Rant on d20

[mmadsen]

In redesigning DND, since they created a new system anyway, they should have gotten rid of the wargaming roots of DND.

Isn't combat the most popular aspect of the game?

The whole progression of characters and monsters is based in wargaming and should be done away with. Why? IMO (as all of this is), the wargaming roots is what keeps the focus away from the individual.

I don't see how character progression is related to wargaming. Wargaming units and commanders don't typically display progression at all -- and the few wargames that track unit/commander experience certainly don't handle it like D&D.

Classes - Classes are fine but I don't like a system where classes can't be replicated through special abilities.

3E came close to a flexible class system with its Fighter and Expert classes. In fact, "classless" Call of Cthulhu d20's system isn't much more than making everyone play an Expert.

"Game Balance"

I'm still not sure what you're "game balance" complaint is. I certainly see no negative to a system where equal-level characters play comparably important roles in a typical adventure.

Worst case, you ignore balance entirely, and let players play whatever level they want (or that you allow) with whatever equipment they want (or that you allow), etc. It can't be any worse than a system that doesn't start out with some semblance of balance.

Items - WHY IS THE EMPHASIS ON ITEMS? Why isn't it on the character?

I agree. It does make for one more kind of progress -- you can accumulate cool stuff -- but when it gets to the point that you're tossing +1 swords for +2 swords, something just feels wrong.

Skills - I personally don't like black and white, hit or miss skills. There is too much subjectivity in them. I mean, if a character has a +25 in something and rolls a 34 but needed a 35, they still notice nothing? (or whatever?) That is higher than probably a 10th level character can get and yet they still didn't notice something?!??

If a Spot check has a DC of 35, it's not to notice someone walking down the street; it's to notice an invisible enemy 100 ft. away, while distracted. Generic tasks shouldn't "up the numbers" if they're just generic tasks. Epic tasks should "up the numbers".

AC - Armor was created to reduce damage, not make it harder to hit. Yes, you can nit pick this and say an actual hit is when it does damage. What? So, the big guy with the hammer who hit the guy in full plate didn't roll high enough to wound him? That dent in the breastplate doesn't mean anything?

The strength of the armor-as-AC system is that it's pretty playable. It obviously has its inconsistencies though. In order to penetrate thick armor, strong characters get a "to hit" bonus, but this bonus also improves accuracy against nimble rogues. So much for dodging that lumbering giant! Plate armor deflects thrown boulders completely -- sometimes. And so on.

I'd prefer an elegant armor-as-DR system with plentiful criticals, but that would require lots of playtesting.

CRs - A very good start but still too subjective.

It's hard to complain about CRs when there's no better alternative. As you say, "Again, a good start and probably the best it can be, given the rest of the system."

HPs - THEY MEAN NOTHING! THEY HAVE NO MEANING! We could rename them Squishy Points and it would be the same thing.

Agreed. Hit Points are, of course, simple, but so are AC bonuses. Certainly a tough-as-nails 20th-level Fighter should have more Hit Points -- and not just a few more -- than a soft, civilian scribe, but he doesn't need 87 times as many (175 vs. 2) to make the point that he's tough.

What this does is take away from desciptors in battle, or anytime HPs are lost, because what does losing 10 HPs mean? What about 20?

Some would say that 10 Hit Points' damage scratches a 175-hp Fighter. Others would say it misses him entirely. Mechanically, he's hit (and subject to touch-attack effects) and will take half a day to heal the damage (without magic).

First of all, this game is simple.

Is it though? Isn't odd that everyone praises the game for its simplicity, yet buys books and books full of extra rules? (OK, OK, many of them don't slow down the game much, but it's something to think about.)

 

[Ashtal]

Hong...please play nice. You're drifting into Nutkinland language flairs...kay?

 

[MutantHamster]

Classes - Classes are fine but I don't like a system where classes can't be replicated through special abilities. For example, no one else, not even the fighter with his many feats, can be as good of an unarmed fighter as a monk. Why not? Why do I still *HAVE* to be a monk to get better unarmed damage? Sure, the odd feat here and there might up me a die or two, but nothing to compare to the monk. This doesn't even talk about his special abilities.

Are you really stupid? You know you can multiclass. Just think of taking levels in monk as fist training, since you cant seem to grasp classes. Besides wich, there are numerous prestige classes

"Game Balance" - Things work differently. That's just the way it is. While I don't want to have a race that has +6 to all attributes, having choices that give bonuses without penalties would be nice. In 2E, with the increased level limits, there was sometimes little reason to be human, except for role playing. I still had more than 66% human characters in the group because that's what the guys wanted to role play. That was their character. In general, though, "game balance" can't happen because at some point, the classes will be good in their area and no one else can touch them. Would anyone consider having a wizard fight a fighter? Yes, part of a wizard's abilities are spells and ignoring them isn't fair to the wizard. The point is, that given the circumstances, the fighter has the advantage.

What???..... What do you mean ignoring spells isnt fair? I dont understand the question....

Items - WHY IS THE EMPHASIS ON ITEMS? Why isn't it on the character? Why is it that, as shown by money for characters of higher than 2nd level, a character MUST have a certain gold amount of items after 1st level? What does that say about the system? Why can't we have a system that allows me to have a character who inheirited his father's magical sword and not have it ruin "balance".

Since when MUST a character have a certain amount of gold in items after first level? WHat book are you reading from?

Skills - I personally don't like black and white, hit or miss skills. There is too much subjectivity in them. I mean, if a character has a +25 in something and rolls a 34 but needed a 35, they still notice nothing? (or whatever?) That is higher than probably a 10th level character can get and yet they still didn't notice something?!??

Yeah they noticed something, they just didnt notice the DC 35 thing because like a +25 bonus a DC 35 is also VERY HIGH!! Nobody said skills were black and white, didnt you read about degrees of success and failure?

"upping the numbers" - I was worried about it with Deities and Demigods and it seems to be continuing with Epic Level stuff. The numbers just go up. Want to challenge your 21st level characters? Make the DC be 50! Want to have more powerful items? Up the total bonus from 10 to 25! Want to have creatures to challenge them? Give them ACs of 100 and +125 to hit! GIVE ME A BREAK! I take a very simple approach when assigning a DC. Can ANY class/race do this? Do you need to be experienced to do it? If the answer is yes and then no, the DC should be easy. Not higher! I know it is corny but I have yet to find myself facing things in life that I can't handle. Having said that, what happens when suddenly something that was a DC of 15 becomes a 40?!??

Where did you read this, cuz I have to agree its retarded...

AC - Armor was created to reduce damage, not make it harder to hit. Yes, you can nit pick this and say an actual hit is when it does damage. What? So, the big guy with the hammer who hit the guy in full plate didn't roll high enough to wound him? That dent in the breastplate doesn't mean anything?

The dent in the Breast Plate is damage ya moron! The glancing blow off his shoulder is a near miss. Every time you hit someone you dont bust his armor!

More on AC: I have to agree that the AC system is somewhat flawed, a dont like the way they combine Dex and Armor into one Stat that is compared against a melee and ranged attack. It would make more since to have armor reduce damage like you said, but the AC System as is isnt as flawed as you implied.

About HP: The HP system is fairly flawed in that, a 10th level rogue could easily be imagined in real life and should be harder to kill than a normal pperson, but it could take up to around 20 arrows to kill them. Generally no matter how experienced you are, most humans arent gonna survie more than about 7 arrows. The HP system is flawed but will have to do until some miraculous new system comes up (I tried the d6 thing with the levels of helathiness and that doesnt really work well either)

 

[Aaron L]

A class based game where all class abilities can be replicated through special abilities? What are the classes for then? .

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: Rant on d20

Isn't combat the most popular aspect of the game?

Even if combat isn't the most important aspect of the game, it is durn near the mechanic that gets the most attention in a majority of games that don't surrender resolution of such things to GM fiat. And with good reason... it is the part of the mileu that cannot IMO be handled well by simple roleplaying, and has the most severe of possible consequences for the players. And conflict -- which often means combat -- is an essential ingedient in a game.

I don't see how character progression is related to wargaming. Wargaming units and commanders don't typically display progression at all -- and the few wargames that track unit/commander experience certainly don't handle it like D&D.

Not only that, but the DEFAULT (not the alternatives, mind you, but the default) method of disbursing XP award you the XP for meeting the goal associated with a threat, not for killing the creature itself. As the DMG points out, sneaking past of charming the minotaur is as good as defeating it in combat.

Is it though? Isn't odd that everyone praises the game for its simplicity, yet buys books and books full of extra rules? (OK, OK, many of them don't slow down the game much, but it's something to think about.)

There is a difference between complication and support material. And that D&D has a plethora of support material while remaining fairly simple at its core is 2 strengths.

 

[Wolfspider]

About HP: The HP system is fairly flawed in that, a 10th level rogue could easily be imagined in real life and should be harder to kill than a normal pperson, but it could take up to around 20 arrows to kill them. Generally no matter how experienced you are, most humans arent gonna survie more than about 7 arrows.

You're operating under the misunderstanding (as many people do) that being successfully attacked by 20 arrows means being actually struck by each of those arrows. That's not what Hit Points represent at all.

 

[MutantHamster]

You wanna finish that sentence there bud? Im just sitting here waiting to see what hp does represent. But what I'm saying is:
How is it that your hp is related to constituion in that they're both your healthyness, when hp can increase without constitution? The way HD works it take tons and tons of damage just to criple the higher level characters.

 

[Psion]

How is it that your hp is related to constituion in that they're both your healthyness, when hp can increase without constitution? The way HD works it take tons and tons of damage just to criple the higher level characters.

I'm not him, but as I said earleir, damage should be considered relative to the character's level. A 10 hp hit is a telling blow to a 1st level character, but a mere scratch to a 10th level character. That being the case, you can think of a 2nd level character mitigating about half of the damage of a blow, a third level character mitigates it to 1/3, and so on. Essentially, the character's CON come into it not so much because the character is getting tougher every level, but because the character is mitigating the damage, the effect of being tougher is more telling when compared to smaller and smaller damage totals compared to the characters total HP. HP are essentially an amplification of the characters basic damage capacity at first level... which is a physical thing. A tough bruiser with 18 con can stand more scratches that a wiry character with 8 con.

 

[MutantHamster]

Think about it. in gaining a mere 1000 XP your physical toughness and damage capacity (on average) increases 100%, You can kill like 5 things and your twice as tough. That doesnt make alot of sense.
What I'm saying is Level shouldnt be connected to HP, hp should be connected to your CONSTITUTION not your LEVEL. WHy does your hp go up when you gain experience? Killing things doesnt make you physically tougher (it can a little but that is represented by stat increases wich should be how you raise hp)
I dont see how hp makes sense if its a facet of Constitution but increases with EXPERIENCE. That doesnt even make sense, why would fighting experience make you tougher?

 

[Psion]

I dont see how hp makes sense if its a facet of Constitution but increases with EXPERIENCE. That doesnt even make sense, why would fighting experience make you tougher?

Did you even READ my post? Please, try reading it again. If you didn't understand, I'll try to rephrase. But right now you are giving me every indication that you did not even try to grasp what I wrote. If you aren't even going to bother reading people's posts, then why the hell should we bother replying to you?

To sum up the central point which you blithely ignored: experience DOESN'T makes you tougher. It makes you better able to avoid and mitigate damage in the first place.