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

[Bullgrit]

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.

Isn't this like pointing out that not every adventure takes place in a dungeon and not every adventure contains a dragon?

Bullgrit

 

[harmyn]

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.....

You gave good examples of ways to use CR/EL, just not repeating for space reasons. What I was referring to on that point though is that CR is flawed in presentation. The warrior vs. fighter option. 1 level more of warrior does not make them equal. The CRs of monsters simply don't balance them out. Not saying that its useless, but its not really any better than the old monster-xp-value as a guideline. They are just differing approaches to how to do the same thing and in my experience they both require the same amount of judgement call on the part of the DM.

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

And so your saying that by skipping all the detailed RAW in the name of quick play and going off gut instinct in the new game is the better than skipping all the detailed RAW in the old game? your point of "3" in your list is the same as the DC target numbers you refer to in the above paragraph. And the difference in making it up when not covered and making it up when you don't feel like looking it up is the rules lawyer. They will look it up and site where you were wrong. As for memorizing charts and target #'s from frequent use, not a valid argument as players and DM's did the same thing in the old rules. And there are some screwy rules in the new books too. They are just worded and hidden in differing places.

---------------------------

Someone else commented that DC's should be different for each skill because some things are harder than others. Fair enough, but there should still be a formalized ranking instead of each skill being done individually.

As an example I give you WEG's Dy system.

Difficulty................Default Target #
Very Easy......................5
Easy............................10
Moderate......................15
Difficult........................20
Very Difficult.................25
Heroic..........................30

GM decides difficulty of task and the player makes a roll. Each skill doesn't need their own guidelines for success and failure. Much easier.

---------------------------------

And please remember all, I am not advocating that the older editions are better, I am merely pointing out that the newest edition's systems are also just as flawed, they are just flawed in very different and new ways.

 

[eyebeams]

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

That argument fails to resemble the point. Errata are not icing on the cake for the dedicated. They are corrections to errors that damage the functionality of a system.

Redefining errata as a luxury is novel, if silly.

 

[harmyn]

Isn't this like pointing out that not every adventure takes place in a dungeon and not every adventure contains a dragon?

Bullgrit

No. People frequently talk of the unified core mechanic that underlies the newest edition. They are simply pointing out that its not quite as unified or consistent as many claim.

 

[JoeGKushner]

No. People frequently talk of the unified core mechanic that underlies the newest edition. They are simply pointing out that its not quite as unified or consistent as many claim.

Bingo. Still a lot of level based effects in terms of dice damage for spells ranging from 1d4+1 to 1d8 to 1d10 etc...

Still a few hidden spots for % rolls.

Heck, even character generation isn't a d20 + X. It's 4d6 in the Player's Handbook.

D&D 3.5 is a lot closer to a point system and to a single unified mechanic, but it ain't there yet.

 

[eyebeams]

Bingo. Still a lot of level based effects in terms of dice damage for spells ranging from 1d4+1 to 1d8 to 1d10 etc...

Still a few hidden spots for % rolls.

Heck, even character generation isn't a d20 + X. It's 4d6 in the Player's Handbook.

D&D 3.5 is a lot closer to a point system and to a single unified mechanic, but it ain't there yet.

I don't think that's bad. Unified mechanics are overrated anyway.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I don't think that's bad. Unified mechanics are overrated anyway.

Did I say it was bad?

 

[Crothian]

D&D 3.5 is a lot closer to a point system and to a single unified mechanic, but it ain't there yet.

Ya, its noit and there really was no claim there was...pointing out these things is not helping the thread Joe its just boggs it down :\

 

[JoeGKushner]

Ya, its noit and there really was no claim there was...pointing out these things is not helping the thread Joe its just boggs it down :\

eyebeams post following my own so closely might make it seem that I thought a unified mechanic or a game system with some subsystems was bad. Trying to make sure things are clear. didn't realize it was blogging things down for ya.

 

[billd91]

---------------------------

Someone else commented that DC's should be different for each skill because some things are harder than others. Fair enough, but there should still be a formalized ranking instead of each skill being done individually.

As an example I give you WEG's Dy system.

Difficulty................Default Target #
Very Easy......................5
Easy............................10
Moderate......................15
Difficult........................20
Very Difficult.................25
Heroic..........................30

GM decides difficulty of task and the player makes a roll. Each skill doesn't need their own guidelines for success and failure. Much easier.

---------------------------------

Which means we go from something like Heal saying:

Task........................Heal DC
First aid........................15
Long-term care..............15
Treat wound (etc)..........15

and so on, to:

Task.....................Difficulty
First aid.................Moderate
Long-term care.......Moderate
Treat wound...........Moderate

and so on.

While I think assigning a difficulty description is a little more friendly than assigning a DC #, as long as the skills were sticking to 5 point increments in the first place for base DCs (most of them were), we really have the exact same effect and don't save a whole lot.