Discussing problems with D&D/d20 rules...

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

My reasons: there are no rules for designing a prestige class,

Why would you need RULES for this? A class is a set of abilities to represent an archtype in the campaign. PRCs even more tend to reflect specific groups within the campaign itself. I don't need rules to tell me whether the Knight of the ShireWood have bonuses against their traditional enemies, do I?

or how to design good feat progression.

Again, why would i need RULES for this. If the feat progression i create accomplishes my goal, it is good.

Furthermore, I feel that the core classes are balanced solely for the dungeon. If you take them out of such a limitted setting where they are allowed to kill 90% of what they encounter and put them in a game that is not continuous fighting, spellcasters will have a clear advantage due to versatility.

Most classes have what i call a DYNAMIC equilibruim as opposed to a STATIC equilibrium. This appears to have been a design goal of 3e.

In some case, the fighter is clearly the superior choice for solving the problems, given his abilities. In other cases, the Wizard is. in others the cleric is. That means IF the GM applies a reasonablely diverse series of situations and challenges, each class will get his niche scratched now and again.

I have not seen any class "useless" out of a dungeon at all.

I will note that a few PrCs seem to be woven into a very tight niche, to represent a specific oprganization, and that they are seemingly rather unsuited for PC usage.

We must find a way to make feats and skills more versatile! Still wouldn't help the monk though

I have not seen feats and skills as insuffuicient at all in my games. Skills play a very important role in most situations.

All this said... the degree to which classes see their niche and their non-biche situations, the equitability of those, the degree to which skills are used and deats play a significant role, and so on are all directly and inextricably linked to the GMs understanding and use of encounters.

If the GM does not choose encounters and stories and events and scenes with his PCs and their abilities in mind, any or all of these "problems" you mention can and will occur.

Thats not a system issue, however, tho YMMV.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

If the GM does not choose encounters and stories and events and scenes with his PCs and their abilities in mind, any or all of these "problems" you mention can and will occur.

Bingo.

2nd edition was even more "combat system oriented" then 3rd edition, and we were able to pull off rp-driven campeigns.

Perhaps we just got lucky, but I think Petrosian got it right.

FD

 

[hong]

 

[Psion]

Re: well

I'll just skip past the "civiler than thou" discussion and get straight to the meat.

Originally posted by Kaptain_Kantrip
#2: d20, like GURPS, is supposed to be a universal system flexible enough to support different styles and settings (as evidenced by Call of Cthulhu d20, Wheel of Time, Fading Suns, and other settings). That's part of WoTC's marketing strategy, so why deny it?

Because d20 and D&D are two different things. You came in here and tell us why D&D doesn't fit your needs. That is not to say that a d20 system game couldn't meet your needs. You'd just have to re-design the damage system, which isn't dictated to you by the d20 STL. Heck, use harn's! It's cool (well, except for the chart reliance thing...)

If you just want to modify D&D to do what you want it to do, you would be swimming upstream, since the D&D game has a lot of assumptions built up around the HP system. That still doesn't make it a problem with the system. D&D does what it is intended to do. If you think D&D is a universal system, or was even marketed as such, you are smoking something.

In theory, d20 could be adapted to anything, but the idea here is that people are willing and able to do the footwork. Normally that means publishers.

There are some venues that I doubt that d20 could be fairly adapted to, but low fantasy isn't one of them.

The problem with trying to do this in a low fantasy setting are the unrealistic combat rules, the level based system of character development, and the magic system itself. Together, they present an insurmountable obstacle to using them outside a cinematic or high fantasy style of game, at least for me. And I tried like hell to make them work.

Since you couldn't do it, it couldn't be done then?

For my game, I wanted to add a little more fear to combat, so I added a critical effect system that works seamlessly with D&D. Now admittedly, I would have to go further if I wanted low fantasy (I don't), but I don't think it's impossible. I do think it would be a task, though.

Some people swear by Ken Hood's Grim & Gritty combat system. Have you taken a look at that?

All of this is of little consequence, really, as if you are happy with Harnmaster, then Harnmaster is what you should play. Returning to my original point, though, this does not mean that your decision to do so is indicitave of a "problem" with D&D any more than it means that there is a problem with a screwdriver because it doesn't make a good hammer.

 

[Codragon]

level advancement

I was thinking about level advancement in d20...I'm not against it..but I sometimes wonder about the rate your power increases per level gained.

I mean, your power basically doubles from 1st to 2nd level.; at least in terms of HP and BaB if you're a fighter. It could be said that X level fighter is X times as powerful as a level 1 fighter.

Another thing is, a first level fighter has about ZERO chance of defeating a fifth level fighter in combat, even assuming they have the same equipment. Same thing with fifth level versus tenth.

I'm not saying fifth level fighters should be afraid of every peasant with a pitchfork - but not totally unafraid either. In D&D, a 5th level fighter can charge a 1st level one with no fear whatsoever for his life. That shouldn't always be so in a "realistic" game.

Just some thoughts...

 

[Petrosian]

Additionally, if the DC for climbing an unknotted rope is 15, the Str 16 guy with no ranks in Climb will only be able to climb it about half the time. Let's face it, either you can climb a rope or you can't. None of this "I couldn't climb it that time, but suddenly I figured it out! Hey, wait, now I can't climb it anymore... wait a minute, yes I can!"

Uhh... to me this does not represent KNOWING how to climb a rope and then forgetting it. The failed skill roll does not mean you suddenly lost the knowledge of "put your feet on the knots"... it represents you failed to do something.

Did your hand slip?
Did the weight you are carrying shift and cause you to lose your grip?
Did you get distracted?

More experience with a skill indicates better focus, better execution and less chance of failure.

The programmers i work with every day write code that contains errors. Not just misconceptions, errors. Did they suddenly forget that objects need to be deleted? No. They just forgot to do so.

Thats what a failed skill roll means.

Once you get sufficiently skilled, you wont fail at the various skills. With a climb of +4 that DC 5 rope climb wont be an issue, unless something else comes along to cause trouble.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Re: level advancement

I'm not saying fifth level fighters should be afraid of every peasant with a pitchfork - but not totally unafraid either. In D&D, a 5th level fighter can charge a 1st level one with no fear whatsoever for his life. That shouldn't always be so in a "realistic" game.

Err. . well, a 5th lvl fighter has been through a handful of adventures and possibly a lot of combat. Not to mention had the benefit of treasure- the 1st level guy is just strapping on his boots... and probably on the wrong feet. How much chance should there be?

And considering the nature of the dice- there is always a chance.

I can recall, in 2nd edition, my 17th or so level thief being killed by a 3rd level fighter- of course that was with that edition's percentile wrestling rules.

FD

 

[Psion]

You'd think that a character with a 16 in Str would be much, much better at things like climbing than someone with a Str of 10. However, giving him a +3 bonus on a roll of a d20 means that he'll only succeed when the Str 10 guy doesn't a mere 3/20 times. Additionally, if the DC for climbing an unknotted rope is 15, the Str 16 guy with no ranks in Climb will only be able to climb it about half the time. Let's face it, either you can climb a rope or you can't. None of this "I couldn't climb it that time, but suddenly I figured it out! Hey, wait, now I can't climb it anymore... wait a minute, yes I can!"

To be frank, it sounds to me like you aren't using the system right. Is this DC anywhere in an official source? If so, it sounds off. Climbing a knotted rope should be fairly easy.

Rule of thumb: if you want a character with a skill modifier of X to consistently be able to perform a task, assign it a DC of 10+X. That way, the character will always be able to perform the task while taking 10.

Rolling the dice in a situation where you could normally take 10 should only be done when under duress, i.e., in combat, etc.

If the climb DC to climb a knotted rope is 10, then anyone with a non-negative climb modifier will be able to climb the rope consistently when not under duress. However, when you have a pack of bloodthirsty dire wolves nipping at your heels, then things get interesting... and a dice roll is required.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

You da' man KK!

I'd like to check out the Harn setting, but I don't think the rules are for me. Hell I'm having a hard time running a 3e game due to all the extra stuff.

 

[Patrick-S&S]

I'd like to check out the Harn setting, but I don't think the rules are for me. Hell I'm having a hard time running a 3e game due to all the extra stuff.

Well it seems we have this thread again at the EnWorld boards where KK is preaching Hârn and Psion counters, and it goes on and on and on...

Anyway I do not object to KK finding his gaming heaven with Hârn or that Psion is is counter-attacking anything he writes, but I do have a "problem" with the fact that so many think that HârnMaster and Hârn is the same. It is not, at least not all of it. Yes HârnMaster is the best system to use with Hârn but it is not the only one.

Hârn is suppose to be a system free setting where you could add any rules to it. True it would need some tweaking but considering how well some rules are adapted to various styles of play I see no reason why the D&D rules with say Grim & Gritty rule adds couldn't work, or systems like Gurps or even RoleMaster. Hârn is a "realistic" setting but it does not mean it is empty of magic and beasts. You can add more fantasy touches to Hârn if you prefer it.

Besides, KK games with the lofty "unrealistic" HârnMaster 2nd edition rules while the "purists", like me, use the HârnMaster Gold version that is reeking with realism. Take that and digest...