Has the DMs job evolved in regard to "winging-it"?

[Ariosto]

As opposed to the simple formula: 1d20 + level/stat-dependent bonus; high results are good.

How hard is this to understand? It is mathematically the same thing!

Where do you get the "level/stat-dependent bonus" peculiar to a situation? Where do you get the number indicating just how high is necessary?

If they just >poof< out of thin air, then you can do the same hand-waving in AD&D. Otherwise, you had to look them up somewhere originally, which is no less than your very "complaint" about the old game.

You say "tuh-mah-toe" and I say "tuh-may-toe" -- but it's still three syllables.

And, by the way, we were originally talking about improvisation, not about more or less convenient isolated rules.

You brought up the topic of different formats, and their relation to improvisation. How they are 'isolated" is not clear.

I stand by my original assessment that improvisation in a unified rules system (3e) is much easier for me than doing so with a hodgepodge of different sub-systems (1e/2e).

And I stand by my assessment that the parts in bold are a false dichotomy. AD&D has as much "unification", and 3e is a congeries of more different sub-systems.

The multiplication of rules in 3e is in fact an advantage, if one happens to find being able to look up the particulars more a boon than the sense of "needing" to do so at the drop of an Attack of Opportunity is a bane.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Cleric tries to turn Ghouls: roll d20 (see Matrix for Clerics Affecting Undead)
Ghoul tries to hit Cleric: roll d20 (see Attack Matrix for Monsters)
Ghoul hits Cleric, possible paralysis: roll d20 (see Saving Throw Matrix)

How is this any less a "unified system" than 3e or 4e?

Well, for one, the different tables.

For two, the variance between "you need to roll high" and "you need to roll low" depending on what you're trying.

For three, the different modifiers from different locations added to different rolls (sometimes one roll, sometimes another).

Earlier editions weren't horribly disparate or anything, but 3e was a big step forward in implementing a central mechanic of "1d20 + stuff vs. DC for basically all rolls."

In earlier editions your target would change, your modifiers would change, and often rather drastically.

I mean, compare THAC0 and Saving Throws and Proficiencies in 2e to BAB, Saves, and Skills in 3e.

The former has no real pattern. Those are three very different rules, each with different desirable results.

The latter pretty much looks the same no mater what you're doing.

This slightly more unified system generally translates into ease of play. In 3e, I didn't have to implement strange math and table look-ups to see if I or a monster hit, or if I could make a fire. The math was all relegated to the modifiers.

Which did lead to the problem of fiddly modifiers, especially at high levels, but certainly 4e didn't go back to THAC0 and save matrices, so my guess is, it worked better than what preceded it for 4e's purposes.

 

[Hereticus]

What is left of 3e if you don't use the crunch? Not much. For most people (I know) playing 3e the _excellent_ crunch is the main reason they enjoy playing 3e in the first place. If you throw out 80% of the crunch you might as well a different edition.

What is "the crunch"?

What I found incredibly funny after 4e came out was the all the folks coming out of the woodworks saying, how they've been doing things like that all the time anyway and there's nothing new or good about 4e, anyway (except the forementioned things, naturally).

Of course 4.0 came out with some good thing - like no LA, at-will powers, and fewer skills (17). Some of us did have similar house rules for 3.x. We also had a system of disadvantages for feats, and had dumped THAC0 in AD&D. It was about time that WotC caught up with us.

In hindsight it's always easy to dismiss great ideas as being trivial. I can definitely say that my DMing style for 3e changed after I had read the 4e DMGs. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a terrible system to 'wing it'.

I found it very easy to "wing it" in 3.5, due to experience as a DM and familiarity with the rules.

I found it harder to "wing it" in 4.0, only because the edition is newer to me and I am less familiar with the rules. But that will change in time.

 

[Hereticus]

Then of course there are the many "feats".

4e is similar to 3e, but with the addition of hundreds of "powers" that effectively make each attack a special case.

The variety of many feats and many powers is what makes the game interesting. Myself and most of those I game with prefer to be able to customize our characters fro an upcoming encounter or situation.

Which reminds me of one time as a DM....

I allowed a group of six 8th level characters max themselves out with spells, charged items, potions, etc for an ambush they were planning on three devils.

But they failed in surprise and only got one of the devils. The other two flew to a ledge and waited out the spells' durations. The ensuing battle was brutal for the unprepared characters as four of six went into negative hit points. I didn't kill any, but they learned that a sound plan trumped maximum maximization.

4.0 allows for much less maximization. But my wizard does like to position himself with a ritual, and have a daily power up to start the battle.

 

[Henry]

One thing regarding 3e/4e undead turning: I recall many drawn-out arguments over how difficult the turning was in 3E, and how useless it was against undead of equivalent CR because of the undead's high hit dice, ensuring a cleric would have no point to try a turn. (One example: the Drowned from MM3, who were a CR9 creature with TWENTY hit dice!!) There were even cleric spells designed to address this disparity ( I recall one or two showing up in the Spell Compendium designed to do, in a will save, what the Turn Undead was SUPPOSED to do!)

One thing I do like about 4E is the usefulness of its turn undead: attack roll vs. will, does damage PLUS makes the undead mechanically run away and cower, just what it's supposed to do without a lot of fiddling with tables and doing division to see how many creatures are affected.

I saw a turn undead in a weekend 4E game, and it was resolved inside of 30 seconds, with a player familiar with older editions of D&D, but new to 4E, controlling the character and reading off the result. Reminded me of the AD&D turn undead in terms of speed, and boy I couldn't be happier to see a resolution that quick return to the table.

 

[Hereticus]

I saw a turn undead in a weekend 4E game, and it was resolved inside of 30 seconds, with a player familiar with older editions of D&D, but new to 4E, controlling the character and reading off the result. Reminded me of the AD&D turn undead in terms of speed, and boy I couldn't be happier to see a resolution that quick return to the table.

I've seen them resolved in 3.x in half that time, and in ten times that time. They go very fast now, because they are reduced to a known (X+d20)/3 roll and calculation.

One thing I do like about 4E is the usefulness of its turn undead: attack roll vs. will, does damage PLUS makes the undead mechanically run away and cower, just what it's supposed to do without a lot of fiddling with tables and doing division to see how many creatures are affected.

I've played 4.0e, but never as a cleric. I've also never seen a party member cleric turn undead. From what I've read, a cleric gets very few attempts. Would you please counter my misperception. Thanks.

 

[Ariosto]

Well, for one, the different tables.

Nope. The system is not only just as unified, it is in essence the same system as in 3e. The latter gets presented in the 3.5 PHB with separate tables for each class, on as many different pages. With OD&D or AD&D, I've got it all on just two (OD&D, with some of that 3e/ 4e-style interpolation) or three pages (AD&D, all worked out) -- already cross-indexed with the DCs, yielding simple d20 rolls, for convenience.

Why does 3e break it all into pieces? Because the focus is on piling up pieces to combine (especially in the "build" sub-system). To derive the actual values, we need to add in all applicable feats (which may vary from instance to instance).

There are still "target" numbers, which the 4e DMG lays out in terms of combat role, level and encounter balance. One can jump through hoops playing the sub-game of level advancement with monsters and NPCs, or -- in 3e as well as in any other version -- one can skip that step and go straight to the end product desired.

For two, the variance between "you need to roll high" and "you need to roll low" depending on what you're trying.

Nope. Same "roll high" on the d20.

Or are you talking about thief functions? Well, if you really would rather indicate 20% as 81-00, or as 17-20 on d20, then go ahead. In old D&D, it's a probability, not a mandated randomizing method! Besides the skill points subsystem and the already mentioned feats, the reason 3e multiplies factors is to emphasize that the DM is going to make the DC a moving target. Think you know your chances? Think again, Trap Monkey Boy!

In earlier editions your target would change, your modifiers would change, and often rather drastically.

Huh?? That's what I'm seeing in 3e and 4e. That's what feats and powers and lists of skill DCs are all about.

(Doesn't mean I've got to look 'em up in the books, though. Slowing the game to a crawl is not something I want, and "winging it" is after all about improvisation.)

I mean, compare THAC0 and Saving Throws and Proficiencies in 2e to BAB, Saves, and Skills in 3e.

I don't have 2e books handy, but THAC0 is functionally the same as in 3e (target AC taking the place of "BAB"). Potayto, potahto. I personally prefer just to roll the die and see what I hit:

roll 12: AC 2 (Plate Armor & Shield)
roll 11: AC 3 (Plate Armor)
roll 10: AC 4 (Chain Mail & Shield)
roll 09: AC 5 (Chain Mail)
... etc.

Saving throws? A table in 1e, tables in 3e. If you want to memorize all the formulas, then knock yourself out with either set. If I'm going to refer to a book, how having it all on one page is "less unified" just boggles. A single lookup gives the actual roll needed in 1e. How is that less of a "system"?

Those are three very different rules, each with different desirable results.

You talk "buh-lo-nee", and I say "bull-o-nee". Roll n or higher on d20 is the desirable result is the same whether one is rolling "to hit" or "to save".

The math was all relegated to the modifiers.

My math was already done in the tables!

 

[Henry]

From what I've read, a cleric gets very few attempts. Would you please counter my misperception. Thanks.

Once per encounter -- pretty common, actually.

I've seen them resolved in 3.x in half that time, and in ten times that time. They go very fast now, because they are reduced to a known (X+d20)/3 roll and calculation.

Not sure I follow - which calculation is the one you stated? I don't recognize it from 3E. I honestly can't say I've ever seen them resolved in less than 30 seconds, though, even at low level, because if you succeed, you then need to roll the 2d6 + level + charisma plus any other modifiers from feats, and then divide by the number of undead present, etc. Only time I've seen less than 30 seconds is when someone rolled a 1 or 2 on the turn check.

 

[Hereticus]

Once per encounter -- pretty common, actually.

That's why I didn't like it, I had usually rolled poorly on once per encounter effects.

Not sure I follow - which calculation is the one you stated? I don't recognize it from 3E. I honestly can't say I've ever seen them resolved in less than 30 seconds, though, even at low level, because if you succeed, you then need to roll the 2d6 + level + charisma plus any other modifiers from feats, and then divide by the number of undead present, etc. Only time I've seen less than 30 seconds is when someone rolled a 1 or 2 on the turn check.

Table 8-9 (PHB p159) was turned into an (X+d20)/3 formula, where X=3*level+charisma bonus-10.

A 7th level cleric with a charisma of 16 and no relevant feats would translate into (14+d20)/3.

If d20=10, the cleric can turn a HD=8 creature.

For damage, the cleric does 10+2d6 in damage.

If 2d6=8, then 18 HD can be turned.

I would roll my d20 and 2d6 at the same time, for a 10 second resolution.

Try it, it works.

 

[Glyfair]

Terrible post, I couldn't agree less.
What is left of 3e if you don't use the crunch? Not much. For most people (I know) playing 3e the _excellent_ crunch is the main reason they enjoy playing 3e in the first place. If you throw out 80% of the crunch you might as well a different edition.

For the most part, it doesn't matter what the DM uses, as long as he understands the system. It matters what the players use. That's all they really see. Even the most anal retentive "must follow the rules" player will have no cause for complaint if he can't tell the DM isn't following the rules.

Of course, in the best games, with the best DMs you don't have to worry about this. The DMs and player sit down and determine what sort of game they will all enjoy. If they can't come to an agreement or compromise, then someone decides it's better to find a game and group more to their tastes.