Does anyone else share my dislike of d20?

[Lancer]

It unified a lot of mechanics that were needlessly different (the afore-mentioned thief skills vs. proficiencies being one of many examples) and helped balance broken mechanics (multiclassing, unclear stacking rules, etc.).  What was backwards about it?  I view it as a system that didn't move far enough forward.

 

Geez...Where do I start?

-3E was about 10 times harder to learn. There seemed to be many, many more rules to memorize than 2ndEd *despite* being more streamlined. If that is not a failure in design I don't know what is.

-AoO is the most nonsensical, unneedlessly difficult concept to learn I have ever seen in an RPG (That includes GURPS and Shadowrun!). And it really doesn't work well in practice.

-All the ridiculously powerful PCs and monsters, feats, and what not made powergaming even more of a problem than it ever was in previous editions of AD&D.

-Not to mention that the overabundance of prestige classes and sourcebooks that inundated the store shelves is the same mistake that 2ndEd had done with it kits and its sourcebooks. It is ironic since WotC did advertise the end of kits when 3E first came out.

- Lack of support for the settings I am interested in.. Planescape and Mystara.

 

Does it surprise you that subsequent editions of D&D and AD&D were easier to learn than radically different systems?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, SLA Industries is radically different from AD&D. It's not even a fantasy setting. It's not even class-based. Yet it was one of the easiest systems to pick up. Easier than AD&D even to learn.

Ironically, D&D 3E which is supposed to be more similar to AD&D 2ndEd than SLA could ever be was *much* more cumbersome to learn besides its streamlined nature.

Learning 3E was almost as bad as learning GURPS.... Or Shadowrun.... ALMOST

[J.E. Sawyer]

-3E was about 10 times harder to learn. There seemed to be many, many more rules to memorize than 2ndEd *despite* being more streamlined. If that is not a failure in design I don't know what is.

The core 3E books have fewer mechanics than 2nd Ed., so I find it strange that you experienced this.

 

-AoO is the most nonsensical, unneedlessly difficult concept to learn I have ever seen in an RPG (That includes GURPS and Shadowrun!). And it really doesn't work well in practice.

Attacks of Opportunity were originally featured in Player's Option: Combat & Tactics.

 

-All the ridiculously powerful PCs and monsters, feats, and what not made powergaming even more of a problem than it ever was in previous editions of AD&D.

How do you define "powerful"?

 

 

-Not to mention that the overabundance of prestige classes and sourcebooks that inundated the store shelves is the same mistake that 2ndEd had done with it kits and its sourcebooks. It is ironic since WotC did advertise the end of kits when 3E first came out.

3E doing the same thing as 2nd Ed. isn't backwards.

 

- Lack of support for the settings I am interested in.. Planescape and Mystara.

That doesn't really have anything to do with the system. People can and do run Planescape and Mystara campaigns with 3E and 3.5 rules.

 

Learning 3E was almost as bad as learning GURPS.... Or Shadowrun.

I'm always puzzled when D&D and AD&D vets say that 3E was difficult to learn. Outside of memorizing AoO rules, it seemed on par or easier than 2nd Ed. It's strange, because so many AD&D 2nd Ed. fans will alternately say that 3E is dumbed down or too complicated.

[EnderAndrew]

Geez...Where do I start?

-3E was about 10 times harder to learn. There seemed to be many, many more rules to memorize than 2ndEd *despite* being more streamlined. If that is not a failure in design I don't know what is.

I really disagree with that statement. I really hate D&D in most of it's incarnations, however 3E makes sense. Attribute modifers are the same. You role D20 for most everything, and there are common sense rules of thumb that allow the DM to quick assign modifiers and difficulties to rolls. The system is only cumbersome in the very specific in the class feats, spells, etc. That is even more cumbersome in 2E with countless spells, kits and the like.

-AoO is the most nonsensical, unneedlessly difficult concept to learn I have ever seen in an RPG (That includes GURPS and Shadowrun!). And it really doesn't work well in practice.

AoO slow down combat, but the rules can be explained and do make sense. I don't like them, but the rules can be made to work. It does make you consider movement a bit more. I honestly believe 3E was written with minis/figs in mind. I won't play 3E without figs.

-All the ridiculously powerful PCs and monsters, feats, and what not made powergaming even more of a problem than it ever was in previous editions of AD&D.

I'll give you that. Hitting level 20 in a 2E campaign was a feat. Now people start Epic campaigns right off the bat with level 30 characters. I'll take a pass. But that is an optional style of play, not a fault of the base rules. I'm not upset that material is available. There are Elder level powers and characters for powergamers with Vampire, yet overall I think the WoD/Storyteller system isn't ruined simply because the option to have powerful characters is there.

-Not to mention that the overabundance of prestige classes and sourcebooks that inundated the store shelves is the same mistake that 2ndEd had done with it kits and its sourcebooks. It is ironic since WotC did advertise the end of kits when 3E first came out.

I hated how with 2E, the power of your character was directly proportional to the ammount of money you spent on supplements getting kits and the like. A base character couldn't compete with a character given several kits.

 

2E made no effort whatsoever on balance. Dual-class and multi-classing was an absolute joke.

 

While I can't stand D&D, I think 3E has been the best incarnation of the rules. I do agree that 2E had much better settings.

 

I also maintain that WoD/Storyteller is one of the better all-around systems I've ever run, and I've run plenty of rules systems. The new WoD system is even better than ever.

[Lancer]

The core 3E books have fewer mechanics than 2nd Ed., so I find it strange that you experienced this.

 

There might have been fewer mechanisms in 3E.. maybe.. But the mechanisms were much more rules heavy.

 

Attacks of Opportunity were originally featured in Player's Option: Combat & Tactics.

 

I only pull certain aspects of that book for my 2ndEd campaigns and AoO wasn't one of them. Yes, it was in PO but it wasn't in the core 2ndEd rules. That was the beauty of PO in that you can pick or ignore whatever aspects you like as you saw fit.

For 3E, OTOH, AoO was obligatorily made part of the core rules. You had no choice in the matter outside of house rules.

 

How do you define "powerful"?

 

This is very vague and relative. I don't know how to answer this. But needless to say, I thought PCs in 3E were *too* powerful. Maybe, others don't. But I did.

 

3E doing the same thing as 2nd Ed. isn't backwards.

 

From the looks of things, I think it will even outdo 2ndEd here and be worthy of the Guiness Book of World Records.

 

That doesn't really have anything to do with the system.  People can and do run Planescape and Mystara campaigns with 3E and 3.5 rules.

 

Yes. Because they like 3E and 3.5rules and I am happy for them. I, however, don't.

 

I'm always puzzled when D&D and AD&D vets say that 3E was difficult to learn.  Outside of memorizing AoO rules, it seemed on par or easier than 2nd Ed.  It's strange, because so many AD&D 2nd Ed. fans will alternately say that 3E is dumbed down or too complicated.

 

Not including learning AoO (which to this day I never mastered), I thought there was still much more memorization with 3E than 2ndEd.

[Lancer]

I also maintain that WoD/Storyteller is one of the better all-around systems I've ever run, and I've run plenty of rules systems.  The new WoD system is even better than ever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know. I just got the new WoD sourcebook recently. I need to find time to sit down and read it!

[EnderAndrew]

I'm trying to wrap up my long running Gehenna campaign by September when my first baby is born, and then I'm taking a break from gaming.

 

Then maybe I'll switch to the new system.

[Lancer]

Anyhow, what is so great about Toon, out of curiosity? I don't know much about it but isn't it a cartoon setting? How is it compatible with a fantasy setting?

[Lancer]

I'm trying to wrap up my long running Gehenna campaign by September when my first baby is born, and then I'm taking a break from gaming.

 

Then maybe I'll switch to the new system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Congrats man.. I don't know if you WILL have time to switch to a new system when that happens! But try to enjoy your gaming (and life, in general) as much as you can until then!

[J.E. Sawyer]

There might have been fewer mechanisms in 3E.. maybe.. But the mechanisms were much more rules heavy.

Can you give a few examples?

 

Yes, it was in PO but it wasn't in the core 2ndEd rules. That was the beauty of PO in that you can pick or ignore whatever aspects you like as you saw fit.

For 3E, OTOH, AoO was obligatorily made part of the core rules. You had no choice in the matter outside of house rules.

3E DMs were explicitly told they always have the right to change or remove rules.

 

This is very vague and relative. I don't know how to answer this. But needless to say, I thought PCs in 3E were *too* powerful. Maybe, others don't. But I did.

It's entirely relative, which is why I think comparisons to 2nd Ed. numerical values are misleading.

 

3E doing the same thing as 2nd Ed. isn't backwards.

It's still the same thing, not backwards.

 

Yes. Because they like 3E and 3.5rules and I am happy for them. I, however, don't.

You've put yourself in kind of an indefensible position here. You dislike 3E because there aren't 3E versions of your favorite settings, but even if there were, you still wouldn't play them because you dislike 3E. That's circular.

 

Not including learning AoO (which to this day I never mastered), I thought there was still much more memorization with 3E than 2ndEd.

It is my belief that most 2nd Ed. vets don't realize how much they memorized of 2nd Ed. When they see new rules and tables in front of them, it suddenly seems much more complicated. Before 3E came out, I had virtually every table in the 2nd Ed. PH and DMG memorized. To have the same level of familiarity with 3E, I had to memorize the 3E tables, which I believe were smaller in total volume.

 

Just look at the 2nd Ed. chapter on ability scores. Compare it to the 3E chapter on ability scores.

[EnderAndrew]

Just look at the 2nd Ed. chapter on ability scores.  Compare it to the 3E chapter on ability scores.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bingo.

[Lancer]

It is my belief that most 2nd Ed. vets don't realize how much they memorized of 2nd Ed.  When they see new rules and tables in front of them, it suddenly seems much more complicated.  Before 3E came out, I had virtually every table in the 2nd Ed. PH and DMG memorized.  To have the same level of familiarity with 3E, I had to memorize the 3E tables, which I believe were smaller in total volume.

 

Just look at the 2nd Ed. chapter on ability scores.  Compare it to the 3E chapter on ability scores.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bingo. And there lies the root of the problem.

 

Who would be crazy enough to memorize those tables? Why the heck would you? I never memorized any tables in 2ndEd. All the info that PCs needed were right on their character sheets, all the info *I* needed was on the DM Screen and perhaps an extra scrap sheet, and the THACO system was (I thought) very easy to follow. Simple. Efficient.

 

Because of its streamlined nature, if you are *really* motivated of course it would be easier to memorize 3E tables than 2ndEd tables since values were separated by equal increments. Hence it becomes a matter of memorizing simple arithmetic sequences. But this is still a *big* chore. Since I have never tried to memorize tables nor did I need to this point is irrelevant. I just don't see why anyone would try to memorize all those tables from the PH/DMG for both editions! That's nuts!

 

My point is that there were more *rules* in 3E than 2ndEd. Mechanics were fewer in number but more variables were involved. I don't have the motivation or time right now to go get me 3E books and 2ndEd books to give a full exposition. But if you really want to I can come back with specific examples in the near future.

 

You've put yourself in kind of an indefensible position here. You dislike 3E because there aren't 3E versions of your favorite settings, but even if there were, you still wouldn't play them because you dislike 3E. That's circular.

 

Sorry, I don't get what you are trying to get at here. You are asking why I don't convert my settings to 3E. My answer was I don't because I don't like the rules. It is simple logic.

The fact that my settings are no longer supported through 3E makes me like it that much less.

[EnderAndrew]

There are no tables to memorize.

 

A standard complication adds a +2 to difficulty. Every two points in attributes is a +1 modifier.

 

Now grab a D20 and start rolling. Your DM screen may bring the most important tables together, but I don't need books in my face to run 3E.

[Lancer]

There are no tables to memorize.

 

A standard complication adds a +2 to difficulty.  Every two points in attributes is a +1 modifier.

 

Now grab a D20 and start rolling.  Your DM screen may bring the most important tables together, but I don't need books in my face to run 3E.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't need books in my face to run 2ndEd nor did I memorize any tables either.

[Jediphile]

It is my belief that most 2nd Ed. vets don't realize how much they memorized of 2nd Ed.  When they see new rules and tables in front of them, it suddenly seems much more complicated.  Before 3E came out, I had virtually every table in the 2nd Ed. PH and DMG memorized.  To have the same level of familiarity with 3E, I had to memorize the 3E tables, which I believe were smaller in total volume.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I think you're right there. A big part of the problem is that many of us have simply become so used to 2e or even 1e rules, that we find it difficult to accept that fundamental things have changed.

 

But while 3e is more streamlined, it IS a very different game, and we all notice that. WotC made a big deal of "not slaughtering all the holy cows", but IMHO they should have gone ahead and gotten rid of all the stupid rules if they were going to change this much anyway. 3e is far more streamlined than the AD&D editions, but it is not a evolution upon those games - it's a completely different system that just tries like Hell to look a lot like 1e and 2e.

 

Just look at the 2nd Ed. chapter on ability scores.  Compare it to the 3E chapter on ability scores.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but this is actually one area where having the whole thing being streamlined is just silly. Why is the to-hit and damage modifier for Strength the same now? That makes no sense whatsoever. Besides, Strength shouldn't affect to-hit probability at all - it was stupid in the first place, so why put it in 3e? Another thing I find really annoying is that only even numbers of a stat are different - you can go from Strength 18 to 19, and it won't make any difference at all. In the days of 2e, having 19 Strength was a big deal, but now it's just a number and nothing more. Yes, it's easier to change your stats in 3e now, but it doesn't matter since they also have to change far more before you see any significant difference.

 

 

Bingo. And there lies the root of the problem.

 

Who would be crazy enough to memorize those tables? Why the heck would you? I never memorized any tables in 2ndEd. All the info that PCs needed were right on their character sheets, all the info *I* needed was on the DM Screen and perhaps an extra scrap sheet, and the THACO system was (I thought) very easy to follow. Simple. Efficient.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, it's actually still there on 3e character sheets. No, I think us old 2e vets really have learned all those tables by heart, and now we find it difficult to accept that it has all changed. Suddenly the game is not what we thought it was, and we can't quite get used to it, and it's bloody annoying, and so we think "why couldn't they just keep it the way it was?" Not saying I embrace 3e, but this is one area where we must admit that we're just set in our ways, I think.

 

My point is that there were more *rules* in 3E than 2ndEd. Mechanics were fewer in number but more variables were involved. I don't have the motivation or time right now to go get me 3E books and 2ndEd books to give a full exposition. But if you really want to I can come back with specific examples in the near future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One thing I really hate about 3e is new rules that were added for what doesn't seem to be any particularly good reason to me. You've mentioned Attacks of Opportunity (AoO), so I'll skip ahead. But under that heading I really hate the way spellcasting grants these to nearby enemies - it bugs the game down and keeps the spellcaster from doing what he should be doing, which is casting spells.

 

Lots of people argued back in the day that this was reasonable because nobody can cast a spell without someone else hitting him before he finishes it, but that totally ignores how fast AD&D spells really were - those casting times actually meant something. In 2e casting a Magic Missile took 1 segment, whereas swinging a long sword took 5 segments. In 3e they said dropped the guard to cast spells invited attacks, but then they also bulldozered all over the intiative rules and conveniently removed all casting times and speed factors - foul, I say!

 

It also makes the whole spellcasting thing pretty silly. After all, Magic Missiles is supposed to be cast during combat, isn't it? Or what about the wizard who wants to Teleport or Dimension Door to safety when things go bad? There is a reason those had casting times of 2 and 1 respectively - there was strategy in those casting times. 3e torpedoed that strategy by brutishly removing initiative modifiers at the same time - it doesn't matter now that Magic Missile or Dimension Door are supposed to be fast spells, because the rules won't allow you to cast them without letting someone with even the slowest weapon in the world get a chance to push it up your wizard's nose or wherever. It was a very ugly and unbalancing way to do it.

 

Now, I know people will argue that spellcasters now have the ability to concentrate on spells in spite of being hurt physically. That's true, though it's not very logical. In 2e your spell was gone if someone hit you. Even if the wizard was protected by Stoneskin or similar, it was still gone, because it was the question of being hit and not whether you took damage that decided the matter. That rule was a bit cumbersome, but the 3e solution is even worse, and even more unbalanced. I'll tell you why...

 

Take the standard low level wizard (mageling). He has no time for casting warding spells, so he is doomed if surrounded by enemies - he won't be able to concentrate on his spell when hit, and can't cast very powerful spells yet anyway.

 

Now take the archmage. He is probably already protected by several warding spells, but even if he is surrounded, he can probably concentrate his way through most damage and still teleport to safety or whatever.

 

So in short, the archmages are now even more powerful, while the magelings are even more puny than ever before. Trouble is that that is about the last thing we need - archmages were without doubt among the most powerful characters in the game already. We really didn't need another rule that made them even more invincible. Just the opposite with the mageling - low level wizards are babies, since they have no AC, no HP to withstand damage, and no spells yet to protect themselves with. They also don't have high concentration yet, since the rules won't allow that, and so they're even more helpless than before. That's just the wrong way around.

 

Add to that the rule has thereby effectively forced building of the Concentration skill upon a spellcaster, and the rule has not only unbalanced the game, but also served to enforce the already restrictive class system even further by forcing any mage to build that particular skill

[Lancer]

Well, it's actually still there on 3e character sheets. No, I think us old 2e vets really have learned all those tables by heart, and now we find it difficult to accept that it has all changed. Suddenly the game is not what we thought it was, and we can't quite get used to it, and it's bloody annoying, and so we think "why couldn't they just keep it the way it was?" Not saying I embrace 3e, but this is one area where we must admit that we're just set in our ways, I think.

 

There is definitely some truth in that about the AD&D vet in me being set in his ways. I got the main 3E books a while back when it first came out played it for a couple of months (in fact played the ToEE module), realized I like 2ndEd better and never looked at the game again.

 

To make a long story short, I was just never impressed enough with 3E to ever want to change to it. It still has a multitude of balance problems and messed up mechanics (as you mentioned and I touched upon) that for me to have wanted to make the big effort to change to it, it would have had to have been*A LOT* better than 2ndEd. I don't think it is a lot better than 2ndEd at all. It is good that it is streamlined, but as you mentioned, there are probably enough problems with it to balance out the good.

 

To add, I am not one to just throw away my money. Why spend tons and tons of money on a new edition that is only marginally better (at best) than the system you have currently? Not to mention, I already have tons of source material for the older 2ndEd I have collected over the years, annals of house rules enough to fill up Fort Knox and all your settings have statistics done in that edition. To have made the herculean effort to change to 3E it truly needed to have been superior to 2ndED and in virtually all aspects. 3E needed to have really blown 2ndEd out of the water. 3E failed to do this for me and since I was already well set in my ways there was never any desire to change to it.

 

@ Jediphile: Oh and thanks for saving me work from going to my 3E manuals to come up with why it is not such a great system. :D ..I may still have to, I dunno. Being not a fan of 3E, I don't play it at all so I obviously don't know my rules there nearly as well as I do 2ndEd or even OD&D.

[EnderAndrew]

Yes, but this is actually one area where having the whole thing being streamlined is just silly. Why is the to-hit and damage modifier for Strength the same now? That makes no sense whatsoever. Besides, Strength shouldn't affect to-hit probability at all - it was stupid in the first place, so why put it in 3e?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

D&D is the only major rule system where one attribute controls to-hit and damage. Not only is it not realistic, I think it's broken.

 

You may think that it isn't realistic that a 16 STR gives you a +3 to hit, and +3 to damage, but I think streamlined attribute rules make it far easier to attempt to balance gameplay.

[Loof]

I agree that str shouldnt determin both damage and hit chance.

 

And in general streamlineing is good since it speads up play so that the modifiyers are teh same size doesnt bother me.

 

But effect increase only for every other stat point definetly does bother me.

It would be much more elegant if they halved the scales of atributes and doubled the "cost" of increasing them and let bonuses increas for every stat point.

Oh that reminds me of another anoyance, negative modifyers (not that this makes any real practical difference) I think it would be much more elegant if all modifyers where positive and started from the lowest posible atribute score... don't realy know why this mechanic bothers me though...

[EnderAndrew]

I agree that str shouldnt determin both damage and hit chance.

 

And in general streamlineing is good since it speads up play so that the modifiyers are teh same size doesnt bother me.

 

But effect increase only for every other stat point definetly does bother me.

It would be much more elegant if they halved the scales of atributes and doubled the "cost" of increasing them and let bonuses increas for every stat point.

Oh that reminds me of another anoyance, negative modifyers (not that this makes any real practical difference) I think it would be much more elegant if all modifyers where positive and started from the lowest posible atribute score... don't realy know why this mechanic bothers me though...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But then the scale for attributes wouldn't be similiar to that used in 1st and 2nd ed.

[Loof]

dont bother me I don't have a nostalgic atachment to any D&D game

[EnderAndrew]

dont bother me I don't have a nostalgic atachment to any D&D game

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Millions of D&D fans (such as Lancer) however do. As much as he is uncomfortable with the changes made (all of which I feel were for the better perhaps other than AoO), imagine how uncomfortable he might have felt if we removed 3D6 character creation and 3-18 attributes.

[Loof]

Yeah I know.

But since this thread is about things we dislike about D&D and that is one of teh things I dislike (although a small one) I spit it out to see what the reaction would be.

 

Oh and it would be much more interesting to hear why the nostalgic ones are so atached to their systems, I already knew they prefered things liek they are. A reason why my coment would be for the worse would be fun to hear and posibly debate.

[EnderAndrew]

I'm all for dropping D&D altogether and playing the D&D settings with a better rule-system. Exalted isn't too bad, and neither is Earth Dawn. I'd like a good streamlined, balanced system.

 

Mage: the Ascension had a really good magic system, if you ask me.

[Jediphile]

To make a long story short, I was just never impressed enough with 3E to ever want to change to it. It still has a multitude of balance problems and messed up mechanics (as you mentioned and I touched upon) that for me to have wanted to make the big effort to change to it, it would have had to have been*A LOT* better than 2ndEd. I don't think it is a lot better than 2ndEd at all. It is good that it is streamlined, but as you mentioned, there are probably enough problems with it to balance out the good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, that's the other side of 3e for 2e vets - it's different enough to us to be annoying, but is it really that much better? As others have said, it is certainly both more streamlined and more polished, but better? Not really. It's pretty much the same old thing on new bottles, only with a few more annoying rules and with 'streamlining' that means we don't know the rules by heart anymore. So why switch indeed?

 

The 3e players won't get this part, though. If they hear us talking like this, they might look at 2e and be horrified that we like it. I mean, we actually SUBTRACT our to-hit from the THAC0? Armor Class goes DOWN? You have to roll below your proficiency to succeed, so that low die results are good, whereas with a to-hit roll high die results are good? How utterly confusing! And why are thieves suddenly using percentile dice instead of the d20?

 

To you and me this is all natural and second hand, but to a 3e player, it's just confusing and silly - all of the above can be done according to the same mechanic, so why make them all different? Personally, I do sort of appreciate that high die rolls aren't *always* good. There should be times when they're not, methinks, but I do see their point.

 

That said, I have put some of these mechanics into my 2e campaign. No, I don't play 3e, I've just restructured the 3e mechanic to suit my 2e campaign in some cases. For example, THAC0 has been replaced by a 'class to-hit modifier', and AC of armors have been recalculated to go up instead of down. Want to know what the 'class to-hit modifier' or new AC of an armor is? Subtract the old value from 20 and there you go.

 

This way I've also been able to reincorporate the "Weapon Type vs. Armor" modifiers. I mean, do you ever use them? Few did, because they were very cumbersome in 2e, but we can use them quite easily in my campaign now. How? Well, take the place mail armor. It is AC 3 with +3 to THAC0 against slashing weapons.

 

A main problem of the Weapon Type vs. Armor list is that they were given as penalties in one edition of the 2e PHB and as a bonus in another - I have two editions of the 2e PHB, and they are exact opposite in those, because one says they should be added the THAC0 (thereby making THAC0 higher and so more difficult to hit), while another says they should be used as modifiers to the attackers to-hit roll. It all comes down to the same thing, but the fact that it's inconsistent is so annoying it's mind-boggling!

 

Anyway, we have a plate mail armor of AC 3 with a +3 to THAC0 against slashing weapons. Now, to convert the armor, we subtract it from 20. That gives plate mail a new armor class of 17. Now how about the Weapon Type vs. Armor modifier? Well, since it's a +3 to THAC0, that means the amor is more difficult to hit for the weapon type, so it should be added the armor class, giving us AC 20 against slashing weapons. It's still AC 17 against other weapon types (piercing and bludgeoning), so I'll note it down as AC 20/17/17. Since it is always listed in the order of slashing/piercing/bludgeoning, it will be clear which numbers are which.

 

I my campaign we did that for all the armors and wrote out the list, and we now use it without second thought. If I ask a player, "What is your AC", he'll say, "It's 23/20/20" or whatever.

 

This way I've introduced a 3e mechanic into my 2e game and used it to repair a broken rule that nobody used, because it didn't work. But it does now. And there is no question, than it's easier to roll the die and add a bunch of number than it is to constantly have to remind myself, whether it's the die roll I need to subtract from my THAC0 or vice versa. 3e uses the same mechanic for both attacks and skills, and that is more polished and streamlined. So I have accepted that and brought it into my campaign. I've left the thief abilities on percentile, though - never saw much point in changing them - everybody understands what 80% chance to hide in shadows means...

[Jediphile]

D&D is the only major rule system where one attribute controls to-hit and damage.  Not only is it not realistic, I think it's broken.

 

You may think that it isn't realistic that a 16 STR gives you a +3 to hit, and +3 to damage, but I think streamlined attribute rules make it far easier to attempt to balance gameplay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What I don't get is why they didn't just fix it. I've been toying the idea for the five seconds or so, when I actually considered switching to 3e, and it doesn't seem that hard to fix at all. Just drop the rule saying that Strength affects to-hit at all and instead let Dexterity modify it.

 

If that's too harsh on warriors, there's a solution to that, too. After all, you can make an argument for hitting stronger to indicate greater chance for hurting opponent or penetrating his defenses, though not as great as the precision suggested by high Dexterity.

 

Simply take half the Strength modifier and round it down, then use either that or the Dexterity modifier, whichever is higher, but not both. That should fix the matter quite nicely without unbalancing the game.

[EnderAndrew]

What I don't get is why they didn't just fix it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The had to keep the game as close to 2E or guys like you wouldn't consider switching. At the same time they introduced Weapon Finesse, allowing people to use Dex to-hit.

 

Or make a house rule and use Dex to-hit.