PDA

View Full Version : [2nd ed] Create your own Class, oh no!



Kurald Galain
2007-08-08, 03:10 PM
Just to show the ridiculity of the system (in 2nd edition DMG, for creating your own classes)...

Race: human only.
Alignment: must be good, may not even talk to evil people. Also, may not have possessions beyond what you can carry, and limited to 6 magical items (which was less of a big deal in 2E).
Hit points: d8 per level
Saving throws: standard
Armor: chain mail or lighter
Weapons: mace, lasso, shortbow or dagger, but Thac0 (BAB for 3E people) never improves at all.

Now pick any one of the following:
(1) Cast spells as a priest, from any sphere.
(2) Cast transmutation and invocation spells as a wizard, plus gain decipher script (as the thief ability) and animal affinity.
(3) May use any slashing weapon, gain lay on hands as paladin, ambidexterity, and monster thac0/BAB (which improves slightly faster than a regular fighter's)
(4) Pick pocket, open locks and find/remove traps as thief, shapeshift ability three times per day, and cast spells as a priest, but only from the elemental sphere (which, incidentally, kicks ass).

Note that the first is roughly equivalent to a 2E cleric, and the others are significantly better than a wizard, fighter, and thief, respectively.

WITHOUT looking in the 2E DMG, make your guess as to how much experience this character would require to advance to second level, or to ninth level. Bear in mind that 2E XP tables were exponential rather than linear. From memory, the wizard went "2500, 5000, 10000, 16000" at the beginning. Or thereabouts.

Telonius
2007-08-08, 03:23 PM
Having never seen a 2e book, here are my guesses.

Level 2: pi.
Level 9: 2000.

rollfrenzy
2007-08-08, 03:24 PM
The Answer, as we all know.. is 42.

Premier
2007-08-08, 03:31 PM
Just to show the ridiculity of the system (in 2nd edition DMG, for creating your own classes)...

And just to show the identical ridiculousness of the 3E system:

Pun Pun.

And this time we didn't even have to go into heavily optional stuff like 2E's create-a-class.


scrubbed

Arbitrarity
2007-08-08, 03:36 PM
With pun-pun, we had to use heavily optional stuff like FR, and splatbooks related to it.


I'm betting in the 5000 20000 45000 range.

Tengu
2007-08-08, 03:54 PM
Tch, I find it amusing.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-08, 03:57 PM
So, Kurald Galain, your entire point in posting that bit was to poke fun at an earlier edition of D&D?

This is a forum related to a comic strip and we're not allowed to poke fun at stuff? :smalltongue: Humorectemies are that-a-way.

Matthew
2007-08-08, 04:05 PM
If it is from the DMG it won't be in line with any of the other Sub Classes, which the DMG explicitly admits. I am going to guess 3,000, but truly I have no idea.

Just out of interest, are you attempting to show 'how ridiculous 2e is' or 'how ridiculous this particular system is'?

[Edit]
Oh wait, choose one set of abilities. Something ridiculously low, then. Less than 1,000, if you've calculated it right, probably 0.

Jacob Orlove
2007-08-08, 04:12 PM
It's probably something outrageous like 100 XP x 2^Level, or 100 XP to get to level 2 and 12,800 to get to level 9, where a Wizard would take 2,000 XP and 256,000 XP, respectively

But no one used that system, because if you started out as a priest, the various spheres were each so expensive that you could give up some/all to get pretty much all the other abilities on the charts, and you could take all the ridiculous disadvantages listed above to drop your XP cost to level up down to something unplayably low.

Matthew
2007-08-08, 04:14 PM
Nah, he's talking about the DMG version, not the Player's Option Series (i.e. build your own Sub Class, not modify an existing Sub Class), which had certain problems if your DM allowed any old thing, but they weren't as bad as people make out either.

From the same section of the DMG:


The class-creation system here requires you to use your judgment--it isn't fool-proof. Without careful thought, you may find you've created an overly forceful combination of powers or a bizarre, unplayable character class. As with new character races, start with a single test case before you approve the class for all players.
Naturally, the DM must approve a class before a player can begin using it. The DM also has the right to make any changes he sees fit, even after the character has been played for some time!
You are advised not to try to create a super class--a class that allows players to do everything.

Premier
2007-08-08, 05:23 PM
With pun-pun, we had to use heavily optional stuff like FR, and splatbooks related to it.

And as Matthew just explained above, the 2E thing is also heavily optional, and even explicitly says that the DM should be careful using it and should nix out-of-line constructions - whereas AFAIK, the 3E books never ever say "if a combination looks broken, the DM should disallow it". So I ask again, where's the difference?


Don't answer, it was rhetorical. There's no difference.

tainsouvra
2007-08-08, 05:42 PM
AFAIK, the 3E books never ever say "if a combination looks broken, the DM should disallow it". DMG, page 13, "Keeping Game Balance"? It covers that very idea, in fact one of the principles of balance it gives at the beginning is that...
A balanced game is one in which one character doesn't dominate over the rest because of a choice that he or she has made (race, class, skill, feat, spell, and so on).
...it also gives suggestions on how to nerf such unbalanced PC's in-game or out-of-game.

Demented
2007-08-08, 06:46 PM
Don't answer, it was rhetorical. There's no difference.

Sure there is.
One is meant to show the rediculousness of an optional but relatively self-contained system.
The other is meant to show the outer limits of exploiting a system when it allows the optional inclusion of just about anything.

If you really wanted a proper analogy, you'd compare it with 3E's Magic Item Creation Guidelines.

Caelestion
2007-08-08, 07:13 PM
Race: human only.
Alignment: must be good, may not even talk to evil people. Also, may not have possessions beyond what you can carry, and limited to 6 magical items (which was less of a big deal in 2E).
Hit points: d8 per level
Saving throws: standard
Armor: chain mail or lighter
Weapons: mace, lasso, shortbow or dagger, but Thac0 (BAB for 3E people) never improves at all.

Now pick any one of the following:
(1) Cast spells as a priest, from any sphere.
(2) Cast transmutation and invocation spells as a wizard, plus gain decipher script (as the thief ability) and animal affinity.
(3) May use any slashing weapon, gain lay on hands as paladin, ambidexterity, and monster thac0/BAB (which improves slightly faster than a regular fighter's)
(4) Pick pocket, open locks and find/remove traps as thief, shapeshift ability three times per day, and cast spells as a priest, but only from the elemental sphere (which, incidentally, kicks ass).
For those who don't have a 2nd DMG, this worked on applying modifiers to a base XP table, with the deliberate result of playing a customised character, but who advanced slower than pretty much anyone else.

Race = +0, Alignment = -3.5, Hit Dice = +1, Saving Throws = +0, Armour = -0.5, Weapons = -3.5. So already we're looking at -6.5.

Option 1 = +8 (total = +1.5). This gives a non-combatant priest who needs 300 to reach 2nd-level (20% of a standard priest) and 42,000 for 9th-level (less than 20% of thestandard). It also comes to 537,000 ay 20th-level, nearly 25% of the standard xp needed.

Option 2 = +8 (total +1.5). This makes an armoured, tougher mage with the most useful spells, with the same 300/42,000/537,000 xp needed, which is less than 1/8th at 2nd-level and less than a third at 9th-level. 20th-level mages needed 3.75 million to advance.

Option 3 = +11.5 (total +6). If I've done my maths correctly, that's made a warrior-type with 1,200/168,000/2.1 million. This is about 2/3rds xp consistently, but it does lack several of the original powers.

Option 4 = +8 (total +1.5). This is a stripped down druid-thief type, also on the 300/42,000/537,000 xp line, which is roughly one-quarter xp consistently.

Of course, none of these calculations take into consideration having any WPs/NWPs (2E skills & feats) whatsoever.

JadedDM
2007-08-08, 10:34 PM
I've been DMing 2E for 12 years.

I've never once made a new class. Never needed to. The PHB seems to have all the bases pretty covered, as far as I'm concerned (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Mage, Specialist, Cleric, Druid, Thief, Bard).

Matthew
2007-08-08, 10:37 PM
Never wanted to build a Human Fighter/Mage or redesign Multi Classed Demi Humans as Sub Classes?

MrNexx
2007-08-08, 10:49 PM
I liked the create-a-class rules, but felt they were poorly done. They didn't cover all the options, and were too expensive to be worth it, unless you had a highly restrictive combination.

I tried to work it out in my version of 3e, but I wound up with a couple wonky mechanics that I wouldn't keep if I were doing it today (instead of 8 years ago).

silvadel
2007-08-08, 10:50 PM
Actually, unless you stripped things down like that you often ended up with exp curves that looked like unearthed arcanas barbarian...

When people wanted something different I usually added or subtracted from classes not started from scratch... IE you could have a lone-wolf type of just about any class with some abilities subbed for other abilities...

Matthew
2007-08-08, 11:01 PM
Yeah, modifying an existing Sub Class was by far the easiest way to do it. There is an example of a made up Sub Class in the Complete Thief's Handbook, if you're interested.

For my Homebrewed [AD&D 2e] Game, I came up with a system for making Sub Classes. It's not perfect, but it does a passing good job.

JadedDM
2007-08-09, 12:24 AM
Never wanted to build a Human Fighter/Mage or redesign Multi Classed Demi Humans as Sub Classes?

Nope. Between the base classes and kits, I felt I had all my bases covered.

Matthew
2007-08-09, 12:30 AM
Well, that's definitely satisfaction. I have to confess, I find Multi Classing in AD&D to be a pain in the neck, so I built Sub Classes to avoid 1/2HD and stuff like that.

JadedDM
2007-08-09, 12:44 AM
Actually, now that I think about it, only once have I had a PC multi-class in my game. (Never dual-class). A half-elf fighter/thief. Everyone else has always been single-classed so far. This may be because 90% of all the PCs in my game have been human, too.

MrNexx
2007-08-09, 01:12 AM
Actually, now that I think about it, only once have I had a PC multi-class in my game. (Never dual-class). A half-elf fighter/thief. Everyone else has always been single-classed so far. This may be because 90% of all the PCs in my game have been human, too.

That has got to be the most atypical gaming situation I've ever seen.

JadedDM
2007-08-09, 01:25 AM
So I hear. But this is the way it's always been for me. I have to beg and prod my players to try something other than human. Most of the time the parties are 100% human outright. Now and again, we'll have one 'token' demi-human when one of my players feels like going nuts. :smallbiggrin:

earlblue
2007-08-09, 02:13 AM
And some day... when we have 4e, 5e or 6 1/3 e... we will see posts saying how bad 3/3.5 e was.

Frankly, I started in 1985, played the original DnD, 1st e, 2nd e, 3rd e and now 3.5 e, and I still don't see the need of creating a new class...

There is a lot of people doing that for profit, and being the lazy DM that I am (was), I just use the stuff they created. The only urge I entertain is creating my own world.

Game mechanics is just that, a mechanism to determine outcome randomly. Poke at it, and all mechanism will fail. My group stayed with the game not because of the mechanism, but rather it is the game, and the friendship we enjoy.

O'BeQuiet UWannabe

Epic level DM (21+), CR Infinity. Ability: To write and re-write reality as I see fit.

nagora
2007-08-09, 06:46 AM
And some day... ... we will see posts saying how bad 3/3.5 e was.


I don't have to wait that long!

Anyway, the only way to design classes is for the DM to sit down and do it from scratch using his/her knowledge of the setting. Any rules system that tries to deliniate the whole process is going to fail so often as to be counter productive.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-09, 09:41 AM
For those who don't have a 2nd DMG, this worked on applying modifiers to a base XP table, with the deliberate result of playing a customised character, but who advanced slower than pretty much anyone else.
Well done on the math. It goes to show that some of the restrictions had really ridiculous modifiers, like the -3.5 on alignment, and even on weapons (who cares if a caster can use weapons?)

I think option 3 was also supposed to be 300 exp for 2nd level. I'm not sure; actually I wrote this ten, fifteen years ago when I first read those rules and pondered their silliness, and I just found it in a corner of my hard drive last week.

Of course, no DM would ever allow any of this. But 'poor playtesting' wasn't just limited to 3rd edition :P

Tengu
2007-08-09, 09:57 AM
And some day... when we have 4e, 5e or 6 1/3 e... we will see posts saying how bad 3/3.5 e was.


If the (positive) gap in quality between those editions and 3.x will be as big as the one between 3.x and AD&D, they might even turn DND into a decent game! Maybe I would even play it one day!

Keld Denar
2007-08-09, 10:32 AM
So I hear. But this is the way it's always been for me. I have to beg and prod my players to try something other than human. Most of the time the parties are 100% human outright. Now and again, we'll have one 'token' demi-human when one of my players feels like going nuts. :smallbiggrin:

The dumb thing was, non-humans had level caps...The only non-human race/class that also didn't have a cap was 1/2 elf bard. If I remember right, stuff like a halfling fighter capped out at 6th to 8th level, 1/2 elven clerics capped out at 5th level, and a bunch of other stupid rules. Also, only humans could be paladins, only humans and 1/2 elves could be rangers, and only humans, 1/2 elves, and elves could be druids. Wizard was severly capped too, if I recall correctly, for non-humans excluding gnome illusionists (when illusionist was a seperate class from wizard)

All this made it no fun to play at a mid-high level campaign as a non-human when everyone else is 12, and you are stuck at the cap at 8. I can see why most of your players want to play humans.

Tengu
2007-08-09, 10:58 AM
All this made it no fun to play

I think that could as well be AD&D's creed.

Sorry for trolling too much.

MrNexx
2007-08-09, 11:21 AM
I think that could as well be AD&D's creed.

Sorry for trolling too much.

I found (and find) AD&D to be quite fun to play. I find D&D less fun, mechanically, though a good group can make that less of an issue.

nagora
2007-08-09, 11:42 AM
All this made it no fun to play at a mid-high level campaign as a non-human when everyone else is 12, and you are stuck at the cap at 8. I can see why most of your players want to play humans.

On the other hand, most non-humans could multi-class whereas dual-classing was about as much as humans could do and it was harsh (I did it once for a Fighter/Magic-user and it was hellishly hard work).

In 3e the caps are gone and there's no obvious reason to play a human or to stick to a single class, which really undermines the notion of having classes, and it all becomes a sort of a bland Disneyland.

Plus, of course, elves and dwarves live to be quite old. By the time a human is a distant memory, an elf is hitting 35th level and their biggest battle is with ennui.

I never liked the caps, although in reality they didn't actually hinder any of my characters because the caps were mostly quite high, but I'm not convinced that the 3e solution is better. Perhaps an increase in xp requirements would be better than flat out caps. Dunno.

JadedDM
2007-08-09, 11:47 AM
halfling fighter capped out at 6th to 8th level

Halfling fighters were capped at 9th level in 2E. Still, one could get past this if they had exceptional ability scores (for instance, a halfling fighter with STR of 17 could reach 11th level).


1/2 elven clerics capped out at 5th level

Half-elf clerics were capped at 14th level in 2E. And again, this could be breached with a very high wisdom (WIS of 18 would let a half-elf cleric reach level 17).


and only humans, 1/2 elves, and elves could be druids

Actually, elves couldn't be druids in standard 2E rules. Alignment conflict.


All this made it no fun to play at a mid-high level campaign as a non-human when everyone else is 12, and you are stuck at the cap at 8. I can see why most of your players want to play humans.

You couldn't be more wrong. In all of the years I've DMed, I've never once had a campaign breach level 9. The absolute lowest level limit in 2E is 8 (for halfling clerics). Thus, level limits have never played a role in my game. In fact, I went ahead and just removed them altogether, as they didn't make any difference at all.


I think that could as well be AD&D's creed.

Sorry for trolling too much.

I have a blast playing 2E, as do all my players (obviously, if they didn't have fun they would go find a 3E group, which is far more common).

nagora
2007-08-09, 11:53 AM
You couldn't be more wrong. In all of the years I've DMed, I've never once had a campaign breach level 9. The absolute lowest level limit in 2E is 8 (for halfling clerics). Thus, level limits have never played a role in my game. In fact, I went ahead and just removed them altogether, as they didn't make any difference at all.


They do have an implied effect on NPC's, though. I think in some ways this was the original thinking behind the caps: logically elves would dominate because of the huge amounts of time they have to gain experience; dwarves likewise. Even if you assume that only one or two percent ever become "adventurers", their presence would be felt at national levels. Hence (part of the thinking behind) the cap for game-balance.

hamlet
2007-08-09, 12:20 PM
They do have an implied effect on NPC's, though. I think in some ways this was the original thinking behind the caps: logically elves would dominate because of the huge amounts of time they have to gain experience; dwarves likewise. Even if you assume that only one or two percent ever become "adventurers", their presence would be felt at national levels. Hence (part of the thinking behind) the cap for game-balance.

No, the original thinking behind level limits was (according to the guy who invented them) to push the game into a humanocentric mode of thought.

Gygax wanted a mostly human world, and so used level limits to help do that.

nagora
2007-08-09, 12:28 PM
No, the original thinking behind level limits was (according to the guy who invented them) to push the game into a humanocentric mode of thought.

Gygax wanted a mostly human world, and so used level limits to help do that.

I knew that was part of it, and I've read the "rah rah humans" section in the DMG many times, but the issues about longevity and racial bonuses are real ones.

hamlet
2007-08-09, 12:32 PM
I knew that was part of it, and I've read the "rah rah humans" section in the DMG many times, but the issues about longevity and racial bonuses are real ones.

They are if it actually matters to you.

Or, like me, you can simply go with the assumption that, unlike humans, most demi-humans have more interest than the assumption of vast personal power. They would be more involved with their own cultures and the social ins and outs.

It is a part of human personality to have such great ambition. Demi-humans, for the most part, lack that and have more expectations on them. By the time they reach 10th level, they are expected to have an actual job. And no, adventurer is not a valid career choice.

nagora
2007-08-09, 12:35 PM
They are if it actually matters to you.

Or, like me, you can simply go with the assumption that, unlike humans, most demi-humans have more interest than the assumption of vast personal power. They would be more involved with their own cultures and the social ins and outs.

But the fact is that D&D worlds are teaming with PCs from these races who clearly are taking an interest in personal power. Logically, then, there are NPCs who do likewise.


It is a part of human personality to have such great ambition. Demi-humans, for the most part, lack that and have more expectations on them. By the time they reach 10th level, they are expected to have an actual job. And no, adventurer is not a valid career choice.

I sympathise completely with your view; I just don't think it really flies in the face of how most people play, and want to play, non-humans. They don't want to play demi-humans that lack great ambition.

Matthew
2007-08-09, 12:39 PM
I just used the Optional Rule to remove Level Limits. Like JadedDM, though, I found that it made no difference in play, since the vast majority of NPCs are 0 Level Characters anyway.

Keld Denar
2007-08-09, 12:41 PM
Halfling fighters were capped at 9th level in 2E. Still, one could get past this if they had exceptional ability scores (for instance, a halfling fighter with STR of 17 could reach 11th level).



Half-elf clerics were capped at 14th level in 2E. And again, this could be breached with a very high wisdom (WIS of 18 would let a half-elf cleric reach level 17).



Actually, elves couldn't be druids in standard 2E rules. Alignment conflict.



You couldn't be more wrong. In all of the years I've DMed, I've never once had a campaign breach level 9. The absolute lowest level limit in 2E is 8 (for halfling clerics). Thus, level limits have never played a role in my game. In fact, I went ahead and just removed them altogether, as they didn't make any difference.

Well, looks like I was a bit off. My memory isn't what it used to be (ripe old age of 23), and I lost all my 2nd ed D&D books somewhere in the mid 1990s...

I don't know where I remember those numbers from then. I distinctly remember what the shape and format of the table that had all the races and classes with their respective level limits. I also remember the oldschool turn undead table, where you turned undead by type (zombies, skells, ghouls,...,liches) and there was a T for turned and a D for "dusted" as we called it.

le sigh, nostalgia /tear

JadedDM
2007-08-09, 12:55 PM
I just used the Optional Rule to remove Level Limits. Like JadedDM, though, I found that it made no difference in play, since the vast majority of NPCs are 0 Level Characters anyway.

Precisely!


I don't know where I remember those numbers from then. I distinctly remember what the shape and format of the table that had all the races and classes with their respective level limits.

Is it at all possible you were thinking of 1E instead? I understand the level limits were much lower in that version than in 2E.

nagora
2007-08-09, 01:18 PM
Precisely!



Is it at all possible you were thinking of 1E instead? I understand the level limits were much lower in that version than in 2E.

1e was lower initially but later (Unearthed Arcana) raised them for characters with high ability scores.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-09, 01:22 PM
Actually, elves couldn't be druids in standard 2E rules. Alignment conflict.

Really? Druids must be half-neutral, elves must be what?

I haven't heard of many DMs who bothered with those level caps; they primarily came up in the Gold Box computer games :smalltongue:

MrNexx
2007-08-09, 01:47 PM
Really? Druids must be half-neutral, elves must be what?

I haven't heard of many DMs who bothered with those level caps; they primarily came up in the Gold Box computer games :smalltongue:

Druids must be True Neutral in 2nd edition; bards had to be half-neutral. Elves couldn't be druids in the PH because it was initially a human belief system; thus, you could have a half-elf druid, but not a full elf. Subsequent books modified this, allowing elven druids of specific gods, specific types of druid, or a variety of other reasons.

Level limits in 1st edition are what Lussman is thinking of. They were very low, because Gygax was wanting to push the humanocentric game; the first edition DMG goes into this quite a bit in talking about monster characters. 2nd edition had less involvement from Gygax (due to politics within TSR), and they moved away from pushing those aspects. If you look at 1st edition supplements, or much of the Greyhawk material for either edition, non-humans had far lower levels. When you look at the Forgotten Realms, they were a bit more lasse faire about level limits, but also tended to be less humanocentric.

IMO, one of the real weaknesses of 2nd edition was, while reducing or removing level limits for demihumans, they provided less incentive to play humans. That was one of the things I very much enjoyed in 3rd edition... humans had an actual, statistical reason to be played... a reason which would show up in standard play, rather than the eventual threat of level limits.

Matthew
2007-08-09, 01:54 PM
Yeah, that's true. My mechanical solution for my Home Brew was to make Demi Human levelling up slightly slower. So, if it was 2,000 XP to make Level 2 as a Human Fighter, it was 2,500 to make level 2 as a Dwarven Fighter. I found that it worked quite well from a mechanical standpoint.

MrNexx
2007-08-09, 02:19 PM
The alternate method is to use S&P rule that humans get an extra 5-10% experience, cumulative with Prime Requisite bonus. It gives humans an edge that ties in with their fluff.

hamlet
2007-08-09, 03:27 PM
But the fact is that D&D worlds are teaming with PCs from these races who clearly are taking an interest in personal power. Logically, then, there are NPCs who do likewise.



I sympathise completely with your view; I just don't think it really flies in the face of how most people play, and want to play, non-humans. They don't want to play demi-humans that lack great ambition.

You also have to come from the understanding that, despite what 3rd edition wants you to think and what later 2nd edition books want you to think, 99% of the world populace was 0-level, meaning they NEVER gained in individual power (unless they were leaders of some sort). Heck, most kings I've ever put into a world were 0-level. PC's are supposed to stand out, be VERY unique.

The idea that the cobler you buy you shoes from is actualy a 10th level something is patently absurd. He's just a guy who makes shoes. That's IT.

Sorry, one of my biggest pet peaves about the new editions.

MrNexx
2007-08-09, 03:33 PM
You also have to come from the understanding that, despite what 3rd edition wants you to think and what later 2nd edition books want you to think, 99% of the world populace was 0-level, meaning they NEVER gained in individual power (unless they were leaders of some sort). Heck, most kings I've ever put into a world were 0-level. PC's are supposed to stand out, be VERY unique.

Forgotten Realms was particularly bad about this... secret, high-level characters who made shoes or owned a bar. I got the feeling, reading it, that Ed Greenwood had players who would kill a cobbler, rather than paying for shoes, and so made some of them more than capable.

hamlet
2007-08-09, 04:01 PM
Forgotten Realms was particularly bad about this... secret, high-level characters who made shoes or owned a bar. I got the feeling, reading it, that Ed Greenwood had players who would kill a cobbler, rather than paying for shoes, and so made some of them more than capable.

Always got the same feeling actually.

But the fact that every third person in the realms is really a 20th level whatever gets really old really fast. At what point do the PC's just give it up for a bad job and run to the carpenter when the dragon invades the land?

MrNexx
2007-08-09, 04:13 PM
Always got the same feeling actually.

But the fact that every third person in the realms is really a 20th level whatever gets really old really fast. At what point do the PC's just give it up for a bad job and run to the carpenter when the dragon invades the land?

Right.

"Heck, he's 15 levels higher than me. If he doesn't have a +1 sword anymore, I'll loan him one, because he'll be far more effective than me."

It was part of the reason we usually played in the less-well-developed towns, where there might be a 3rd level fighter or something, but nothing overwhelming.

Matthew
2007-08-09, 04:23 PM
Hah, hah. Poor old Forgotten Realms. Worked great in Baldur's Gate, though.

Saying that, technically you were allowed to give 0 Level Characters as many to Hit Bonuses, Hit Points and Proficiencies as you saw fit (albeit only under exceptional circumstances).

MrNexx
2007-08-09, 04:55 PM
Hah, hah. Poor old Forgotten Realms. Worked great in Baldur's Gate, though.

Saying that, technically you were allowed to give 0 Level Characters as many to Hit Bonuses, Hit Points and Proficiencies as you saw fit (albeit only under exceptional circumstances).

The thing is, I love the Realms. It's as close to my home campaign as any D&D campaign is. But that occasional OMGWTFNPC is a just an annoyance.

Matthew
2007-08-09, 05:33 PM
Sure, don't get me wrong, I quite like the Forgotten Realms, even if for nothing more than the sheer volume of detail. The aspects of it that people complain about are generally the aspects I flat out ignore or fade so far into the background that they're invisible [i.e. Drizzt Do' who?].

nagora
2007-08-09, 05:41 PM
Really? Druids must be half-neutral, elves must be what?

I haven't heard of many DMs who bothered with those level caps; they primarily came up in the Gold Box computer games :smalltongue:

In first edition druids had to be True Neutral. I still can't come close to grasping why this was changed. Nature is Neutral; how would a CN druid get any spells? It doesn't make sense, to say nothing of NE! You're a priest of nature who delights in destroying life? WTF?

Caelestion
2007-08-09, 05:47 PM
And in 2nd Edition too you know. Then again, just witness all the material that had to be written on how to play or how not to play TN to give you one reason it may have been changed.

Besides which, I think that flavouring your neutrality is much more interesting. The cold, harsh NE druid extremist and the friendly NG herbalist are two instant examples.

Matthew
2007-08-09, 06:05 PM
I think Druids are probably my least favourite Sub Class of all time. The Alignment rules didn't bother me overmuch, I just didn't like the concept. I don't think I ever allowed on any 2e Campaign I ran.

MrNexx
2007-08-09, 06:19 PM
In first edition druids had to be True Neutral. I still can't come close to grasping why this was changed. Nature is Neutral; how would a CN druid get any spells? It doesn't make sense, to say nothing of NE! You're a priest of nature who delights in destroying life? WTF?

Nature is neutral; priests must be within 1 degree of their deity's alignment.

However, a chaotic neutral druid could, for example, focus a lot on the weather aspects of druidry... weather is a chaotic element. A neutral evil druid might focus only on predators... their credo is that killing the weak makes the rest strong, and so they are improving nature by killing the weak.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-09, 06:34 PM
In first edition druids had to be True Neutral. I still can't come close to grasping why this was changed.?
Oh, that's simple. True Neutral, as written, is unplayable by 90% - 95% of D&D players.



The alternate method is to use S&P rule that humans get an extra 5-10% experience, cumulative with Prime Requisite bonus.
Do people actually use those PR bonuses? I thought those were totally unfair - get lucky on a dice roll once at the beginning of the game, get substantial bonuses to your XP forever.

MrNexx
2007-08-09, 06:57 PM
Oh, that's simple. True Neutral, as written, is unplayable by 90% - 95% of D&D players.

Its long been poorly written.


Do people actually use those PR bonuses? I thought those were totally unfair - get lucky on a dice roll once at the beginning of the game, get substantial bonuses to your XP forever.

Yes, we certainly did. Look at it this way... someone with a high PR is going to find it a lot easier to excel at his chosen profession, so doesn't have as much trouble advancing due to natural ability.

Matthew
2007-08-09, 07:00 PM
I used them in my last Campaign. I have to say it made virtually no difference to experience progression. I kept track of them seperately, so a Fighter with 2,000 XP actually had (2,200) and a Character with 9,000 had (9,900) and so on. Since we were using Training Rules, the advantage was minimal.

Kurald Galain
2007-08-09, 07:10 PM
Look at it this way... someone with a high PR is going to find it a lot easier to excel at his chosen profession, so doesn't have as much trouble advancing due to natural ability.

I didn't say you couldn't fluff it, I said it was unfair. Fluffwise I could just as easily claim that someone with high PR is so talented he doesn't need to apply himself to training that much to accomplish the same, and therefore trains less and gets an exp penalty.

Matthew
2007-08-09, 07:26 PM
There is another way of looking at it, which is that it encourages people to put their highest scores in their Prime Attributes. However, I can tell you right now why it was in there. It's a hold over from OD&D, where the Attributes contributed almost nothing, except experience Bonuses.

nagora
2007-08-10, 04:00 AM
I think Druids are probably my least favourite Sub Class of all time. The Alignment rules didn't bother me overmuch, I just didn't like the concept. I don't think I ever allowed on any 2e Campaign I ran.

What was wrong with druids? Were you bitten by a tree as a child?

I only ask because I'm about to start a new 1e campaign where druids and early Christian clerics are going to be the only PC spell-caster options. I have also created a new class - witches - but it'll be NPC only until I've test-driven it for a while.

Koji
2007-08-10, 05:13 AM
2ed makes my brain hurt. I used to play it, and I loved it, but it makes my brain hurt.

How could someone have come up with so circuitous a system? Did no one just come out and suggest the roll+modifier > or = flat number?

nagora
2007-08-10, 05:22 AM
2ed makes my brain hurt. I used to play it, and I loved it, but it makes my brain hurt.

How could someone have come up with so circuitous a system? Did no one just come out and suggest the roll+modifier > or = flat number?

Many times; the problem is that it doesn't work very well; it's too simplistic.

Starsinger
2007-08-10, 05:27 AM
Many times; the problem is that it doesn't work very well; it's too simplistic.

Cuz nothing is more fun than the massive headache that's flipping through an older edition book. Maybe I'm stupid, but I find Roll 1d20 + X, compared to Y is much better than trying to comprehend THAC0.

Sometimes, simplicity is good.

nagora
2007-08-10, 05:47 AM
Cuz nothing is more fun than the massive headache that's flipping through an older edition book. Maybe I'm stupid, but I find Roll 1d20 + X, compared to Y is much better than trying to comprehend THAC0.

Sometimes, simplicity is good.

THAC0 (which is 2e, not 1st) is very simple: roll 1d20+Opponent's AC (and any bonuses of your own). If the result is >=your THAC0 you've made a hit. Hardly rocket science, and is in fact the same as "roll 1d20+X, compared to Y".

1e was slightly more complex: just look at the table printed on the DM's screen in front of your face.

Regardless, the issue with "d20+x > y" is not in combat where multiple rolls balance out the luck, it's in skill rolls where one roll determines outcome. In those situations 1d20 is far too broad.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 06:30 AM
What was wrong with druids? Were you bitten by a tree as a child?

I only ask because I'm about to start a new 1e campaign where druids and early Christian clerics are going to be the only PC spell-caster options. I have also created a new class - witches - but it'll be NPC only until I've test-driven it for a while.

Conceptually speaking, Druids are based on Neo Druidism, which is a modern fabrication and has virtually nothing to do with actual Celtic Druids (whom we know next to nothing about), which irks me no end.
Mechanically, I find their Experience Progression Chart to be baffling and the restrictions on advancement to be an over complicated balancing factor. Also, their THAC0 Advancement and Hit Die make no sense in the context of the Sub Class [i.e. it's not like they are Warrior Monks].
So, in general, I prefer to create a different Sub Class when dealing with Priests of 'Nature' or Nature Deities.

nagora
2007-08-10, 09:15 AM
Conceptually speaking, Druids are based on Neo Druidism, which is a modern fabrication and has virtually nothing to do with actual Celtic Druids (whom we know next to nothing about), which irks me no end.

Well, I can understand that. Neo-druids are a bunch of pricks prancing about in sheets with no knowledge or idea about basically anything (especially Stonehenge). On the other hand, we do know bugger-all about the real druids so for game purposes I'm happy to run with it. Not that we've ever had a druid get past 1st level (out of very few tries), so I'm not sure about the xp-ramp. I do know that mid to high level druids make fun NPCs, though.

MrNexx
2007-08-10, 11:53 AM
Read an interesting theory about the descending Acs. An AC of 0 created a conceptual barrier; while it was possible to get better than that (up to a -12 was canon), crossing that Rubicon marked a line, which tended to keep bonuses lower.

I'm not going to debate it being counter-intuitive. But having a barrier of that nature did keep things on a lower bonus level.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 12:06 PM
Yeah, I read about that as well, but I'm not convinced. THAC0 and AC operated independently of 'To Hit' Bonuses and Penalties, including their theoretical thresh holds. I think that it has more to do with the lack of Bonuses derived from any source (most particularly the lack of Bonuses derived from Attributes, comparatively speaking).

For example, you could wear twelve items of protection, but only gain one bonus, but now the case is quite different.

nagora
2007-08-10, 03:02 PM
Read an interesting theory about the descending Acs. An AC of 0 created a conceptual barrier; while it was possible to get better than that (up to a -12 was canon), crossing that Rubicon marked a line, which tended to keep bonuses lower.

I'm not going to debate it being counter-intuitive. But having a barrier of that nature did keep things on a lower bonus level.

The barrier was at the other end. AC never got worse than 10 no matter what penalties you had. I seem to remember that at one point bonuses to hit were to be subtracted from AC, which would have made a difference since 10 was the limit.

Arbitrarity
2007-08-10, 03:06 PM
Regardless, the issue with "d20+x > y" is not in combat where multiple rolls balance out the luck, it's in skill rolls where one roll determines outcome. In those situations 1d20 is far too broad.

You may appreciate the 3d6 variant in the SRD. Possibly apply it in a limited fashion, but it certainly causes the variance in 1d20 to statistically disappear, while retaining an equal average.

Matthew
2007-08-10, 04:43 PM
Actually, probably the best thing to do is require all Skill Checks to default to 'take 10', with some minor exceptions - that would very closely model the 2e use of Proficiencies and Ability Checks.

Fhaolan
2007-08-10, 05:33 PM
RE: AC going down.

This is something I vaguely remember from the dawn of time. I could be misremembering, so lots of salt on this one:

This was a holdover from Chainmail. The original printing of the Fantasy Suplement for Chainmail had 10 "armors" listed in sequence, with the heaviest armor on top if I remember correctly.

When the original wood-colored version of D&D was published (long before the 'Basic' or 'Advanced' versions were released), it copied over that list, and numbered them 0-9. That's it. No mysical design deliberations. It was all random chance. The Armor Code from 0-9 was meant to be a short code to indicate the type of armor worn, not a numeric judgement on it's protective qualities. They could have easily have just listed them in order of weight or color or something. :smallsmile:

Matthew
2007-08-10, 05:52 PM
Heh, what I heard over on Knights and Knaves was that the THAC0 and AC System was probably a result of porting over some Naval Combat Rules.

MrNexx
2007-08-11, 02:14 AM
You may appreciate the 3d6 variant in the SRD. Possibly apply it in a limited fashion, but it certainly causes the variance in 1d20 to statistically disappear, while retaining an equal average.

Actually, I've considered a 2d10 variant of D&D. It makes criticals a lot rarer (since the base would now be 1 in 100), and improved critical feats a lot more important.

Premier
2007-08-11, 06:13 AM
The barrier was at the other end. AC never got worse than 10 no matter what penalties you had. I seem to remember that at one point bonuses to hit were to be subtracted from AC, which would have made a difference since 10 was the limit.

That was the rules-defined barrier. However, MrNexx is talking about a psychological barrier. The shift from positive to negativ numbers is a sort of warning message at the back of your mind saying "Dude, just how much further do you want to go down?"

In practice this psychological limit discouraged game designers from piling too many modifiers on top of each other by creating a sort of unconscious reluctance to go below zero. Compare with the ascending values of 3.x, where there's no such "soft boundary": now you have 4 or 5 things to add to your roll plus basic value, and end up with runaway scores that are ridiculously high.

nagora
2007-08-11, 10:43 AM
That was the rules-defined barrier. However, MrNexx is talking about a psychological barrier. The shift from positive to negativ numbers is a sort of warning message at the back of your mind saying "Dude, just how much further do you want to go down?"

In practice this psychological limit discouraged game designers from piling too many modifiers on top of each other by creating a sort of unconscious reluctance to go below zero.

Not that I ever noticed. I do think there was another psychological barrier in that the combat tables never went beyond AC -10. I saw a few -4 or -5s and a -8 once but getting beyond zero was too easy to worry about (Platemail+shield gets you to AC2 without any magic or other bonuses of any kind).

Matthew
2007-08-11, 06:17 PM
You know, now that I think about it, that's probably why so many Modifiers apply to Die Rolls, rather than THAC0 and Armour Class directly.