D&D Problems

[Bedrockgames]

I think it bears keeping in mind that there's virtually no way the PCs can be kept from singling out opponents.

I am less familiar with 1E than other editions, but I have been playing it lately and one thing to keep in mind is it is the sort of system where you don't necessarily need a rule to try an action. That might not be satisfactory for folks more accustomed to a system like 3E where the tactical rules are prtty comprehensive, but if you are playing 1E (and this is how i remember playing 2E as well growing up) a player would simply tell the GM, "i try to block the guy from getting to our wizard" and the GM would probably ask for something like a strength roll, just coming up with what seemed appropriate ont he spot to fit the specific situation. This kind of stuff came up all the time because the idea was you can do anything you want, the rules are just tools to help facilitate that.

 

[billd91]

If three enemies are in a line across the hallway, and you apply that rule, wouldn't that make it a mass melee and then you're rolling randomly? Similarly, how would PCs prevent enemies from singling out PCs?

PS

If there are opponents 3 abreast in the corridor, how do you keep the PCs from singling out the one on the left, the center one, the one on the right and completely avoiding the necessity of rolling randomly to see which one they hit? That's why the rule, as written in the DMG, is effectively non-functional.

 

[Storminator]

If there are opponents 3 abreast in the corridor, how do you keep the PCs from singling out the one on the left, the center one, the one on the right and completely avoiding the necessity of rolling randomly to see which one they hit? That's why the rule, as written in the DMG, is effectively non-functional.

I guess I'm not getting it. If the PCs move to engage, wouldn't the DM just say "you're in mass melee, roll randomly"?

I've never used this rule, so I'm not defending it from experience. But if we accept that it exists, then any time there's more than one enemy in the same fight you just roll randomly, right? Same with PCs. As long as 2 PCs are standing next to each other, you have to roll randomly to see which one you attack.

PS

 

[billd91]

I guess I'm not getting it. If the PCs move to engage, wouldn't the DM just say "you're in mass melee, roll randomly"?

Wouldn't the players then say "Hey, we're smart enough to be able to tell these jokers apart once we start fighting them. And we're going to concentrate on that one"? That's the problem with the rule. It incorporates its own easy negation.

 

[Storminator]

I guess. We would roll randomly for essentially mindless enemies - undead, giant rats, etc. But that was always with the idea that those foes wouldn't care which PC they attacked.

It seems like [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] was implying that NO ONE can target. Even if you are smart enough to pick out which guy is which you can't target them unless you can get them alone (i.e. "singled out").

PS

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I started playing in 2e and only played 1e a few times, is there really a random target for melee attacks?

Does it only effect weapons and not spells? I assume you don't disintegrate or magic missle random targets....

 

[Zardnaar]

We could certainly quibble over details here, but even if we assume this was embraced at every table and implemented as you say, I think it doesn't come close to approaching the balance issues you find in 3E with class dipping and feat combos. Two weapon fighting was a known issue in the game, like specializing in darts. It was pretty easy to work around or just accept. At the time, everyone wanted to be a twin blade wielding loner because of the drizzt books. But to be honest, i didn't see it that much in groups after the first year or so. With the complete books you have a lot of optional rules that are very much an "incorprate at your own risk" type of thing, plus some questionable changes (like extending specialization to paladins and rangers). But the kits were so easy to control. Most just gave you NWPs and circumstantial bonuses. Those that were busted you simply didn't allow. But kits were something you layered on your class, they were not like the prestige classes or new classes in thelater complete books, where you had players combining them to really unexpected results. With 2E the balance issues that existed were known, there just wasn't that level of surprise you bumped into again and again in 3E (and i do like 3E, it just has more balance issues to juggle).

Another key difference between the 2E complete books and 3E complete books is the ratio of flavor to crunch. The 2E books offered some mechanics, but the kit entries were mainly about character ideas and text explaining the concept. That is why the complete Bard was so popular and still highly regarded among 2E players. No one really cares about the kit bonuses, they like it because it has all kinds of useful infomation about bards and being a Bard. Heck, if you are only going to buy one complete book for 2E, it should be the Bard book IMO because it can add a lot to the game.

I have been useing the 2E system for time again, including the class complete books. It has been way easier to manage than 3E in terms of balance. 3E has lots of advantages though. It is a lot more customizeable. So when I did my wuxia campaign, i used third edition because it was was a btter fit for the genre and had way more mechanical options for turning martial characters into wanderin martial heroes like you see in the Condor series.

I am in no way saying 2E is perfect. It isn't. And 4e is definitely more balanced than 3E or 2E, but 2E is pretty well balanced and still gives me a lot of what I want. The kind of balance achieved in 4E just isn't what I am looking for. I find between 2E and 3E (and occassionally 1E) I can get what I need for a gameof D&D. I go to 3E for its flexibility and unified mechanics, but go to 2E for the level of balance and th flavor.

The thing is you can hack the hell out of2nd ed and the game still runs fine. I converted some Pathfinde rplayers to it and my houserules were.

1. Humans get +1 ability score of their chice, and a bonus WP/NWP. No level limits or racial restrictions.
2. Thieves got tweaked a bit. Let back stab function like sneak attack.
3. THACO was ditched. Used BAB and asseding AC and saves.

That was the basic changes. Some more extreme ones considered/tested.

4. Plugging in a d20 type skill system replacing NWPs.
5. Lowering requirements on te classes by 2. Paladin need 15 charisma, Druids and Bards 13 etc.
6. Plugging in unified ability scores either BECMI or d20 ones.
7. Rewriting the thief class.
8. Plugging in talents.

 

[Hussar]

But BRG I think you missed my point. Balance means that no given option is flat out better than all other options.

Two weapon fighting had nothing to do with Salvatore and everything to do with the fact that it was flat out better. By a whole lot.

Double you damage for a couple of proficiencies and one point of AC. Hmmm. Not a hard decision.

Imbalance leads to cookie cutter characters where everyone makes the same choices.

3e for all it's higher level issues which you point out like level dipping and whatnot is head and shoulders better balanced than 2 e. 3e's ban ace issues generally don't start until after 7th level at the earliest.

I do believe that most campaigns end in the single digit levels. Most groups don't see a lot of the major 3e issues because of that. 2e otoh had major balance issues from first level

 

[Sadras]

I can only speak to my own experience, but with my group the complete bard was something people used mainly for the flavor.

We had the same experience in our campaigns, except we preferred the Complete Fighter. Sure there were the weapon and non-weapon prof and special benefits, but the kit came to life with the description, role and special hindrances sections. One of the many favourites being the swashbuckler - the end bit of the special hindrances section says it all "Life conspires to make things difficult for the swashbuckler, and the DM should always throw just a little more good-natured bad luck at that Warrior Kit than at any other"

 

[Bedrockgames]

But BRG I think you missed my point. Balance means that no given option is flat out better than all other options.

Two weapon fighting had nothing to do with Salvatore and everything to do with the fact that it was flat out better. By a whole lot.

Double you damage for a couple of proficiencies and one point of AC. Hmmm. Not a hard decision.

Imbalance leads to cookie cutter characters where everyone makes the same choices.

3e for all it's higher level issues which you point out like level dipping and whatnot is head and shoulders better balanced than 2 e. 3e's ban ace issues generally don't start until after 7th level at the earliest.

I do believe that most campaigns end in the single digit levels. Most groups don't see a lot of the major 3e issues because of that. 2e otoh had major balance issues from first level

Putting aside whether or not two weopon fighting is a flat better option, lets say it is, which i essentially di in prior post. My point was the existence of a single broken option in 2E, doesnt make it a worse balanced game than 3E which has countless such possibilities lurking in the form of various combinations of classes and feats.

I think we have a fundamental division over what balance means. I can accept you require different things when it comes to balance. To me a system where a fighter is good at fighting out of the gate, and classes are balanced pver the campaign (so the wizard eventually becomes a mighty character even though he stafts out weak) is balanced. Understand as well, 2E is a system where the luck of the die matters. Your example hinges on a truly exceptional strength roll for example.

I can undertsand you not liking 2E. I can see how you might find it clunky for example. But you are honestly one of the first people i have encountered who genuinely believes it is less well balanced than 3E (which was famous for having balance issues).

If you think 2E is less balanced than 3E then i wont try to convince you otherwise, but having played both games extensively (each one for ten years straight at least), and having just resumed using 2E, i just can't agree.