I hope that 4E never comes.

[Eerie]

Hmm...

Does it really matter in internet era? I downloaded all 3.5 D&D pdf`s in less then two days for exactly 0.0$.

You don`t have to buy any books, you know...

[Xuincherguixe]

I hardly endorse that sort of thing. Though, I must say it's certainly a good way to see if a book is worth buying before hand or not.

Still, these people have to earn a living. Not exactly like there's a lot of money to be made at this. Though Wizard of the coast might be one of the few that manages it.

[Stephen_E]

I can see this point of view, but I just like Clerics. Reduce their access to magic I'm fine with, ditching their warrior style, not so much. That's not to say I dislike Cloistered Clerics, just that I think you should have the option of which you play. Anything that further conflates the Paladin with the Cleric = bad, as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, I have a very precise view of how I want to distinguish Clerics from Wizards.

Fair point. I to like the cleric.
Just yanking those self buff only spells and giving them to the Paladins that should have them would do a lot.
Then a bit of knocking back thre magic in general. Maybe do it by slowing their progression down but give them more spells. Even just giving them a Sorceror progression would help, but I'd be tempted to put a couple more 3 levels before going to the next magic level. Have them only getting 9th level spells at 20th level.

The crucial part is that parties mustn't be forced to have a Druid/Cleric in the party for healing. There needs to be a reasonable after combat healing system (and I don't mean expensive potions). Positive hps are supposed to be mostly fatigue, scrapes and bruises. If you allowed Heal checks to recover hps to a significant degree, or some other mechanism people would only play Clerics because they wanted to, not the "it's your turn to play the Cleric" (and yes, I've seen that all to often. I've even been told "you play a Cleric to make up for your last character").

Some of the problems with 3.X that I'd like to see fixed in 4E is some of the class abilities like Evasion that they pretty much created for 3.X.
Evasion is a great ability and makes the low hp Rogue survive against area effect blaster mages. The problem in my book is that Monks and Rogues get it at 2nd level! Why do they get it at 2nd level? Are mages supposed to be bombarding them with Reflex save for half spells at that point. What this does is make it easy for PCs to dip 2 levels and pick it up. This means you neutralise the Wiz area effect spells which are almost all reflex save (Psions get around it). This menas you have to pump up the Wiz Save or die/suck that don't rely on reflex which then screws all the non-casters (the old chain of effects and unintended consequences laws).

Frankly I can't see any reason for a class to get Evasion before 4th level at the earliest. The Scout getting it at 5th is much more sensible.

Stephen

[nagora]

The crucial part is that parties mustn't be forced to have a Druid/Cleric in the party for healing.

Strangely, it seems to me that 3rd ed. reduces this need anyway with the big increases in hp. Even in 1st edition we rarely took a cleric with us after 6th'ish level, at least until the kids had grown up and one of them had decided to be a cleric; she tagged along but not because we needed a healer.

We did have a true-neutral cleric of a death god once. The god point-blank refused to supply heal spells unless they were for personal use (ie, self-only). Much hilarity and whining ensued from the rest of the party, but that's gods for you!

I think clerics have been pidgeon-holed by players over the years almost as much as by the rules, but anything which helps make clerics distinct from low-rent magic-users is always welcome.

[Matthew]

*stuff*

Honestly, if a Wizard relies on Touch Attacks, but is neglecting his Dexterity Score (or any other method of improving his Ranged AB) then he deserves to miss.

Tor the Fallen pretty much said everything I have to say on the subject. The whole idea is to give High Level Characters a chance to avoid being zapped by Rays and other Wizardly Ranged Touch Attacks.


I'm a bit confused why so many people are still attached to 2nd Ed. Now I haven't played 2nd ed in twelve years so my memory is a bit hazy but:

1. Most modern games have a single central way of resolving actions (roll a d20 and add appropriate mods and try to beat the difficulty, roll a handful of d10s equal to a relevant skill and attribute added together and try to get a certain number of high numbers, etc. whatever) while D&D 2end Ed is a bit mish-mash with d20s for this and d100s for that etc.

Yes, but this is a fairly minor concern. You could also say that the D20 is limited because it cannot model percentage chances outside of 5% increments (i.e. there's never a 1% Chance of doing something). Pretty much all AD&D Actions that aren't percentage based can be converted to D20 + Modifiers. It's just a method of expression and no big deal.


2. Most games either have highly detailed rules that cover a wide range of situations and potentialities (Rolemaster etc.), detailed rules that cover some situations while having very general rules that cover others (D&D 3.5 ed) or have really general rules that give basic guidelines to how to cover most situations (d6 Starwars etc.) both are good depending on the situations. 2nd Edition D&D has neither and has complicated Rolemaster-style charts for somethings (weapon speeds, saving throws, thief skills) and nothing whatsoever for whole classes of very common actions (sneaking about if you're not a thief). And not only that, but instead of providing very general mechanisms for resolving actions DMs had to make up whole new mechanics to resolve very basic actions, there no real conception of a DC, something that in one form or another you see in all modern RPGs. At least that's what I remember, like I said its been 12 years.

This is a very common complaint. Attribute Checks would be the default mechanism (modified for difficulty). An Attribute Check can be expressed like this: [1D20 + Attribute Score to hit DC 21]. Alternatively, a flat percentage chance of an Action succeeding or failing was applied. For the most part, though, the precise rules were left up to the individual DM. Some people view this as one of the most fun parts of the game, others not so much.


3. In order to make a game of D&D 2nd Edition work you need a DM who has a very good grasp of the rules and is excellent at making up balanced rules on the fly. If there's no rules for something like "I hide behind the box, does he see me?" and no general guidelines for resolving those things (like a DC system) the DM has to make up a lot of rules on the fly and then integrate them into the very rules-heavy bits of the rules that do exist. To do that well requires a lot of skill and I'm sure D&D 2nd edition is a lot of fun if you have that. However, all of the DMs I ever had in 2nd edition (and me when I DMed) were HORRIBLE at doing that and generally either made strange calls that unbalanced whole campaigns or were very very reluctant to let players succeed at things that weren't specifically spelled out in the rules.

Heh. Yes, this is a trend within these debates. People who defend 2e tend to have had good DMs, people who dislike it tend to have had very bad play experiences under poor DMs. There's no denying that 3e makes it easier for inexperienced DMs to run a game by providing a network of rules beforehand. However, this same network of rules some people consider to be a barrier, usually arguing that they are too complex or needless.


4. I really don't get where the concept that 2nd edition being more RPer friendly than 3.5 edition comes from. I don't see anything in the rules that encourages that, in my experience 2nd edition rules were confusing enoug that we had to look through the book for rules a lot more with that than with 3.5 edition which did a lot to break immersion. Maybe the players back in the day were better RPers, my group definately wasn't. The closest thing we ever came to RPing was a very mature 4-hour debate about how hot a female character with low charisma could look (we were in middle school, go figure). Also 2nd edition adventure modules tend to be hack and slash to the extreme, much more so than 3.5 edition ones.

Heh, heh. Okay, you have to be careful about conflating 1e with 2e. AD&D 1e is very much about killing things and taking their stuff. That was pretty much the idea of the game. Later on it tried to go beyond this, and 2e reflected that idea. All the same, many modules were indeed nothing more than hack and slash. To be fair, though, the number of 3e Modules available is far smaller than the number of 1e/2e ones and a lot of them do seem fairly focused on combat.
I think what appeals most to proponents of 2e is the freeform nature of the rules. Just about everything was optional and open to interpretation. Contrary to your experience, I never had to check the rule books during the game. Mainly, the 3e Social Skills come under heavy criticism as undermining roleplaying. In my opinion this is less to do with the mechanics than their application.


Maybe my memory is hazy after 12 years, I just don't remember too much good about 2nd edition mechanics. What am I missing?

Nothing really. It just depends on your preference for what makes a good game. Just like 3e, 2e isn't for everyone.

[Dausuul]

First: Dexterity is maybe a tertiary stat for wizards. INT/CON come first. I'd assume he'd have, at most, a 14.

Second: Dexterity is a primary stat for a rogue, however. I'd assume he'd put his highest possible into it. Lets assume this is an 18.

Third: The wizard wouldn't bother with +DEX items or +DEX stat ups. Why? They're really not needed. +INT/+CON is much more cost effective.

+6 gloves of dexterity cost 36,000 gp. That's less than 1/20 the WBL of a 20th-level wizard. For the +3 Initiative, +3 AC, +3 Reflex saves, and +3 ranged touch attacks, it's well worth it.

Sure, Int and Con are more valuable, but buying a +6 headband of intellect and a +6 amulet of health do not preclude buying the gloves of dexterity as well.

[horseboy]

Take a quick look at the eighth level spell list. No, seriously, open up the SRD, click over to it, and read it over.

Now tell me why an eighth level spell should be the norm for killing a single human. Which, by the way, has the potential to fail at killing said human.

Well, in 2nd it was because the BBEG had a magical resistance of at least 50% then saved against them on anything from a 2 to a 5. (after magical gear) The magic-users job used to be to clear the way for the melees by wiping out the hordes of faceless minions and lieutenants. Apparently they wanted him to be able to do more than just magic missile the BBEG, so they made it easier (too easy) this edition.

Oh, and Matt, I think I finally figured out what you've been trying to ask me (http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=d01430440d13ad01b30c207310a6c1fe). How did the people that got so high get so high? Conversion Shenanigans. This ties into a point made earlier. Yes, the xp tables were absurd in AD&D. However, if you go back an edition (to the box sets/red book, OD&D) The xp point tables are far closer to 3.x, allowing a much more rapid progression.

[Wolfgang]

Reading these forums, mainly.



About it seeming like every 3rd edition player plays high level: you're not getting that impression because everyone here is a cheesy power-gamer. I've never actually played more than a one-off where I was above level 9. There are two other very good (and I believe more-often-true) explanations for all the build threads and wizard discussions you see.

1. People enjoy mathematical and/or theoretical exercizes, especially on the internet where there's usually not a lot of common ground for debating things like roleplaying and character development. I myself enjoy making characters in many systems, with the full knowledge that I'll probably never play any of them. Combine this with the fact that people like to debate and argue (again, especially on the internet) and there you go. I'd say that accounts for 75%.

2. People are looking for advice on planning their builds. Just because someone is looking for help making a Class 2/Class 6/Prestige class 12 doesn't mean they're starting at 20th level. It could very well mean they're starting at 1st and just want to know where they should go, even though they'll probably never reach the end. 20%, let's say.

I'll give you 5% act as you say, for I am a generous man. :smallbiggrin:

[Pokemaster]

If you don't want to play in a campaign with a high-level wizard or sorcerer crushing everything, the only solution in 3.5E is to not play high-level campaigns, and I don't see how in can change in 4E. The Force Power Suite in Saga Edition is a massive, massive improvement on the RCR rules, but I don't see how it could be applied to D&D without making spellcaster absurdly overpower or completely useless.

The one thing they could do for 4E would be to get rid of as many base classes and prestige classes as possible and replace them with talents and a limited number of prestige classes that would differentiate between character types (fighters vs monks vs paladins, or wizards vs sorcerers, for example), but still allow a great deal of flexibility.

Wizards, for example, could have a Familiar talent tree (that would enhance their familiars), a Specialization talent tree (to boost their school of specialization) and the Spellcaster talent tree (that would allow them to memorize higher levels of spells). Throw in a magical equivalent of Use the Force, and you can basicallly have spellcasters that can multiclass however they want (which is just about my favourite thing about Saga). Now, a wizard could go for full caster progression and lose out on specialization and their familiar would be weaker. If they want to focus on enhancing their Evocation spells, then they'll get higher-level spells later.

I think I might start working on something like that, actually.

[Bosh]

Pretty much all AD&D Actions that aren't percentage based can be converted to D20 + Modifiers. It's just a method of expression and no big deal.
Right, but even expressing things in different ways make the rules more confusing and harder to pick up.


Attribute Checks would be the default mechanism (modified for difficulty). An Attribute Check can be expressed like this: [1D20 + Attribute Score to hit DC 21]. Alternatively, a flat percentage chance of an Action succeeding or failing was applied. For the most part, though, the precise rules were left up to the individual DM. Some people view this as one of the most fun parts of the game, others not so much.
I don't like this for the simple reason is that if you leave that much stuff up to the DM then you limit your pool of good DMs to people who are good at doing that sort of thing. For example I had one DM who was great at telling stories and making believable characters but every single time he tried to make a house rule it screwed with the game. With something like 3.5 edition or WOD he was OK since all he had to do was choose what difficulty something was and then let us role, if he played 2nd Edition D&D I would not enjoy playing with him at all since if that much stuff was "left up to the individual DM" would result in a lot of very bad rulings. Then there's another DM who's a good DM but would probably give into whiny players too much and if a lot of stuff was "left up to the individual DM" I probably wouldn't enjoy playing with him either, but he's fine for DMing 3.5 ed. Another DM I've played with is a very by the book player and he probably wouldn't let people do stuff things that aren't spelled out in the rules, so he wouldn't be a very good 2nd edition DM either. See what I'm getting at?


People who defend 2e tend to have had good DMs, people who dislike it tend to have had very bad play experiences under poor DMs.
Right. However I do think that 2e is MUCH more dependent on having a good DM than other game systems. This can be a problem.


However, this same network of rules some people consider to be a barrier, usually arguing that they are too complex or needless.
Well I agree that 3.5e rules can get complicated but you don't need complicated rules to have rules that cover every situation. Some of the simplest game systems I've ever played (d6 Starwars) had rules that cover pretty much every situation (in a very general manner). I just think that having very complicated rules for some things and then no rules at all for other things is bad design.


Okay, you have to be careful about conflating 1e with 2e. AD&D 1e is very much about killing things and taking their stuff.
I think I might be. Since posting the last post I checked a few things and I think that we played with a wierd mix of 1st and 2nd edition books which might make some of the things I say wrong about 2nd edition. I think what happened is that originally we had mostly 1st edition from a used book store but slowly switched over to 2nd piecemeil as we could afford to buy them. Make things wierd.


Just about everything was optional and open to interpretation.
I can see the advantages of this but it doesn't seem like I makes sense to have very complicated rules for some things and then so many other things open to interpretation. Seems a bit inconsistent.

For what you've been saying I'd LOVE to play a 2e game with a great DM but I just don't think that any of the people in my group (including me) would cut it as a great 2e DM.

I also think that one of the biggest reasons that 2e can seem better is that in D&D (of any edition) the rules break down at high levels and there seems to be more high level games in 3.5 (could never stand anything much over 10th level in any edition).

[Bosh]

As far as what I'd like to see in 4E:
-Good play testing, good play testing, good play testing. The fact that the char-op board people can spot a list of broken things as long as my arm within a week of every supplement being released is an embarrassment. In some cases (like giving barbarians the option of getting pounce instead of +10 speed at first level in Complete Champion) it seems like they're not even trying. If they don't do the PnP equivalent of a beta by giving out the rules to some of the smarter charop board people ahead of time to look over I'm not going to bother buying 4E.
-Fix multiclassing with casters. Right now if you multiclass a caster with anything else you'll either suck or you'll need to take a specific PrC in order to avoid not sucking. Seems kind of an annoying band-aid over a hole in the multiclassing system. Maybe allow every two levels you gain in another class up your casting level by one (up to a max of 1.5 times you class level in your caster class) so that a wiz 10/fighter 10 would cast as a 15 level wiz.
-Armor as DR and classes gaining high defense values as they gain level.
-Make sword and board/spear and board fighting viable, its silly that the most common fighting styles in history are so little used.
-Nerf magic good and hard.
-Make players less dependent on magic items and have them be fewer. Better a few cool powerful items than 15 little ones to keep track of for each character.
-Copy the Conan d20 maneuver system (cool little abilities that anyone can do if they meet certain requirements) spices up combat a bit.
-Make grapple rules less confusing.
-Good play testing, good play testing, good play testing.

[Talya]

very unethical corporation

Very wet water.

[Matthew]

Right, but even expressing things in different ways make the rules more confusing and harder to pick up.

I agree with you there.


I don't like this for the simple reason is that if you leave that much stuff up to the DM then you limit your pool of good DMs to people who are good at doing that sort of thing. For example I had one DM who was great at telling stories and making believable characters but every single time he tried to make a house rule it screwed with the game. With something like 3.5 edition or WOD he was OK since all he had to do was choose what difficulty something was and then let us role, if he played 2nd Edition D&D I would not enjoy playing with him at all since if that much stuff was "left up to the individual DM" would result in a lot of very bad rulings. Then there's another DM who's a good DM but would probably give into whiny players too much and if a lot of stuff was "left up to the individual DM" I probably wouldn't enjoy playing with him either, but he's fine for DMing 3.5 ed. Another DM I've played with is a very by the book player and he probably wouldn't let people do stuff things that aren't spelled out in the rules, so he wouldn't be a very good 2nd edition DM either. See what I'm getting at?

Sure, and I completely agree. The way that 3e works means that its easier on the new DM, though eventually he will probably have to House Rule something. It's a two edged sword, the more you codify what is and isn't possible by strict mechanisms the more you get into a 'rules centric' way of thinking.


Right. However I do think that 2e is MUCH more dependent on having a good DM than other game systems. This can be a problem.

Yep.


Well I agree that 3.5e rules can get complicated but you don't need complicated rules to have rules that cover every situation. Some of the simplest game systems I've ever played (d6 Starwars) had rules that cover pretty much every situation (in a very general manner). I just think that having very complicated rules for some things and then no rules at all for other things is bad design.

True indeed. Star Wars D6 was a lot of fun, though I always found the Advancement Rules a bit confusing with regard to specialities and such. The game was also a little bit easy to break through Character and Force Points, as I recall (though we might have been playing it wrong).
I don't really regard AD&D as having had a particularly complicated ruleset, but I might be biased.


I think I might be. Since posting the last post I checked a few things and I think that we played with a wierd mix of 1st and 2nd edition books which might make some of the things I say wrong about 2nd edition. I think what happened is that originally we had mostly 1st edition from a used book store but slowly switched over to 2nd piecemeil as we could afford to buy them. Make things wierd.

Yeah, whilst the two rules sets are technically compatable, it does require an understanding of both and a careful reading of some badly laid out rules.


I can see the advantages of this but it doesn't seem like I makes sense to have very complicated rules for some things and then so many other things open to interpretation. Seems a bit inconsistent.

The system was certainly inconsistant. In my opinion, it was the result of being designed for one particular type of play and then evolving to deal with various other types.


For what you've been saying I'd LOVE to play a 2e game with a great DM but I just don't think that any of the people in my group (including me) would cut it as a great 2e DM.

When all is said and done, a system is only ever as good as it's DM and its Players. The only way to get better is through an understanding of theory and an implementation in practice. Still, I agree, 3e does a great job of enabling less experienced DMs to run fun games.


I also think that one of the biggest reasons that 2e can seem better is that in D&D (of any edition) the rules break down at high levels and there seems to be more high level games in 3.5 (could never stand anything much over 10th level in any edition).

Absolutely. High Level Games of 3e are even more 'High Level' in practice, because a Level 20 3e Character is substantially more powerful than a 2e Character, making the old 'Orcs aren't a challenge anymore' problem even more acute. For the most part I play low level (1-10) in all editions, so I never really have to deal with it. High Level Games are one offs for me.

I pretty much agree with your above sentiments about what you would like to see happen to 3e, with one exception. Body Armour to DR is in principle a good idea, but I would prefer a compromise between the two, as in practice Body Armour doesn't just absorb damage, it also defelects and prevents blows altogether.

[Kioran]

The problem with armor to DR is that, in D&D, damage scales very strongly, so armor that is DR is either pretty useless even at mid lvl, or practically so strong you can ignore an almost arbitrary number of low-lvl attackes with it. While it makes sense, it doesn´t fit into current D20 mechanics and you´d have to rewrite half the combat rules before this works again - or accept than any numbers of low-lvl opponents quickly become obsolete.

To give you an example what this can mean: I´ve had a Homebrewed RPS once, some SciFi/Fantasy crossover with Firearms and Melee. To give the melee combatants even some measure of equality (my co-DM and good friend at the time insisted), I gave them armor with some relatively good DR so they could charge through a bit of fire and close with the enemy before dying. Problem is, as we noticed at higher lvls, almost all hig ROF weapons didn´t even injure the heavy tank builds, and the 2 most powerful characters in the entire games (there were about 15 all in all) were high Strenght, heavy armor melee builds. Weapons capable of injuring them were introduced, but were so powerful that they instantly killed most unarmored/low-lvl stuff, so I had to balance them as well - they took a lot of Action points to use (time in combat ran on action points, the number you got determined by Dex, the equivalent of Feats and your armor). All in all, the situation was unsatisfactory.
In the next rendition, most weapons (except some shotguns and light-caliber pistols) got an armor penetration score which is subtracted from the DR before the DR was applied, so you could use armor piercing weapons/ammo without instantly killing anything.

4th ed would need something similiar if it were to incorporate DR-armor. A way to bypass the DR without dealing insane damage or using adamantine weapons.

[nagora]

I don't really regard AD&D as having had a particularly complicated ruleset, but I might be biased.


I think that some people who are unused to the idea of the rules being subject to the DM as opposed to the other way around see AD&D as complicated whereas it really was simpler than 3rd but had lots and lots of hints, help, and suggestions for the DM, who was expected and encouraged to make the game work for them and their players. That's really what all those "unrelated systems" were - advice - and that's the sort of complexity I like.

3rd relies on a too simplistic mechanism (the d20 roll Vs a DC) to model may things consistantly and simply, but badly. A difference in 5 class levels is an almost sure win for the higher level character but a difference of 5 in a skill roll is nothing like as sure a win. For skills it works out at about 72%'s - not bad, but a 5th level <any class> against a 10th level <same class> is wildly more favourable to the 10th level than that. And I think, looking at chess masters and top athletes, the class system is much closer to reallity. I wonder if this is actually at the root of the level inflation in 3rd edition; I've often felt that there is a huge disjunction between the class and skill systems.

Real life can't be simulated by any simple consistant system, fantasy life still less so. If 4th edition faced this fact then a better game might be the result, even at the expense of being a little more (but enjoyable) reading for the DM.

[Indon]

Think about console RPGs. Blasting works because instant-kills and other such things never do for the party.

"Hey, you remember that instant-death spell that always worked on us? Well, I know it now!"

"Delificate!"
*Miss!*
"Delificate!"
*Miss!*
"Delificate!"
*Miss!*
"..."

[Bosh]

It's a two edged sword, the more you codify what is and isn't possible by strict mechanisms the more you get into a 'rules centric' way of thinking.
Well probably the campaign in which I spent the least amount of time thinking about rules was my d6 Starwars one (you're right character advancement and force rules are pretty broken) and it had rules for everything. Just very very simple rules. Worked out well and was fun since we spent the end of pretty much every adventure running for our lives which was a good change of pace from D&D...


The problem with armor to DR is that, in D&D, damage scales very strongly, so armor that is DR is either pretty useless even at mid lvl, or practically so strong you can ignore an almost arbitrary number of low-lvl attackes with it.
Well Iron Heroes give you variable DR (ie 1d8 DR instead of 4) which fixes that problem but adds in extra rolling. And Conan d20 lets you use Finesse attacks to get around instead of through armor (basically if you use weapon Finesse the DR functions like D&D armor instead of DR) and various means of armor piercing. The Conan system worked fairly well in my campaign...


Real life can't be simulated by any simple consistant system, fantasy life still less so.
So? Simple consistent systems can be a lot of fun even if they're not good simulators. I'm looking forward a lot to the upcoming Fate campaign that I'll be playing in.

[nagora]

Well Iron Heroes give you variable DR (ie 1d8 DR instead of 4) which fixes that problem but adds in extra rolling. And Conan d20 lets you use Finesse attacks to get around instead of through armor (basically if you use weapon Finesse the DR functions like D&D armor instead of DR) and various means of armor piercing. The Conan system worked fairly well in my campaign...

Given the level of technology and magic in Howard's Conan stories I can't see any need to bother with such complexities (almost no magical armour and chainmail is the top of the technology tree, so max AC is in the 4-2 range, usually worse); the original D&D pretty well was designed for Conan (much moreso than for LotR).


So? Simple consistent systems can be a lot of fun even if they're not good simulators.

If you just want instant fun then, yes. If you want an immersive system that encourages role-playing then consistancy of mechanic is suicide unless the DM has the nerve to step in and basically judge every roll as a special case. This is a perfectly good way to DM and ultimately leads to the simplest system of all: the "roll these dice, high is good, low is bad, and I'll tell you what happened". Which is simple but not at all consistant, and very dependant on getting a good DM.

[Dausuul]

If you just want instant fun then, yes. If you want an immersive system that encourages role-playing then consistancy of mechanic is suicide unless the DM has the nerve to step in and basically judge every roll as a special case.

GM judgement is always required. No matter how complicated your system, there will always be cases where the results just don't make sense and the GM has to adjudicate. That's a large part of why we have human GMs.

Furthermore, the internal consistency of the system has nothing to do with how much adjudication is needed. That's a function of how detailed, precise, and realistic the system is. GURPS is way more realistic than any D&D system ever dreamed of being, but it's also highly internally consistent; it just has a table and a list of modifiers for everything under the sun.

Finally, "immersive" and "realistic" are two very, very different things. Personally, I find systems to be far less immersive if I spend all my time crunching numbers and looking things up--every time I have to crack open the rulebook, it's a reminder that I'm playing a game.

(Oh... and are you actually claiming that 2E's mechanics are so comprehensive and realistic as to require less adjudication than 3E's?)

[nagora]

GM judgement is always required. No matter how complicated your system, there will always be cases where the results just don't make sense and the GM has to adjudicate. That's a large part of why we have human GMs.

Absolutely.


Furthermore, the internal consistency of the system has nothing to do with how much adjudication is needed.

By "consistant" I was really referring to the idea that the same mechanic is used in many places, not internal logic. The more one mechanic is used the more adjudication is needed because one mechanic can not hope to cover all possibilities.



That's a function of how detailed, precise, and realistic the system is. GURPS is way more realistic than any D&D system ever dreamed of being, but it's also highly internally consistent; it just has a table and a list of modifiers for everything under the sun.

That's logical consistancy rather than mechanical consistancy (I think; I've not played GURPS so I might be misinterpreting what you're saying).


Finally, "immersive" and "realistic" are two very, very different things.

If a game can not make me feel that the person I'm playing is real then it is not immersive and is going to fail utterly when it asks me to believe that a huge ancient red dragon is real.


Personally, I find systems to be far less immersive if I spend all my time crunching numbers and looking things up--every time I have to crack open the rulebook, it's a reminder that I'm playing a game.

Players should almost never have to look at a rule book in any system; that's the DM's job. In D&D, the player's use of the rulebooks should be almost completely limited to character generation, looking up spell effects, and seeing if they've reached their next level. Everything else should be on the character sheet.


(Oh... and are you actually claiming that 2E's mechanics are so comprehensive and realistic as to require less adjudication than 3E's?)

I'm still not arguing anything about 2nd ed since I've never even seen it. I am saying that if a single resolution system is used for everything then the DM has two options: overrule a lot or let stupid decisions slide by saying "it's just a game and that's the way the game works", which is the ultimate cop-out for a DM and why this post:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2809796#post2809796

pretty well defines my idea of a bad DM. If bad rules (or bad application of rules) trump building a believable world then the role-playing is doomed from the start. 3rd edition seems to encourage exactly that sort of thinking because of its mania for boardgame-like rules. The result is less DM intervention, sure, but the price is paid for in the quality of the game.

[Jayabalard]

That's a function of how detailed, precise, and realistic the system is. GURPS is way more realistic than any D&D system ever dreamed of being, but it's also highly internally consistent; it just has a table and a list of modifiers for everything under the sun.
That's logical consistancy rather than mechanical consistancy (I think; I've not played GURPS so I might be misinterpreting what you're saying).
It's pretty mechanically consistent as well.

Based off of 3rd ed GURPS:
-GURPS uses only d6, no other dice.

-All checks are done by rolling 3d6, Success if you roll equal to or under the target number; failure otherwise
-all modifiers are applied to the target number, rather than some to the roll and some to the target number.
-critical success if you roll a 3, or if you roll more than 10 under your skill.
-critical failure if you roll an 18, or if you roll 10 over your skill
-17 is always a failure

-Some skills (magic & psionics iirc, maybe others) always fail on a 16, and critical fail on a 17.

-Damage is based off of your strength, modified by the weapon.

[lord_khaine]

Players should almost never have to look at a rule book in any system; that's the DM's job. In D&D, the player's use of the rulebooks should be almost completely limited to character generation, looking up spell effects, and seeing if they've reached their next level. Everything else should be on the character sheet
actualy, when a rules question poppet up we found it much better to let a player look it up, while the DM moved on to what the other players was doing.


I'm still not arguing anything about 2nd ed since I've never even seen it. I am saying that if a single resolution system is used for everything then the DM has two options: overrule a lot or let stupid decisions slide by saying "it's just a game and that's the way the game works", which is the ultimate cop-out for a DM and why this post:

there is nothing wrong with saying its just a game, it keeps the world consistent and more beliveable than if the rules constantly change depending on the mood of the DM.


pretty well defines my idea of a bad DM. If bad rules (or bad application of rules) trump building a believable world then the role-playing is doomed from the start. 3rd edition seems to encourage exactly that sort of thinking because of its mania for boardgame-like rules. The result is less DM intervention, sure, but the price is paid for in the quality of the game.
yeah that also defines one of the versions of a bad dm, someone who focus more on nit-picking on the rules than the overall story.
of course, one of the other things to ruin a game is people who think they are somehow better because they "role-play" instead of having fun.
the less time the DM waste on constant rule interventions, like suddenly denying some poor rogue a reflex save, the better the quality of the game.

[Dausuul]

By "consistant" I was really referring to the idea that the same mechanic is used in many places, not internal logic. The more one mechanic is used the more adjudication is needed because one mechanic can not hope to cover all possibilities.

I know what you meant. I disagree, however, which was why I brought up GURPS; you roll 3d6 for just about everything there. And it models all sorts of things quite well.

When you get right down to it, when you're rolling dice, you have two choices: bell curve or straight line. Just about every dice mechanic I have ever seen in an RPG follows one of those two patterns. So all that a consistent mechanic does is change "fifteen different bell curves generated fifteen different ways" to "one bell curve with fifteen modifiers depending on situation."


I'm still not arguing anything about 2nd ed since I've never even seen it. I am saying that if a single resolution system is used for everything then the DM has two options: overrule a lot or let stupid decisions slide by saying "it's just a game and that's the way the game works", which is the ultimate cop-out for a DM and why this post:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2809796#post2809796

pretty well defines my idea of a bad DM. If bad rules (or bad application of rules) trump building a believable world then the role-playing is doomed from the start. 3rd edition seems to encourage exactly that sort of thinking because of its mania for boardgame-like rules. The result is less DM intervention, sure, but the price is paid for in the quality of the game.

The problem brought up in that post has nothing to do with consistent mechanics and everything to do with D&D's unfortunate habit of having rules that are written without a firm grounding in the reality of the game world. I mean... what is a hit point? It's never made clear and I have yet to see a good in-game explanation for hit points that fits the rules. (Lots of people claim that hit points are supposed to represent fighting skill and ability to avoid damage, yet they never seem to consider the fact that you keep all your hit points when you're unconscious or paralyzed...)

[Arbitrarity]

The problem brought up in that post has nothing to do with consistent mechanics and everything to do with D&D's unfortunate habit of having rules that are written without a firm grounding in the reality of the game world. I mean... what is a hit point? It's never made clear and I have yet to see a good in-game explanation for hit points that fits the rules. (Lots of people claim that hit points are supposed to represent fighting skill and ability to avoid damage, yet they never seem to consider the fact that you keep all your hit points when you're unconscious or paralyzed...)


Coup-de-grace!

Not anymore, have hit points you do! :smallbiggrin:

[Dausuul]

Coup-de-grace!

Not anymore, have hit points you do! :smallbiggrin:

Unless the coup de grace is performed by a wizard with a dagger and a Strength of 8, in which case you take a grand total of 6 points of damage and can survive with a DC 16 Fort save. If you're a decent-level fighter with a good Con, that wizard is gonna have to saw on your throat for upwards of a minute before you die...

Not to mention that you still take normal damage from any other source, e.g., falling off a cliff.

[Arbitrarity]

That's because the wizard is so weak that his pathetic attempt to slit your throat doesn't work well at all, and you're so tough that you can take a bit of bleeding in the neck :smallwink:

Now, paralyzed and falling is a different story. I'm not gonna try to justify that one in this manner.

[Kioran]

I think there´s little in the way of replacement for HP that wouldn´t slow down the game considerably. I´d say it´s a small sacrifice to ignore the unrealism of it all to keep the game fluent, but maybe that´s just me.
For me, HP always stood for a combination of combat skill(Fighter HP) to mitigate smaller wounds, instinctive self preservation and reflexes (Rogues, Monks, but also Fighters and Barbs), a somewhat increased tolerance to damage(CON modifier), but lastly, and most importantly, an increasing bounty of dumb luck and divine handwavium.....
Conversely, increased damage, especially precision based, is the capability to bypass instinctive defenses or active defense through combat skill.

I do, however, insist that any loss of HP means injury - be it ever so slight. You might have lost only 3 of you 117 HP - that still means you have at least some scratches.

[nagora]

Unless the coup de grace is performed by a wizard with a dagger and a Strength of 8, in which case you take a grand total of 6 points of damage and can survive with a DC 16 Fort save. If you're a decent-level fighter with a good Con, that wizard is gonna have to saw on your throat for upwards of a minute before you die...


Another example of where 1st edition's separate rules for separate cases wins out.

[nagora]

of course, one of the other things to ruin a game is people who think they are somehow better because they "role-play" instead of having fun.

It said "role-playing game" on the door, I expect a (fun) role-playing game. If I want a fun board-game I'll play Settlers of Catan and not debate the realities of building towns with sheep.


the less time the DM waste on constant rule interventions, like suddenly denying some poor rogue a reflex save, the better the quality of the game.

I don't recall anyone suggesting any such thing. Perhaps someone failed their Read <Plain English> roll.

[Bosh]

Given the level of technology and magic in Howard's Conan stories I can't see any need to bother with such complexities (almost no magical armour and chainmail is the top of the technology tree, so max AC is in the 4-2 range, usually worse); the original D&D pretty well was designed for Conan (much moreso than for LotR).
I don't have my rulebook in front of me but IIRC it went up to 8 for full plate. In order to get around it you could finesse attack or use armor piercing to halve it to 4 DR. Worked fairly well but the RAW made heavier armor a bit overpower so I scrapped max dex to armor and gave heavier armor give people penalties to hit and to defense (since you can't move around well), that could be mitigated by a set of feats. It worked out great in my campaign. The party all went from leather and helmets like the good Vikings here were but most of them tended to avoid armor bulkier than masterwork chainmail since it was too bulky for a lot of the adventures.


If you just want instant fun then, yes.
Yes, I like games to be fun.


If you want an immersive system that encourages role-playing then consistancy of mechanic is suicide unless the DM has the nerve to step in and basically judge every roll as a special case.
I don't see why this would be the case. If anything there was quite a bit less direct GM intervention in the rules in the Starwars d6 campaign I played in than in most D&D situations since the rules were boarder and could thus cover more random/specific situations than the more specific D&D rules.

It wasn't realistic at all but it was highly immersive.


The more one mechanic is used the more adjudication is needed because one mechanic can not hope to cover all possibilities.
Why not? Roll the same number of d6 dice as you have ranks in the appropriate skill worked great for d6 Starwars (don't want to pimp the system, it had plenty of problems, but the basic d6 mechanic worked beautifully).


If a game can not make me feel that the person I'm playing is real then it is not immersive and is going to fail utterly when it asks me to believe that a huge ancient red dragon is real.
Well if you like action movie style combat over wargame style combat then you don't need realism for it to be immersive.

[Cybren]

Another example of where 1st edition's separate rules for separate cases wins out.

Or how about a logical "given that HP is an abstraction, I should just automatically kill him since I clearly put a piece of metal in his lungs." and eschew dice rolls and numbers altogether in that situation.

[nagora]

Or how about a logical "given that HP is an abstraction, I should just automatically kill him since I clearly put a piece of metal in his lungs." and eschew dice rolls and numbers altogether in that situation.

Which is the 1e system for held or magically sleeping opponents. Normally sleeping had a chance to wake up in time to take action.

[lord_khaine]

I don't recall anyone suggesting any such thing. Perhaps someone failed their Read <Plain English> roll.

ohh, i newer said anyone have suggestet such a thing, maybe you should but a few ranks into that skill yourself?

[Tor the Fallen]

ohh, i newer said anyone have suggestet such a thing, maybe you should but a few ranks into that skill yourself?

Ranks in the write english skill wouldn't be amiss.

[lord_khaine]

well tor the fallen, if you would care to think before you wrote, then it should be possible to see, that both syntax and spelling is at a level that allow most people to understand the message without problems, suggesting either a few ranks in something thats a cross-nationality skill, or a insane stat bonus.

[ChrisMcDee]

Or how about a logical "given that HP is an abstraction, I should just automatically kill him since I clearly put a piece of metal in his lungs." and eschew dice rolls and numbers altogether in that situation.
Absolutely. This is just one of those situations where the rules have to take a backseat to common sense.

[Gnorosch]

4. I really don't get where the concept that 2nd edition being more RPer friendly than 3.5 edition comes from. I don't see anything in the rules that encourages thatPerhaps I can clarify this:

1) Presentation In AD&D 2nd edition, there was a column about how to play your character well and that high attributes are not truly that important for playing your character. They even gave examples on how to interpret your scores and what a mediocre character could still accomplish. You will find none of this in 3.x, quite the opposite - there are columns on how to stat your character to make him most efficient.

2) Rules There were simply no rules for social conflict or character diversification. You had to play it.

That does not change the fact that the basic d20 system is way better than the AD&D rules (as every grognard who switches to Castles & Crusades acknowledges). The problem are several of the additional rules in 3.5, which simply break it for those who had a good DM and learnt well AD&D behaviour in their group.

[nagora]

That does not change the fact that the basic d20 system is way better than the AD&D rules

I can't see any way to back that up. For example, in reference to combat, which is a big deal in D&D, 3e simply sucks with its critical hits and threats, mechanical movement, short rounds, attacks of opportunity (dear god!), feats, and different classes of action, to day nothing of the buckets of hit points thrown everywhere. The amount of time and space wasted on a more detailed combat system and the end result is less realistic than the old one while being harder to play and DM; what was the point of that?

It's an abomination!

Meanwhile magic is more unbalanced than in 1e, where it was already a niggle at high levels. Any attempt to rebalance classes is defeated by the idiotic "one xp table for every class" rule, many role-playing activities are delinated by crude d20 feats, and skills too are tramelled by a one-size-fits-all d20 rule that is grossly out of whack with the combat system.

So: combat, magic, game-balance, skills, and role-playing options are all worse in 3e. What's left that makes it better?

I think you'd better take that as a rhetorical question. This thread is not going anyware as regards anyone here even trying 1st ed to see how much better it was, which to my mind is the real answer to the question of what 4th ed should be like: go back and work out what got screwed up when Williams and the gang were given someone else's game to ruin and start from there. There's plenty of scope to improve on 1st ed AD&D without ending up with the rubbish that is currently being peddled by WotC.

[Matthew]

I think he's talking about the upward scaling mechanic [i.e. D20 + X to hit DC Y]. Of course, 2e had the exact same calculation, it was just expressed differently and it also had alternative probability generators that allowed you to express possibilities outside of 5% increments. All the same, I do prefer the upward scaling mechanic and was using it before I was even introduced to 3e. The degree to which it is better, however, is not particularly great, it's really just a bit easier.

[Stephen_E]

I think you'd better take that as a rhetorical question. This thread is not going anyware as regards anyone here even trying 1st ed to see how much better it was, which to my mind is the real answer to the question of what 4th ed should be like: go back and work out what got screwed up when Williams and the gang were given someone else's game to ruin and start from there. There's plenty of scope to improve on 1st ed AD&D without ending up with the rubbish that is currently being peddled by WotC.

In 25 years I've played 1st Ed, 2nd Ed, 2.5 Ed, 3rd Ed and 3.5 Ed.
I've enjoyed them all but frankly I wouldn't go back by choice. We houseruled 1st and 2nd far more than 3,5 to get an enjoyable game (and stories of brokenly powerful groups/characters were far more common in 1st and 2nd Ed).

Regardless of tastes the only thing I think I'm pretty save in prophesying re:4.0 is that it isn't going to involve going back to 1st Ed and starting from there.

Stephen

[Telonius]

I can't see any way to back that up. For example, in reference to combat, which is a big deal in D&D, 3e simply sucks with its critical hits and threats, mechanical movement, short rounds, attacks of opportunity (dear god!), feats, and different classes of action, to day nothing of the buckets of hit points thrown everywhere. The amount of time and space wasted on a more detailed combat system and the end result is less realistic than the old one while being harder to play and DM; what was the point of that?

It's an abomination!

Meanwhile magic is more unbalanced than in 1e, where it was already a niggle at high levels. Any attempt to rebalance classes is defeated by the idiotic "one xp table for every class" rule, many role-playing activities are delinated by crude d20 feats, and skills too are tramelled by a one-size-fits-all d20 rule that is grossly out of whack with the combat system.

So: combat, magic, game-balance, skills, and role-playing options are all worse in 3e. What's left that makes it better?

I think you'd better take that as a rhetorical question. This thread is not going anyware as regards anyone here even trying 1st ed to see how much better it was, which to my mind is the real answer to the question of what 4th ed should be like: go back and work out what got screwed up when Williams and the gang were given someone else's game to ruin and start from there. There's plenty of scope to improve on 1st ed AD&D without ending up with the rubbish that is currently being peddled by WotC.

Huh, I've only ever played 3 and 3.5, and never had any complaints, either as a DM or a player, regarding combat, skills, or roleplaying options. (Magic and Game-balance are another story, and often interrelated). What about the earlier combat mechanic was so terrific?

[mudbunny]

I can't see any way to back that up. For example, in reference to combat, which is a big deal in D&D, 3e simply sucks with its critical hits and threats, mechanical movement, short rounds, attacks of opportunity (dear god!), feats, and different classes of action, to day nothing of the buckets of hit points thrown everywhere. The amount of time and space wasted on a more detailed combat system and the end result is less realistic than the old one while being harder to play and DM; what was the point of that?

I don't think that "realism" (however you care to define it) should be the overall goal of designing a game system, especially a fantasy game system where you have dwarves, elves, goblins and dragons.


So: combat, magic, game-balance, skills, and role-playing options are all worse in 3e. What's left that makes it better?

I didn't see the rule that indicated that you weren't allowed to role play. Could you give me a page reference??

[Jayabalard]

I don't think that "realism" (however you care to define it) should be the overall goal of designing a game system, especially a fantasy game system where you have dwarves, elves, goblins and dragons.Personally, I think that producing a realistic game should definitely be the primary goal of an Role Playing Game; otherwise, I might as well be playing Catan or Chez Geek/Greek/Goth/Guevara or Munchkin, or Monopoly, or some other game that doesn't have roleplaying as it's main goal.

Departures from reality in RPGs should be intentional, meaningful and necessary for moving into the desired Genre. The rules for things that don't exist in the real world (or are different from the real world) aren't going to be "realistic" but they should still be logically consistent. The rules that are added for the sake of simplifying the game, especially the ones covering things that exist in the real world, should be regarded as guidelines only; the Game Master should ignore them when they produce outcomes that don't make sense, and instead make a ruling that does make sense.

There's nothing Holy about a particular set of rules (unless you're one of the people who plays a game for the rules themselves); you should use what is useful for your style of gaming, and ignore what isn't. For the people who just want a battle game with strict rules in order to compete against each other or the DM, that means running a game strictly by RAW (or RAW + strict house rules in writing). For people who want a realistic game, that means playing with a GM who's willing to make rulings and with players who are willing to accept those rulings.

Personally, no set of rules for 4ed is going to be exactly what I want, I'd like to see it have more guidelines/frameworks, and less arbitrary rules.

[mudbunny]

Personally, I think that producing a realistic game should definitely be the primary goal of an Role Playing Game; otherwise, I might as well be playing Catan or Chez Geek/Greek/Goth/Guevara or Munchkin, or Monopoly, or some other game that doesn't have roleplaying as it's main goal.

But realism, by it's very nature, conflicts with the elements you describe below which are necessary in order to create a fantastic (or futuristic) RPG. That being said, my opinion on how a game should be designed/run pretty much match one-another.


Departures from reality in RPGs should be intentional, meaningful and necessary for moving into the desired Genre. The rules for things that don't exist in the real world (or are different from the real world) aren't going to be "realistic" but they should still be logically consistent. The rules that are added for the sake of simplifying the game, especially the ones covering things that exist in the real world, should be regarded as guidelines only; the Game Master should ignore them when they produce outcomes that don't make sense, and instead make a ruling that does make sense.

There's nothing Holy about a particular set of rules (unless you're one of the people who plays a game for the rules themselves); you should use what is useful for your style of gaming, and ignore what isn't. For the people who just want a battle game with strict rules in order to compete against each other or the DM, that means running a game strictly by RAW (or RAW + strict house rules in writing). For people who want a realistic game, that means playing with a GM who's willing to make rulings and with players who are willing to accept those rulings.

[Jasdoif]

But realism, by it's very nature, conflicts with the elements you describe below which are necessary in order to create a fantastic (or futuristic) RPG.The cool word here is "verisimilitude". It's not real, but it appears as though it could be real.

[Jayabalard]

But realism, by it's very nature, conflicts with the elements you describe below which are necessary in order to create a fantastic (or futuristic) RPG. That being said, my opinion on how a game should be designed/run pretty much match one-another."Conflicts with" doesn't mean "can't co-exist", or that realism shouldn't be a primary goal in the creation of the RPG. The way the game represents of objects, actions, or social conditions in the game should match how they actually are in the real world unless something in the game world/genre dictates otherwise, and even in those cases, the changes to reality should be done consistently. That way you wind up creating a new "reality"; that's realism in the RPG context.

[mudbunny]

But realism, by it's very nature, conflicts with the elements you describe below which are necessary in order to create a fantastic (or futuristic) RPG. That being said, my opinion on how a game should be designed/run pretty much match one-another."Conflicts with" doesn't mean "can't co-exist", or that realism shouldn't be a primary goal in the creation of the RPG. The way the game represents of objects, actions, or social conditions in the game should match how they actually are in the real world unless something in the game world/genre dictates otherwise, and even in those cases, the changes to reality should be done consistently. That way you wind up creating a new "reality"; that's realism in the RPG context.

What you refer to as realism, I call internal consistency.

[Black Hand]

I'm in the same boat as you Zeta Kai. I had done the same with 2.0 as you have with 3.x. Take heart though there is a way around it...

First of all If you've been playing/Dming all these years then you could do what I did when 3.0 came out:

-Only buy the Players, DMG, and MM.

With those alone you'll probably have all you need to make the rest up without having to spend the $$$ on the fluff.

If a 4.0 was to come out, I'll do the same thing...it's either that or go back to 2.0 with a few choice picks of 3.x things.

[Shatteredtower]

I am saying that if a single resolution system is used for everything then the DM has two options: overrule a lot or let stupid decisions slide by saying "it's just a game and that's the way the game works", which is the ultimate cop-out for a DM and why this post:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2809796#post2809796

pretty well defines my idea of a bad DM.Crappy definition, that. It tells us absolutely nothing about the DM's qualities as a plotter, challenger, organizer, coordinator, or entertainer, all of which are far more essential than the ability to declare, "It doesn't make sense that your character survives the fireball unscathed while standing in the middle of the blast radius, so that doesn't happen, rules or no rules."

That's not good DMing. That's arrogance.


It said "role-playing game" on the door, I expect a (fun) role-playing game. If I want a fun board-game I'll play Settlers of Catan and not debate the realities of building towns with sheep.You've obviously not played Settlers of Catan with a good group of role-players. Or Monopoly, for that matter. Or even chess.

3E rules don't appear to be the limiting factor here.


The amount of time and space wasted on a more detailed combat system and the end result is less realistic than the old one while being harder to play and DM; what was the point of that?There was nothing realistic about 1E's combat system. Fights always lasted several minutes against a halfway decent opponent. This got laughably silly in fights involving an adult dragon.


...skills too are tramelled by a one-size-fits-all d20 rule that is grossly out of whack with the combat system.Oh, no. No, 1E cornered the market on that. Before Oriental Adventures, everything came down to the DM judgment call. Given four "good" DMs, you'd get four different rulings -- which is a lot more disruptive to emersion for someone who plays at all four tables than a hard and fast rule would be.

After Oriental Adventures, you had the option to suck at a lot of skills, in much the same way that a thief tended to suck at almost everything for the longest time. The Wilderness Survival Guide made it easier to be good at a particular skill, but the range from suck to successful was too absurd for words, even if you made people train to level up. ("And while I was improving my spellcasting techniques, I learned to become a master chef!")

If there was ever any proof that 1E was woefully inadequate to properly cover the skill sets of its influences, consider the format in which heroes of legend were presented: as characters with levels in several classes. Fafhrd was a ranger/thief/bard. The Grey Mouser was a fighter/thief/magic-user. They broke their own damned rules to present these characters! 3E doesn't need to do so, even without the addition of prestige classes.

3E has some serious bugs, it's true, but 1E has nothing to offer in the way of improvements to its skill system. On the other hand, 3E has been far better at encouraging DMs to tailor the game to their own needs -- in 1-2E, we were treated to a lot of mixed messages in that regard from the powers that be.

I've lost count of how many "official" characters completely ignored rules or disregarded the 2E advice on the "wealth of opportunity" available to heroes with "average" stats. Apparently, that "wealth" included the option to be upstaged by every significant NPC you met. (The Realms were especially bad for that -- apparently, you were meant to forever look up to its heroes, but not actually be measured among them.)

[Matthew]

Oh, no. No, 1E cornered the market on that. Before Oriental Adventures, everything came down to the DM judgment call. Given four "good" DMs, you'd get four different rulings -- which is a lot more disruptive to emersion for someone who plays at all four tables than a hard and fast rule would be.

Eh? Why would it be a problem that four different DMs handled a situation four different ways? Surely, that's exactly what would happen if you played four different systems?


After Oriental Adventures, you had the option to suck at a lot of skills, in much the same way that a thief tended to suck at almost everything for the longest time. The Wilderness Survival Guide made it easier to be good at a particular skill, but the range from suck to successful was too absurd for words, even if you made people train to level up. ("And while I was improving my spellcasting techniques, I learned to become a master chef!")

Well, they do provide guidance as to what is and is not an appropriate selection and the actual Proficiencies themselves are not very different from 3e's use of Skills.


If there was ever any proof that 1E was woefully inadequate to properly cover the skill sets of its influences, consider the format in which heroes of legend were presented: as characters with levels in several classes. Fafhrd was a ranger/thief/bard. The Grey Mouser was a fighter/thief/magic-user. They broke their own damned rules to present these characters! 3E doesn't need to do so, even without the addition of prestige classes.

Oh please. 3e breaks it's own rules often enough. I don't know anything about Heroes of Legend, never heard of it. I would imagine that was something like Dual Classing/the Character with two Classes or whatever.


3E has some serious bugs, it's true, but 1E has nothing to offer in the way of improvements to its skill system. On the other hand, 3E has been far better at encouraging DMs to tailor the game to their own needs -- in 1-2E, we were treated to a lot of mixed messages in that regard from the powers that be.

I would agree that there's not much Proficiencies could do to reform 3e Skills, but otherwise this is total hearsay.


I've lost count of how many "official" characters completely ignored rules or disregarded the 2E advice on the "wealth of opportunity" available to heroes with "average" stats. Apparently, that "wealth" included the option to be upstaged by every significant NPC you met. (The Realms were especially bad for that -- apparently, you were meant to forever look up to its heroes, but not actually be measured among them.)

Heh. Is it so much better now those Characters are legal?

[nagora]

I don't think that "realism" (however you care to define it) should be the overall goal of designing a game system, especially a fantasy game system where you have dwarves, elves, goblins and dragons.


The point I was making was about combat. If you take a simple combat system and make it more complicated but actually less realistic and harder to DM, what exactly was the point. If the result had been either more realistic or more fast-flowing then perhaps you would have gained something.

The 1e combat system is still the best system for hand to hand combat I've ever played. It represents a very good compromise between realism, playability, and excitement.

Realism has a part to play in any role-playing game. If you can't make things we as players have experience of seem reasonable in-game, then the only way to progress to the fantastic is for the DM to fall back on the "that's just how it is" cop-out. But realism has to be reined in by playability and enjoyment, I don't deny it. But there should be enough realism to act as a springboard.


I didn't see the rule that indicated that you weren't allowed to role play. Could you give me a page reference??

The ridiculous pile of numbers that is the 3e character sheet was what I was talking about there. Just put the numbers away and develop the damn character. It's not like the DC's for Riding, for example, are the result of any deep research or anything, is it? They're just guesswork cast in stone.

You might as well ask the DM to make a ruling on the rare occassion of it mattering. Arbitrary decisions by a DM (which in reality shouldn't be very arbitrary) are replaced by arbitrary numbers which will probably have to be adjusted by the DM anyway for the particular situation. So, what's the point of bogging everything down with the numbers? If your character wants to learn to ride a horse then s/he can pay some NPC in-game to teach them and note it down as "Can ride horse" along side "Likes dogs" and other character traits.



There was nothing realistic about 1E's combat system. Fights always lasted several minutes against a halfway decent opponent.

Well, that's realistic. If you'd ever actually fought with sharp metal weapons you would know that any half-way decent opponent means a combat lasting minutes. I've fought opponents where it took more than ten minutes of hard, fast sword combat ranging across most of an English village common before one of us got a single blow in past the other's guard. One minute rounds are more realistic than 6 second rounds. 6 seconds is only significent if your opponent is asleep (which counts as surprise, so 1e actually did switch to 6 second rounds for that) or totally incompetant to the point of never having used a weapon before.

As I said above: if the new system was more realistic or easier to play then fine. But it's neither.

[Dausuul]

The ridiculous pile of numbers that is the 3e character sheet was what I was talking about there. Just put the numbers away and develop the damn character. It's not like the DC's for Riding, for example, are the result of any deep research or anything, is it? They're just guesswork cast in stone.

Actually, most of the DCs have at least some thought and genuine research behind them. (Many people say that levels 1-5 are meant to be the "realistic" levels. If you assume that Olympic athletes are level 5 with all their stats and feats twinked out to be as good as possible at their specialty, you'll find that real-world Olympic records consistently match those of such a character rolling a natural 20.) They are certainly vastly more realistic than nonweapon proficiencies ever were. And don't get me started on thieves' percentage abilities--those weren't even guesswork, they were just numbers pulled out of somebody's rear end and cast in, uh, stone.


Well, that's realistic. If you'd ever actually fought with sharp metal weapons you would know that any half-way decent opponent means a combat lasting minutes. I've fought opponents where it took more than ten minutes of hard, fast sword combat ranging across most of an English village common before one of us got a single blow in past the other's guard. One minute rounds are more realistic than 6 second rounds. 6 seconds is only significent if your opponent is asleep (which counts as surprise, so 1e actually did switch to 6 second rounds for that) or totally incompetant to the point of never having used a weapon before.

Sure, if you're fighting an open duel, with swords, one-on-one, against another human and doing nothing but slash and parry. The situation you describe sounds like both combatants maxing out Combat Expertise... which would in fact lead to a minutes-long battle in 3E, as you'd need a natural 20 to hit.

In my experience, D&D combats are more likely to be a sudden, confused, vicious brawl in the dark, with each side using every dirty trick it can think of. Kind of like most fights in the real world where the combatants are actually trying to murder one another. I'm willing to bet that your battle across that English village common didn't end with a dead body.

Here's an account of an actual fight to the death with swords (http://home.att.net/~hofhine/Samurai.html), which apparently took only a few seconds.

Here also is a link to swordsmen using techniques actually employed in medieval combat (http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html). This is not a stand-off contest; these fighters get up close and personal, and while they don't say exactly how much time is involved, these are obviously not ten-minute or even two-minute fights.

[nagora]

I'm willing to bet that your battle across that English village common didn't end with a dead body.

Yeah, yeah, that's right. John, he just went...away...for a few years...right?:smallwink:

I just hope they never drain that pond.

[Gnorosch]

I can't see any way to back that up. For example, in reference to combat, which is a big deal in D&D, 3e simply sucks with its critical hits and threats,I did not speak of D&D 3rd edition but of basic d20 rules. The basic d20 system (without feats etc) is not only the base of D&D 3rd, but also of Castles & Crusades (http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/cnc/index.html) - which basically takes this basic d20 functions and uses them to create a game which feels very much like AD&D. Just that it uses the more coherent d20 rules instead of the clunky original AD&D rules.

[Kurald Galain]

Actually, most of the DCs have at least some thought and genuine research behind them. (Many people say that levels 1-5 are meant to be the "realistic" levels.

And many other people strongly disagree with that, citing many examples of things you can easily do in real life that level-5 characters will fail at, or vice versa, things that require training and expertise in real life that a level-1 commoner can pull off at random.

Indeed, you yourself are comparing a once-in-a-lifetime world record with rolling a twenty, which on average comes up once every twenty times. Athletes do not match the world record one time out of twenty.

Sure, there is some thought behind it, but that doesn't mean it's remotely realistic. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the main flaw of the D&D mechanic is that the spread of the 1d20 roll is WAY too large as compared to the spread in skill ranks.

[nagora]

Sure, there is some thought behind it, but that doesn't mean it's remotely realistic. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the main flaw of the D&D mechanic is that the spread of the 1d20 roll is WAY too large as compared to the spread in skill ranks.

Yes, if level 5 was Olympic, the current rules give an level 1 athlete (presumably a fairly ordinary person) with the same ability scores a 27% chance of beating an olympic contestant.

A difference of 5 levels in combat is a lot more one-sided than that because more than one roll is made and the luck averages out so the lower level character has much less than a 27% chance of winning.

Edit: correction. A difference of 5 levels gives the lower skill a 27% chance, but the difference between 1 and 5 is of course only 4. This gives the average fun-runner a 31% chance of beating an olympic runner in any given race.

[Caelestion]

Well, you can say what you like about 3E combat, but it's certainly simpler. No worrying about weapon speed or spell casting speed and one fixed initative per person certainly makes combat faster.

Just to take one infamous example: if you have 3/2 attacks, do you take the 3rd attack in the first or the second round? The moment you make a decision, you playing a houserule. 3E might have more attacks per round, but you're not stuck with 3/2 attacks. (For the record, we always did 1/2/1/2 etc., but there was never a rule saying how to do it.)

[Matthew]

Yeah, but we're stuck with Iterative Attacks now, which are infinitely worse in my opinion. It's fairly obvious that 3/2 means 1 then 2, but what difference does it really make if you have to make a judgement call on it? It would just be one amongst many.

I find 3e Combat to be more clearly written, but certainly not any quicker or simpler than 2e Combat. Individual Initiative and Weapon Speeds were Optional Rules (and rolling Initiative every Round is a Variant Rule for 3e).

[Kurald Galain]

Well, you can say what you like about 3E combat, but it's certainly simpler.
It certainly is anything but simpler, as evidenced by the simple fact that it takes much longer. Sure, getting rid of the speed factors is a nice touch, but that is more than counterbalanced by the five different kinds of actions, movement grid, readied actions, plethora of bonuses to keep track of, et cetera.

[Stephen_E]

Yeah, but we're stuck with Iterative Attacks now, which are infinitely worse in my opinion. It's fairly obvious that 3/2 means 1 then 2, but what difference does it really make if you have to make a judgement call on it? It would just be one amongst many.

I find 3e Combat to be more clearly written, but certainly not any quicker or simpler than 2e Combat. Individual Initiative and Weapon Speeds were Optional Rules (and rolling Initiative every Round is a Variant Rule for 3e).

The advantage of iterative attacks over the 1st and 2nd Ed aditional attacks is that you avoid the power leap that gaining attacks used to give you. Because the additional attacks had the same chance to hit as the single attack, gaining a leve that increased your attacks was effectively a power increase equal to the previous 3 levels put together.

That said, you're dead right about the ease of and speed of 1st/2nd Ed combat vs 3x combat. In game time the former took longer, but in real time 3.x combats are more of a production. On the otherhand 3.x you get to do more.

A good analogy is that 1st/2nd Ed were the old style fighting where you stand and take your opponents punch, then they stand and take yours. This continues till someone falls down.
3.x combat varies from modern boxing to martial arts. There are other things you can do. You don't just swing haymakers and wait to see who falls down 1st.

I miss the speed, I don't miss the lack of choice.

Stephen

[Matthew]

The advantage of iterative attacks over the 1st and 2nd Ed aditional attacks is that you avoid the power leap that gaining attacks used to give you. Because the additional attacks had the same chance to hit as the single attack, gaining a leve that increased your attacks was effectively a power increase equal to the previous 3 levels put together.

Sure, but the disadvantage is that Iterative Attacks suck. Your opponent needs to have a very weak AC for them to really matter (not to mention the TWF problem). The consequence is a silly number of attacks at high levels and a depowering of the warrior types (who previously were the only Classes able to get extra Attacks). Do remember that you only actually got 1/2 an additional attack and only at Levels 7-12 and 13+. Moreover, you can get an extra Attack at Full BAB via a Speed Enchantment, which makes them look even worse.


That said, you're dead right about the ease of and speed of 1st/2nd Ed combat vs 3x combat. In game time the former took longer, but in real time 3.x combats are more of a production. On the otherhand 3.x you get to do more.

A good analogy is that 1st/2nd Ed were the old style fighting where you stand and take your opponents punch, then they stand and take yours. This continues till someone falls down.
3.x combat varies from modern boxing to martial arts. There are other things you can do. You don't just swing haymakers and wait to see who falls down 1st.

I miss the speed, I don't miss the lack of choice.

That is true as far as the Core Rules go (mechanically speaking), though the Complete Fighter's Handbook, released in the same year as the 2e PHB, DMG and MM (1989), provided for a great many combat options. Also, 3e took just about its entire combat system from the 2e Player's Option: Combat and Tactics expansion (circa. 1995).

[nagora]

Well, you can say what you like about 3E combat, but it's certainly simpler. No worrying about weapon speed or spell casting speed and one fixed initative per person certainly makes combat faster.

Just to take one infamous example: if you have 3/2 attacks, do you take the 3rd attack in the first or the second round? The moment you make a decision, you playing a houserule. 3E might have more attacks per round, but you're not stuck with 3/2 attacks. (For the record, we always did 1/2/1/2 etc., but there was never a rule saying how to do it.)

The rule book specifies 2 attacks on the first round, 1 on the second. Not a houserule (not that it matters if it is).

Edit: the rule is mentioned at least twice but to be specific, it is covered in the 1e DMG in the section headed "Initiative for Creatures with multiple Attack Routines" (p 62 in my edition).

[Matthew]

The rule book specifies 2 attacks on the first round, 1 on the second. Not a houserule (not that it matters if it is).

Edit: the rule is mentioned at least twice but to be specific, it is covered in the 1e DMG in the section headed "Initiative for Creatures with multiple Attack Routines" (p 62 in my edition).

Heh, that's true, but that rule doesn't appear in 2e, which leaves it open to interpretation in that edition.

[Stephen_E]

Originally Posted by Stephen_E
The advantage of iterative attacks over the 1st and 2nd Ed aditional attacks is that you avoid the power leap that gaining attacks used to give you. Because the additional attacks had the same chance to hit as the single attack, gaining a leve that increased your attacks was effectively a power increase equal to the previous 3 levels put together.


Sure, but the disadvantage is that Iterative Attacks suck. Your opponent needs to have a very weak AC for them to really matter (not to mention the TWF problem). The consequence is a silly number of attacks at high levels and a depowering of the warrior types (who previously were the only Classes able to get extra Attacks). Do remember that you only actually got 1/2 an additional attack and only at Levels 7-12 and 13+. Moreover, you can get an extra Attack at Full BAB via a Speed Enchantment, which makes them look even worse.


Well the 2nd attack is usually still decent, and there are things you can do to make them work (usually involving making them touch attacks) but yeah, generally interative attacks suck.

The two problems are "Full Round Action" and the stacking -5 penalties.
One of these is livable with. Given that this is a 4E thread, my suggestions to fix would be either -
1) Standard attack gets iterative attacks, or
2) The iterative attacks slowly loose their -5 penalty, ala the Monk Flurry.
Say every 2 levels the penaltie reduces by 1.
Example Fighter
Lev 6 - +6/+1
Lev 8 - +8/+4
Lev 10 - +10/+7
Lev 12 - +12/+10/+5
Lev 13 - +13/+11/+7
Lev 16 - +16/+16/+13/+8
Lev 20 - +20/+20/+19/+16

Current 3.5 lev 20 - +20/+15/+10/+5

This would also make the extra attacks from TWF be worth more.

Stephen

[Starsinger]

Originally Posted by Stephen_E
The advantage of iterative attacks over the 1st and 2nd Ed aditional attacks is that you avoid the power leap that gaining attacks used to give you. Because the additional attacks had the same chance to hit as the single attack, gaining a leve that increased your attacks was effectively a power increase equal to the previous 3 levels put together.



Well the 2nd attack is usually still decent, and there are things you can do to make them work (usually involving making them touch attacks) but yeah, generally interative attacks suck.

The two problems are "Full Round Action" and the stacking -5 penalties.
One of these is livable with. Given that this is a 4E thread, my suggestions to fix would be either -
1) Standard attack gets iterative attacks, or
2) The iterative attacks slowly loose their -5 penalty, ala the Monk Flurry.
Say every 2 levels the penaltie reduces by 1.
Example Fighter
Lev 6 - +6/+1
Lev 8 - +8/+4
Lev 10 - +10/+7
Lev 12 - +12/+10/+5
Lev 13 - +13/+11/+7
Lev 16 - +16/+16/+13/+8
Lev 20 - +20/+20/+19/+16

Current 3.5 lev 20 - +20/+15/+10/+5

This would also make the extra attacks from TWF be worth more.

Stephen

The way Saga handles this is better IMO, instead of rolling a few extra attacks with worse chance to hit, you get a bonus on your one attack? Sounds good to me! Plus, and this is going to blow some minds like it usually does, you can fluff that however you want. Just because you only rolled one attack roll doesn't mean you can't say you attacked three or four times. Likewise, if you roll three attacks in the current system, you don't have to swing three times, that could be one great hit that did the damage of two attacks.

[Dausuul]

You know, I'm actually going to agree that iterative attacks were a bad solution to the "power jump" problem. Mathematically, they work out fine, but in practice they cause problems for the following reasons:

#1. Keeping track of several different attack modifiers is a major nuisance. All your attacks should be at the same bonus unless there's a specific reason for them not to be (e.g., a +1 sword in one hand and a +2 sword in the other). This gets even worse when statting out monsters with natural weapons.
#2. They only work on full attacks, which makes the fighter look much more effective on paper than in practice.
#3. They add yet another layer of confusion to the grapple rules.
#4. In order to make their third and fourth attacks not totally worthless, high-level fighters must be allowed to get attack bonuses so high relative to AC that they're pretty much guaranteed to hit on the first blow.

On the other hand, bringing back the 2E "3/2" mechanic would only re-create the problems that led to the adoption of the iterative attack in the first place (power spike whenever you hit a level that gives you more attacks, keeping track of which round you're on, etc.).

My proposal: Do away with multiple attack routines altogether. You get one attack a round (or two if you're a TWFer; in the latter case, you attack with both weapons as a single attack action, so TWFers aren't quite so badly crippled).

To represent the speed and skill of high-level fighters, give them BAB-driven feats that boost their damage output dramatically. This has the extra benefit of providing a reason to keep advancing as a fighter.

For spells like haste, give them the ability to make one extra attack in a round but require a full-round action to do so. That way haste remains powerful but doesn't actually double the effectiveness of a fighter.

Edit: Ninja'd by Saga, apparently.

[AtomicKitKat]

I'll be honest. 3.x may give you more "options" than just standing there and taking it, but having 1 fixed Initiative for the whole combat does indeed turn it into a game of "Hit you last" as compared to individual Initiatives(and given that 3.x hates "tied Initiative", this effect is even more pronounced). At least in 3.x, if you were felled in the first round(even though you made a natural 10, the monster rolled the same Initiative), you could possibly take the other guy down with you. In 3.x, if you lose Initiative, you lose. Period.

[nagora]

Originally Posted by Stephen_E
The advantage of iterative attacks over the 1st and 2nd Ed aditional attacks is that you avoid the power leap that gaining attacks used to give you.

I can't see that getting an extra half attack maybe twice in your life really compared to the power leap of, say, getting a new spell level. I think this is a problem that doesn't need solved.

[Matthew]

I can't see that getting an extra half attack maybe twice in your life really compared to the power leap of, say, getting a new spell level. I think this is a problem that doesn't need solved.

I would tend to agree, especially since a 'Weapon of Speed' grants a full extra Attack. That said, some people did find Half Attacks confusing and I can understand why.

For 3e, I would advocate simply granting an extra attack at full BAB at Level 11.

[nagora]

It certainly is anything but simpler, as evidenced by the simple fact that it takes much longer. Sure, getting rid of the speed factors is a nice touch, but that is more than counterbalanced by the five different kinds of actions, movement grid, readied actions, plethora of bonuses to keep track of, et cetera.

Given that speed factors usually only matter in an initiative tie, I can't say that they ever bothered anyone in my groups. In fact, players tended to welcome them as a nice tie-breaker that gave some feeling of the difference in weapons beyond damage without being a pain to calculate. Now, AC modifiers Vs Armour Types were a much less welcome idea and only got invoked if someone was trying to tackle a knight using only a bo-stick.

I also don't feel that 1e combat has to be quite the "everyone's feet nailed to the ground" affair that some people imply. We generally run around, try to flank and backstab and jump on tables etc. It's just that the DM decides if we get away with it, mostly depending on initiative differences.

[Zeta Kai]

"You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

--George Taylor (played by Charlton Heston), Planet of the Apes

[Fax Celestis]

"You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

--George Taylor (played by Charlton Heston), Planet of the Apes

Not that 3e still isn't a viable gaming medium. It's just not supported by new material anymore past May '08 (assuming it's not pushed back).

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: I guess the premise of this thread is kinda moot. Locked.