, if you're good at it. I attack with one sword, forcing you to parry, then strike with the other while your weapon is occupied.

I didn't see a whole lot of "I attack faster by using two-weapons". They attack faster than me, but thats by virtue of them being faster than me, not by virtue of using two weapons.

Beren One-Hand
2007-07-13, 10:39 PM
I don't really have a problem with most of the mechanics in 3.x D&D. This could be because it was the first system I actually played in (I don't really count a trial game of Rolemaster MERP or L5R), but it works by and large fine for me.

One change I would make, however, would be to rework the classes so you could level-up as normal or via a character point type system.

This satisfies two different types of players, and once the groundwork for a character point system is integrated with the system it take a lot of the guesswork from creating new class, feats, abilities, etc.

kjones
2007-07-13, 10:54 PM
The Skill System, Feat System and Magic System all need serious revision, sadly. One of the most fundamental things I would do is ditch Iterative Attacks, worst mechanical idea 3.x introduced. Star Wars Saga Edition is a good sign in that regard. I would also like to consider dropping the Combat Round to 3 Seconds.

A 3 second combat round? IIRC, it was momentous when the longbowmen at Agincourt could fire one arrow every three seconds. A 6th level ranger can easily do three. That's one shot per second. Alternately, it would mean that you can move 30 feet in 1.5 seconds, and still have time to, say, cast a spell, or fire an arrow. While running, you could go 4x that, so that's 120 feet in 3 seconds. 120 feet ~ 36m, and seeing as the world record for 100m dash is ~ 10s, or 10m/s, 36 m/s in 3 seconds is 12 m/s, faster than the world record for an olympic level sprinter. And that's for a normal human!

Or would you have movement rates, etc.? In which case, why bother?

Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious. 2nd edition's 1 minute long rounds were ridiculous, I think 6-10 seconds is a good length.

Orzel
2007-07-13, 11:51 PM
Skills: I would definitely make many skills require more rolls. This makes nonmasters of the skill fail at hard task but effect the skillmonkey less. Mostly the trained only skills. The Complex skill system is nice but I's limit it to 5 rolls max.


Feats: I'd make a lot of feats into special actions that all character can use. Power attack, WF, Combat Expertise. Junk the numbers only feats. The remaining surviving feats would be flavor feats that grant or improve abilities like Improved Trip.

Combat: Ditch Iterative Attacks and make BAB more important. And a LOT more special actions. The whole ToB and psy/spellwarrior nonsense is caused by the low number of things you can do with a weapon and armor without feats, spells, powers, or maneuvers. Let me climb on giants and beat their skulls with a DM ruling or wasting a feat!

Matthew
2007-07-14, 07:34 AM
A 3 second combat round? IIRC, it was momentous when the longbowmen at Agincourt could fire one arrow every three seconds. A 6th level ranger can easily do three. That's one shot per second. Alternately, it would mean that you can move 30 feet in 1.5 seconds, and still have time to, say, cast a spell, or fire an arrow. While running, you could go 4x that, so that's 120 feet in 3 seconds. 120 feet ~ 36m, and seeing as the world record for 100m dash is ~ 10s, or 10m/s, 36 m/s in 3 seconds is 12 m/s, faster than the world record for an olympic level sprinter. And that's for a normal human!

Or would you have movement rates, etc.? In which case, why bother?

Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely curious. 2nd edition's 1 minute long rounds were ridiculous, I think 6-10 seconds is a good length.

Heh, well, obviously, a Character wouldn't be able to accomplish what he can accomplish in a six second round in a three second round! Keeping away from Agincourt for the moment (as the shooting rate was, as far as I know, not particularly remarkable), the idea would be to implement this in conjunction with dumping Iterative Attacks.

Essentially, Movement Speed would be cut in half and shooting a Bow would be a full round action (more or less). It's an idea I have been mucking about with in my House Ruled (A)D&D Game. The quickest shooting rate I have heard of is about 1.5 Seconds. I would probably allow a Skilled Archer to do that with penalties (which could be somewhat offset by Rapid Shooting).

The basis of the system would be Action Points and Available Actions.

I am also strongly in favour of some sort of Opposed Attack Roll mechanic, as is often discussed over in the Home Brew Forum.

kjones
2007-07-14, 09:14 AM
The only problem I see with cutting movement speeds in half is that you start disrupting the whole "multiples of 5" thing, which is fine if you don't use a battlemat but a PITA otherwise.

If you're a halfling wearing medium/heavy armor, or an encumbered human wearing heavy armor, you'd have a move rate of 15ft per round, which doesn't divide in half nicely. You'd have to round to 5 ft or 10 ft, the former is ridiculously slow and the latter is indistinguishable from his unencumbered cleric buddy who would "normally" have 20ft move in his full plate.

On another note, does anyone remember how the Parry mechanic from NWN worked? I remember it involving skill points somehow, and maybe opposed rolls...

Matthew
2007-07-14, 09:28 AM
Oh yeah, I deal with Movement slightly differently (so I forgot about that aspect). Essentially, I allow full Speed in all Armour Types, but with reduced Running Multiples, so:

Light Armour: Run up to Speed x 4
Medium Armour: Run up to Speed x 3
Heavy Armour: Run up to Speed x 2

Parrying in NWN is a Skill Based Opposed Attack Roll, as I recall (but it's been a while). Someone Home Brewed a version on the Boards once long ago... it met with substantial resistance.

[Edit]
Found it: Parry Skill (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25404)

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-07-16, 01:09 AM
The move thing makes sense, though that would mean that in heavy one double moves and runs at the same speed. :smallconfused:

Matthew
2007-07-16, 10:20 PM
Yeah, we all have to make sacrifices...

Essentially it means you cannot really Run in Heavy Armour, but you can Hustle. I find it preferable overall.

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-07-17, 07:56 AM
Also means that scouts will be really way the hell up ahead of the party. heh

Matthew
2007-07-17, 11:35 PM
I forgot to say that the Run Feat brings all the Multipliers up one step, so this:


Light Armour: Run up to Speed x 4
Medium Armour: Run up to Speed x 3
Heavy Armour: Run up to Speed x 2

becomes this:


Light Armour: Run up to Speed x 5
Medium Armour: Run up to Speed x 4
Heavy Armour: Run up to Speed x 3

Scouts shouldn't be any further along really, unless you mean something else?

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-07-18, 05:32 AM
I mean in terms of players who take the role of scouts during long distance travel on foot.

Matthew
2007-07-18, 06:12 AM
I am afraid I am still not quite following your meaning. Could you explain?