Realism vs. Believability and the Design of HPs, Powers and Other Things

billd91 · Apr 16, 2012

Hussar said:
Or, do you go with what JamesonCourage brings up and have classes with broad bases and the option to specialize? Me, I see this as a much better option. You can play whatever you want to play and the mechanics are not telling you to ride the pines because you're just not tall enough for this ride.

Is there any edition of D&D that hasn't been like this? I can't think of one.

Hussar · Apr 16, 2012

billd91 said:
Is there any edition of D&D that hasn't been like this? I can't think of one.

AD&D is largely like this. After all, since your class is pretty much fixed from character generation, specialization is virtually absent. Additionally, the classes are very much fixed in specific niches. No one but the cleric (and to some extent the druid or paladin) can heal. No one can remove traps or hide in shadows except for the thief. No one can specialize in a weapon other than fighters.

Heck, going to Basic/Expert D&D, what mechanical differences are there between two characters of the same class?

I'd say that it took 3e to break this mold where you have very specific characters with strongly fixed roles with very little variation. 3e broke this with multiclassing rules and feats that allow you to borrow from other classes. 4e took things a step further by relaxing still further the walls built around classes.

4e classes are not really defined by what they can do that no one else can do. My 1e thief is defined in a large way be the fact that I have thief abilities that no one else gets. My 4e fighter is defined by the choices I make at every level which allow me to create two fighters of the same level, with the same stats that share virtually nothing else - one might be focused on heavy damage dealing while the other might be about battlefield control.

billd91 · Apr 16, 2012

Hussar said:
AD&D is largely like this. After all, since your class is pretty much fixed from character generation, specialization is virtually absent. Additionally, the classes are very much fixed in specific niches. No one but the cleric (and to some extent the druid or paladin) can heal. No one can remove traps or hide in shadows except for the thief. No one can specialize in a weapon other than fighters.

And none of that says anything remotely like "You're not tall enough for this ride." There's never been an edition of D&D outside of hyperbolic arguments on the internet that have shown a class is not good enough to adventure with any other.

I don't object to there being tasks in typical adventures that require a specialist. What I object to is your characterization at the end of the passage I quoted.

Bedrockgames · Apr 16, 2012

Hussar said:
AD&D is largely like this. After all, since your class is pretty much fixed from character generation, specialization is virtually absent. Additionally, the classes are very much fixed in specific niches. No one but the cleric (and to some extent the druid or paladin) can heal. No one can remove traps or hide in shadows except for the thief. No one can specialize in a weapon other than fighters.

Heck, going to Basic/Expert D&D, what mechanical differences are there between two characters of the same class?

I'd say that it took 3e to break this mold where you have very specific characters with strongly fixed roles with very little variation. 3e broke this with multiclassing rules and feats that allow you to borrow from other classes. 4e took things a step further by relaxing still further the walls built around classes.

4e classes are not really defined by what they can do that no one else can do. My 1e thief is defined in a large way be the fact that I have thief abilities that no one else gets. My 4e fighter is defined by the choices I make at every level which allow me to create two fighters of the same level, with the same stats that share virtually nothing else - one might be focused on heavy damage dealing while the other might be about battlefield control.

I do think you are right thay there was less concern for having actual mechanics to support distinction between characters prior to 3E. But there were ways, especially with spellcasters whpse spell lists played a big role in the kind pf caster they were. By 2E you already had a lot of new ways to do this as well. The priests had greater specialization, non weapon proficiencies added a layer of customization and kits gave even more.

Hussar · Apr 17, 2012

billd91 said:
And none of that says anything remotely like "You're not tall enough for this ride." There's never been an edition of D&D outside of hyperbolic arguments on the internet that have shown a class is not good enough to adventure with any other.

I don't object to there being tasks in typical adventures that require a specialist. What I object to is your characterization at the end of the passage I quoted.

In AD&D, it was binary though. Either you had the ability or you could not do it at all. Only a thief could safely remove a trap. Everyone else got to ride the pines. Only a cleric could heal damage. Everyone else gets to ride the pines. Which meant that you pretty much had to fall on the cleric grenade to get a group that could complete typical adventures.

Outside of whatever specialization you got at 1st level though, you were pretty much boned. You got your one or two things that you could do and that was it.

Unless you were a caster of course. Which meant that you could do your job and everyone else's at the same time. After all, that's what phenomenal cosmic power means doesn't it?

Bedrockgames said:
I do think you are right thay there was less concern for having actual mechanics to support distinction between characters prior to 3E. But there were ways, especially with spellcasters whpse spell lists played a big role in the kind pf caster they were. By 2E you already had a lot of new ways to do this as well. The priests had greater specialization, non weapon proficiencies added a layer of customization and kits gave even more.

Yeah, spellcasters got some choices. But, even then, everyone else got to do one thing. NWP were also binary and, once you got them, you couldn't feasibly improve them. Virtually all specialization is done at character generation.

I was talking about being able to specialize your character after 1st level.

--------

Look, here's an example. I'm going to roll a random die - 1d10+1 using the En World die roller. That's the level. Go through each edition and, we'll use fighter, tell me what choices I can make to make my character more specialized at that level.

Bedrockgames · Apr 17, 2012

NWPs improved over time, as did weapon proficiencies.

Just a point about AD&D 2E. It is difficult to find, but the phb says non thieves do have scores for many thief abilities (such as climb). However their % scores are much lower and i dont think they improve (except through modifiers).

Mattachine · Apr 17, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
NWPs improved over time, as did weapon proficiencies.

In that system, characters get more proficiencies at a rate based on class. They didn't automatically get better.

It was possible, though, to raise a NWP by one point instead of gaining a new proficiency. Weapon proficiencies only improved if you had Weapon Specialization has an option, and spent a proficiency on it.

Bedrockgames · Apr 17, 2012

Mattachine said:
In that system, characters get more proficiencies at a rate based on class. They didn't automatically get better.

It was possible, though, to raise a NWP by one point instead of gaining a new proficiency. Weapon proficiencies only improved if you had Weapon Specialization has an option, and spent a proficiency on it.

The rates were class based yes. But they still got more as time went on. And as you point out you could in fact raise up your NWP ranks. i actually kind of prefered the weapon proficiency and NWP system to the 3E skills and feats.

Something else to consider about NWPs, your chances of success were not all that bad even if you didn't raise the rank, because you rolled under your relevant ability score to succeed. So it is a different overal experience than the 3e DC based skill system.

Hussar · Apr 18, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
The rates were class based yes. But they still got more as time went on. And as you point out you could in fact raise up your NWP ranks. i actually kind of prefered the weapon proficiency and NWP system to the 3E skills and feats.

Something else to consider about NWPs, your chances of success were not all that bad even if you didn't raise the rank, because you rolled under your relevant ability score to succeed. So it is a different overal experience than the 3e DC based skill system.

Oh, very much. Problem was, it meant that as soon as you picked up a skill, you were automatically good at it. Yes, you could improve it 5% every 3 or 4 levels, but, realistically, whatever you had was what you had.

So, my 1st level human cleric takes blacksmithing and because it's wisdom based, I'm a better blacksmith than the dwarven blacksmith standing beside me who's been smithing for a hundred years. It never rubbed me the right way.

Dour-n-Taciturn · Apr 18, 2012

Hussar said:
Oh, very much. Problem was, it meant that as soon as you picked up a skill, you were automatically good at it. Yes, you could improve it 5% every 3 or 4 levels, but, realistically, whatever you had was what you had.

So, my 1st level human cleric takes blacksmithing and because it's wisdom based, I'm a better blacksmith than the dwarven blacksmith standing beside me who's been smithing for a hundred years. It never rubbed me the right way.

Agreed. You would have to incorporate a module or alternate rule set to address the equivalent of "non-weapon proficiencies" or "out-of-combat skills" in which case ability scores are either negated, if counted as difficult, or at least very limited. These skills may count for background traits and may only be picked up by a sufficiently long apprenticeship; of course, there has to be an in-game reward, such as reducing magic item cost or improving items, as per 3rd ED.