"I hate math"

[MerakSpielman]

D&D is a great tool for teaching and improving math skills.

We had an instance once where the rogue scouted ahead (through rough terrain, hiding, moving silently) for one hour. Then the rest of the party followed on a wagon, on the road.

How much time passes after the rogue leaves before the wagon catches up to him? (assuming the rogue's normal movement rate is 30', and the wagon's movement rate is 20')

Fun stuff.

 

[WizarDru]

Except that you can manage a "superhumanly powerful" superhero in Mutants & Masterminds with a lot less bookkeeping. It isn't the power level so much as it's the vast number of disparate little powers you need to track that slows things down.

Well, yes and no. While the power levels are generally high, the range of a M&M characters actual powers are much less diverse. Few characters except a Sorcery character have a large amount of abilities. Consider the range of power and options available to a 15th level wizard or cleric with normal wealth levels, as compared to a PL15 M&M character. M&M is a fantastic system, but it has a very tight focus.

Wizardru, thank you for staying current with the topic, and keeping the thread going. I really appreciate it. I think in the long run, these discussion can really open the eyes, ears, and doors to some of the best changes we'll see implemented in the next evolution of our game.

I agree. I'm certainly not going to tell you that high-level play doesn't have it's pitfalls...it does. And I'm always willing to entertain options and ideas. That's one reason I love 3e/3.5e so much...it embraces change much more readily, IMHO.

They were fighting mostly giants, so there wasn't much of the above, but the closer you get to 20th (and into Epic) the more EVERY villian in EVERY encounter has to look like the above defensive array. And as a DM, you have to track it ALL. As a player, you've now EXPONENTIALLY increased the already CUMBERSOME number of roles I must make to determine hits and damage.

Well, it truly varies. One thing to factor in is that a single Greater Dispel can completely drop the defenses of many opponents, so an overly confident reliance on purely magical defenses can be just as lethal as not having them. Many of the special abilities may or may not having bearing from combat to combat, and thus their influence varies dramatically. Most of the high-level creatures my group has encountered do not have more than one or two of these kinds of abilities...but they have others or ways to outlast such talents. High-level characters are tricked out, but only because the threats they face are often so huge as to be mind-boggling.

I totally agree. And did your players find this fun? Mine got some disgruntled (above 30th level) with everyone being immune to EVERYTHING and the battle becoming a way to peel the onion on EVERY villian, and once you broke through a defense, ripping it to shreds. They felt like their powers weren't effective most of the time. Frutstrating.

Your thoughts/experiences?

Well, as I say, most of my players encounters have been with things that DON'T have all of those abilities. For example, when fighting the half-elemental advanced Behirs, they were mostly reliant on their huge hitpoints, which scared the hell out of the party. When you drop 300 points of damage on a freigh-train and it keeps coming, you get nervous. The Baklash Dreadnought from "Lich Queen's Beloved" had his anti-magic ray, and so on. Players adapt to the situation....in the case of the Lich Queen herself, I never foresaw the party cleric throwing an anti-magic field on himself and then grappling the Lich Queen. It was brilliant.

What I don't like is trying to remember all of the information, not the math. Keeping track of things like SR or DR for each creature, for example. Knowing if someone is proected frm evil, and making sure summoned evil creatures don't violate that rules surrounding him, for example.

I'm not sure I see a way, other than getting very abstract, of removing those options and keeping the same design goals.

 

[Ourph]

Yes, yes, yes! This is outstanding! Exactly the kind of ideas I'm looking for. How many ways can you sacrifice "attack" to add to "defense"? How many ways can you sacrifice "defense" to add to "damage"? Let's simplify it! First, by narrowing down the "tactical/feat/class ability options" and second, by using the great "miniatures marker" trick. So, what if there were three levels of "defense for attack" and "defense for damage" and "attack for defense" and "attack for damage" and "damage for attack" and "damage for defense". Low, Medium, High for each. Come up with a name for each "tactic". The bonus exchanges would be set (ie, -3 to hit, +3 to damage for Power Attack; +6 to hit, +6 to damage for Greater Power Attack). Then you could use a standard set of "miniature markers" to identify when these abilities were activated. I believe you could plug this into who would be eligible to "access" all these tactical abilities (ie, the high end sac attack for defense may only be available to higher level monk characters - the equivalent of fighting defensively with 12+ ranks in tumble and combat expertise).

Actually, I think I would take exactly the opposite approach. Instead of breaking down the "defensive focus" and "offensive focus" options into multiple granular abilities of fixed +/-, I would just allow all characters the ability to choose where to distribute their BAB. I would eliminate the +5 to AC cap that Combat Expertise uses and simply say, you can distribute your BAB in 3 ways: 1) You can apply it to attack rolls as usual. 2) You can apply it to AC (as per combat expertise) or 3) You can apply it to damage (as per Power Attack). Each round you can choose how much of your BAB goes into each option (a fluid scale, rather than a granular scale). You could easily keep track of this with the marker system you describe by using a different colored die for each area (yellow for attack, blue for defense, red for damage - each die should have a # designated as 0). Each round you simply flip the die for the right color to match the amount of BAB you're distributing into that area. It's a completely flexible and customizable system that works on a single mechanic with one simple rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ourph
Another example is the VAST number of AC bonus types and their various situational exceptions.

-Armor bonuses don't count against incorporeal attacks or touch attacks, except that force armor counts against incorporeal touch attacks, but it still doesn't count against regular touch attacks.
-Dodge bonuses count against all attacks, except you lose them under certain conditions, except you can keep them if you have certain abilities.
-Natural armor bonuses don't stack, except that if you have "natural" natural armor and an item or spell that grants natural armor, those stack.

.

Another great example. How would you fix it?

For fixing AC bonus types and when/how they apply, my simple fix would be to divide armor bonuses into two types "avoidance" and "resistance". Examples of resistance would be armor bonuses and natural armor bonuses. Examples of avoidance would be cover bonuses, dodge bonuses, luck bonuses, deflection bonuses etc. In general, everything would stack, but the DM obviously has the power to disallow stacking in certain cases if he feels it's appropriate (for example, a DM SHOULD disallow avoidance bonuses from wearing two rings of protection at the same time from stacking).

You should only ever have to note down 3 types of AC on your character sheet. Resistance AC, Avoidance AC and Total AC. In general you would use your total AC. If you're caught flat-footed or are fighting an invisible opponent, you use only your resistance AC, if you're the subject of a touch attack, you use only your avoidance AC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ourph
Or how about the way armor affects your Dex modifier.
-Certain armors decrease the amount of your Dex modifier you can apply to your AC.
-The same armors impose a penalty to certain Dex-based skills, but the armor check penalty number isn't related to the maximum Dex bonus number in any way and you get to apply your FULL Dex bonus to skills even though it's limited in terms of what you apply to AC.
-The same armor that decreases the Dex bonus you can apply to your AC and messes up some of your Dex based skills doesn't impose any penalty on your Dex bonus to Reflex saves.

Another great one! Your recommended fix? (And I want to spend less time on the fixes, and more time on identifying the pitfalls...)

I would get rid of the max Dex bonus to AC based on armor. That particular rule isn't necessary. The armor bonus should already factor in how much it restricts your movement. I would simply have an armor check penalty that applies to skills and leave it at that.

 

[ashockney]

Except that you can manage a "superhumanly powerful" superhero in Mutants & Masterminds with a lot less bookkeeping. It isn't the power level so much as it's the vast number of disparate little powers you need to track that slows things down.

Mmadsen! Great to hear from you. Thanks for chiming in!

I completely agree. This is a really good example, perhaps taken to the extreme. M&M, using the d20 basics (OGL) is played ENTIRELY at high levels (from 10th - 20th) and it plays VERY easily. Maybe even too easy.

 

[ashockney]

Take this paraphrase of a rule from Over the Edge: if you do something that gives you a tactical advantage, you get one or more bonus dice. There: all the flexibility of D&d3E, and then some--anything you do has a meaningful mechanical result, the results are differentiated in magnitude, and i've just obviated the need for 25pp of rules.

Or, in our own Four Colors al Fresco, benefit and hindrance dice come in any size from d3 to d50, giving you at least 11 steps in each direction, and there's no reason you couldn't assign multiple of each type.

Now, trying to go for that sort of simplicity-and-flexibility under a numbers-heavy paradigm like D20 System--that's a real problem. It will require significant rewrites from the ground up to really pull it off, not just some tricks and techniques with the existing system. The suggestion to ditch bonus types and just allow all of them, or a certain number of them is a great example of this: it does simplify things, but requires a significant change in how things work.

Woodelf, thanks for keeping it rolling. I like your point. It made me think for of a combat tactics skill. You could access a variety of relevant combat tactics with varying degress of difficulty with a successful skill roll. The combat tactics could be naturally enhanced through the use of combat feats. IE, Use Cover - DC10 for 1/4 cover, with a feat "Close Quarters Combat" - Anytime you are granted cover with a successful combat tactic skill roll, you may increase the covever provided by one rank.

 

[ashockney]

Actually, I think I would take exactly the opposite approach. Instead of breaking down the "defensive focus" and "offensive focus" options into multiple granular abilities of fixed +/-, I would just allow all characters the ability to choose where to distribute their BAB. I would eliminate the +5 to AC cap that Combat Expertise uses and simply say, you can distribute your BAB in 3 ways: 1) You can apply it to attack rolls as usual. 2) You can apply it to AC (as per combat expertise) or 3) You can apply it to damage (as per Power Attack). Each round you can choose how much of your BAB goes into each option (a fluid scale, rather than a granular scale). You could easily keep track of this with the marker system you describe by using a different colored die for each area (yellow for attack, blue for defense, red for damage - each die should have a # designated as 0). Each round you simply flip the die for the right color to match the amount of BAB you're distributing into that area. It's a completely flexible and customizable system that works on a single mechanic with one simple rule.

Ourph, I really like this, and now you're getting the hang of this. I think there's some massaging around how you make this "BAB" available to be moved around, but I think you're definitely onto something here. I think your color coding and colored die is a great, great idea.

For fixing AC bonus types and when/how they apply, my simple fix would be to divide armor bonuses into two types "avoidance" and "resistance". Examples of resistance would be armor bonuses and natural armor bonuses. Examples of avoidance would be cover bonuses, dodge bonuses, luck bonuses, deflection bonuses etc. In general, everything would stack, but the DM obviously has the power to disallow stacking in certain cases if he feels it's appropriate (for example, a DM SHOULD disallow avoidance bonuses from wearing two rings of protection at the same time from stacking).

You should only ever have to note down 3 types of AC on your character sheet. Resistance AC, Avoidance AC and Total AC. In general you would use your total AC. If you're caught flat-footed or are fighting an invisible opponent, you use only your resistance AC, if you're the subject of a touch attack, you use only your avoidance AC.

This is beautiful. You are on it, and I agree completely. Even further, take all the the defenses, spells, buffs, tactics, and throw them into these classifications. I love this. I think it's my favorite idea I've seen so far.

One minor recommendation, add one more classifaction: reduction (which will actually subtract from any damage dealt instead of avoid or resist through AC.

Hell ya!

I would get rid of the max Dex bonus to AC based on armor. That particular rule isn't necessary. The armor bonus should already factor in how much it restricts your movement. I would simply have an armor check penalty that applies to skills and leave it at that.

I think you're on the right track with this one. Somehow, particularly at lower levels, this is still a very helpful mechanic (esp vs. min/maxers). Not sure how to keep that in somehow.

 

[Ourph]

I think you're on the right track with this one. Somehow, particularly at lower levels, this is still a very helpful mechanic (esp vs. min/maxers). Not sure how to keep that in somehow.

You might want to drop all armor bonuses by one when eliminating the max Dex cap. Basically, just drop padded armor (has anyone ever seen a PC wearing padded armor?) and lower everything else by one. Heavy armors are still going to screw up your movement and some of your skills - so there are still penalties for wearing them. However, we might actually see some Fighters and Clerics wearing heavy armor again (something I miss from older editions).

 

[Old Gumphrey]

I really hate to rain on the parade...but bear with me, because I'm not trying to be snide. How exactly is rolling power attack and expertise into one mechanic making it easier? It's still the same mechanic. Using the color-coded dice can be done with PA and CE as they stand. What changed to make it so much better?

Then the AC thing...there's already only 3 types of AC that work exactly how this "new" system would work; AC, Touch, and Flat-footed. I am not seeing the simplification at all, except changing some names and the classifying of the bonuses into only 2 types...and you'd still have to remember to add everything up...I am totally missing the boat on this one, I guess.

 

[ashockney]

Old Gumphrey, MerakSpielman, Drakonus, Flexor the Mighty!, thank you all for chiming in to the thread.

How high have you gone in your campaigns?
What pitfalls (particularly mathmatical/complexity) have you encountered?
What would you suggest to simplify?

 

[Drakonus]

Old Gumphrey, MerakSpielman, Drakonus, Flexor the Mighty!, thank you all for chiming in to the thread.

How high have you gone in your campaigns?
What pitfalls (particularly mathmatical/complexity) have you encountered?
What would you suggest to simplify?

My highest level campaign was playing a heavily modified Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. The PCs on average were about 17th level by the end, with the highest being 20th and the lowest being about 13th.

Unfortunately, we are a fairly new group, having started with 3e in 2000, so our experience is still limited. My PCs have not quite grasped a lot of the tactical benefits available in the new system and thus still favor a "break down the door and charge" style of play. They are still not very good at stringing feats/abilities together to their maximum benefit. At the higher levels, it was frustrating because even though they had characters with great potential they failed to utilize them appropriately and on many occasions made combats much more difficult than they could/should have been.

That said though, two of the PCs were very good about utilizing their characters. The 20th level PC was a Rogue/Sorcerer/Arcane Trickster and tended to consistently have Fly/Greater Invisibility activated. He was a sneak attack and spell machine. But he was also very good about keeping separate stats available when he had all of his spells activated, so the character ran very smoothly without alot of rules consultation.

On a side note, the party actually preferred the Rogue to be invisible, because his visible form was naked, literally. He had a boom/bust run-in with the Deck of Many Things in that module and had the balls to pick 5 cards from the deck. He got the 50,000 XP bonus (hence his 20th level), the keep, a couple other minor ones, and finally the last card he drew was the pauper, so everything he had (including clothes) just vanished instantly. It was quite funny and provided some good humor to the campaign.

The other character was a fighting machine. This PC was a Ftr 1/Cleric 16 and had taken Exotic Weapon Proficiency with the Mercurial Greatsword at Level 1. Once the character had access to the Cleric buffs (Divine Favor, Righteous Might, Assassins Senses (from Relics & Rituals), etc.) and a keen version of his weapon, he was truly a sight to behold in combat. Fortunately again, this player kept a separate index card(s) with all of these stat enhancers listed so that he would know immediately what his BAB and damage bonuses would be. The end battle with the Prince of Elemental Evil was actually very anticlimactic because this character ended up doling out a couple of hundred points of damage in the matter of 2-3 rounds. I should have anticpated this and beefed up Imix to compensate.

The bottom line was that the more skilled players, much like many of the previous posters, kept additional stat cards as references.

Other things that I have done to simplify the game:

1) No more mapping. My PCs were horrible at keeping maps, so we went with drawn battle maps and have recently begun using the Adventure Tiles from Skeleton Key Games, which they really enjoy. I've also supplemented this with some of the 3d paper models from WorldWorks games, especially the props, which add a layer of depth to the 2d map and also provide a little bit of tactical flavor to encounters.

2) I've given each of the spellcasters in the group a color-coded set of the spell cards from The Other Game Company. The cards contain the complete SRD text so it eliminates having to consult the PH. This way, they can just pull out the cards they have memorized and have them right there. I also use their Monster Cards as a DM.

3) For our flying rogue, we've found that the Chessex Dice tube is very handy for representing flying critters and use that frequently.

4) I got each player an extra set of dice as a gift to encourage them to roll all of their attack/damage dice simultaneously. Their benefit to doing this is that they can reroll one of their "Santa Dice" as we call them once per evening, but have to keep the reroll.

I know these ideas don't directly address the complexity issues, but they are timesavers, which allows more time then to really deal with the harder stuff.