Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 2779187" data-attributes="member: 12037">jdrakeh, perhaps we are using two different definitions of "option" indeed. My definition: The ability to think of a character concept and reflect it in the game.So some options might be sneaky, charming, brute, finesse, and so on. This has nothing to do with things being "optional" or not. I'm talking about the various things that PCs and NPCs can do and will be reflected by in the world. If I want an NPC who is a wrestler, then I can try and mold a character who is good at grappling for example. I can do this through feats, spells, classes, or whatever I can think of.Now, to relate this back to the topic, if I want the NPC the PCs are fighting to be a wrestler, then, if this option is available in the game, I'm saying the stat block will be longer. Why? Because 1) there's more information that must be included in addition to everything else and 2) if this is an option then any counter tactics need to be applied in NPC blocks as well.As a good example of "counters" in stat blocks that are needed, I'll use Touch AC. Before, we only needed a flat AC bonus. However, when special tactics are used (like grapple, touch spells, etc) now a Touch AC is needed in the stat block, lengthening it. The options are there for the PCs, so the NPC stat blocks need to take that into account.Look back at the fisrt post in this thread, and take a look at thier stat block:"AC: 4; 4th-level fighter; HP: 18; +1 to hit, +3 damage."So, we decide, okay, he's a wrestler. I'm going to make up X rule for grappling, say a straight up strength contest. This guy is good at it, so he adds another +1 to that. So, I alter his stat block to read:"AC: 4; 4th-level fighter; HP: 18; +1 to hit, +3 damage; Gpl+1."Now, after years and years of adding various things, eventually we get a longer and longer stat block. Check out the 2E one I posted earlier. Now we can't just have AC, we have to have flat footed and touch, we have to show ability scores, we have to add in saving throws, etc etc. So, the stat block gets longer and longer because now we can do more stuff.Doing more stuff = having more options.See, this has nothing to do with limiting options. This has to do with easily and quickly adjudicating situations based on the information given in the stat block, which I will get to in MPA's post now.Okay, first of all, I have to appologise. I inferred it, but I never directly stated, perhaps, that I am specifically referring to printed stat blocks. I used one of my own simply for ease, because I only own one 3E adventure, and it isn't even here at the moment. I would not be happy to buy a published module and find this stat block.Main problems:1) The first thing that jumps out at me is Thoughtless. I quickly surmised that this was done to represent the 8s in Int, Wis, and Cha. At first it seems like a good idea. You can take some stats and condense them into a keyword, as WotC calls it in Magic: the Gathering. However, how many of these stat keywords are you going to make? What will you call them? Is it indicative only of your adventures or will this show up in other products? Is 8 Int/Wis/Cha more common than 8/8/10? Or 8/10/8? Or 6/8/8?Basically, it doesn't deserve its own keyword. Creating it shortens this one particular stat block, but it adds a bunch of text somewhere else to explain what Thoughtless means. Thoughtless must be used enough for 1) people to memorize it as yet another rule and 2) be used often enough for this memorization to pay off. On this count, I don't think it is worth it. Best to put Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 8 instead.2) You've got to calculate AC every single turn. Bad bad bad bad bad! He used a touch attack, now I have to calculate that. Grease made him lose his Dex bonus to AC, now I have to calculate that. You're requiring the DM to remember from round to round what the AC is or be forced to recalc every turn. That is not good design.3) The abreviations are way way too much. ST, S, D. It's obvious that you're trying to cram everything in without caring about readability. Compare "ST +4 +2 +0" to "Fort +4, Refl +2, Will +0."Basic things like this. You're sacrificing readibility, ease of use, and learning curve for brevity. I think that those things are far far more important than brevity. Look at the highly louded new stat block WotC introduced.[sblock]KULLEN CR3Half-orc barbarian 3NE Medium humanoid (orc)Init: +1  Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Listen +5, Spot -1Languages Common, OrcAC 11, touch 11, flat-footed 10 uncanny dodgehp 31 (3HD)Fort +5; Ref +2, Will +0Spd 40 ft.Melee +1 greataxe +7 (1d12+5/X3)Ranged dagger +4 (1d4+3)Base Atk +3; Grp +6Attack Options Cleave, Power AttackSpecial Attack Rage 1/dayCombat Gear potion of jump, potion of cure light wounds, potion of mage armor    Abilities Str 17, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 10SQ fast movement, illiteracy, trap sense +1, uncanny dodgeFeats Cleave, Power AttackSkills Intimidate+6, Jump+13, Listen+5Possessions combat gear, +1 greataxe, dagger, 3gpRage (Ex):  When he rages, Kullen has the following changed statistics:AC 9, touch 9, flat-footed 8hp 37 (3HD)Fort +7, Will +2, Melee +1 greataxe +9 (1d12+8/x3)Grp +9Abilities Str 19, Con 18Skills Jump +15[/sblock]There is a reason its so popular. And, it has nothing to do with the length.Player Character Option: I want to be a disarming specialist.How do you go about this in AD&D without creating House Rules?See, we're having two different discussions. I agree, lack of codified rules doesn't mean you can't do something. Just because there's no Disarm described in the 2E AD&D PHB doesn't mean you can't disarm someone. But, how will you design a character to be a really good disarmer? Higher Dex? Higher Str? Non-weapon proficiencies? Weapon Proficienceis? We don't even know how the DM runs a disarm in the game! In fact, for it to occur, the DM will have to make something up. I call that a House Rule.So now, to make our Disarming Specialist character, we have to create rules for how one disarms so that the PC can gain some kind of bonus for it. There's another rule. Do you see what I'm saying? Lack of a rule being codified might not mean that something isn't possbile, but it does mean that the PC cannot try to be built around a concpet, since they have no idea how to build the character around the concept.</blockquote>

Verification