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

[Garthanos]

Besides, I've never complained about the 4e treadmill (I think that claim is kind of wrongheaded to begin with) so you're barking up the wrong tree directing that at me.

It think it was an ad-populum argument ... all those other people who complain about it must mean you are wrong or something

I don't know about that...

I said things you are challenged by... this is mostly what stories are told about

kand somethings should be easy

Why are you rolling and why are you treating them as challenges if they are easy..... you get cameo scenes to show how awesome the character is (kind of like minions and swarms why insist on using the same mechanics when something is over matched) even 5e recommends just not rolling for some things but it also implies as I said next to no general competence hell outside of combat every thing is more affected by random chance than ability ... might as well say low competence over all.

gain 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...

why? does your character learn nothing at all from experience? that makes characters seem utterly and
completely clueless? for their entire career? and with only like 4 or 5 points of advancement on a d20 .. from
lowish level to end game even in the trained fields it hardly feels like competence? (I mean in combat that is
not a problem as increasing attack number or damage by other means allows some indication of skill) but sheesh.


I think step one of improvement is Fort / Reflex / Will being brought back... with 2 of them being good for every character and the other not being a hole that a mac truck can drive through.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I said things you are challenged by...

you said things (and continue to) that I agree with some of it and disagree with some.

Why are you rolling and why are you treating them as challenges if they are easy...

a challenge for one character and a challenge for all characters are 2 diffrent things...
a full plate wearing cleric with a 11 dex non prof and a rogue with a 17+ dex and prof are two different things... both going for a DC 14 1 should be a challenge the other should be super easy bearly an unconvinced... but sometimes luck will favor that cleric with +0 and not favor the rogue with the +8

you get cameo scenes to show how awesome the character is (kind of like minions and swarms why insist on using the same mechanics when something is over matched) even 5e recommends just not rolling for some things but it also implies as I said next to no general competence hell outside of combat every thing is more affected by random chance than ability ... might as well say low competence over all.

again, being good at something doesn't equal being always able to make the check... having the +8 vs a Dc 13 or 14 is fine, and even a +10 is.

why? does your character learn nothing at all from experience? that makes characters seem utterly and
completely clueless?

except that is the way it is now...
young green Dragon BW con save DC 14 can be run into anywhere from 5th-9th level... lets say at 5th 2 PCs face it, a barbarian and a wizard... the barbarian has a 16con the wizard a 14. both have no magic bonus at this level so that is +6 and +2
barb 60/40 chance to make save
wizard 45/65 chance

ancient green dragon BW con save DC 22 you are not supposed to run into that until the end game around level 16 or 17
let progress them to level 17 and boost the barb con bt 2 and give both +1 magic
wizard now has a +3 and barbarian +11
bab 50/50 chance to make save
wiz 10/90 chance....
both are doing worse... lets up the barbarian to 20 giving him +4 more con that gives him +13 a 60/40

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Treadmill effect.

That's not really a treadmill. Should equal tier challenges just get easier as you go up in level? It's not like the DC to climb a 20' wall increases. You're just more likely to be doing more epic things as you go up in level, that should have a higher DC. First level PC's climb slippery walls in the rain on an 11+. 15th level PC's climb walls made out of gelatinous cubes on an 11+ and automatically climb over 20' walls. DM's tend to handwave or not spend much time on non-challenges, but those old level 1 challenges like making a fire with damp wood are still there if you want to see your skill progress.

If that's a treadmill, then combat is a treadmill. You guys fight a lot of dire rats at 10th level? IMX, people fight appropriate combat challenges, with the occasional chump fight to show how you've grown.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

I agree about folks talking about AD&D when they mean 2e. I seldom refer to AD&D as "1e" just because in my heart it will always be the real AD&D, not that descendant with the Monstrous Compendium. It's kind of like why "Star Wars to me always means the first movie, and those other titles Lucas later gave it annoy me to this day.

I think a big reason why 2e and 4e get a lot less love has to do with the demographics of the game. AD&D brought a lot of people into the game and so there is that hazy nostalgia for it, while 2e actually saw a contraction of the player base and then the bankruptcy of TSR (because of mismanagement, not because 2e was a bad game). 3e brought people back to the game and introduced the Roll20 system, while 4e again saw a contraction. And then 5e has been the biggest edition yet. So I think 2e and 4e suffer not so much for their own qualities, which are debatable, but just because they have smaller constituencies for a variety of reasons.

 

[payn]

That's not really a treadmill. Should equal tier challenges just get easier as you go up in level? It's not like the DC to climb a 20' wall increases. You're just more likely to be doing more epic things as you go up in level, that should have a higher DC. First level PC's climb slippery walls in the rain on an 11+. 15th level PC's climb walls made out of gelatinous cubes on an 11+ and automatically climb over 20' walls. DM's tend to handwave or not spend much time on non-challenges, but those old level 1 challenges like making a fire with damp wood are still there if you want to see your skill progress.

If that's a treadmill, then combat is a treadmill. You guys fight a lot of dire rats at 10th level? IMX, people fight appropriate combat challenges, with the occasional chump fight to show how you've grown.

The description makes it sound so much cooler, but the math says its the same.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I agree about folks talking about AD&D when they mean 2e. I seldom refer to AD&D as "1e" just because in my heart it will always be the real AD&D, not that descendant with the Monstrous Compendium. It's kind of like why "Star Wars to me always means the first movie, and those other titles Lucas later gave it annoy me to this day.

I think a big reason why 2e and 4e get a lot less love has to do with the demographics of the game. AD&D brought a lot of people into the game and so there is that hazy nostalgia for it, while 2e actually saw a contraction of the player base and then the bankruptcy of TSR (because of mismanagement, not because 2e was a bad game). 3e brought people back to the game and introduced the Roll20 system, while 4e again saw a contraction. And then 5e has been the biggest edition yet. So I think 2e and 4e suffer not so much for their own qualities, which are debatable, but just because they have smaller constituencies for a variety of reasons.

I simplify.

D&D follows the reverse Star Trek movie rule.

Odd Editions are the "good" ones.

You think I'm crazy, right? Well, if I'm crazy .... then why are the powers that be refusing to make "OneD&D" a new edition? Instead referring to it with an odd number?

The less you think about it, the more sense I make. You're welcome!

 

[payn]

I simplify.

D&D follows the reverse Star Trek movie rule.

Odd Editions are the "good" ones.

You think I'm crazy, right? Well, if I'm crazy .... then why are the powers that be refusing to make "OneD&D" a new edition? Instead referring to it with an odd number?

The less you think about it, the more sense I make. You're welcome!

I cant wait for threeD&D!

 

[Fanaelialae]

The description makes it sound so much cooler, but the math says its the same.

If you want the math to not stay the same, have your high level party continue raiding the same type of goblin dens that they did at low levels. The math will be "different", though I'm not sure how satisfying an experience they'd find it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I cant wait for threeD&D!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I really miss that table actually.

Of course you do, it's quite far away at this point!