D&D 3.0/3.5 is the Greatest! But How Come... ?

[Azlan]

One of the things I appreciate about D&D 3.0/3.5 is how the system has been streamlined, how it's been made more consistent and intuitive, throughout, compared to the previous versions of D&D.

But I'm curious...

How come we're still using percentile dice for some things, especially since percentage chances are always given in increments of 5, which can just as easily (if not more easily) be determined with a d20? I'm talking about how percentile dice are used to determine "miss chance" (for concealment) and arcane spell failure chance. It is the d20 system, right? So why aren't these chances given in ranges like "1-5", used with a d20, instead of "25%", used with percentile dice?

How come we have AC (armor class) for attack rolls, but DC (difficulty class) for all the other d20 rolls? Why this one exception for the difficulty class determined by a target's defense, used against attack rolls? (And, anyway, there's considerably more that goes into a target's defense beside his armor.) I mean, do we have TC (trap class) for Disarm Device checks? Do we have LC (lock class) for Open Lock checks?

How come, with the standard now being that 1" square on the combat map is alway 5' across, how come movement and ranges are given in increments of 5', instead of simply giving them in "squares"? Wouldn't it be quicker and easier for, say, a longbow's range to be "20 squares", rather than "100 feet"? Sure, I know that not everyone who plays D&D 3.0/3.5 uses miniatures (or cardboard counters) and maps with 1" (5') squares, but those players who don't are the exception, not the norm.

 

[EricNoah]

One of the things I appreciate about D&D 3.0/3.5 is how the system has been streamlined, how it's been made more consistent and intuitive, throughout, compared to the previous versions of D&D.

But I'm curious...

How come we're still using percentile dice for some things, especially since percentage chances are always given in increments of 5, which can just as easily (if not more easily) be determined with a d20? I'm talking about how percentile dice are used to determine "miss chance" (for concealment) and arcane spell failure chance. It is the d20 system, right? So why aren't these chances given in ranges like "1-5", used with a d20, instead of "25%", used with percentile dice?

How come we have AC (armor class) for attack rolls, but DC (difficulty class) for all the other d20 rolls? Why this one exception for rolls involving a combatant's defense against melee and missile weapons? (And, anyway, there's considerably more that goes into a combatant's defense beside armor.) I mean, do we have TC (trap class) for Disarm Device checks? Do we have LC (lock class) for Open Lock checks?

How come, with the standard now being that 1" square on the combat map is alway 5' across, how come movement and ranges are given in increments of 5', instead of simply giving them in "squares"? Wouldn't it be quicker and easier for, say, a longbow's range to be "20 squares", rather than "100 feet"? Sure, I know that not everyone who plays D&D 3.0/3.5 uses miniatures (or cardboard counters) and maps with 1" (5') squares, but those players who don't are the exception, not the norm.

% dice: these are not "d20 system" type rolls that can be modified by stats, etc. I think the idea is that they are kept as percentile rolls so you know that they're different from most other types of d20 rolls.

Armor Class: a sacred cow of 2nd edition. I personally like it and I don't see the alternatives (Armor DC? Attack DC? Defense DC?) as being inherently superior terminology.

# of squares vs. # of feet: I'd say it's a matter of taste, and personally I prefer distance to be given in feet so I can convert it to squares whether I'm running my combat on a 5' grid, a 10' grid (which I often do), or no grid at all for smaller combats.

 

[stevelabny]

I'll attempt this, they seem pretty easy

How come we're still using percentile dice for some things, especially since percentage chances are always given in increments of 5, which can just as easily (if not more easily) be determined with a d20? I'm talking about how percentile dice are used to determine "miss chance" (for concealment) and arcane spell failure chance. It is the d20 system, right? So why aren't these chances given in ranges like "1-5", used with a d20, instead of "25%", used with percentile dice?

ANSWER: one of the keepovers to appease the 3e-bashers, and/or done to easily let DMs know when to assign percentages WITHOUT having to do any math. (there are probably people reading this right now thinking "5% = a 1 on a d20? WOW) "always assume the customers are stupid" is the 3rd or 4th law of business.

How come we have AC (armor class) for attack rolls, but DC (difficulty class) for all the other d20 rolls? Why this one exception for the difficulty class determined by a target's defense, used against attack rolls? (And, anyway, there's considerably more that goes into a combatant's defense beside armor.) I mean, do we have TC (trap class) for Disarm Device checks? Do we have LC (lock class) for Open Lock checks?

ANSWER: this is a definate keepover from the previous versions. they HAD to at least keep the concept of Hit Points and Armor Class or else the old schoolers would have thrown even MORE of a hissy fit.

How come, with the standard now being that 1" square on the combat map is alway 5' across, how come movement and ranges are given in increments of 5', instead of simply giving them in "squares"? Wouldn't it be quicker and easier for, say, a longbow's range to be "20 squares", rather than "100 feet"? Sure, I know that not everyone who plays D&D 3.0/3.5 uses miniatures (or cardboard counters) and maps with 1" (5') squares, but those players who don't are the exception, not the norm.

ANSWER: have you see the uproar over using grids at all in 3e? or at using grid/miniatures EXAMPLES in 3.5e? or at the very IDEA of the miniatures line? There are still plenty of players who DON'T use minis or grids, and would stop playing if movement was described in squares, because theyd say "you cant play the game any more without minis and a grid" (like some say NOW)

overall answer: theyre trying to anger the older players as little as possible while making the game as accessible a spossible to new players.

 

[Azlan]

Armor Class: a sacred cow of 2nd edition. I personally like it and I don't see the alternatives (Armor DC? Attack DC? Defense DC?) as being inherently superior terminology.

I think "defense DC" is a good enough term, since it's in keeping with the consistency used thoughout the d20 system. And, instead of saying "defense DC", players can shorten that to "defense". Furthermore, this term does not give the impression that armor is the only factor, here.

Player: My paladin attacks the wraith. What's its defense?
DM: 22.

Of course, the minor clarification and consistency you gain, here, is not worth the effort of implementing such a drastic change, now that the rulebooks have been published. But maybe in 4.0?

 

[takyris]

Hey, as my personal dream for 4E, I'd love to see combat turned into a series of related skills, so that it's always about DC. Give the Fighter 2 non-combat-skills per level and 8 combat-skills per level.

But that's after a few years of seeing how nice the common d20 check system is. It would have been too big a change for me if it'd happened in 3.0, but after seeing the success of similar mechanics in other d20 games, I think that people are up for it in 4E.

Or I could be talking out of my back pocket.

 

[Gez]

The only things that annoy me is percentile dice. They should never be used in game, only for optional random stuff generation (loot, monsters, cities, etc. Things that happen out of game and where the DM may pick and choose rather than roll).

So, I've houseruled stabilisation checks, arcane spell failure checks, and fiend summoning checks.

ASF is replaced by a special Concentration check to which armor check penalty applies. The DC to beat is 10+spell level+ASF/5. Combat Casting also gives a +4 bonus on this check. Class abilities like the spellsword's Ignore Spell Failure merely gives a bonus to this Concentration check. Bards likewise gets a bonus (+2) when wearing light armor.

Stabilisation: This is replaced by a Fortitude save, DC 10-current hit points. (So, the lower you are, the harder it is, creating a death spiral effect.) I've further modified it by adopting a death's door rule similar to what Monte Cook came up with (you're dead at -Constitution, and between 0 and -Constitution bonus, you're disabled rather than dying). You roll for stabilisation once every Constitution rounds. A heal check to stabilize someone takes one minute, and is DC 10-current hit points.

Fiend summoning. You know, this ability that fiends have to summon more of their ilk? It's the only thing I havn't finalized, but basically, it'll be along the road of a Half-HD+Charisma check against a DC of the summoned fiend's Will +10. Thus simulating in reverse a Will saving throw to avoid being summoned by the other fiends. If the Half-HD+Charisma roll is thus above the average save roll for the summoned fiends, this mean the summon worked.

However, as this creates a unique mechanism, I'm not still set on it.

 

[Azlan]

ANSWER: one of the keepovers to appease the 3e-bashers, and/or done to easily let DMs know when to assign percentages WITHOUT having to do any math. (there are probably people reading this right now thinking "5% = a 1 on a d20? WOW) "always assume the customers are stupid" is the 3rd or 4th law of business.

Myself, I never assume that D&D players are stupid. Passionate, eccentric, idealistic, geeky... maybe, with some players. But never stupid.

ANSWER: this is a definate keepover from the previous versions. they HAD to at least keep the concept of Hit Points and Armor Class or else the old schoolers would have thrown even MORE of a hissy fit.

It was not the concept of armor class that I was wondering about, but the terminology.

ANSWER: have you see the uproar over using grids at all in 3e? or at using grid/miniatures EXAMPLES in 3.5e? or at the very IDEA of the miniatures line? There are still plenty of players who DON'T use minis or grids, and would stop playing if movement was described in squares, because theyd say "you cant play the game any more without minis and a grid"

I've heard some of the uproar. But the fact is, D&D 3.0/3.5 is based heavily on the usage of miniatures (or cardboard counters) and combat maps with 1"=5' grids. Yes, you don't have to play the game using those, but such an unconventional playing style requires you to work around or outright do without many of the 3.0/3.5 rules and concepts.

For example: Without miniatures/counters and without combat maps with 1"=5' grids, how do you see if and when attacks of opportunity are applicable? How can you non-arbitrarily determine exactly how many opponents are caught in a fireball? How do you determine whether the current distance between yourself and an opponent allows you to move and attack, or just to move, during your turn? How can you see if and when you should take a 5' step?

 

[Tsyr]

How come we're still using percentile dice for some things, especially since percentage chances are always given in increments of 5, which can just as easily (if not more easily) be determined with a d20? I'm talking about how percentile dice are used to determine "miss chance" (for concealment) and arcane spell failure chance. It is the d20 system, right? So why aren't these chances given in ranges like "1-5", used with a d20, instead of "25%", used with percentile dice?.

*shrug* We still use D4s, D6s, D8s, D10s, and D12s too. "D20 System" doesn't mean "D20 Exclusive"

How come we have AC (armor class) for attack rolls, but DC (difficulty class) for all the other d20 rolls? Why this one exception for the difficulty class determined by a target's defense, used against attack rolls? (And, anyway, there's considerably more that goes into a target's defense beside his armor.) I mean, do we have TC (trap class) for Disarm Device checks? Do we have LC (lock class) for Open Lock checks?

Because "Armour Dice Check" sounds stupid, whereas "Armour Class" is a recognized and (in the gaming field) universaly understood concept.

How come, with the standard now being that 1" square on the combat map is alway 5' across, how come movement and ranges are given in increments of 5', instead of simply giving them in "squares"? Wouldn't it be quicker and easier for, say, a longbow's range to be "20 squares", rather than "100 feet"? Sure, I know that not everyone who plays D&D 3.0/3.5 uses miniatures (or cardboard counters) and maps with 1" (5') squares, but those players who don't are the exception, not the norm.

If you try to make my game so gamist as to call units of motion something so abstract as "squares", particularly when I wont touch a combat grid with a 10 foot pole, I would stop playing DnD.

 

[Tsyr]

how do you see if and when attacks of opportunity are applicable?

Common sense (Ok, Jim, your dwarf runs past the barbarian? He gets an AoO)

How can you non-arbitrarily determine exactly how many opponents are caught in a fireball?

The same way I did back in 1E and 2E? Radius of the blast, compared to where people are standing.

How do you determine whether the current distance between yourself and an opponent allows you to move and attack, or just to move, during your turn? How can you see if and when you should take a 5' step?

Common sense, and remembering where people were.

It's not like us that play without a mat just randomly attack and hit from a nebulous void... We still have characters that have positions and stuff. We just dont limit them to a nice even, artificialy construct like a grid.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Agreed 100% with Tsyr. D&D, despite the move toward more mini-intensive use, is still an RPG, not a tactical war game. I'd strongly object to any further move in that direction, and I know I'm not alone. We may be a minority these days (though I'm not convinced of that, honestly), but we're still a sizable portion of the market.