Unpopular opinions go here

[Micah Sweet]

Again, I'd suggest giving it a try. Insist that in the next five sessions of your current game, your players must only use hand gestures when speaking to NPC's because no NPC will speak their language. Watch how quickly things like Tongues becomes a go-to solution. Added bonus if two PC's in the group don't share languages.

I understand what you're getting at. But, it's not going to fly. It's certainly not something your players are going to be excited about, week after week.

You are positing an extreme scenario where no one the PCs want to talk to speaks any of the languages they do. Not very realistic. Also, I mentioned the interpreter option, which you conveniently ignored in favor of nothing but hand signals. I reject your man of straw.

 

[Cadence]

Again, I'd suggest giving it a try. Insist that in the next five sessions of your current game, your players must only use hand gestures when speaking to NPC's because no NPC will speak their language. Watch how quickly things like Tongues becomes a go-to solution. Added bonus if two PC's in the group don't share languages.

I understand what you're getting at. But, it's not going to fly. It's certainly not something your players are going to be excited about, week after week.

It feels like hiring translators could be a thing?

(Although not as exciting as some Babel fish?)

 

[Velderan]

2e fighter with long sword and short sword can attack three times at first level with no penalties.

Note, I said nothing about every round.

They can do the same in 1e. Although with some attack penalties.

True hill giants got buffed in 2e. Wonder why? If characters in 1e were doing so little damage, why did the almost double a giants hp?

The two swings with their main weapon would be in the second round, so I guess if they somehow lived past the first round they'd get a chance. And they did have penalties, -2 to hit with the mainhand weapon and -4 for offhand unless they had a high enough DEX score for the reaction adjustment to modify or were a ranger but I believe RAW only fighters could specialize? I forget. This has completely gone down the "things that need to be so perfect for it to actually happen" that if that fighter pulled it off, they're instantly a legend in whatever village they're saving.

The HP difference between 1e and 2e monsters was pretty noticeable. I remember running some 1e DL modules in 2e and not getting why everything had such low HP. Not really being aware of how different the editions were and having a friend's older brother insist "they're basically the same game" didn't help.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It feels like hiring translators could be a thing?

(Although not as exciting as some Babel fish?)

@Hussar just likes to rattle my cage .

 

[Hussar]

Again, give it a try. Go for it. Nothing stopping you.

You asked why the game doesn't do it as a baseline. You were answered. It's not done as a baseline because it's a PITA and it grinds the game to a halt with very little in the way of making the game more fun. If you didn't want an answer to the question, why did you ask it?

 

[Hussar]

The two swings with their main weapon would be in the second round, so I guess if they somehow lived past the first round they'd get a chance. And they did have penalties, -2 to hit with the mainhand weapon and -4 for offhand unless they had a high enough DEX score for the reaction adjustment to modify or were a ranger but I believe RAW only fighters could specialize? I forget. This has completely gone down the "things that need to be so perfect for it to actually happen" that if that fighter pulled it off, they're instantly a legend in whatever village they're saving.

The HP difference between 1e and 2e monsters was pretty noticeable. I remember running some 1e DL modules in 2e and not getting why everything had such low HP. Not really being aware of how different the editions were and having a friend's older brother insist "they're basically the same game" didn't help.

Again, two weapon fighting was a thing in 2e, and you could burn a couple of proficiencies to reduce your penalties to zero.

Look, I'm not saying anything particularly weird here. In 1e and 2e, fighters were very popular because fighters were the undisputed damage kings. Clerics and thieves weren't even in the same zip code. Wizards, eventually, got there, but, for the first six levels or so, wizards had so few spell slots - remember, 1e, no bonus spells whatsoever for Magic Users- that your fighter was the star of the show in combat. In 2e, your fighter got HUGE boosts to damage from 1e. Multiple attacks at 1st level. +1 to hit and +2 to damage as well. Two weapon fighting from the Complete Fighter. The fighter was literally death on toast.

3e changed all that. Massively boosted monster HP. Cut fighter damage in about half. Massively boosted monster damage output as well, meaning that the fighter was getting mauled so badly in combat as well.

A 2e hill giant had 12 HD +1-2. So, about 50, 60 HP. Not a whole lot more than a 1e Hill Giant. The 3e Hill Giant has baseline 102 HP, deals 4d6+20 points of damage vs the 2e's 2d12+7 (and that's not including things like Power Attack, which can easily double the 3e giant's damage output - a -1/hit for every +2 damage. Drop +5 to the giant's attack (making it +11/+6, still easily hitting a 7th level fighter and deal 4d6+40 damage - quite likely dropping that 7th level fighter in a single round). The 2e's hill giant takes several rounds just to threaten a 7th level fighter. Meanwhile, that 7th level fighter is obliterating a 2e hill giant in 2 rounds. 5 attacks (3 longsword,+ short sword) dealing 3d10+2d8+4+4XStr bonus (probably +3). Mr 3e fighter is a pile of goo on the ground in the 2nd round against a 3e hill giant. Mr. 7th level 2e fighter probably hasn't even broken a sweat.

THAT'S the difference here. That's why people loved fighters. That's why people go on and on about why fighters need some sort of boost in later era D&D. Because we loved that fighters were actually warriors back in the day.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, two weapon fighting was a thing in 2e, and you could burn a couple of proficiencies to reduce your penalties to zero.

Look, I'm not saying anything particularly weird here. In 1e and 2e, fighters were very popular because fighters were the undisputed damage kings. Clerics and thieves weren't even in the same zip code. Wizards, eventually, got there, but, for the first six levels or so, wizards had so few spell slots - remember, 1e, no bonus spells whatsoever for Magic Users- that your fighter was the star of the show in combat. In 2e, your fighter got HUGE boosts to damage from 1e. Multiple attacks at 1st level. +1 to hit and +2 to damage as well. Two weapon fighting from the Complete Fighter. The fighter was literally death on toast.

3e changed all that. Massively boosted monster HP. Cut fighter damage in about half. Massively boosted monster damage output as well, meaning that the fighter was getting mauled so badly in combat as well.

A 2e hill giant had 12 HD +1-2. So, about 50, 60 HP. Not a whole lot more than a 1e Hill Giant. The 3e Hill Giant has baseline 102 HP, deals 4d6+20 points of damage vs the 2e's 2d12+7 (and that's not including things like Power Attack, which can easily double the 3e giant's damage output - a -1/hit for every +2 damage. Drop +5 to the giant's attack (making it +11/+6, still easily hitting a 7th level fighter and deal 4d6+40 damage - quite likely dropping that 7th level fighter in a single round). The 2e's hill giant takes several rounds just to threaten a 7th level fighter. Meanwhile, that 7th level fighter is obliterating a 2e hill giant in 2 rounds. 5 attacks (3 longsword,+ short sword) dealing 3d10+2d8+4+4XStr bonus (probably +3). Mr 3e fighter is a pile of goo on the ground in the 2nd round against a 3e hill giant. Mr. 7th level 2e fighter probably hasn't even broken a sweat.

THAT'S the difference here. That's why people loved fighters. That's why people go on and on about why fighters need some sort of boost in later era D&D. Because we loved that fighters were actually warriors back in the day.

One of the things I love about OSR fighters is that I get to be awesome again.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, give it a try. Go for it. Nothing stopping you.

You asked why the game doesn't do it as a baseline. You were answered. It's not done as a baseline because it's a PITA and it grinds the game to a halt with very little in the way of making the game more fun. If you didn't want an answer to the question, why did you ask it?

Well, I don't really agree with your assessment, but I'm an iconoclast that way. Fair enough.

 

[Emberashh]

Some react to the fact that my game has modifiers for 1d20 rolls that climb to 30+ with incredulity, and its understandable why as conventional wisdom is that the value of rolling a die shouldn't be eclipsed by fixed numbers.

But what ive come to realize is that what was truly a result of how I needed my games math to work actually serves a rather important design purpose I didn't intend; it makes high level play easier to run.

With modifiers that high, less dice rolls are actually required. The game becomes more narrative in nature where basic (but awesome) things just become things you can just do rather than roll for. But then, because DCs can scale into the 50s and beyond, theres still a lot of room for dicey situations, but now they're relegated to things that are truly challenging for characters that climbed to level 30, raising all their mods as they did so.

The GM has less to keep track of, the players get to emphasize their various fantasies, and the game overall gets more fun the longer it goes on.

I really do think, to serve the unpopular opinion here, that the conventional wisdom is wrong, or at least is being misinterpreted. In a game like DND, modifiers that high wouldn't work without a requisite rise in DCs, and even with that it still wouldn't work without a significant overhaul in how modifiers are gained. In a game like mine where everything is being designed from the ground up with this as a foundation, it works much better.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I refuse to believe using languages even semi-realistically is as badwrongfun as you insist it is. If it were, no one here would be voicing similar sentiments. I just don't subscribe to the tyranny of the masses.

There's a lot of difference between "Badwrongfun" and "a very large number of people consider it in most contexts well more trouble than its worth." The former says "you shouldn't like what want what you want"; the latter says "Is it worth enforcing it other people who don't want it because you do."