"I hate math"

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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.

This was a problem with my group as well. Only one of the players put a lot of non-game time into his character. As a result a lot of the combats were more trouble becuase the other players weren't too keen on how to maximize and use all thier feats and all the game options together. And I feel something is wrong when I'm telling players they aren't playing thier PC's right when they have created characters with interesting personalities and backgrounds that are beign roleplayed well, but they aren't that good at working the nuiances of the d20 system.

 

[Coredump]

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.

Okay, so you want to give every character Improved Combat Expertise and Power Attack for free, at first level. The complaint was that they had to keep adding differet amounts each round.... how does this change anything?
Once he gets a Cat's Grace and or Bull's Strength, he has to start adding and readding, plus he will likely change the dice around to compensate... and then the spells wear off. Or get dispelled, or the bard starts singing, or he decides to fight defensively, or etc etc etc. The problem is with having so many options.
We can easily simplify this, you describe everything you want to do, and the DM just makes up an appropriate DC. Viola, simplicity.

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).

So, now everything is a dodge bonus. Get caught flat footed, and your ring prot no longer helps, neither does your luckstone. Sure, but then why have different types of bonuses? Just make everything a dodge bonus. Much simpler. And they all get treated the same. And I can finally use a cloak of protection and ring of protection, mage armor, and magical armour together. Unless, of course, the DM creates a rule otherwise. The simpler things become, the more the DM has to make decisions. (which is not necessarily a bad thing)

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.

How many types of AC are written down now? I only have those three now, am I missing something?
And your solution does nothing for spells being cast, or feats being used. Except that now everything stacks unless the DM intervenes. Take any of the above examples, of the rogue tumbing, etc. and this doesn't really simplify much.

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.

Is the max Dex provision a pain to anyone? It is only calculated once, until you change your armor. If you can't add/subtract a single digit a couple of times a year... there may be other problems.
But hey, at least you will help folks get much higher AC's than they used to have. Doesn't really solve he math problem, but surely makes for more powerful fighters etc.

There is no difficult math here. The problem comes from all the different possibilities. The only way to simplify the situation is to limit the possibilites, or leave it to the DM to make a determination. And there will still be tons of adding, since people will keep utilizing different options.

.

 

[Coredump]

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.

Fewer words, sure. But does it make the game, and the 'math' any simpler?

First, are you going to eliminate the feats?
PlayerA: I want to swing harder to do more damage
DM: Okay, roll your d20 to hit, but subtract a d6. Then when you roll your d12 for damage, add a d4. (Is this allowed, or would you need a feat for this?
PlayerA: What if I use both hands?
DM: okay, then you can add a D6 to damage.
PlayerB: Hey, don't forget that I am singing to help out.
DM: Okay, then also add a d4 to your to hit
PlayerA: Can I do this and still make it harder for him to hit me? I am really low on hit points.
DM: Okay, so subtract another d4 from your to hit....better yet, just subtract a d10 total, but don't forget to add the d4 from the singing. And Iwill subtract a die from the bad guys attack.
PlayerA: never mind, I don't think I can hit with that big of a subtraction. I will go back to just the -d6 +d4. Is the Bull's Strength still working?
DM: Oh yeah, add a D4 to your attack, and a nother D4 to your damage
PlayerA: Hey last time you gave PlayerC a D12 on his damage, I only get a d6?
DM: Because he said he was going all out, and you didn't. Plus, he was using a great axe. I decided it would benefit from this technique more.
PlayerA: Okay, well I want to go all out.
DM: Okay, subtract a d8 from attack, and add a D8 to damage.
PlayerA: c'mon...
DM: Fine, add a D10 to damage. But if you want a D12 you need a great weapon.
PlayerD: I had a great weapon last week, and you didn't give me a D12...
DM: Right, because the monsters you were fighting had thicker skin. So I decided that it wouldn't work as well on them.

This is definitely more flexible.... but simpler??? Not too sure about that.
And I only touched on Combat Expertise, one spell, and Power Attack. I didn't even try and get an advantage because of lighting, or position, or weapon speed, or experience, or any other 'subjective' area.

.

 

[Ourph]

Old Gumphrey, Coredump you guys are jumping into the middle of a conversation and only addressing the last things said. My comments were responses to questions ashockney was asking about how I would solve problems I'd pointed out in the game. If you'll go back and read my original comments I think you'll get a good idea of why I think those particular areas are problems and why my "fixes" address them. If you disagree that those areas of the rules present problems, good for you, but I'm not going to waste time or derail the thread arguing about that, because we're all entitled to our opinions and points of view and I never said "these are universal problems that everyone must recognize". I said "these are areas that I have problems with. This is what I would change to fix things to my liking".

 

[Coredump]

Actually, I have read all 7 pages of this thread.

You have stated that it can be simplified. I said it cannot be simplified without giving up options and flexibility.

You gave three examples of how you could simplify the rules, and not remove flexibility. I pointed out that your changes (in order)
A. changed nothing
B. changed lots, but simplified nothing while allowing for much higher AC via stacking
C. removed no math, yet again raised the power level by making it much easier to get higher AC

So the question remains. How do your suggestions simplify anything? Does it make the game easier if *everyone* gets improved CE and PA?
Yes, removing bonus types would make things simpler, and much higher powered. But most of the problems mentioned have come from the many sources of change, not the types.
And I see no math that is simplified by allowing dex for all armor.

.

 

[jmucchiello]

This was a problem with my group as well. Only one of the players put a lot of non-game time into his character. As a result a lot of the combats were more trouble becuase the other players weren't too keen on how to maximize and use all thier feats and all the game options together. And I feel something is wrong when I'm telling players they aren't playing thier PC's right when they have created characters with interesting personalities and backgrounds that are beign roleplayed well, but they aren't that good at working the nuiances of the d20 system.

Maybe this is a problem with you. You want the characters to make the most out of the system but the players don't want to invest as much as you want in the system. If the players cannot take the 10 minutes it takes to discover that you should take Cleave after Power Attack, and this bothers you, maybe you all should be playing something else. Or maybe you should be playing with other players. Or maybe you should steer the encounters toward the feats they actually take and not the ones you think they should take.

 

[Ourph]

Actually, I have read all 7 pages of this thread.

You have stated that it can be simplified. I said it cannot be simplified without giving up options and flexibility.

You gave three examples of how you could simplify the rules, and not remove flexibility. I pointed out that your changes (in order)
A. changed nothing

Right now the rules (let's say Core + official splatbooks) give you at least 10 ways to trade attack for AC. They also give you a few ways to trade attack accuracy for damage. I would simplify that by consolidating all of those options into 1 rule (you can distribute BAB toward hitting someone, defending yourself or hitting harder) and allow EVERYONE to access that option. That's MORE flexible than the current system and it's simpler. You don't have 15 or more feats or combat options all doing basically the same thing and all with their own particular rules quirks, but you still get the flexibility of being able to choose defense over attack or power over accuracy.

B. changed lots, but simplified nothing while allowing for much higher AC via stacking

I've simplified a lot. You no longer have to track individual AC bonus types that apply or don't apply in specific situations. In general, all bonuses of a particular type (and there are only two types) either apply or don't apply. If you look at my previous posts, there are a few good examples of situations where specific situational rules lead to some pretty complex AC adjustments. You still have all the options you previously had for improving your AC but the situational modifiers are much simplified and tracking what your AC is against a specific attack requires remembering or looking up MUCH fewer rules.

C. removed no math, yet again raised the power level by making it much easier to get higher AC

You're right, I've removed no math during the combat round, as Dex caps due to armor generally don't change. This was simply an example of a rule I feel is an unnecessary complication that could be removed without removing any options or flexibility. Which is what you and I were discussing originally, right?

You're also right that most of these rules changes would require compensations in other areas. The fact is, I don't like the way the designers of 3rd ed went about incorporating options and flexibility into the system. I think they sacrificed simplicity unnecessarily. I WOULD rebuild the game from the ground up if I were trying to "fix" it to my liking. I'm not trying to lay out actual options for people to use as house rules, I'm answering ashockney's questions about how I think the game can retain flexibility while improving simplicity. I thought that would have been pretty clear to anyone reading our conversation in this thread. I didn't think it was necessary to put up a disclaimer saying WARNING: Using any one of these suggestions in isolation is going to screw up your game.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Maybe this is a problem with you. You want the characters to make the most out of the system but the players don't want to invest as much as you want in the system. If the players cannot take the 10 minutes it takes to discover that you should take Cleave after Power Attack, and this bothers you, maybe you all should be playing something else. Or maybe you should be playing with other players. Or maybe you should steer the encounters toward the feats they actually take and not the ones you think they should take.

We did switch games and are having a lot of fun.

 

[Laslo Tremaine]

We did switch games and are having a lot of fun.

What did you switch to, may I ask?

 

[ashockney]

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.

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.

That combat combination is completely sick. What a melee machine. One good dispel completely demolishes him! This brings up an interesting point/pitfall for high level D&D...should the characters/combats be SO reliant on buffs? I think it would be much cooler to transfer some of this to "tactics" and some to "class abilities" or "feats" for the fighters. Let the buffs be very, very quick "one shot" stuff that won't be missed if it's not there, but could be the difference in the combat if it's up (like prayer).

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.

These are excellent points Drakonus! I love them! I absolutely love them all!

An interesting point about high level pitfalls...what good are the maps above 12th or 16th level? What a waste of potentially enormous time and resources! Anyone else know what I'm talking about here?