D&D General D&D Editions: Anybody Else Feel Like They Don't Fit In?

[JohnSnow]

So the cost is, in theory, if you roll low enough on the die, not only does the special "thing" fail to trigger, but the attack/ check/ save or whatever could fail as well?

I suppose a lot would depend on what stunts you could do, what the number on the you have to roll to succeed is, etc.

The cost is that typically in DCC, Deed dice add to damage as well as attack rolls. If you choose to perform a Mighty Deed, it might not happen (2/d chance), but you give up the extra damage regardless.

So it’s not a high cost, but it’s not no cost.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A lot of folks seem to have an issue with it, for similar reasons. Which to me is a shame, as it's a perfectly workable mechanic. My favorite RPG system uses it.

Its always struck me as odd, since when I first got into RQ decades ago, the whole process struck me as immensely more intuitive over all than the roll-high-against-target-number approaches. Yeah, you end up making difficulties into modifiers, but, eh?

 

[JohnSnow]

Its always struck me as odd, since when I first got into RQ decades ago, the whole process struck me as immensely more intuitive over all than the roll-high-against-target-number approaches. Yeah, you end up making difficulties into modifiers, but, eh?

I’ll observe it’s also incredibly easy to flip.

“D20 roll under,” can be flipped by “Get new score by Subtracting ability score from 20.”

Now you roll high. How would you feel about an 8 strength being better than a 14?

And if that hurts your brain, you now understand why roll under can bother people.

 

[JohnSnow]

By the way, this was the reason we had descending AC in the first place.

“1st-class” armor is better than “2nd-class,” is better than 3rd, etc.

It makes sense, I just don’t like “Ooo, I rolled a one!!

 

[ezo]

By the way, this was the reason we had descending AC in the first place.

“1st-class” armor is better than “2nd-class,” is better than 3rd, etc.

It makes sense, I just don’t like “Ooo, I rolled a one!!

Sure, but that fails to make as much sense when you say "negative 2nd-class" armor is better than "1st-class" armor, which is sort of what it would be comparing AC -2 to AC 1.

Coupled with the idea that a shield +1 lowered your armor class...

FWIW, I never had an issue with descending ACs, THAC0, or the like, personally, but I understand why others found it confusing.

 

[Aldarc]

I’ll observe it’s also incredibly easy to flip.

“D20 roll under,” can be flipped by “Get new score by Subtracting ability score from 20.”

Now you roll high. How would you feel about an 8 strength being better than a 14?

And if that hurts your brain, you now understand why roll under can bother people.

It's fine if you psychologically don't like roll under; however, your terrible argument here against roll under hurts my brain more than anything else.

 

[JohnSnow]

Sure, but that fails to make as much sense when you say "negative 2nd-class" armor is better than "1st-class" armor, which is sort of what it would be comparing AC -2 to AC 1.

Coupled with the idea that a shield +1 lowered your armor class...

FWIW, I never had an issue with descending ACs, THAC0, or the like, personally, but I understand why others found it confusing.

I always referred to it as “comprehensible, but confusing.”

I got it. But I definitely had issues explaining to new players why a “+2 shield” lowered your armor class, and how that was a good thing.

It’s not that it doesn’t work, it’s just odd.

 

[JohnSnow]

It's fine if you psychologically don't like roll under; however, your terrible argument here against roll under hurts my brain more than anything else.

Why is it terrible?

Why are you okay with “rolling 1’s is good,” but not okay with “a 3 strength is better than a 14?”

My point is that it doesn’t have to make complete sense.

 

[Aldarc]

Why is it terrible?

Why are you okay with “rolling 1’s is good,” but not okay with “a 3 strength is better than a 14?”

My point is that it doesn’t have to make complete sense.

Please do not presume that I am bothered by something that I have not stated that I am bothered by. I said that your logic made my brain hurt. I didn't say that I am "not okay with a '3 strength is better than a 14.'"

I don't think that your argument that someone's brain hurting from what you propose would make that person understand why people would be bothered by roll under. It demonstrates that people are bothered by what you would propose, but no more than that. So it's a bit spurious. The logic of your argument is leaping so to speak. There is an argumentative gap one part of the argument and the conclusion.

That said, I'm not terribly bothered by what you proposed. After all, this is kinda how saves worked in older editions of D&D, as you would roll over the value of your saves score. The value of your saves would go down as you increased in level. So representing the same but with your attributes is not a far stretch.

I got it. But I definitely had issues explaining to new players why a “+2 shield” lowered your armor class, and how that was a good thing.

It’s not that it doesn’t work, it’s just odd.

As a reminder there is a difference between Roll Under and THAC0. THAC0 is not the end all and be all for roll under systems. There are fair number of different roll under systems out there, including Blackjack like ones in Pendragon: i.e., roll as high as you can without going over the value.

 

[ezo]

I got it. But I definitely had issues explaining to new players why a “+2 shield” lowered your armor class, and how that was a good thing.

When you explain to people the "+" means a one-spot increase per number on the tables for your AC, it makes more sense.

The bonus improves the "class" or category of protection the armor provides. It is the reason why AC is actually "Armor Class". As you said before 1st-class is better than 2nd-class, etc.

However, for magical weapons, the "+" is actually a magical bonus added to your roll to hit the AC of your opponent.

Overall, it adds to the confusion: + for amor decreases AC (which improves it) and + for weapons adds to your to hit roll, increasing it.

It works perfectly well, but definitely caused issues. However, since we understood it as children, it ain't rocket science.