Assess this chap's position (3.0 and older versions)

[Psion]

Psion, first I must state that I failed to properly divide my previous post, only the Denial aspect at the beginning was directed at you.

Okay, fair enough. I apologize. It almost seemed like you were trying to tear my position down. I guess I should have clued in when you were refuting things I wasn't saying...

You claimed the new edition wasn't built on the assumption of amassed wealth and magic. I was pointing out that the entire CR system is based on the concept of characters having a certain level of wealth and magic at each level and if they don't then the charts become flawed and unworkable in terms of the highly praised "balance" in the new system.

That wealth guidelines assume you have a certain amount of wealth, and the CR system relies on this is a true statement. What does not follow is that it results in the supposed behavior you fault.

I see the wealth guidelines as an improvement from the previous position, not a fall from it. In prior editions, there WERE no wealth guidelines, and I can fairly say I saw more of a zeal for treasure accumulation, and, for that matter, more outlandishly treasure laden characters.

Further, since there is a wealth standard, and you know that CR guidelines are based on it, if you decide not to go by the wealth guidelines, you know what the wealth levels are below which it will require some rethinking/caution.

Having wealth guidelines helps, not hurts.

I do feel for those where were math deficient though and cannot grasp THAC0. But I am surprised that you or your group would have dificulties with that, but NOT with subtracting 5 off your to-hit rolls and adding 10 onto your damage if wielding a two-handed weapon.

Side point, I hate the double-for-two-handed power attack rule of 3.5 and refuse to use it. I use the same rules that apply to strength modifiers for weapons, which are arguably more complicated, but the players seem to take it in stride.

The problems I see with THAC0 are threefold.

First, it introduces an additional operation. I find that power attack is just another modifier to be rolled up into your modifiers in a single operation. And it is far from universal (I don't think I have a power attacking character in my current game.)

Second, one of those additional operations gets unloaded on the DM unless you advertise AC (which I consider bad policy). So not only is it an additional operation, the DM (who is busy enough) becomes a choke point for doing those operations.

Finally, an additional number is not as potentially confusing as introducing the possibility of subtracting negatives. Having seen some famous example of sign confusion in software engineering of all places, I know that humans tend to confuse the issue when it come to subtracting negatives, even though the operation isn't any more complicated for a computer.

As for the d20 mechanic, you completely avoided the fact that the actual DC needed to accomplish your task varies with just about every skill. So you roll and add numbers, if you have to keep looking up what the total number means in terms of success then its not that much faster really.

I don't find I have to do any such thing. More often than not, DCs are set by:
1) Numbers that are so frequently used that you memorize them (I could recite the concentration DCs in my sleep.)
2) Are set by opposed rolls or figured save DCs which are sitting right in front of you,
3) Don't have a published DC and are a matter of DM ajudication.

The fourth case, where I know there is a written DC and I want to use it, I'll look up. If I feel like it. (More typically, if the player knows they want to do something, I'll ask them to look it up why they are waiting for their turn.)

 

[Crothian]

Everything is d20 + X eh?

How does a dying character stabalize?

10% chance or by rolling a d20, getting a 19 or 20 and adding nothing to the roll.

 

[Justin Bacon]

You can still do the same with 3.5. If noone at the table knows a rule, you don't have to stop and look it up. Make up something else.

But if you don't know - there's a rule.

Same goes for monsters, xp, treasure etc etc. Before 3.0, you had no idea (without actually having seen a monster in action) how well it would perform against a party. Now you have some idea - CR is not perfect, but it's a lot better than nothing.

Somehow people turn this into a bad thing for 3.5. I really don't get it.

You've basically got two things going on here:

1. People misuse the tools that the designers of 3rd Edition gave them and then blame the game for it. DMs skim through the DMG, pick up on the basic concept of "CR/EL = party level = balanced encounter" and then slavishly work to make every encounter a perfectly balanced encounter... despite the fact that the DMG specifically tells you not to do that.

But there's absolutely no need to do that. The CR/EL system is there, as you say, to provide a rough idea of whether or not an encounter is going to be simple, challenging, difficult, or virtualy impossible for a given party to accomplish. But that doesn't mean that you should never have a simple or a virtually impossible encounter happen in your game.

Now, as a DM, I'm not going to setup a situation in which a beholder is likely to ambush a 3rd level party. But I have been known to roll a beholder as a random encounter and terrify a group of 3rd level PCs when they spot it floating by a few thousand yards away in the Ironwood Forest.

And, on the other end of the scale, one of the best encounters I ever ran involved a group of mid-level characters rampaging through a tribe of gutter goblins that didn't pose any kind of threat at all (largely due to the set-up and surrounding circumstances).

Not everyone misuses the CR/EL system in this fashion, of course. Necromancer Games tends to design good, solid location-based adventures which present a realistic environment -- with some encounters that will be easy and some that will be difficult, depending on when exactly the PCs encounter them.

2. The rules in 3rd Edition are just too darn good for some people to resist. And like a fat man blaming the sugary treats for his inability to resist them, some people choose to blame the rules for being there.

Take skills for example. Yes, almost every skill has detailed support explaining how to set very accurate DCs for the skill. That's a great resource that you can tap as a DM. But there's nothing stopping you, when you're just trying to adjudicate quickly, simply setting a DC based on your gut instinct of how difficult a task is... just like you would in any game system.

And then you've got the combat rules for specific situations -- like trying to charge at someone and push them back. Those are great rules to have when the situation comes up. Otherwise, as a DM, you'd be left with your dick flapping in the wind triyng to adjudicate some kind of ad hoc mechanic to figure out whether or not Frank the Fighter can shove his way past the hobgoblin blocking the only door out of the room. (And you'd probably end up with some sort of opposed Strength check provoking an attack of opportunity that looks an awful lot like the system they've codified.) These rules aren't complicated and you don't have to memorize them: You just have to be barely aware of their existence so that, like the detailed guidelines of skill DCs, you can tap them when you need them.

Finally, let me say that there were only three ways to explain people who claim that 1st and 2nd Edition had fewer rules than 3rd Edition:

(1) They are ignorant of the previous editions;
(2) They are filthy liars; or
(3) They, like the rest of us, ignored massive swaths of the rulebooks because they were nonsensical, pointless, and even contradictory. As a result, they've simply forgotten that those rules ever existed.

I sat down with my 1st Edition PHB a couple days ago and found myself simply laughing at the number of completely nutso, oddball, random rules strewn recklessly around the pages.

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[Justin Bacon]

The "new" D&D IS a nightmare to run as a DM. This is especially true if the DM is a casual gamer type - one that plays once or twice a week and doesn't pick up a book unless he's prepping for a session. There is such a quagmire of rules, option, errata to both, counter-errata to the errata... most casual DMs (like myself) can't keep up.

The casual gamer isn't going to pick up the options and erratas. He's just going to play the game.

MY biggest issue is with the sheer volume of possibilities intrinsic to the game's design. For each new rule, monster, class, or alternate handbook *G*, I simply must find a way to integrate it into my current campaign/adventure.

I have absolutely no sympathy for the "I have no impulse control and they're giving me too many options!" crowd. Options are good. Options give me choices. Options give me support.

If you want a simple, unsupported game there are plenty of fantasy RPGs that sunk without a trace and exist as little more than a single rulebook. Enjoy.

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I agree. Just pointing out that sweeping generalizations are usually wrong.

Concealment has a % chance to miss as well.

Spell failure for wearing armor has a % chance to fail.

There are probably other subsystems in the system that I could point out but the point is, not everything is d20 based.

You will notice, however, that all % chances for anything to occur are given in multiples of 5%. Usually 10%, 20% and 50%, but never 7% or 36%. Therefore, they can be rolled on a d20. So there.

 

[Psion]

You will notice, however, that all % chances for anything to occur are given in multiples of 5%. Usually 10%, 20% and 50%, but never 7% or 36%. Therefore, they can be rolled on a d20. So there.

It could be. But the design team almost seems like they use that convention for things that they want to say "don't even try to add modifiers to this" about. So it's sort of a conceptual "walling off".

Whether it's really helpful or not is another debate, but I can see the point.

 

[eyebeams]

The casual gamer isn't going to pick up the options and erratas. He's just going to play the game.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/24

Y'here that, casual gamer. It's not *for* you!

 

[Justin Bacon]

I'm surprised also that no one has mentioned the slow-moving, tactical, wargame flavor of combat in 3.X. In AD&D it was "I rush across the room and hit the orc with my sword!" In D&D 3.X, it goes more like this:

Snip nonsense demonstrating how an incompetent DM can ruin the mood of a game session.

In a similar vein, let's look at the same DM running 1st Edition:

Player 1: I rush across the room and hit the orc with my sword!"

DM: Whoa, slow down there, shorty. The orc is 15 inches away. How far can you move?

Player 1: The orc is only 15 inches away? Then I just hit him!

Player 2: No, wait. I know this one. If the orc is 15 inches away, it means he's actually 150 feet away.

DM: No. You're outside now. So the orc is actually 450 feet away because he's 15 inches away.

Player 1: Umm... Okay. Then I run over and try to hit the orc.

DM: No, you can only move 12 inches in a round, so you can't reach the orc and attack this round. Well, you might be able to if you charge.

Player 1: How does that work?

DM: Well, when you charge you gain a 33 1/3% bonus to your movement. That would let you move up to 16 inches, so you could reach the orc.

Player 2: I thought you doubled your movement when you charged?

DM: Only when you're inside. When you're outside, you increase it by a third.

Player 2: Oh, OK.

Player 1: So, wait, what's going on?

DM: You're thinking about charging. But you should be advised that you'll lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class

Player 1: I have a Dex of 18. That gives me a -4 bonus to my AC, so my AC will be four higher now right?

DM: No. See, when you're talking about charging, losing your Dexterity bonus to AC just means that your Armor Class is 1 higher, regardless of what AC you have.

Player 1: Ummm... Okay. So I charge the orc. Do I get to attack?

DM: Not yet. The orc has a longspear which is longer than your sword, so gets to attack first. [rolls some dice] Okay, he misses. Roll your "to hit" dice. And remember to add a +2 bonus for charging.

...

Yeah. That's a lot simpler.

For 2nd Edition you can get rid of all that indoor/outdoor confusion. Here you just need to work your way through increasing your movement by 50%, adding a +2 bonus to your attack roll; checking to see if your weapon deals double damage on a charge; giving an initiative bonus of -2 to the character BEING charged; subtract your Dexterity bonus AND an additional +1 penalty to your AC as the charger; and resolve the defender's attack if they're wielding a polearm or similar weapon.

Yup. Definitely simpler than "you move twice your speed and then attack with a +2 bonus while sufering a -2 penalty to AC; you deal double damage with certain weapons and provoke attacks of opportunity normally (which may also deal double damage if the weapon is set against the charge)".

Oh, wait. No it's not.

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[JoeGKushner]

You will notice, however, that all % chances for anything to occur are given in multiples of 5%. Usually 10%, 20% and 50%, but never 7% or 36%. Therefore, they can be rolled on a d20. So there.

How about rolling damage? That's not a d20 + X. Rolemaster handles the damage roll with the to hit roll. Mutants & Masterminds uses a saving throw.

Rolling hit points? Not a d20 + X.

How about dying? One of the most important aspects of any character's life. Does it involve a saving throw or a d20 + X? Nope, it's -10.

I mean sure, you can talk about how % can be turned into a d20 roll but that's not RAW.

The new system is much cleaner than previous ones but it's certainly got room to grow.

 

[Justin Bacon]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/24

Y'here that, casual gamer. It's not *for* you!

Since the term "casual gamer" was defined here as someone who doesn't want to deal with options and errata... yeah, that's the definition. Try to keep up.

To re-iterate: Claiming that the gamer who doesn't want to deal with options and errata is going to deal with options and errata is... well, absurd. There's no gaming police forcing anyone to buy optional manuals or search out the errata.

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net