Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?

[Raven Crowking]

If you see percentile strength as sensible and good, then good on ya.

I thought it was stupid then, and I think it's stupid now.

Well, that I can agree with. I'd not care to return to percentile strength.

EDIT: And you are right about it carrying into other stats; there should either be percentiles for all or for none. I vastly prefer 2e/3e here.

But, if you know what the rules are, and you break those rules, then it is you who is responsible and not the rules. Some rules (in every edition, IMHO) cry out to be changed. If you sit down as a group (or as a DM) and houserule them, and let everyone know that you have done so, then you are (hopefully) improving the game. If you are instead lying about your die rolls, you're just cheating. Clear and simple, IMHO.


RC

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

If you see percentile strength as sensible and good, then good on ya.

I thought it was stupid then, and I think it's stupid now.

I always thought it was weird, too. I don't think it's game-breaking, but it always struck me as odd. I prefer the B/X attribute mods over the OAD&D ones.

 

[molonel]

But, if you know what the rules are, and you break those rules, then it is you who is responsible and not the rules. Some rules (in every edition, IMHO) cry out to be changed. If you sit down as a group (or as a DM) and houserule them, and let everyone know that you have done so, then you are (hopefully) improving the game. If you are instead lying about your die rolls, you're just cheating. Clear and simple, IMHO.

It seems like you're trying to convince me that cheating is wrong, when I never said it was right.

I did, however, say that the system encouraged it and rewarded ONLY the highest stats, and therefore encouraged cheating on dice rolls for character generation on melee characters in particular, since percentile stats only existed for such.

I played a lot of First Edition, and I know I saw a LOT more characters with percentile strength in the 91 - 100 range than I saw in the 01 - 10 range.

So I know this wasn't something that just happened in my gaming group.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It seems like you're trying to convince me that cheating is wrong, when I never said it was right.

No. Merely that cheating is cheating, and that it is the responsibility of the one doing it.

Moreover, even if everyone cheats in exactly the same way, you can hardly expect the game rules to be designed based upon an assumption of cheating. I've known a lot of people to "roll" high (combat, stats, saves) but the game rules are not broken because their characters always hit/have great stats/never fail a save.

Lots of arguments can be made why D&D 1e was sub-optimal. That you, me, or anyone else was prone to cheating isn't one of them.


RC

 

[molonel]

No. Merely that cheating is cheating, and that it is the responsibility of the one doing it. Moreover, even if everyone cheats in exactly the same way, you can hardly expect the game rules to be designed based upon an assumption of cheating. I've known a lot of people to "roll" high (combat, stats, saves) but the game rules are not broken because their characters always hit/have great stats/never fail a save. Lots of arguments can be made why D&D 1e was sub-optimal. That you, me, or anyone else was prone to cheating isn't one of them.

I respectfully disagree. When the system only really rewards people who have 18/91+ strength, then you're not really going to see anything else. That's what I saw, then. Or everyone had Gauntlets of Ogre Power, strangely. The fiat came through DM item granting (you just HAPPENED to find it), or through modified dice schemes (like the one mentioned in UA) or simply through player iniative.

It was a weak statting system on every level, and it encouraged cheating more than a system that rewards stats on a sensible curve, especially when there were very few ways to increase stats back then. You played the hand you were dealt.

You disagree. That's fine.

But nothing you've said has convinced me otherwise.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I respectfully disagree.

Sure. And you can blame the game system for your cheating, if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make the game system responsible.

 

[MerricB]

If I may note...

Percentile Strength was introduced in OD&D Supplement I: Greyhawk; it's primary function was to make fighters better than they had previously been - which was actually quite weak.

Specialisation, added in Unearthed Arcana, also had the same idea behind it.

The trouble with both systems was that they rewarded fighters more at 1st level (when they didn't need it) than at 10th level (when they did!)

In original D&D, you used 3d6 for your stats. Rolled in order. Cool. What happened was that you got a lot of unplayable characters, and shortly thereafter a lot of dead characters where players would deliberately "suicide" their PCs to get one better. Life was cheap in those days.

So, you got the alternative generation versions in the DMG for AD&D.

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Did we (all) houserule that, then? Because I'm sure there was some sort of prohibition against casting out of metal armour, and a penalty if casting out of leather or similar...might not have applied to Elves, though...?

Lanefan

I believe that, if you went through the effort of digging out old The Dragons, you'd find a Sage Advice (then Official Answers to Your Rules Questions) that said, in effect, that because multi-classed characters who cast wizard or illusionist spells could wear armor, but because wizards and illusionists could not wear armor (it being anethema to their spells), that multi-classed wizards and illusionists could only cast spells while not wearing armor.

HOWEVER, even if I am remembering this correctly, it does seem to be a nerfing of multiclassed characters as described in the PHB, and thus would seem to make the point that multi-classing caused problems more clearly (after all, why nerf something that isn't getting out of control?).

So, even though I never had any problems with this issue (and I had a wide play experience with 1e) I guess I have to put this lack of problems down to really good luck or really good players, or some combination of the two.

RC

 

[molonel]

Sure. And you can blame the game system for your cheating, if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't make the game system responsible.

I have agreed to disagree with you, and simply stated that you have not demonstrated the logic or reasoning to convince me. Since you are incapable of simply doing the same, I will be the more mature party here, and leave it at that.

Cheers.

 

[MerricB]

Do you have a Dragon issue number for that RC? (Mind you, a couple of those answers in the first installmenets are very dodgy, from memory).

If you check the 1e PHB, you'll find passages like, "Although able to operate freely with the benefits of armor, weapons, and magical items available to the clases the character is operating in, any thieving is restricted to the armor and weaponry usable by the thief class." (PHB 16). So, elven fighter/magic-users could cast spells in full plate; but elven fighter/thieves could not backstab or pick locks when in anything more than leather.

Another quote, "Cleric/Magic-User: This combination gives the character a great variety and selection of spells, as well as the use of armour and more weapons." - PHB 32

"Fighter/Magic-user: Obviously, this combination allows excellent armour protection, the use of weaponry, and spells." - PHB 32

It wasn't until 2e that the "no casting in armour" rule came in. (Interestingly, elven fighter/magic-users in elven chain could cast spells, as a specific exception to the rule!)

Cheers!