"I hate math"

[Ourph]

But were I actually playing D&D, I'd have got it correct. The only reason I didn't was

1. I didn't read the scenario in your post properly. Obviously not an issue in real life.
2. I couldn't remember what a couple of the abilities mentioned did. I have been playing Shadowrun rather than D&D for the last few months, and I don't have my books with me.

Fair enough, if you say you'd have gotten it correct in an actual game I'm not willing to belabor the point. However, if you'll go back to approximately page 3 of the thread, you'll see that at least 3 people (all of whom are or were ENworld regulars at the time and I'm assuming were at least competently rules savvy in regards to 3e) answered the question as well and also gave incorrect answers. So while it's certainly possible to get it right (I was never arguing that it wasn't) it's apparently not as easily done as some comments in this discussions would make out.

It's not that the math is hard, it's that the rules are full of exceptions, special cases and conditional modifiers that require an intricate understanding of every rule in order to apply consistently and correctly. While some people may enjoy that level of dedication to rules familiarity in order to run a game, I didn't. And now that I'm playing a game with a much simpler set of rules (which doesn't give up anything in terms of options or flexibility) I don't have to worry about it.

If this were my character, I would no what his abilities did, and would have precalculated his base ACs, so would have just had to apply the Dodge & Mobility bonuses where the applied.

Even with pre-calculation, the DM still has to deal with the modifiers for invisibility, the differences in the application of force armor, regular armor and natural armor bonuses and a few other issues in that scenario (which is, by the way, a real encounter from a real game I played in - but not one that I was running). Are you seriously telling me you'd have all of those parameters pre-calculated? This isn't a simple application of the three AC types (normal, touch and flat-footed) it's a case where a bunch of the exceptions and special rules related to AC come into play. For each of the three main AC types, you're having to make modifications to what is counted based on the special circumstances the rogue finds himself in.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I'm not familiar with the system at all, so I can't really compare what's "powerful" in M&M to what's "powerful" in the D&D kind of baseline. I just know that when characters can pretty much alter the fabric of reality to suit their own needs on a daily basis (wish being the D&D holy grail of this), you're either going to need a lot of rules about what it can actually do (what 3e does), or just say "It's up to the DM to make sure the power isn't out of control" (the majority of other systems I've seen).

Caveat: I'm familiar with Champions (a superhero point-buy RPG, albeit one of greater complexity) and somewhat with True20 (a rules-lite d20 RPG related to M&M), but haven't ever played M&M itself.

With that said, the problem with high-level D&D is not and never has been the power of the characters. The problem with high-level D&D is not and certainly never was the variety of choices players could make in their characters.

The problem with high-level D&D is 100% the number of choices players can make in every single situation.

An extremely powerful point-buy-supers-RPG-style character might only have five or six powers - but those are tailored precisely to what the player wanted. He's every bit as powerful as his 20th level D&D counterpart. But he doesn't have 90+ spells on his spell list, 40+ magic items and 20+ class features.

In Mutants and Masterminds, as far as I know, he has feats (which add very little complexity, and you don't get that many anyway) and probably a similar suite of powers to what he would get in a HERO system game - maybe a dozen Powers, tops.

That's a lot less bookkeeping than a D&D spellcaster with his 90+ largely redundant legacy spells.

 

[Storm Raven]

In practice it's not that simple. Someone still has to physically lookup the rules. Someone has to add all the bonuses (after figuring out which ones are relevant and which ones aren't). That still takes time. That can even be the source of dissent, and arguments take away even more precious time.

I use, as a table rule, a standard that if the player or DM doesn't know the rules to a maneuver off the top of their head, then the player who wants to do it is responsible for looking them up before their action in combat rolls around. Otherwise, we aren't going to spend time looking it up, If the player wants to do it anyway, I'm going to make a ruling on the spot, and the player can accept it. I tell the players this ahead of time, and that usually gets rid of most arguments.

And of course there are cases when the DM doesn't want to spoil a surprise, so he can't just ask someone to lookup something for him. Nor can he ask players to keep track of hit points, buff effect and durations and such things for the monsters. Well he can, but there again it spoils some of the surprise.

In that case, I'd say the DM, should have that sort of thing prepared ahead of time, with appropriate cheat sheets on hand (printing material off the SRD is quick and easy).

As far are the rules-lawyereness of players goes, it tends to manifest less when playing with fewer rules. Kinda makes sense if you think about it...

I'd say it manifests itself in different ways. I believe everyone who has gamed for any length of time is familiar with the "that's not the way it is in real life" guy.

 

[WizarDru]

In Mutants and Masterminds, as far as I know, he has feats (which add very little complexity, and you don't get that many anyway) and probably a similar suite of powers to what he would get in a HERO system game - maybe a dozen Powers, tops.

That's a lot less bookkeeping than a D&D spellcaster with his 90+ largely redundant legacy spells.

Unless he's got Sorcery or the like, which is effectively a pool of powers, but Yeah. M&M characters are tightly focused on very specific subsets of abilities....but the combat system also has very different applications and intents. I'm not sure it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, because they're modelling very different things, by design.

In M&M, everything is streamlined to keep the action flowing; it's much easier to sacrifice verisimilitude when you're a super-powered professional wrestler putting a suplex on a killer death-robot while yelling a batttle-cry of "I can hold my breath for a whole hour!!!" In M&M, characters get hit with lamp-posts...and get back up again. More than once. Most of the powers are fairly simplistic in implementation, and the DM has a lot of lattitude, by necessity, to adjudicate their use. They are so broad as to not be worth trying to codify...which is a good approach for superheroes.

That approach CAN work for D&D, but many folks (myself included) would find it unsatisfactory. M&M's power levels put an effective cap on certain things that D&D doesn't. Under M&M, there's no way for a team of PL15 heroes to defeat a PL20 villain, per se. With pluck, they might be able to incapcitate or slow him down, but generally they're not scratching him. In D&D, a clever 15th level character just might have a chance of defeating a 20th level attacker...potentially slim odds, but not a statisical certainty of failure. In M&M, it's just plain not going to happen.

And M&M, for all it's reduced complexity, still has to deal with the interaction of diverse power sets together and against each other. Again, not a fault, but there is plenty of potential complexity there. A quick glance at the M&M FAQ shows that it suffers from rules confusion, too, and from many of the same kinds of questions as high-level D&D.

But let me be clear: If you haven't bought M&M, and you like superheroes...You owe it to yourself to pick it up. It's my favorite superhero RPG, bar none.

 

[swrushing]

If the players don't trust you to run the game when you have guideance, how are they supposed to trust you running by the seat of your pants?

Its not an issue of trust. its an issue of expectation.

if the rules we are playing by, as in the books i told them to use, define explicit numbers for this and that and the other, then the players will EXPECt that. They will if they have sense even plan on that.

My following those numbers is me keeping my promise to them. They expect me to keep my promise.

if, on the other hand, they rules i gave them are less specific, giving more general guidelines, then their expectations are not so precise. Smaller variances caused by seat-of-the-pants handling wont be a problem they percieve.

 

[Quasqueton]

Well yeah. In 3e there are preset DCs for specific situations. If you deviate from those, or don't include the required modifiers (feats, skills, buff spells, your mother's maiden name, etc.) then the players may get pissy about you not following the rules. So you end up looking things up a lot, and making sure everything's kosher.

This is an absurd complaint. First off, why would you deviate from the preset DCs? If there are circumstances, give circumstances bonuses/penalties.

Second, you don't have to include feat/skill/buff modifiers in determining a DC.

Third, pissy Players are the problem, not the game.

Fourth, you don't need to look everything up. If you can't remember: DC 0 = very easy, 5 = easy, 10 = average, 15 = tough, 20 = challenging, 25 = formidable, then you shouldn't be DMing.

You guys are just complaining to hear yourself complain. As Psion said, you're talking to people who know better. It's like telling the regular patrons of a restaurant that the food prices here are too expensive. We're here, we're fine with it. We don't want to go back to the fast food joint down the street.

I'm done with reading this absurdity.

Quasqueton

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

However, if you'll go back to approximately page 3 of the thread, you'll see that at least 3 people (all of whom are or were ENworld regulars at the time and I'm assuming were at least competently rules savvy in regards to 3e) answered the question as well and also gave incorrect answers.

Well, then, here we go.

Here's the original situation:

A Rogue with bracers of armor +3, Dex 18, ring of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +2, the Dodge and Mobility feats and fighting defensively. The Rogue moves through the threatened squares of a wraith and an invisible fighter wielding a longsword; ends his movement next to a Cleric holding an inflict light wounds spell in his hand and tries to initiate a grapple. The rogue has declared his Dodge vs. the Cleric.

What is his AC vs. each opponent for the AoOs he provokes?

On my character sheet, I've got, precalculated, the following:

AC: 20 = 10 + 3 (Armor, Force) + 4 (Dex) + 2 (Natural) + 1 (Deflection)*
Touch AC: 15 = 10 + 4 + 1
Flatfooted AC: 20**

Near that, I'd've written:

Dodge: +1 Dodge AC
Mobility: +4 Dodge AC
F. Def.: -4 AB / +3 Dodge AC**
T. Def: +6 Dodge AC**

* Note that we use a house rule that Dodge is a straight +1 AC increase normally, but for purposes of this thread we'll assume that we're using RAW.

** Given the equipment, I assume we're dealing with something higher than, say, 1st-level. Accordingly, I'll assume our Rogue has at least Uncanny Dodge (if not Improved) and more than 5 ranks in Tumble.

Now, assuming I flub all my Tumble checks and actually get targeted with any AoOs by the wraith or the fighter, my ACs against each are as follows:

Wraith: Incorporeal Touch Attack, so my "base" AC is my Touch AC, 15. However, since it's incorporeal, I get to keep my force-effect Bracers of Armor, for +3, for a total of 18. Finally, it's a movement-based AoO, so I get a +4 Dodge bonus from Mobility. My total AC against the wraith's attack is 22.

Fighter: Normal attack. The fighter's invisible, however, which would normally deny me my Dex bonus against him, as well as giving him a +2 bonus on attack rolls. However, since I've got Uncanny Dodge, I retain my Dex bonus (and associated Dodge bonuses). He still gets the +2, of course, but since that's not a modifier to my AC, it doesn't apply as far as this discussion is concerned. It's still a movement-based AoO, so Mobility applies. My final AC against the Fighter is 24.

Cleric: Touch attack (assuming he wants to hit me with his spell, rather than the mace or shield he's got in his other hand). So, base AC of 15. However, I'm Dodging him, so I get a +1 bonus to 16. This is not a movement-based AoO, so I don't get any benefit from Mobility, but I am finally attacking, so Fighting Defensively applies for a +3 Dodge bonus. I get a -4 penalty on my touch attack to initiate the grapple (but not on any subsequent grapple checks ), but have a 19 AC against his ILW attack.

EDIT: Hah! I'm so used to attributing quotes to the SRD that I attributed Ourph's original situation to it.

 

[Ourph]

Well, then, here we go.

<snip>

1) For anyone confused by the original "correct" answer, the original example was given using 3.0 rules which didn't (I believe) give the +1 to Fighting Defensively for ranks in Tumble and gave the Fighting Defensively AC bonus from the beginning of the character's action, not from his first attack.

2) The entire point of posting that particular example in the first place was to illustrate the point that if the DM asks the Rogue's player "What is your AC?" during that combat round, there is no single answer to the question. The answer is, in fact, extremely complex. It's not so complex that it cannot be done (I did it for years). I had no doubt in my mind when I posted that example that someone (in fact, numerous people) here would be able to answer it correctly (I was actually really surprised when not 1 but 3 posters got the answer almost 100% wrong). It is, however, complex enough that I didn't find it fun or relaxing. If you and others find that level of complexity fun, super-duper for you. I don't. Apparently the original poster didn't either. I find it quite humorous that you and Quasqueton seem to be so offended that someone might not want to have to deal all that crap while trying to relax and play a game. Does it really hit that close to home?

3) I have no real way to check whether your answer is correct. At first read it appears so. To tell you the truth, it's this kind of thing that drove me away from the game in the first place and I'm not willing to go through the work of checking it out because at this point I don't have to deal with it in order to get my fantasy RPG fix and I really don't give a anymore. If you want to deal with this kind of stuff in order to game, go for it. It wouldn't even be on my radar if someone hadn't resurrected this old thread and specifically quoted me.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I find it quite humorous that you and Quasqueton seem to be so offended that someone might not want to have to deal all that crap while trying to relax and play a game. Does it really hit that close to home?

Whereas I find it quite insulting that:

1) people can't help but play armchair psychologist, and
2) the "OD&D Crowd" - here and elsewhere - seem to operate under the general assumption that, because I can calculate such things easily and even enjoy doing so, I'm some kind of munchkin powergamer with no particular imagination.

As in, because I've got a pretty good idea how far my PC can jump without trying pretty hard, that PC suddenly becomes nothing more than a statblock to me.

It's a ridiculous non sequitor, but it seems to be accepted wisdom among the stick-in-the-mud crowd.

In other words, I haven't called you "dumb" because you can't add or don't like adding these kinds of numbers, so don't call me names because I can and do.

 

[RFisher]

Fighters attack yes, but they also sneak around (which is different than move silently/hide in shadows), grapple, disarm, tumble under an ogre or giant's legs, snipe with bow/x-bow, swing from chandeliers, and pull down tapestries on top of the BBEG...

And how, actually, is this done in earlier D&D?

For me, I don't like the fact that 3e has skills for things that don't need a skill. Hiding is typically boolean. Either you've got a good place to hide & take advantage of it or you don't. No skill or roll needed.

(Now yes, I know that I can ignore the Hide skill &/or leverage the take-10 & take-20 rules, but my point is that I don't miss 3e's Hide skill when I play classic D&D.)

Plus, the thief's cool Hide in Shadows class ability has been turned into a general skill everybody has. Either the rogue has lost a cool ability or his cool ability isn't so special anymore.

For me, though, classic D&D combat is typically more about high level tactics than theatrics, so I don't need rules for these things. They're below the level of abstraction.

It seems that most of the complaints of complexity revolve around the levels over 10. And the "solution" is to play games that, essentially, don't go that high.

I couldn't agree more. There's a point at which PCs should go into retirement (or at least semi-retirement) or the nature of the game changes (more political & less combat & looting) because they've outgrown the game. IMHO.