Does anyone else share my dislike of d20?

[Jediphile]

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}>

 

What bothers me is that they've set it up to look like the classic D&D 3-18 stat range, but don't use it for anything but numbercrunching. It's simply just untrue to claim that the 3-18 range is preserved, when it has been completely rewritten and how the numbers themselves don't mean anything.

 

Want to know what your modifier is? Subtract 10 from your stat and then take half of the result, rounding down any fractions - there's your modifier. Now, that being the case, why didn't they just use those numbers instead of the 3-18 range? It might take a little time for players to get used to his 17 being only 3

[Jediphile]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Except that Lancer and myself aren't playing 3e anyway, so what's the difference? We saw that the 3-18 scale was just a cover for a calculation, and that the claim of preserving the old scale was, shall we say, less than truthful. It annoys me more that WotC claims it's the same when it's not than it would have if they'd just said that they had changed it because it worked better and that we should try to get used to it.

 

Now the 3-18 scale has meaning only when you roll up the numbers (character creation) and nowhere else. In all other cases it's the underlying modifiers that dictate the game, while the 3-18 scale has no meaning at all.

[Loof]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah nothing stoping us from doing that...

Yes mage's magic system is realy cool.

And although the structure of the storyteller systems in general is very nice I don't like them in practise, can't realy put my finger on why though. But I think it has something to do with rolling large amounts of dice and sorting out the ones over X, as this makes it rather bothersome for the GM to vary difficultys, for instance what is harder 3 dice vs diff 6 or 4 dice vs diff 7. Although I hear that they have set a standard target number for all rolls in later editions. But then you get the problem that 2 successes is twice as hard as 1, and 3 is 50% harder then 2 and so on which gives rather large leaps between diffener difficultys so it's still hard for the GM to set things at the level he likes...

Earth Dawn it was ages since I played and I have never GMed it so I am a bit foggy on how it workes...

[EnderAndrew]

Earth Dawn is very similiar to Shadowrun's system. Technically both Earth Dawn and Shadowrun are FASA games set on Earth at very different points in history, so they are sibling games.

 

With the Storyteller system, I don't allow my players to start with super-powered characters, which cuts down on dice. Rolling a dice poll of say 7 or 8 dice at once isn't huge.

 

I also increase the standard diff from 6 to 7, and players actually like the increased challenge in the game.

[Jediphile]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Except that it backfired completely. Hard 2e fanatics were never going to switch, and those of us who might have considered it couldn't be bothered because 3e just wasn't enough of an improvement - you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

As for weapon finesse, I doubt very much many take it, since it's just too costly. The problem with feats is that they all 'cost' the same no matter how useful or slightly practical they are. WotC just basically set the system up and then claimed they were all exactly equal in value, which is obviously absurd to anyone bothering to study those feats for a few minutes. Improved Initiative is far more useful than Weapon Finesse in any case. Add to that that you have to take Weapon Finesse for each weapon you want to use it with and the idea that it's balanced really loses touch with reality.

 

And it seems every time someone voices criticism of stupid 3e rules, someone says to just introduce a house rule. No offense, but I only hear this argument when it concerns 3e, and I really don't understand why. What makes it okay for d20 to have flawed rules and yet have that be acceptable, since people can make their own house rules, but it's somehow not okay in other RPGs?

 

To put it bluntly, saying "make up a house rule to fix it" sounds to me like someone knows the rule is broken and that the system is therefore flawed, but they don't really like admitting it...

[EnderAndrew]

To put it bluntly, saying "make up a house rule to fix it" sounds to me like someone knows the rule is broken and that the system is therefore flawed, but they don't really like admitting it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I played 2E for years, and let me tell you it is a completely broken system. No one plays by the normal rules. Everyone uses house rules for a reason. I can create completely broken rules and destroy a campaign pretty quickly if I wanted.

 

One 2E rule that gets completely thrown by the wayside in every game I've seen is Racial Limits. Elves can live to be 200 no problem, and they get a natural +1 with swords, but they can't progress past 7th level as a Fighter? (Or whatever it is...)

 

You don't want to switch and that's fine. Have fun playing whatever you play. I don't even play D&D if I can help it. But I think 3E was a big improvement on 2E. I also believe that the vast majority of D&D players have switched.

[Jediphile]

And although the structure of the storyteller systems in general is very nice I don't like them in practise, can't realy put my finger on why though. But I think it has something to do with rolling large amounts of dice and sorting out the ones over X, as this makes it rather bothersome for the GM to vary difficultys, for instance what is harder 3 dice vs diff 6 or 4 dice vs diff 7. Although I hear that they have set a standard target number for all rolls in later editions. But then you get the problem that 2 successes is twice as hard as 1, and 3 is 50% harder then 2 and so on which gives rather large leaps between diffener difficultys so it's still hard for the GM to set things at the level he likes...

Earth Dawn it was ages since I played and I have never GMed it so I am a bit foggy on how it workes...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It was definitely annoying in the earlier incarnations of WoD. The Storyteller game I've played most recently was Exalted, and there some of the problems were fixed. 7 was now the golden number you needed to pass in order to get a success, each and every time.

 

However, Exalted also fixed another really annoying problem in the WoD system - if you got just one success, then all 1s (failures) were completely ignored. One big problem with the system earlier was that it sometimes wasn't in your own interest to build higher dice pools, since that just increased the chance of rolling that elusive 1 that ruined your result.

 

I must confess, though, that I don't like the whole idea of rolling all those d10s, then counting successes, then having the opponent try to resist, then seeing how many successes got through, and then rolling damage for that number... Very cumbersome and annoying when doing combat, though I guess you can accuse me of just being infected with D&D syndrome...

 

That said, I cannot believe that it is impossible to make a combat system that is fast and useful and yet allows many options. Heck, Storyteller's combat doesn't even allow a lot of options, but it still takes hours to go through major battles...

[EnderAndrew]

The new Storyteller system eliminated some dice rolls, but I generally move through combat the fastest with D6, and L5R, and then Storyteller running in at 3rd place.

 

Exalted has more dice, and more powerful characters than the rest of the Storyteller system.

[Jediphile]

I played 2E for years, and let me tell you it is a completely broken system.  No one plays by the normal rules.  Everyone uses house rules for a reason.  I can create completely broken rules and destroy a campaign pretty quickly if I wanted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, but 2e is a decade and a half old, so of course it's going to outdated - what game of those days isn't? Besides, I've never said 2e didn't have flaws. I know it does. The ability to exploit the system with the dual-class system was awful, for example, and we all fixed those rules. What I'm criticising is that 3e isn't really that much better even after 10+ years of experience to draw on. The mulit/dual-class system is better now, but there are still major gaps in the rules, and then new and flawed rules are thrown in there on top of the old ones. Eeeeek...

 

One 2E rule that gets completely thrown by the wayside in every game I've seen is Racial Limits.  Elves can live to be 200 no problem, and they get a natural +1 with swords, but they can't progress past 7th level as a Fighter? (Or whatever it is...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, level limits are stupid and gone in most campaigns - they certainly are in mine (though I do use them as a starting point for xp penalties...). The progressive element to advance in levels is one of the strongest features of any edition of D&D, and a GM would be crazy to throw it out, since nobody would play. One of my players considered retiring his 12th-level minotaur fighter simply because that was the level limit under the rules, even though I said I wouldn't put a firm level there and only penalize his xp progression a little. That tells us something about how strong the progressive element really is.

 

You don't want to switch and that's fine.  Have fun playing whatever you play.  I don't even play D&D if I can help it.  But I think 3E was a big improvement on 2E.  I also believe that the vast majority of D&D players have switched.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

3e was an improvement, but I wouldn't say it was a big one. Certainly not as big as it should have been with ten years of practical experience with 2e flaws. As for players switching over, yes and no. The majority of players I know have tried 3e and play it on occasion, yet I know that if I began a new 2e campaign, then they'd still rush to my table and leave 3e behind. I know that because they have all said that, so my GM style is obviously far more important to them than playing 3e instead of 2e, which tells me something about the "quality" of the system...

[Lancer]

I played 2E for years, and let me tell you it is a completely broken system.  No one plays by the normal rules.  Everyone uses house rules for a reason.  I can create completely broken rules and destroy a campaign pretty quickly if I wanted.

 

 

What I don't get is that some of the 3E advocates have played earlier editions of AD&D "for years" yet they claim they hate them. How can you play something you hate for so many years?

 

Either they liked 2ndEd a lot more than they are letting on or they "forced" themselves to play something they couldn't stand for years. Why would you force yourself to play with a ruleset you can't stand... And for so long?

It just doesn't make sense.

[Lancer]

You don't want to switch and that's fine.  Have fun playing whatever you play.  I don't even play D&D if I can help it.  But I think 3E was a big improvement on 2E.  I also believe that the vast majority of D&D players have switched.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know about that. I think the D&D fanbase gets pretty alienated with the release of every edition. I'd be willing to gander that at least half of the AD&D 2ndED vets continue playing their game and haven't switched at all. Why would you if (as Jediphile and I have mentioned) 2ndEd's mechanics are second nature to us and therefore why change? This concomitant with your own house rules that you have been comfortable with forever and it makes no sense to change.

 

As far as the current 3E fanbase, I don't think you can undermine the importance of the new generation of roleplayers.. Those who got introduced to RPing for the first time through 3E spurred by games like BG, KOTOR and NWN.

[Lancer]

As much as I dislike 3E, Enderwiggin and J.E. Sawyer might find this surprising but as Jediphile has I have also incorporated aspects of 3E that I like into my 2ndED campaign. Yes, even I.

 

One of the few things that bothers me about 2ndED is how ridiculously powerful PCs are relative to monsters after achieving about Level 10 or so. After about Level 12, a fighter with decent STR and weapons can hit just about anything with a 2 or 3 on a d20 (translates to a 90-95% chance to hit) and the other character types aren't much worse off.

 

It gets to the point where rolling dice becomes almost unnecessary because unless you roll a 1 you are not missing your opponent. This, IMHO, takes a lot of the drama out of the game. Therefore, besides modifying the THACO and Str charts a bit I have employed a 3E mechanic by using the -5 to hit rule on subsequent attacks.

 

Ignoring the optional Mastery rules for now and just using specialist attacks while using the standard THACO ans Str charts:

 

At Level 15 a STR 17 fighter's Base THACO is 6. Say he has a Long Sword+3 His Modified THACO is 2 (6-3-1).

 

At 3 attacks per two rounds the fighter can hit anything with an AC of 0 or worse with a 2 or better.

With the -5 rule in effect the fighter needs a 2 (95%)and a 7 (60%) to hit on round one. And a 2 to hit on round 2.

 

I like this much better because now there is a *real* chance that the character can miss an opponent with a decent AC but he still has an easy time hitting monsters with poor ACs.

Employing PO's Mastery rules and my revised THACO/Str charts the benefits of using this mechanic is even more obvious. But this is the basic gist.

[Lancer]

3e was an improvement, but I wouldn't say it was a big one. Certainly not as big as it should have been with ten years of practical experience with 2e flaws.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It can be argued that WotC tried to appease fans of 2ndEd as well as obtain a new target market in the new generation of roleplayers. They tried to appease old fans by keeping holy cows like levels and hit points but at the same time tried to be a "modern" system as well with its streamlined nature. I do agree that 3E could have been a much better system (I might have even be compelled to switch) had they not tried to deliver such a mixed bag and been more consistent. Pick one.. Either you are a modern system or you are not.

By trying to give elements of old and new systems (classes, levels AND streamlined mechanics huh?) in the sake of trying to make the biggest bucks they ended up creating a confusing mess of a system that alienated many vets. Myself included. I haven't looked at my 3E rules in years but this might be the number one reason why I found 3E unneedlessly difficult to learn.

 

 

As for players switching over, yes and no. The majority of players I know have tried 3e and play it on occasion, yet I know that if I began a new 2e campaign, then they'd still rush to my table and leave 3e behind. I know that because they have all said that, so my GM style is obviously far more important to them than playing 3e instead of 2e, which tells me something about the "quality" of the system...

 

And I have been saying this all along..

[Jediphile]

As much as I dislike 3E, Enderwiggin and J.E. Sawyer might find this surprising but as Jediphile has I have also incorporated aspects of 3E that I like into my 2ndED campaign. Yes, even I.

 

One of the few things that bothers me about 2ndED is how ridiculously powerful PCs are relative to monsters after achieving about Level 10 or so. After about Level 12, a fighter with decent STR and weapons can hit just about anything with a 2 or 3 on a d20 (translates to a 90-95% chance to hit) and the other character types aren't much worse off.

 

It gets to the point where rolling dice becomes almost unnecessary because unless you roll a 1 you are not missing your opponent. This, IMHO, takes a lot of the drama out of the game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True enough. Several GMs just pass the problem over and ignore low-level encounters, but I roll the dice for random encounters every time - just because the PCs are powerful doesn't mean that the world has suddenly been depopulated by kobolds or orcs or whatever. If I do roll an encounter of, say, nine orcs, I just tell my players, "you encounter nine orcs, do you want to play the fight?" The answer is always no, since there is no reason to go through the pointless dice-rolling exercise, but I ask anyway. That way the idea that orcs and whatnot still exist is kept alive. I may give token xp out for this, since they are so few that it really doesn't matter, but I don't give treasure. The players accept that, though, because I also play with critical misses, and nothing is worse than breaking your favorite +4 sword in a fight with a small group of wolves - yes, that did happen to us once...

 

Therefore, besides modifying the THACO and Str charts a bit I have employed a 3E mechanic by using the -5 to hit rule on subsequent attacks.

 

Ignoring the optional Mastery rules for now and just using specialist attacks while using the standard THACO ans Str charts:

 

At Level 15 a STR 17 fighter's Base THACO is 6. Say he has a Long Sword+3 His Modified THACO is 2  (6-3-1).

 

At 3 attacks per two rounds the fighter can hit anything with an AC of 0 or worse with a 2 or better.

With the -5 rule in effect the fighter needs a 2 (95%)and a 7 (60%) to hit on round one. And a 2 to hit on round 2.

 

I like this much better because now there is a *real* chance that the character can miss an opponent with a decent AC but he still has an easy time hitting monsters with poor ACs.

Employing PO's Mastery rules and my revised THACO/Str charts the benefits of using this mechanic is even more obvious. But this is the basic gist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A workable solution. I do play straight 2e in this area, though, and allow the full bonus to each and every attack. One player is now a 16th-level minotaur-turned-human warrior and has been built with 2e Player Option rules specifically towards the goal of being a two-hand sword grand master who can use a two-hand sword in each hand. If I changed the rules, it would be really unfair on him, because he worked for years to get his character to be the combat-monster that he is now. I do challenge the group with equally powerful monsters on occasion. They fought some bugbears trained by Bargle in the Black Eagle Barony recently that gave them a run for their money - the wizard cast a Phantasmal Killer on the bugbear leader, but while he failed the save, he did manage to postpone the effect until later in the battle with the Hardiness high-level skill from the DM Option: High-Level Campaigns book. While the players initially moaned about this, it eventually won the battle, because it turned out to take effect just as things were looking bad for the group.

 

So I don't think I need to import that rule, though I will seriously consider it, if I begin another 2e campaign. I'm far more likely to introduce a rule that states that rolls of 1, 2, or 3 always miss, while only a 1 results in the dubious pleasure of rolling my critical miss tables...

[Jediphile]

It can be argued that WotC tried to appease fans of 2ndEd as well as obtain a new target market in the new generation of roleplayers. They tried to appease old fans by keeping holy cows like levels and hit points but at the same time tried to be a  "modern" system as well with its streamlined nature. I do agree that 3E could have been a much better system (I might have even be compelled to switch) had they not tried to deliver such a mixed bag and been more consistent. Pick one.. Either you are a modern system or you are not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Essentially making a mistake similar to that made when Mystara was to be an AD&D campaign world...

 

And to think WotC vowed to never repeat the failures of TSR... When will they ever learn?

[Loof]

I must confess, though, that I don't like the whole idea of rolling all those d10s, then counting successes, then having the opponent try to resist, then seeing how many successes got through, and then rolling damage for that number... Very cumbersome and annoying when doing combat, though I guess you can accuse me of just being infected with D&D syndrome...

 

I don't think its "just" D&D syndrome, I have never liked D&D in any incarnation and what you said is a big part of what I dislike about the storyteller systems.

That being said the system has one advantage since its so streamlined and simple to get an overview of different characters its rather easy to play more or less diceless WoD games and improvise most things. Which is more or less what we always did when we played them...

[EnderAndrew]

Either they liked 2ndEd a lot more than they are letting on or they "forced" themselves to play something they couldn't stand for years. Why would you force yourself to play with a ruleset you can't stand... And for so long?

It just doesn't make sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mainly I played AD&D in Jr. High when I didn't know better. As soon as I discovered Rifts and Gurps I decided to try every game I could find. When 3E came out, it was a new game I had to try again. Also some people have run D&D games that I agreed to play in simply because I'm always the ST/DM and I never get opportunities to play in games.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Domn't be lumping DnD and Star Wars as being the pinnacle of the d20 System. They aren't.

 

The best version of the d20 System is d20 Modern. You can customize your characters with different Occupations, Talents, Feats, it has better rules for Hit Points, though I do prefer the baseline 3.5e for subdual.

 

With its Tier class system of Basic, Advance, and Prestige classes you can make thousands of unique character types.

[EnderAndrew]

And yet it is still a level-based, class-based system with hit points.

 

Three of my biggest objections still haven't been fixed. But trust me, I have many more objections to D20.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Classes start off very general and fluidic, which you are not dictated class abilities. You choose them.

 

Hit Points are handled more realistically. If you take more than equal your Constitution damage in a single hit you need to make a Fortitude save or die (GMs have the choice of starting off at Dying at -1 hit points or just have the character be dead instantly). In that set up there is no such thing as falling 200+ feet and getting up from it (unless you are very very very lucky).

 

Also the level system is self correcting and versitile... if used correctly.

[Jediphile]

Classes start off very general and fluidic, which you are not dictated class abilities.  You choose them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But if they mean so little, then why bother having them at all? Why not just give people points to build with and then let them go and buy what they want among the skills and traits and what have we? Not to offend, but any idea of classes will always face that criticism.

 

Hit Points are handled more realistically.  If you take more than equal your Constitution damage in a single hit you need to make a Fortitude save or die (GMs have the choice of starting off at Dying at -1 hit points or just have the character be dead instantly).  In that set up there is no such thing as falling 200+ feet and getting up from it (unless you are very very very lucky).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But HPs are still accumulated by level, I take it. A rule like you describe seems more to be invented to fix a problem than to restructure the system and remove the flawed parts. I could accept HPs after a fashion, but only as a representative of how much damage a particular part of the body can take before it is injured or worse. I once played a Cthulhu campaign where we used a system (stolen from Twilight 2000, IIRC), where each body part (torso, head, arms, legs, chest) were assigned "hit points" based on the character's constitution/health stat (2

[metadigital]

I must confess, though, that I don't like the whole idea of rolling all those d10s, then counting successes, then having the opponent try to resist, then seeing how many successes got through, and then rolling damage for that number... Very cumbersome and annoying when doing combat, though I guess you can accuse me of just being infected with D&D syndrome...

You could always use the first die roll as a boolean for hit or miss, then the next die roll to determine how many hits or misses (depending on the first roll), and then roll the corresponding dice.

[EnderAndrew]

But then if they mean so little, then why bother having them at all? Why not just give people puts to build with and then let them go and buy what they want among the skills and traits and what have we? Not to offend, but any idea of classes will always that criticism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This man is a genius.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

But if they mean so little, then why bother having them at all? Why not just give people points to build with and then let them go and buy what they want among the skills and traits and what have we? Not to offend, but any idea of classes will always face that criticism.

 

Who says they mean little? They help define the character. Here is a sample of one Talent tree for the Intelligence ability:

 

Quick Thinking Talent Tree

Smart heroes with this talent tree are capable of such rapid extrapolations of logic that they gain bonuses on various checks and rolls, thanks to their sharp minds.

 

Keen Reflex: Smart heroes with this talent add their Intelligence modifier in addition to any other modifiers that normally apply to all Reflex saving throws.

 

Keenly Skilled: Select three of the skills listed in the following paragraph. The Smart hero adds a bonus equal to his Intelligence modifier in addition to his normal modifiers when making a check with that skill. The normal ability modifier does not apply. A smart hero can take this talent multiple times; each time it applies to a different set of three skills. Bluff, Climb, Diplomacy, Disguise, Drive, Handle Animal, Jump, Perform (any single skill), Pilot, Profession (any single

skill), Ride, Sense Motive, Survival, and Swim.

 

Perspicacious Response: Smart heroes with this talent add their Intelligence bonus to their Initiative checks instead their Dexterity modifier. Any other modifiers will normally apply to Initiative checks.

 

Greater Perspicacious Response: Smart heroes with this talent add their base Intelligence to their Initiative checks in addition to their Dexterity modifier and any other modifiers that normally apply to Initiative checks. Prerequisites: Perspicacious Response, Keen Reflex.

 

Here is one from the Dexterity Ability:

 

Precision Talent Tree

Characters with this talent tree are experts with ranged weapons. They have keen eyesight and are experienced at judging distance.

 

Precision: The Fast Hero with this talent gains a +1 bonus to damage with all ranged weapons.

 

Improved Precision: The Fast Hero with this talent gains an additional +1 bonus to damage with all ranged weapons. (+2 total) Prerequisite: Precision.

 

Advanced Precision: The Fast Hero with this talent gains an additional +1 bonus to damage with all ranged weapons. (+3 total) Prerequisite: Precision, Improved Precision.

 

Precise Critical: When a character with this talent strikes a critical hit with a ranged weapon, the target also suffers 2 points of temporary Constitution damage. Prerequisites: Precision, Improved Precision, Advanced Precision.

 

Each Ability Score has between 3 to 6 talent trees like this to help define the character.

 

But HPs are still accumulated by level, I take it. A rule like you describe seems more to be invented to fix a problem than to restructure the system and remove the flawed parts. I could accept HPs after a fashion, but only as a representative of how much damage a particular part of the body can take before it is injured or worse. I once played a Cthulhu campaign where we used a system (stolen from Twilight 2000, IIRC), where each body part (torso, head, arms, legs, chest) were assigned "hit points" based on the character's constitution/health stat (2

[EnderAndrew]

Except we don't have levels in life. If I am a level 20 character, and you are a level 1 character, overall I am 20 times the character you are?

 

That's just ridiculous and silly.

 

With point-based systems, I think it actually works more towards party roles than a class based system. With a level based system everyone seems to get hit points, saves, and base attack bonuses with every level.

 

But in a point-based system, you only get better in what you dedicate yourself to improving, and thusly the roles in the party get more specialized.