Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[Ridley's Cohort]

I agree with SHARK on one major point- the fighter's skills *are* pitiful, and it really constrains any character that uses the class.

Personally I think that no Core PC class should have a base 2 skill points per level. The minimum should be 4.

Only PrCs should have such scant skill points, as they can justify that extreme level of narrow focus in general knowledge.

 

[fuindordm]

fuindordm,

The issue I have with that is it's a character background written assuming that the character has been around for quite a while as a sailor, and then one day up and decides to go adventuring.

Thats's fine, but it seems it should be a higher level character.

If you're 1st level, write a background that fits a 1st level character, and the skillpoints make sense.

If you all decide to start a game at higher level, and write backgrounds matching those stats, the skill points will make sense as well.

Well, that's a good point too... but it runs up against the disconnect between a class' primary function (provide abilities needed to survive an adventure) and the idea of skills as background knowledge. I could make a 2nd level expert/1st level fighter to model this character, just as the "noble fighter" could take a level of aristocrat. But why should a sailor need a high number of HP and BAB? And it it really necessary to model a character's pre-adventuring life in such detail?

The whole "x4 at first level" thing was supposed to serve this purpose, giving characters a large enough pool of skill points that they could have background knowledge. One could give all PCs (4x3) + (2,4,8) instead of (2,4,8)x4 skill points, for example.

But the main point remains the same: 3e pushes the idea that all aspects of a character must have a well-defined mathematical bonus, while 1e said "your class represents your
adventuring abilities, the rest is up to you and the DM." I'm not sure that the added detail
of the 3e skill system is worth the hassle of tweaking Int, level, and class choice in a vain effort to make it all add up.

Ben

 

[fuindordm]

Particularly with thieves. And in previous editions there was always the issue of why only thieves got to climb, hide in shadows, etc. Now everyone can, though not equally well.

With the introduction of a skill-based class, previous editions crept gradually towards giving other classes skills that made sense. Some of them were fairly limited (ranger tracking, the assassin's disguise ability), others ended up with a laundry list of ill-defined competence (barbarian). It started to become clear that a unified skill mechanic was needed, which 2e attempted to provide and 3e delivered on.

But if you go back to the source material, it becomes clear that the thief skills were meant to represent rather exceptional feats. Hide in shadows was the ability to hide without cover in the right conditions through cool-headedness, camoflogue, and a certain amount of athletic training (holding perfectly still, a bit of contortion). The ability to climb walls was meant to represent a special ability to climb sheer surfaces, and so on.

Quite naturally, the thief could use these skills for much easier kinds of hiding and climbing as well! This led others to ask why they couldn't climb too--the correct answer is that of course they can! Anyone can climb a tree, and anyone can hide behind an object. For that matter, anyone can move quietly--their chance of success being 33% (2 in 6 to surprise). But as the thief-like skills started to diffuse into other classes and broaden in scope, people lost sight of the idea that adventurers are assumed to have a wide range of basic competence.

3e came up with the good idea of allowing people to take 10, but face it--taking 10 is anything but heroic. It requires calm conditions! If my fighter wants to climb a tree in battle to get away from the wolves, he should be rewarded for creative use of the environment--not punished with a 50% chance of wasting the action with a failed die roll.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[Numion]

But if you go back to the source material, it becomes clear that the thief skills were meant to represent rather exceptional feats. Hide in shadows was the ability to hide without cover in the right conditions through cool-headedness, camoflogue, and a certain amount of athletic training (holding perfectly still, a bit of contortion). The ability to climb walls was meant to represent a special ability to climb sheer surfaces, and so on.

Quite naturally, the thief could use these skills for much easier kinds of hiding and climbing as well! This led others to ask why they couldn't climb too--the correct answer is that of course they can! Anyone can climb a tree, and anyone can hide behind an object. For that matter, anyone can move quietly--their chance of success being 33% (2 in 6 to surprise). But as the thief-like skills started to diffuse into other classes and broaden in scope, people lost sight of the idea that adventurers are assumed to have a wide range of basic competence.

Do you have a quote for this? As it went in the games we played, other classes couldn't climb and they definitely couldn't pick locks.

3e came up with the good idea of allowing people to take 10, but face it--taking 10 is anything but heroic. It requires calm conditions! If my fighter wants to climb a tree in battle to get away from the wolves, he should be rewarded for creative use of the environment--not punished with a 50% chance of wasting the action with a failed die roll.

When that happened to a bunch of adventurers in The Hobbit, was it written as a standard task for any adventurer?

 

[RFisher]

I do not find it illuminating to compare the best habits of earlier edition gaming with the worst habits of more recent fare, or vice versa.

But that's exactly what you seem to be doing. An overly adversial DM kills the fun just as much with 3e as with 1e. Mechanics don't fix that.

The problem my group had with 1e was that we never properly understood the system. I have no doubt that the books could've done a much better job of explaining how the game was meant to be played. Heck, how many times has Gygax explained ways that his way of running the game differed from what he wrote? There's a reason I once wrote all-things-D&D off as hopelessly obsolete.

Despite that, we had a grand time with AD&D. I'd venture to say the majority of us here did. Yeah, we may have eventually gotten fed up with it due to problems real or percieved, but we managed to have great games anyway. (Even though I've now realized that I may have been too quick to abandon classic D&D for AD&D back then, I still wouldn't trade my AD&D memories for anything.)

That wasn't because we were great DMs. Most of us were mediocre DMs.

So, yeah, with 3e I understand how the game was meant to be played much better with less effort. (Part of which is the clarity of writing, but how much is due to online reading & discussing?) Yet, a bad DM still kills the fun just as much.

Or even a good DM who makes a mistake. The biggest fun-kill I've witnessed recently was a very good DM who tried an experiment that completely back-fired. It was 3e, but the mistake had nothing to do with mechanics.

I constantly read people dismissing what fans of the older editions like as nothing but nostalgia. But it seems like some people have whatever the opposite of rose-colored glasses is. It really wasn't that bad. Most of us are here because we had a great time with AD&D. It wasn't a vanishingly rare occurrance.

Yeah. I own the nostalgia! That was definitely icing on the cake in my recent classic Traveller & classic D&D campaigns. Yeah, AD&D had issues. (There's a reason why classic D&D is my older-edition-of-choice.) There were bits that were best ignored, & it could've done a much better job of explaining itself. And yeah, I enjoy 3e too. it's an impressive work. It has some really good bits, & it does a much better job of explaining itself.

But 3e does not magically make games better. We had good & bad then; we have good & bad now.

Now here's a bunch of smileys to remind you that, when I rant, it's good-natured ranting with a smile: (^_^) (^_^) (^_^) (^_^) (^_^) (^_^) (^_^) (^_^) (^_^) (^_^)

 

[RFisher]

3e attempted to provide a system for generating more feature-complete characters, and it did so successfully.

There's still this, though: I think doing X should very rarely require a roll. So, I set X DCs low enough that a roll is almost never needed. But Bob sunk a lot of skill points into X, & now he's feeling like it was a waste.

OK, maybe I shoud've told the players about this up front. But maybe in the list of things I thought it was important for the players to know before they made characters, I didn't think of this or think that it would be that important. Or maybe I did & Bob just didn't read my "player pack" thoroughly enough. Or maybe he misunderstood. Whatever the case, the damage is done.

Is this a huge problem? No. But it is one of the reasons that I prefer very broad skills (e.g. classes or LA skill-bundles) to finer grained skills. (& yeah, I now there are games with much finer-grained skill systems than 3e.)

A lot of people assume that all of these rules in 3rd Edition make it more difficult for new players. In my experience -- not only with RPGs, but in other fields as well -- the structure and support that 3rd Edition offers actually makes it easier for new players to run the game.

Nope. It has to do with the person. Some people are detail-oriented; some people are big-picture oriented. A big-picture person, whether newbie or old hand, will typically have more trouble with a system with more rules.

As it went in the games we played, other classes couldn't climb and they definitely couldn't pick locks.

It's funny. I clearly remember having a big argument with a friend about AD&D thief skills. He said "move silently" meant you "moved silently"; I argued that it was merely hyperbole. But, having read a lot of tales from Gary's Greyhawk campaign & re-reading the thief skill descriptions in the 1e PHB, I now know I was wrong.

I sure wish the book had actually said: "Now, this thief ability doesn't mean that only thieves can sneak. Here's how general sneaking is handled..."

 

[Numion]

Nope. It has to do with the person. Some people are detail-oriented; some people are big-picture oriented. A big-picture person, whether newbie or old hand, will typically have more trouble with a system with more rules.

Probably does. However, my hypothesis is that RPGs attract much more of the former than the latter. Hence, 3E is usually better for a random n00b DM.

EDIT: I might've fall into circular logic here; RPGs probably attract more detail oriented people because that's a requirement for most systems. Hence, they're better at it.

It's funny. I clearly remember having a big argument with a friend about AD&D thief skills. He said "move silently" meant you "moved silently"; I argued that it was merely hyperbole. But, having read a lot of tales from Gary's Greyhawk campaign & re-reading the thief skill descriptions in the 1e PHB, I now know I was wrong.

What exactly did you think move silently did, if not allow one to move without making a sound?

 

[Doug McCrae]

deleted

 

[Hussar]

Well, for those of us about to turn 40, there's an element of that... No offense, just couldn't resist.

.

Well, I'm turning 35 next month, so, no offense taken. Started playing in 1980 as well with my 15 year old brother and all his high school friends. Of those I started playing with back then, some 20 people between a couple of different groups, only myself and my brother still play. Considering how many dropped out of the hobby after the early 80's, limiting the age didn't knock out all that many people methinks.

The Sailor:
Professon (Sailor) (4 Ranks)
Rope Use (2 Ranks)
Surival: at sea (2 Ranks)
Gather Information (1 Rank)

Why does your sailor have these skills? The only one he actually needs is 4 ranks in Profession Sailor. Everything he does on a ship is subsumed into that skill - tying ropes, fishing, everything. Poof, one skill, does everything.

I think one of the disconnects is that people want to start their 1st level character as this experienced person who has done stuff. The problem is, that's not what a 1st level character is. A 1st level PC is fresh off the farm so to speak. He hasn't spent years doing much of anything since, if he had been doing something exciting and dangerous, he wouldn't be 1st level anymore. A 1st level character with a sailor background has been a fisherman, hugging the coastline and dragging nets with his father. He's not a crewman on the Santa Maria because they wouldn't take snot nosed kids out on dangerous trips like that.

Background is what your character has at about 7th level, looking back at what he's done for the past 6 levels.

 

[RFisher]

What exactly did you think move silently did, if not allow one to move without making a sound?

Move quietly. I too made the mistake of thinking it meant that only thieves could move quietly. Despite the hints in the elf & halfling descriptions.