D&D General Hot Take: D&D Has Not Recovered From 2E to 3.0 Transition

[Stalker0]

Not an actual response to your post, but just a fun aside.

My 3.5 warmage could shoot an arrow up to a mile and halfish (I forget the exact number of feet) away without any range penalty (some spell and Distance property on a weapon) that would explode in a Maximized Acidball. It started a discussion at the table exactly how far away you can actually discern a human form with the naked eye.

Which interestingly enough, was a table in 3.0 if I recall. It actually had encounter distances by terrain, to determine when it made sense to be able to see other enemies (assuming you made your spot check, which the rules accounted for).

I really miss that table actually.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You can get better, sure. IMO, it shouldn't be so much better that an enemy only has a 5% chance of landing an ability against that save. (Not counting very rare one-time enemies like gods, for whom that's fine since it's a one off.)

wait... even with the ring and the paladin you aren't making it on a 2... that is a 5% chance. what are you talking about at best I got it to a 4. (15% chance) and again that is only with your best save...

lets do the standard array.
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8
lets put the +1 in the 15 and the +2 in the 14 so I get 2 16s
16 +3
16 +3
13 +1
12 +1
10 +0
8 -1
now lets give prof in 1 of the 16s and the 13. and give a +2 to the 16 with the prof... make them a +4 prof
18 +8
16 +3
13 +5
12 +1
10 +0
8 -1
but then lets give them either a cloak or ring +1
18 +9
16 +4
13 +6
12 +2
10 +1
8 +0
lets forget the scores and just record the saves
+9, +6, +4, +2, +1, +0
lets say that 1/3 of the time you get a +3 from a paly next to you and that brings you to
+12,+9,+7,+5,+4,+3

these two sets gives us a range of +0-+12 where +12 is your best and +0 is your worst... so against a DC 14 you have a 5% fail on your BEST save in the BEST situation, and you have a 65% fail rate on your worst in the worst situation...

prof 4 comes on line between levels 9-12 so lets imagine a threat that should be facing in those levels... do you think having there save based off an 18 or 19 stat is reasonable?

Ideally, the numbers shouldn't normally skew so hard that either side has a 95% chance of success.

but again to skew that hard you have to have a magic+ a prof a good stat and a paladin friend with a good stat... even then most times it wont be 5% fail...

now lets take those numbers and say you will make 40 saves over levels 9-12 (number pulled from my back side but that is 10 saves per level) and that half of them will be against your best save (that seems dubius unless you just happen to have your best save be dex... again I see a rogue issue) but the other 20 saves will be split 10 (so half again) to your next best save and 10 to your third best (you are never useing those last three and again that seems dubius at best but lets see)
so 20saves with +9 66% of the time and +12 33% of the time.
10 saves with +6 66% of the time and +9 33% of the time
10 saves with +4 66% of the time and +7 33% of the time...

now half of those will be DC 13 and half will be DC 15

I will round in favor of the paliden being there...
6 saves +9 Vs 13 (15% chance of fail)
4 saves +12 vs 13 (0% chance of fail)
6 saves +9 vs 15 (25% chance of fail)
4 saves +12 vs 15 (10% chance of fail)
so even here the best save is over those levels .9+1.5+.4=6.4 you come close with 6.4% (lets round down to 6) a 6% fail rate... that rate only goes UP from here... so no it will not be 5% when done but I am tired of doing math for now.

I think that, again ideally, the success rate for both attacker and defender should cap out somewhere around 70% under normal circumstances. That strikes a decent balance between predictability and randomness.

but is that 70% against your best or against your worst? remember even useing this system that is +0-+12 a 12pt swing...

Besides, I've never complained about the 4e treadmill (I think that claim is kind of wrongheaded to begin with)

I agree it only is a treadmill if you ignore all the guidance about encounter building and how attacks themselves scale in damage...

If both attacker and defender are actively improving their respective values, it ought to be a treadmill. Otherwise, you're favoring one over the other (which means devaluing either offense or defense respectively). IMO, if you do want to favor one, it ought to be offense since that makes for a more exciting game.

I would say you should favor the one that is the focus... my BEST save should out distance your DC. my WORST save should be out distanced by your DC, my AVERAGE should be on that treadmill staying about the same...

 

[Stalker0]

"That's my secret, Cap. I'm always nostalgic for 4e."

It's just unfortunate that Wizards is still hamstringing the edition so we can't play it as easily as literally any other iteration of the game.
Can't get the core rules in print through DMs Guild.
Can't access character builders or other resources.
Can't run it on any VTT with any sort of functionally or automation.
Can't allow Retro Clones to use any of the system.

If I want to play 4e, there's no option other than to make characters with dice and pencils, playing with books found in swap meets.

You can more easily play 1974's OD&D than a system being enjoyed a decade ago.

This is a really good point. I mean I get that 4e wasn't the most popular, but yeah it really does feel like the "shame edition" considering how hard it is to find materials for it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sorry guys you get better and the things you are challenged by and most of the things you need to roll the dice to overcome get better too .. seems a natural thing in stories... complaining about it seems very odd to me.

I don't know about that... somethings should be hard and somethings should be easy... again I would say if 2 out of 6 defenses (saves) get better then the attack and 4 out of 6 don't that seems to work in my mind... my issue is when 1 out of 6 keeps up, 1 or 2 out of 6 keep pace within 1 and 3 or 4 out of six lag behind there is no real growth at all

And your worst is what zero and always will be? Seems like a huge gap to me -> ... generalized competence is non-existent in this edition
Further to me every character having multiple large holes in their defenses "FOR CASTERS ONLY" to walk through is tacky.

I agree/

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is a really good point. I mean I get that 4e wasn't the most popular, but yeah it really does feel like the "shame edition" considering how hard it is to find materials for it.

being my favorite edition, that makes me sad.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I will never trade Cantrips in to gain Wizards using crossbows, after using one or two spells, back.

Crossbows??? CROSSBOWS????? I should be so lucky!
-Vamoose the Indisposed, 3rd Level Magic User

 

[Fanaelialae]

wait... even with the ring and the paladin you aren't making it on a 2... that is a 5% chance. what are you talking about at best I got it to a 4. (15% chance) and again that is only with your best save...

lets do the standard array.
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8
lets put the +1 in the 15 and the +2 in the 14 so I get 2 16s
16 +3
16 +3
13 +1
12 +1
10 +0
8 -1
now lets give prof in 1 of the 16s and the 13. and give a +2 to the 16 with the prof... make them a +4 prof
18 +8
16 +3
13 +5
12 +1
10 +0
8 -1
but then lets give them either a cloak or ring +1
18 +9
16 +4
13 +6
12 +2
10 +1
8 +0
lets forget the scores and just record the saves
+9, +6, +4, +2, +1, +0
lets say that 1/3 of the time you get a +3 from a paly next to you and that brings you to
+12,+9,+7,+5,+4,+3

these two sets gives us a range of +0-+12 where +12 is your best and +0 is your worst... so against a DC 14 you have a 5% fail on your BEST save in the BEST situation, and you have a 65% fail rate on your worst in the worst situation...

prof 4 comes on line between levels 9-12 so lets imagine a threat that should be facing in those levels... do you think having there save based off an 18 or 19 stat is reasonable?

but again to skew that hard you have to have a magic+ a prof a good stat and a paladin friend with a good stat... even then most times it wont be 5% fail...

now lets take those numbers and say you will make 40 saves over levels 9-12 (number pulled from my back side but that is 10 saves per level) and that half of them will be against your best save (that seems dubius unless you just happen to have your best save be dex... again I see a rogue issue) but the other 20 saves will be split 10 (so half again) to your next best save and 10 to your third best (you are never useing those last three and again that seems dubius at best but lets see)
so 20saves with +9 66% of the time and +12 33% of the time.
10 saves with +6 66% of the time and +9 33% of the time
10 saves with +4 66% of the time and +7 33% of the time...

now half of those will be DC 13 and half will be DC 15

I will round in favor of the paliden being there...
6 saves +9 Vs 13 (15% chance of fail)
4 saves +12 vs 13 (0% chance of fail)
6 saves +9 vs 15 (25% chance of fail)
4 saves +12 vs 15 (10% chance of fail)
so even here the best save is over those levels .9+1.5+.4=6.4 you come close with 6.4% (lets round down to 6) a 6% fail rate... that rate only goes UP from here... so no it will not be 5% when done but I am tired of doing math for now.

but is that 70% against your best or against your worst? remember even useing this system that is +0-+12 a 12pt swing...

I agree it only is a treadmill if you ignore all the guidance about encounter building and how attacks themselves scale in damage...

I would say you should favor the one that is the focus... my BEST save should out distance your DC. my WORST save should be out distanced by your DC, my AVERAGE should be on that treadmill staying about the same...

What I was saying was 70% both ways. IOW, you have (at best) a 70% chance of saving with your best save. You have a 30% chance of saving with your worst save (IOW, a 70% chance of success for the attacker).

Casters have the option to choose a wide variety of saves, but casters aren't the only characters who interact with the DC system. Monks, for example, also utilize the DC system but don't have the luxury of targeting weak saves. They always target Con, and whether that is weak or strong is up to the whims of whoever designed the adventure.

 

[Clint_L]

This is a really good point. I mean I get that 4e wasn't the most popular, but yeah it really does feel like the "shame edition" considering how hard it is to find materials for it.

There was some good stuff in 4e, but player consensus was that it felt like D&D was following rather than leading, and trying to play more like a MMORPG (specifically, World of Warcraft which was a global phenomenon when 4e was being designed) rather itself. Which led to Pathfinder both being created and briefly supplanting D&D as the best selling TTRPG. Which led to a quick course correction and the rapid release of 5e. So I can see why, from WotC's perspective, 4e became "that which shall not be named."

I think we are far enough away from it now, and 5e obviously successful enough, that WotC could afford to lighten up about 4e a bit, because it did have its fans.

 

[Yora]

2nd edition also has a really bad reputation. The Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun material released for it is reasonably beloved, but you never see anyone praising the rules or mention them in positive contexts.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

2nd edition also has a really bad reputation. The Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun material released for it is reasonably beloved, but you never see anyone praising the rules or mention them in positive contexts.

I think this is probably worthy of its own thread. But the reasons for it are ... complicated.

I'd start by stating something obvious to me- when almost everyone here talks about AD&D rules, they are usually talking about 2e rules. Most of the time, they don't even realize that they are doing that! It used to bug me, and I used to correct it ... but I don't usually bother. Sands of time, and all that.

But I don't think that it has a bad reputation, per se. I think that there are a lot of people that, when they look back in history, prefer the weird, gonzo, and even contradictory approach of OD&D and 1e.

2e is just in a weird position, in that it was a better designed game that innovated a lot of things that are taken for granted, but because of the mandate to remain compatible, maintained a lot of the rickety-ness of the TSR-era D&D and couldn't get past it ... Zeb Cook has been pretty open about how basic things like ascending AC were nixed for this reason early on in the design process.