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

[Bullgrit]

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.

How about D&D's DC system? (This is right in the beginning of the Skills section of the PHB.)

Difficulty (DC)
Very easy (0)
Easy (5)
Average (10)
Tough (15)
Challenging (20)
Formidable (25)
Heroic (30)
Nearly impossible (40)

It seems to me that most of the set DCs for the various skills fit right with this scale.

Bullgrit

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

Except that in a comparison between 1e/2e and 3e, it's spot-on.

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.

The problem here is with your use of "same thing" is "same amount of judgment call." That's simply not true. Both a CR/EL system and a "the XP award for killing this monster is x, so it's probably suitable for an encounter against characters of Y level" call for some DM judgment; it's just that in the former case, the DM may decide that the CR is a little off, whereas in the latter case the DM has to do the judging as if the measurement didn't exist at all in any other than the most general sense. It's like me using a yardstick (3e) or my arm (1e) to measure the length of the wall; I might not be able to get a perfectly precise measurement using the yardstick, but at least I know how long the yardstick is and can work out approximations that way.

To wit, look at your own post last page. You broke down a set of differences between a hell hound and red dragon wyrmling that illustrate problems in their sharing a common CR. However, you wouldn't have been able to do this effectively without a vaguely precise yardstick (the CR system, and predetermined CRs that were at least within a few levels of accuracy) to work with.

Claiming that a system that establishes a consistent and usually workable set of guidelines creates "the same" problems as one that has almost no consistency or workability to begin with, simply because the former system isn't PERFECT, is simply a flawed argument. Not being perfect doesn't mean that a thing isn't better.

Or, to sum up, for what characters is a Level X monster suitable to use as an encounter?

 

[Justin Bacon]

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.

The over-valued CRs of NPC classes and the under-valued CRs of the dragons are well-known discrepancies in the CR system. I would argue that they are, as you say, flaws (particularly the NPC classes). (Actually, I'd take it one step further and say the basic "level = CR" guideline is flawed. I find "CR = level - 1" for PC classes and "CR = level - 2" for NPC classes to be much more accurate.)

And it's also true that the system becomes less accurate the further you stray from the standards it assumes (duh). But that's not actually a flaw in the system, just a limitation.

And, since the system deals with averages, you'll always have outliers and unusual outcomes.

But none of this means the entire system is worthless. The system does, in fact, give you useful information -- as proven empirically by hundreds of thousands of gamers every week.

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?

Since the mechancs in 3rd Edition are unified, it's a helluvalot easier to fake it when you need to.

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.

If you don't want to get into nit-picky arguments over the rules, then don't play with rules lawyers. It's like saying that the problem with trying to play a nice game of flag-football is the guy who insists on tackling people instead of grabbing the flags.

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.

Claiming that the guidelines for determining the difficulty of a particular jump attempt and a particular open locks attempt is, frankly, the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You can't lockpick a 10 foot chasm or jump over a locked door.

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.

As an example, I give you the table from pg. 64 of the 3.5 PHB:

Difficulty................Difficulty Class
Very Easy......................0
Easy.............................5
Average........................10
Tough...........................15
Challenging....................20
Formidable.....................25
Heroic...........................30
Nearly Impossible............40

See, this is what I'm talking about. You don't even know the rules and you're trying to critique them.

This generic chart, BTW, is a pretty good way to deal with rules lawyers.

DM: You can see some goblins on the far side of the chasm. They're shooting arrows at you.
Player: Okay, I want to jump the chasm and attack them.
DM: Well, it's going to be a pretty tough jump. Give me a DC 15 Jump check.
Rules Lawyer: Ah! Ah! Ah! How wide is the chasm?
DM: Lemme check. (checks the guidelines for the Jump skill and finds that a DC 15 Jump check is 15 feet) The chasm is about 15 feet wide.

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

 

[Justin Bacon]

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.

I'm not sure what you're really trying to claim here. Are you honestly suggesting that the 3rd Edition core rulebooks, as printed, had fewer errors the 2nd Edition or (ha!) 1st Edition core rulebooks?

The only difference that I can see is that WotC actually offers reliable and timely errata for their products. And I'm still not clear on why that's supposed to be a bad thing.

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

 

[harmyn]

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.

Don't think your quite catching my meaning. The DC's aren't set up under a uniform system. What is an easy difficulty under one skill is considerably harder under another. Don't have my book in front of me at the moment to quote exact #'s. Each skill lists its own set of difficulties/target numbers, and to say just gloss over it and go off your gut is what many have slammed as a bad thing in the older editions of the rules.

And your example would simply be this: Healing, Moderate Difficulty. And that's it. And to use WEG's again as an example, the DM/GM is now free to say that your minor wound requires only an Easy roll to fix, or it might be that you took enough damage you should be dead but the Healer PC wants to revive you so you can be assisted in limping to safety. That would require a Heroic roll. Sliding scale, standard targets, same difficulties for all.

 

[eyebeams]

I'm not sure what you're really trying to claim here. Are you honestly suggesting that the 3rd Edition core rulebooks, as printed, had fewer errors the 2nd Edition or (ha!) 1st Edition core rulebooks?

The only difference that I can see is that WotC actually offers reliable and timely errata for their products. And I'm still not clear on why that's supposed to be a bad thing.

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

Actually, now that I think of it, 2e did in fact have fewer errors (http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Role-Playing/Fantasy/AD&D/AD&D 2nd Edition Errata). 2e was a far less integrated game system, though, which meant that even though it was less flexible in play (as it lacked a core mechanic), mistakes were not quite as damaging.

The 3e PHB errata was significantly larger and, the 3.5 PHB was nothing the sneeze at either, though it does not directly compare since part of the point of 3.5 was to apply corrections to 3e anyway.

3e to 3.5 was a bit of a boondoggle, considering that there was far more in the way of extreme erratas than a significant edition change.

Of course, as amusing as this digression is, it contradicts your arguments that erratas aren't "for" casual gamers. Mind you, I suppose you'll fall back on your own circular strawman definition of "casual" instead of a real one, anyway.

 

[Bullgrit]

Re: "Casual gamer"

I consider myself a little more involved than a "casual gamer" (after all, I visit this Web site), but I've never downloaded any errata, and only read anything "FAQy" when I read Sage Advice in Dragon magazine (bought off the rack maybe 3-4 times a year).

Bullgrit

 

[Imret]

And your example would simply be this: Healing, Moderate Difficulty. And that's it. And to use WEG's again as an example, the DM/GM is now free to say that your minor wound requires only an Easy roll to fix, or it might be that you took enough damage you should be dead but the Healer PC wants to revive you so you can be assisted in limping to safety. That would require a Heroic roll. Sliding scale, standard targets, same difficulties for all.

Alright, hopefully I've attributed that quote correctly and I've correctly determined what you're saying. I'll start by saying I like this system, I like it quite a bit, and I may in fact decide to use it myself. I'm not sure it's better or worse than the mechanics as written as far as new DM's go; a system of sliding scales with set difficulties (fairly similar to Interlock, IMO) requires a bit more clever adjudication and balancing than the RAW, but I think it is a good idea.

OTOH, at least the quasi-unified mechanic of 3.X D&D means that this system -could- be used. There was simply no mechanic for it in 1e/2e, unless you want to count the largely non-functional NWP's from 2e AD&D; frankly, everybody I knew that didn't just use their wizard/priest slots for languages and history or their rogue picks for Tumbling went with Bowyer/Fletcher (because only the bow was worth using as a ranged weapon), Blind-Fighting (because it always worked), and Tracking. Anything else was a pointless flavor skill you'd never, ever use. And if you did somehow use them, you had to have the modifier to the appropriate attribute on hand and remember you're rolling under.

Again, I know you're not claiming that 1e/2e was better than 3.X, just pointing out that the mechanics might not be as good as they could be. All I have to say in reply is "At least they look unified on the surface, particularly if you disregard damage".

 

[Justin Bacon]

Actually, now that I think of it, 2e did in fact have fewer errors (http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Role-Playing/Fantasy/AD&D/AD&D 2nd Edition Errata).

... You do realize that document is larger than the current PHB errata, right?

Of course, as amusing as this digression is, it contradicts your arguments that erratas aren't "for" casual gamers.

Uh... What? You do realize that's a completely illogical conclusion from apparently nonexistent premises, right?

Mind you, I suppose you'll fall back on your own circular strawman definition of "casual" instead of a real one, anyway.

I'm not the one who defined it that way. If you can't follow a discussion, please don't attempt to participate.

Thanks.

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

 

[Pielorinho]

Moderator's Notes:

Per a reported post, I've glanced over this thread. Justin and Eyebeams, you're both out of line here, and y'all need to stay out of this thread from now on. Leave it to other folks.

Other folks, please remain polite and civil. If folks are getting insulting, please remember to report them rather than responding to them in kind.

Please help us raise the tone of this board. We've been getting a huge number of reported posts lately, and it's because folks seem to be extra on-edge. It's really getting to us mods.

Daniel