D&D Problems

[Bedrockgames]

But BRG I think you missed my point. Balance means that no given option is flat out better than all other options.

Two weapon fighting had nothing to do with Salvatore and everything to do with the fact that it was flat out better. By a whole lot.

had major balance issues from first level

Just to be clear I wasn't placing any blame on Salvatore, I think his stuff is great. My point was people expected two weapon fighting to be good and wanted it to be so following the frizzy books, I think that is why the option wasn't nerfed .

But I would like to see your numbers on this one because lots of people make mistakes on multiple attacks in 2E due to its staggered nature. Not saying you are wrong,as I said 2W does have broken bits and 2 weapon fighting was a known issue...but two weapon fighting doesn't double your attacks if I recall correctly, it just adds one additional off hand attack.

 

[Hussar]

Well considering that you only have one attack then adding a second one every round would double that no? Granted with specs you go from 3/2 to 5/2 so it's not quite doubling.

But none of that requires exceptional strength. That's just icing.

And as an added bonus, off hand attacks occur at the same time as primary so you don't have to wait for the end of the round like with extra attacks from specs or high level.

It is a day of firsts though. Ten years of everyone bitching about how 3e focus des too much on balance compared to AdnD. But now it's 2e that is more balanced.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well considering that you only have one attack then adding a second one every round would double that no? Granted with specs you go from 3/2 to 5/2 so it's not quite doubling.

But none of that requires exceptional strength. That's just icing.

i have always felt there were problems with the two weapon rules, so i am not defending them (because going 3/2 to 5/2 gives you the attacks of a 13th level fighter). But that is still 2 attacks the first round and three attacks the second. Quite a bit compred to 1 attack the first round and two the second). I am just wondering how you got the killing six foes in a single round from that.i just think it is important to show work in these sorts of example to make sure it is an accurate claim and so we are both on the same page in terms of numbers.

Your example requires exceptional strength because you were claiming the character can kill multiple two hd foes at level one. Doing so requires the exceptional str damage bonus. Exception strength in 2E is exceedingly rare.

There is also the penalty to attacks to consider for two weapon fighting just in terms of hitting.which again you can reduce with the right methods, but it does reduce the effectiveness of two weapon fighters for many characters to a point where it is less desireable.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It is a day of firsts though. Ten years of everyone bitching about how 3e focus des too much on balance compared to AdnD. But now it's 2e that is more balanced.

Well, i find they have very different kinds of balance issues. 2E balance problems are pretty apoarent at a glance. From a GM point if view, that is quite easy to manage. 3E balannce issues tend to surpriyse you, and that can be very hard to manage because you often ended up approving options before realizing their full potential. That said, i like both systems. I think 3E does flexibility well, and the balance issues are just a natural product of that (well worth it really). 2E gets the flavor I am after and works better for certain style campaigns for me (i have run back to back 2E and 3E Ravenloft campaigns, and vastly prefer the flow and feel of 2E to 3E or that setting). I also like things like different XP progressions for different classes as a blancing factor, and I like that not all classes are built with combat in mind. The NWPs also work better for me than the later skill system (though i realize i am an outlier there).

Now, if you dont view balance over the campaign as a viable method, sure 2E will seem unbalanced to ou, but many, many people do. Locally pretty much every GM i know who has gone back to either 1E or 2E after years of 3E has really been surprised by the level of balance and the reduced number of problems they face in that area as GM (though challenges is probably a better word than problems).

YMMV. If you feel differently, i am not going to try and convert you. However those if us who play 2E and prefer it, often find it's approach to balance better than 3E. There are definitely some min-max options. Buy they are widely known, easily removed and it just doesn't lend itself to uber builds like 3E does.

i will say though I find many of the complaints online about 3E are rarely encountered in an actual campaign, or less of a problem when you apply all the rules as they are written.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think it bears keeping in mind that there's virtually no way the PCs can be kept from singling out opponents.

If three enemies are in a line across the hallway, and you apply that rule, wouldn't that make it a mass melee and then you're rolling randomly? Similarly, how would PCs prevent enemies from singling out PCs?

PS

If there are opponents 3 abreast in the corridor, how do you keep the PCs from singling out the one on the left, the center one, the one on the right and completely avoiding the necessity of rolling randomly to see which one they hit? That's why the rule, as written in the DMG, is effectively non-functional.

Wouldn't the players then say "Hey, we're smart enough to be able to tell these jokers apart once we start fighting them. And we're going to concentrate on that one"? That's the problem with the rule. It incorporates its own easy negation.

I guess. We would roll randomly for essentially mindless enemies - undead, giant rats, etc. But that was always with the idea that those foes wouldn't care which PC they attacked.

It seems like @ExploderWizard was implying that NO ONE can target. Even if you are smart enough to pick out which guy is which you can't target them unless you can get them alone (i.e. "singled out").

PS

I started playing in 2e and only played 1e a few times, is there really a random target for melee attacks?

Does it only effect weapons and not spells? I assume you don't disintegrate or magic missle random targets....

The random targeting rule was intended for melee combat and missile fire shot into melee combat. Spells cast at range, much like missile fire directed at unengaged targets, can be specifically targeted.

This is because there is a different level of abstraction for melee combat. It is explained that a single "to hit" roll represents overall best effort for the round and is NOT intended to represent a single swing of a weapon. The random targeting in melee is part of that same level of abstraction. Melee is a chaotic swirling mess. If specific targets aren't isolated then they are part of the mass of enemies and subject to the random factor.

Like any rule, it can be discarded as the participants desire. If it is disregarded then the natural consequences will be lots and lots of dead magic users. You can't disregard the rule then complain about not being able to protect wizards. Thats like throwing away your umbrella and bitching that its raining. Some rules are in place for a reason.

The main reason such rules get tossed aside in the first place is that some players want a vastly LESS abstract game than D&D when it comes to combat. If more simulation is desired there are now numerous systems that provide that experience. So many problems revolve around players that want to play D&D the brand but actually don't care for D&D the game.

 

[Mark CMG]

I got 99 systems but a LARP ain't one.

 

[Hussar]

i have always felt there were problems with the two weapon rules, so i am not defending them (because going 3/2 to 5/2 gives you the attacks of a 13th level fighter). But that is still 2 attacks the first round and three attacks the second. Quite a bit compred to 1 attack the first round and two the second). I am just wondering how you got the killing six foes in a single round from that.i just think it is important to show work in these sorts of example to make sure it is an accurate claim and so we are both on the same page in terms of numbers.

Your example requires exceptional strength because you were claiming the character can kill multiple two hd foes at level one. Doing so requires the exceptional str damage bonus. Exception strength in 2E is exceedingly rare.

There is also the penalty to attacks to consider for two weapon fighting just in terms of hitting.which again you can reduce with the right methods, but it does reduce the effectiveness of two weapon fighters for many characters to a point where it is less desireable.

No. I didn't say that. I said that a 1 st level fighter can kill a four hd creature (6 hd with exceptional Str) in one round.

 

[pemerton]

So many problems revolve around players that want to play D&D the brand but actually don't care for D&D the game.

I think this is a little harsh. "D&D the game" isn't just Gygax's original mechanics - it's also a whole bundle of story elements, and the idea of starting out fighting kobolds and ending up fighting Orcus, and some people (eg me) want a game with that stuff but found that Gygax's mechanics weren't the best way (for us) of doing it.

For instance, I GMed RM for nearly 20 years, but all that time was using D&D game settings (Greyhawk or OA/Kara-Tur) and much of the time was using D&D adventure material. I cared for D&D the fiction, just not D&D the mechanics. When the mechanics changed to something that appealed to me again (4e) I changed back to D&D mechanics, but that had a pretty minimal impact on the story/fiction character of my game.

 

[Hussar]

I have to ask though. Why do you think exceptional Str is rare? 4d6 arrange to taste usually gives you one 18 which is most likely going into Str for any fighter type. Again due to balance issues a high Str trumps all considerations for fighter types.

Other than paladins I suppose due to Cha requirements.

 

[dd.stevenson]

So many problems revolve around players that want to play D&D the brand but actually don't care for D&D the game.

I think this is a little harsh. "D&D the game" isn't just Gygax's original mechanics (snip)

Actually, I think that ExploderWizard's comment, when viewed at its most expansive, perfectly describes the predicament that wizards finds itself in today. Every problem they have, from their inability to convert cultural penetration into sales, right down to the 3e/4e split, can be seen as a problem with players who want (or who should want) to play D&D the brand but didn't care for the game.