Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Uniting the Editions
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
Jul 8, 2012, 8:56:20 PM7/8/12
to
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=legendslore
In an earlier column, I mentioned that one of the goals of the new iteration of
Dungeons & Dragons was to unite the editions. Judging by the reaction, this is
a contentious topic, and an important one. So let's delve into it more deeply.
First off, why is that our goal? There are many reasons. First and foremost,
however, is that if you're playing any version of Dungeons & Dragons, you're a
D&D player and a "part of the fold." The days of edition wars and divided
factions among D&D fans are over. Or at least, they should be. (In fact, they
should have never started.) I'll be frank: the fracturing of the D&D community,
no matter what the cause, is just foolish. We all have far more in common than
we have differences.
So a rules system that allows people to play in the style that they like,
rather than a style that a game designer or game company wants them to like,
makes a lot more sense. As a designer myself, I know that it's not my job to
convince you to play D&D in a particular way. It's my job to give you the tools
you need to play the way you want and then get out of your way. And that's what
the new iteration of Dungeons & Dragons is meant to be about. There is no wrong
way to play D&D.
But what does it mean to play in the "style" of various editions? That's a
complex issue. It has involved, for me and my fellow designers, looking at the
different editions and trying to distill down the essence of each one. For
example, is it important that "elf" remains a class to someone who enjoyed
Original D&D (1974) or Basic D&D? I'd argue, no. What's far more important for
that player is an open-ended system with a lot of emphasis on the Dungeon
Master, lots of exploration, and simple mechanics that enable fast combat, to
name just a few things.
As a contrast, AD&D (that is to say, 1E) involved more specific mechanics to
create a more unified play experience from table to table. This included a more
careful eye toward "realism," or perhaps more accurately, "simulation." But by
modern standards, the game was still fairly simple, and things moved quickly.
There were options for miniatures and tactical play, but most 1E fans did not
use them. (Likewise, there were options for very high simulation, such as
weapon speeds and the weapons vs. armor table, but most people didn't use them
either.) 1E fans—and I'm of course overgeneralizing here—want many of the same
things that BD&D lovers want, but with a few more options and a bit more
simulation.
Then 2E came along and made only minor changes to the rules, but it made
important changes to the style of gameplay. The Player's Handbook was not
significantly different, but the Dungeon Master's Guide was. We started reading
phrases such as "it's all about the story." Worldbuilding became more important
than adventure design. If in OD&D one DM might say to another, "let me tell you
about my dungeon," in the 2E era, a DM might say to another, "let me tell you
about my world." As the system developed with many supplements, simulation and
game balance took a back seat to story, setting, and interesting characters.
Kits and nonweapon proficiencies, some of the major new(-ish) changes,
showcased character development in interesting ways. This suggests that,
broadly speaking, 2E players enjoy epic storylines and tools to create
well-developed characters.
With the advent of 3E, which brought along many significant rules changes, the
game's design once again embraced simulation, and balance became more
important. Character development became even more of a focus, and all flavor
was backed up with mechanics. Less responsibility was put upon the Dungeon
Master as various actions and options were specifically mechanically defined
and standardized. Combat became far more complex, and while it was also more
interesting, it moved more slowly. Miniatures became an important focus. Fans
of 3E want even more options for their character customization—skills, feats,
and so on—and the ability to play interesting, tactical combats with a high
level of detail.
When 4E debuted, the game once again underwent a radical change. This time, the
most significant change was the way character classes were expressed. Balance
and standardization became even more important, combat more complex, and
cinematic action and heroic power levels were the focus. Character powers
ensured that everyone always had something interesting and dynamic to do every
round. The DM had even less responsibility, and her job was made easier with
interesting innovations to NPC and monster design. Miniatures and a grid were
absolutely required. 4E players like even more balance and tactical play, and
they want even more interesting and straightforward options for their
characters. In addition, simple and quick preparation for the DM is a must.
A lot of sweeping generalizations? Sure. I was/am a fan of all of those
versions of the game, so some or all of those descriptions apply to me, and not
all of them are compatible in a straightforward manner. Still, it's useful to
begin to realize the various kinds of needs and desires different players and
DMs have. To truly unite all the editions, the game needs to cater to all of
them. In short, people need to be able to play the game that they want to play.
============================================================================
Last week, I talked about why we might be interested in uniting the editions,
and how we might look at the tones and play styles of those editions to capture
what we seek to have in D&D. To be clear, we're not talking about creating a
bridge so that you can play 1E and 4E at the same time. Instead, we're allowing
you to play a 1E-style game or a 4E-style game with the same rules. Also,
players at the table can choose the style of character they want to play. In
short, let's talk about style and D&D.
The way we want to accomplish handling the style of play is with a modular
approach. If 3E style is about character customization and a tactical view of
combat, options should allow you to customize characters with feats and skills,
plus play with a grid and miniatures (and have rules that support threatened
areas, attacks of opportunity, and so forth). But in a 2E-style game, some or
all of these options would not be desirable. Because of this truly modular
approach, it means you don't have to pick an edition style. You can have the
simple, fast combat of 1E with the character customizing skills of 3E, or any
other combination.
But where do you start? For this to work, there needs to be a basic core to the
game upon which you layer these options. That's where distilling D&D down to
its essence comes in. What are the things that you'd expect to overhear at a
table of people playing D&D if you didn't know which version they were playing?
That's something that we're working on right now. But some of the answers are
obvious. Six ability scores ranging from 3 to 18. Fighters, clerics, wizards,
and rogues. (Or, if you prefer, fighting-men, clerics, magic-users, and
thieves.) Character levels. Experience points. Rolling a d20 to attack. Magic
missiles. Fireballs. Hold person. And so on.
In effect, what you end up with is a fully playable game with its own style.
Think of it this way: It would be wrong to say that there is no inherent D&D
style that carries across the nearly forty-year lifespan of the game. What you
really end up with, in this approach, is a game that ends up looking—not
coincidentally—like original D&D. Not entirely, of course, and not precisely,
but close. It's a game that captures the feel of OD&D.
From there, with that excellent foundation, we can build upward and outward.
I know you have a lot of questions, and frankly, so do I. That's what the
public playtest is about—finding the answers together. The next big question
you might have, however, is that with everything being so customizable, who
makes the decisions?
I think some of the answers are player-provided answers, and some are
DM-provided. This is tied in very closely with my philosophy of the game
overall. Players should play the characters they want to play (with DM input),
and DMs should run the games they want to run (with player input).
Some choices then—such as whether a character has a long list of skills and
feats; or skills, feats, and powers; or just ability scores, hit points, Armor
Class, and an attack bonus—are up to the player. Some choices are up to the DM.
If miniatures and a grid are used, that's a DM choice. If the adventures are
going to be about grinding through a dungeon to get enough coppers to pay for
tomorrow's meal or an epic quest across the planes to save the universe(s),
that's a DM choice. (That latter choice might seem like flavor only, but it can
determine which rules options are taken.)
So, the game is actually a matrix of these choices, with some made by the DM
and some by the players, which will end up determining the feel of the overall
game and might allow the group to "emulate" a prior edition. More importantly,
though, these choices allow people to play what they want to play. In effect,
the group can make their own edition of D&D. And that's really the most
exciting part of it, I think.
============================================================================
Over the last couple of weeks, I've written about why we want to try to unify
the editions, and how we're going to pull it off. Here are some more
miscellaneous thoughts about the process that are worth discussing as well.
Stuff to Leave Behind
Although we don't currently see universal consensus on this, it seems likely
that there are a handful of things from prior editions that we don't want to
bring forward into a new iteration of D&D. Not everything about every version
of the game was absolutely golden.
For example, it would be difficult to imagine that THAC0 would make a comeback.
Armor Class values going down to represent them getting better. System shock
rolls. Racial level limits. Gender-based ability score maximums. Lots of bonus
types. And so on. But here's the thing: if I'm wrong about that, get involved
in the open playtest when it starts and let us know. If you would like to see
things like that be a part of the core rules set, or if you would use rules
like that as optional modules, that's the kind of information we are looking
for in order to make this a game you want to play.
Further, there's stuff that is kind of on the fence in this regard. What about
a system that resembled the weapons versus armor table in 1st Edition? Could we
make that work as a part of a simulationist rules module? Maybe. Racial class
restrictions? Sure (but why?). Are these good ideas? Bad ideas?
New Material
We don't want a new iteration of the game to be only a "best of" of the prior
editions. If we did, there would be no reason to play it. It needs to achieve
the goal of not only giving you the play experience that you want, but also
giving you that play experience in a way that's better than what you've had in
the past. Faster, better, smarter.
But how much new material is too much? That's the question. How can we capture
the feel and tone of your favorite edition if we add in mechanics or material
that's never been in a prior edition? And yet, how can we convince anyone to
play a game that is just a rehash of what's come before?
One way is simply through the customization of the rules modules that I wrote
about last week. That is to say, although you can recreate the feel of 2nd
Edition using them, you can also recreate the feel of 2nd Edition with a few
options from 3rd or 4th as well. You wouldn't have to choose a past edition.
You'd customize the game to make it yours. Imagine a game with Basic D&D's
simplicity but with the powers of 4th Edition. Or a game that has the character
customization abilities of 3rd Edition without all the tactical rules. Or any
other combination you desire. We believe it's perfectly possible.
We are experimenting, however, with some material that is truly and entirely
new. Class abilities that capture the core feel of a class, for example, even
though they've never been presented in any version of the class. For example,
we might take the idea of a ranger's favored enemy but express that idea in a
completely different way.
We are also experimenting with variations on task resolution. What if, for
example, something that used to give you a bonus or a penalty instead modified
the dice you roll? A bonus to your attack roll might be the ability to roll
2d20 and take the best roll, for example. Or maybe instead of having a flat
bonus, you got a bonus die to roll and add (or, in the case of a penalty,
subtract)? Would these brand-new mechanics be fun and add something new to the
game? And most importantly, would they feel like D&D?
That's what lots of playtesting and player feedback will let us discover.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
In an earlier column, I mentioned that one of the goals of the new iteration of
Dungeons & Dragons was to unite the editions. Judging by the reaction, this is
a contentious topic, and an important one. So let's delve into it more deeply.
First off, why is that our goal? There are many reasons. First and foremost,
however, is that if you're playing any version of Dungeons & Dragons, you're a
D&D player and a "part of the fold." The days of edition wars and divided
factions among D&D fans are over. Or at least, they should be. (In fact, they
should have never started.) I'll be frank: the fracturing of the D&D community,
no matter what the cause, is just foolish. We all have far more in common than
we have differences.
So a rules system that allows people to play in the style that they like,
rather than a style that a game designer or game company wants them to like,
makes a lot more sense. As a designer myself, I know that it's not my job to
convince you to play D&D in a particular way. It's my job to give you the tools
you need to play the way you want and then get out of your way. And that's what
the new iteration of Dungeons & Dragons is meant to be about. There is no wrong
way to play D&D.
But what does it mean to play in the "style" of various editions? That's a
complex issue. It has involved, for me and my fellow designers, looking at the
different editions and trying to distill down the essence of each one. For
example, is it important that "elf" remains a class to someone who enjoyed
Original D&D (1974) or Basic D&D? I'd argue, no. What's far more important for
that player is an open-ended system with a lot of emphasis on the Dungeon
Master, lots of exploration, and simple mechanics that enable fast combat, to
name just a few things.
As a contrast, AD&D (that is to say, 1E) involved more specific mechanics to
create a more unified play experience from table to table. This included a more
careful eye toward "realism," or perhaps more accurately, "simulation." But by
modern standards, the game was still fairly simple, and things moved quickly.
There were options for miniatures and tactical play, but most 1E fans did not
use them. (Likewise, there were options for very high simulation, such as
weapon speeds and the weapons vs. armor table, but most people didn't use them
either.) 1E fans—and I'm of course overgeneralizing here—want many of the same
things that BD&D lovers want, but with a few more options and a bit more
simulation.
Then 2E came along and made only minor changes to the rules, but it made
important changes to the style of gameplay. The Player's Handbook was not
significantly different, but the Dungeon Master's Guide was. We started reading
phrases such as "it's all about the story." Worldbuilding became more important
than adventure design. If in OD&D one DM might say to another, "let me tell you
about my dungeon," in the 2E era, a DM might say to another, "let me tell you
about my world." As the system developed with many supplements, simulation and
game balance took a back seat to story, setting, and interesting characters.
Kits and nonweapon proficiencies, some of the major new(-ish) changes,
showcased character development in interesting ways. This suggests that,
broadly speaking, 2E players enjoy epic storylines and tools to create
well-developed characters.
With the advent of 3E, which brought along many significant rules changes, the
game's design once again embraced simulation, and balance became more
important. Character development became even more of a focus, and all flavor
was backed up with mechanics. Less responsibility was put upon the Dungeon
Master as various actions and options were specifically mechanically defined
and standardized. Combat became far more complex, and while it was also more
interesting, it moved more slowly. Miniatures became an important focus. Fans
of 3E want even more options for their character customization—skills, feats,
and so on—and the ability to play interesting, tactical combats with a high
level of detail.
When 4E debuted, the game once again underwent a radical change. This time, the
most significant change was the way character classes were expressed. Balance
and standardization became even more important, combat more complex, and
cinematic action and heroic power levels were the focus. Character powers
ensured that everyone always had something interesting and dynamic to do every
round. The DM had even less responsibility, and her job was made easier with
interesting innovations to NPC and monster design. Miniatures and a grid were
absolutely required. 4E players like even more balance and tactical play, and
they want even more interesting and straightforward options for their
characters. In addition, simple and quick preparation for the DM is a must.
A lot of sweeping generalizations? Sure. I was/am a fan of all of those
versions of the game, so some or all of those descriptions apply to me, and not
all of them are compatible in a straightforward manner. Still, it's useful to
begin to realize the various kinds of needs and desires different players and
DMs have. To truly unite all the editions, the game needs to cater to all of
them. In short, people need to be able to play the game that they want to play.
============================================================================
Last week, I talked about why we might be interested in uniting the editions,
and how we might look at the tones and play styles of those editions to capture
what we seek to have in D&D. To be clear, we're not talking about creating a
bridge so that you can play 1E and 4E at the same time. Instead, we're allowing
you to play a 1E-style game or a 4E-style game with the same rules. Also,
players at the table can choose the style of character they want to play. In
short, let's talk about style and D&D.
The way we want to accomplish handling the style of play is with a modular
approach. If 3E style is about character customization and a tactical view of
combat, options should allow you to customize characters with feats and skills,
plus play with a grid and miniatures (and have rules that support threatened
areas, attacks of opportunity, and so forth). But in a 2E-style game, some or
all of these options would not be desirable. Because of this truly modular
approach, it means you don't have to pick an edition style. You can have the
simple, fast combat of 1E with the character customizing skills of 3E, or any
other combination.
But where do you start? For this to work, there needs to be a basic core to the
game upon which you layer these options. That's where distilling D&D down to
its essence comes in. What are the things that you'd expect to overhear at a
table of people playing D&D if you didn't know which version they were playing?
That's something that we're working on right now. But some of the answers are
obvious. Six ability scores ranging from 3 to 18. Fighters, clerics, wizards,
and rogues. (Or, if you prefer, fighting-men, clerics, magic-users, and
thieves.) Character levels. Experience points. Rolling a d20 to attack. Magic
missiles. Fireballs. Hold person. And so on.
In effect, what you end up with is a fully playable game with its own style.
Think of it this way: It would be wrong to say that there is no inherent D&D
style that carries across the nearly forty-year lifespan of the game. What you
really end up with, in this approach, is a game that ends up looking—not
coincidentally—like original D&D. Not entirely, of course, and not precisely,
but close. It's a game that captures the feel of OD&D.
From there, with that excellent foundation, we can build upward and outward.
I know you have a lot of questions, and frankly, so do I. That's what the
public playtest is about—finding the answers together. The next big question
you might have, however, is that with everything being so customizable, who
makes the decisions?
I think some of the answers are player-provided answers, and some are
DM-provided. This is tied in very closely with my philosophy of the game
overall. Players should play the characters they want to play (with DM input),
and DMs should run the games they want to run (with player input).
Some choices then—such as whether a character has a long list of skills and
feats; or skills, feats, and powers; or just ability scores, hit points, Armor
Class, and an attack bonus—are up to the player. Some choices are up to the DM.
If miniatures and a grid are used, that's a DM choice. If the adventures are
going to be about grinding through a dungeon to get enough coppers to pay for
tomorrow's meal or an epic quest across the planes to save the universe(s),
that's a DM choice. (That latter choice might seem like flavor only, but it can
determine which rules options are taken.)
So, the game is actually a matrix of these choices, with some made by the DM
and some by the players, which will end up determining the feel of the overall
game and might allow the group to "emulate" a prior edition. More importantly,
though, these choices allow people to play what they want to play. In effect,
the group can make their own edition of D&D. And that's really the most
exciting part of it, I think.
============================================================================
Over the last couple of weeks, I've written about why we want to try to unify
the editions, and how we're going to pull it off. Here are some more
miscellaneous thoughts about the process that are worth discussing as well.
Stuff to Leave Behind
Although we don't currently see universal consensus on this, it seems likely
that there are a handful of things from prior editions that we don't want to
bring forward into a new iteration of D&D. Not everything about every version
of the game was absolutely golden.
For example, it would be difficult to imagine that THAC0 would make a comeback.
Armor Class values going down to represent them getting better. System shock
rolls. Racial level limits. Gender-based ability score maximums. Lots of bonus
types. And so on. But here's the thing: if I'm wrong about that, get involved
in the open playtest when it starts and let us know. If you would like to see
things like that be a part of the core rules set, or if you would use rules
like that as optional modules, that's the kind of information we are looking
for in order to make this a game you want to play.
Further, there's stuff that is kind of on the fence in this regard. What about
a system that resembled the weapons versus armor table in 1st Edition? Could we
make that work as a part of a simulationist rules module? Maybe. Racial class
restrictions? Sure (but why?). Are these good ideas? Bad ideas?
New Material
We don't want a new iteration of the game to be only a "best of" of the prior
editions. If we did, there would be no reason to play it. It needs to achieve
the goal of not only giving you the play experience that you want, but also
giving you that play experience in a way that's better than what you've had in
the past. Faster, better, smarter.
But how much new material is too much? That's the question. How can we capture
the feel and tone of your favorite edition if we add in mechanics or material
that's never been in a prior edition? And yet, how can we convince anyone to
play a game that is just a rehash of what's come before?
One way is simply through the customization of the rules modules that I wrote
about last week. That is to say, although you can recreate the feel of 2nd
Edition using them, you can also recreate the feel of 2nd Edition with a few
options from 3rd or 4th as well. You wouldn't have to choose a past edition.
You'd customize the game to make it yours. Imagine a game with Basic D&D's
simplicity but with the powers of 4th Edition. Or a game that has the character
customization abilities of 3rd Edition without all the tactical rules. Or any
other combination you desire. We believe it's perfectly possible.
We are experimenting, however, with some material that is truly and entirely
new. Class abilities that capture the core feel of a class, for example, even
though they've never been presented in any version of the class. For example,
we might take the idea of a ranger's favored enemy but express that idea in a
completely different way.
We are also experimenting with variations on task resolution. What if, for
example, something that used to give you a bonus or a penalty instead modified
the dice you roll? A bonus to your attack roll might be the ability to roll
2d20 and take the best roll, for example. Or maybe instead of having a flat
bonus, you got a bonus die to roll and add (or, in the case of a penalty,
subtract)? Would these brand-new mechanics be fun and add something new to the
game? And most importantly, would they feel like D&D?
That's what lots of playtesting and player feedback will let us discover.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Ubiquitous
Jul 8, 2012, 8:59:25 PM7/8/12
to
In our latest Legends & Lore poll, we asked what elements of D&D mechanics
you wanted to see preserved. One of the listed elements was a limit on
ability scores based on gender. There is no way such a pointless rule is
going to end up in the game, whether in the core or as a rules module, which
is why it was under the article header “Stuff to Leave Behind.” We never
intended that as a serious option. We forgot that articles like Legends &
Lore are an important window into the development process, one where
something intended as a joke option can come across as an actual proposal. We
ask you to take the time to read, consider, and vote on the issues we bring
forward. The least we can do is respect your efforts and keep the polls
focused on actual ideas we’ve entertained, rather than leave you guessing as
to what we actually mean.
We also had some technical issues with our poll today. As a result, we’re
bringing you the poll again today, phrased more clearly and with responses
more representative of what we believe might exist in the core game or the
modules.
Of course, this poll includes only a fraction of the rules and options that
have appeared in D&D over the years. What other options would you include?
http://widgets.community.wizards.com/iframes/poll_iframe.one?poll_id=261569
http://widgets.community.wizards.com/iframes/poll_iframe.one?poll_id=261571
you wanted to see preserved. One of the listed elements was a limit on
ability scores based on gender. There is no way such a pointless rule is
going to end up in the game, whether in the core or as a rules module, which
is why it was under the article header “Stuff to Leave Behind.” We never
intended that as a serious option. We forgot that articles like Legends &
Lore are an important window into the development process, one where
something intended as a joke option can come across as an actual proposal. We
ask you to take the time to read, consider, and vote on the issues we bring
forward. The least we can do is respect your efforts and keep the polls
focused on actual ideas we’ve entertained, rather than leave you guessing as
to what we actually mean.
We also had some technical issues with our poll today. As a result, we’re
bringing you the poll again today, phrased more clearly and with responses
more representative of what we believe might exist in the core game or the
modules.
Of course, this poll includes only a fraction of the rules and options that
have appeared in D&D over the years. What other options would you include?
http://widgets.community.wizards.com/iframes/poll_iframe.one?poll_id=261569
http://widgets.community.wizards.com/iframes/poll_iframe.one?poll_id=261571
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jul 8, 2012, 9:52:38 PM7/8/12
to
This is pretty ridiculous. You can't unite the editions. They're
disparate rulesets, ranging from "related-but-not-the-same" to "utterly
disjoint".
If you make something you can bang on until you make it work sorta like
a given edition? Congratulations, you've made GURPS or Champions.
Thanks, but no thanks.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Harold Groot
Jul 9, 2012, 3:41:02 AM7/9/12
to
On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:56:20 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:
>http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=legendslore
Regarding 1E they said
>Likewise, there were options for very high simulation, such as
>weapon speeds and the weapons vs. armor table, but most people didn't use them
>either.)
Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
"weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
When they try to retcon obvious things like that, it makes me wonder
about the veracity of the whole thing.
wrote:
>http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=legendslore
Regarding 1E they said
>Likewise, there were options for very high simulation, such as
>weapon speeds and the weapons vs. armor table, but most people didn't use them
>either.)
"weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
When they try to retcon obvious things like that, it makes me wonder
about the veracity of the whole thing.
J.O. Aho
Jul 9, 2012, 4:35:11 AM7/9/12
to
have some 3rd Edition stuff, but not much) and I have to say that many
DM's back in the days used the DMG as the sole bible on how to play the
game, regardless if it said optional or not.
I think most missed to read the forewords:
"Don't let the game sit there, and don't become a rule lawyer worrying
about each piddly little detail. If you can't figure out the answer,
MAKE IT UP! And whatever you do, don't fall into the trap of believing
there rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the
rule book do everything for you."
2nd Edition - David "Zeb" Cook - 1989-09-02.
--
//Aho
Tetsubo
Jul 9, 2012, 7:41:15 AM7/9/12
to
book to be a complete set of rules. Which is its sole purpose. If Cook
expects me to 'MAKE IT UP!' he is admitting that he and the other
authors failed at their task. I at least appreciate the honesty. No set
of rules can cover every contingency. But they should cover most. And
they should lay a foundation for consistent judgements that fall outside
the rules.
But related to the topic. They can't create one set of rules that will
cover all editions of D&D. Even trying seems like a massive waste of
time. If they didn't want to split the community up, maybe they
shouldn't have split the community up.
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Ubiquitous
Jul 9, 2012, 9:07:18 AM7/9/12
to
que...@infionline.net wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:56:20 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:56:20 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>wrote:
>Regarding 1E they said
>
>>Likewise, there were options for very high simulation, such as
>>weapon speeds and the weapons vs. armor table, but most people didn't
>>use them either.)
>
>Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>"weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
>
>>Likewise, there were options for very high simulation, such as
>>weapon speeds and the weapons vs. armor table, but most people didn't
>>use them either.)
>
>Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>"weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
quite frankly.
>When they try to retcon obvious things like that, it makes me wonder
>about the veracity of the whole thing.
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats did
to America.
Tetsubo
Jul 9, 2012, 9:14:21 AM7/9/12
to
On 7/9/2012 9:07 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> que...@infionline.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:56:20 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> Regarding 1E they said
>>
>>> Likewise, there were options for very high simulation, such as
>>> weapon speeds and the weapons vs. armor table, but most people didn't
>>> use them either.)
>>
>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>
> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
> quite frankly.
Than I guess the several groups I gamed with back in the day were
> que...@infionline.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:56:20 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> Regarding 1E they said
>>
>>> Likewise, there were options for very high simulation, such as
>>> weapon speeds and the weapons vs. armor table, but most people didn't
>>> use them either.)
>>
>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>
> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
> quite frankly.
stupid. Because we used them both.
>
>> When they try to retcon obvious things like that, it makes me wonder
>> about the veracity of the whole thing.
>
> I guess this is their way of admitting 4th edition was a HUGE mistake.
>
--
Ken Arromdee
Jul 9, 2012, 10:30:04 AM7/9/12
to
In article <jtelfd$rad$1...@dont-email.me>, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>>
>> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
>> quite frankly.
> Than I guess the several groups I gamed with back in the day were
>stupid. Because we used them both.
Back in the day I used weapon speed all the time.
>>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>>
>> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
>> quite frankly.
> Than I guess the several groups I gamed with back in the day were
>stupid. Because we used them both.
The main problem with "weapon vs. armor" is that it was poorly explained.
It was supposed to be weapon versus armor type, but it was written as
weapon versus armor class. If you read closely, you'll notice that they
only listed armor classes that you might get from nonmagical armor--because
it was really "weapon versus the type of armor whose base armor class is
this number"; splint mail is AC 4, so you'd use the AC 4 line for splint
mail--even if it was +5 splint mail. But nobody understood this.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
Justisaur
Jul 9, 2012, 10:57:51 AM7/9/12
to
On Jul 9, 7:30 am, arrom...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
use WVA understood this.
Admittedly I was the only one in my circles that used WVA.
- Justisaur
> In article <jtelfd$ra...@dont-email.me>, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
> >>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
> >>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
> >>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
> >>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>
> >> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
> >> quite frankly.
> > Than I guess the several groups I gamed with back in the day were
> >stupid. Because we used them both.
>
> Back in the day I used weapon speed all the time.
>
> The main problem with "weapon vs. armor" is that it was poorly explained.
> It was supposed to be weapon versus armor type, but it was written as
> weapon versus armor class. If you read closely, you'll notice that they
> only listed armor classes that you might get from nonmagical armor--because
> it was really "weapon versus the type of armor whose base armor class is
> this number"; splint mail is AC 4, so you'd use the AC 4 line for splint
> mail--even if it was +5 splint mail. But nobody understood this.
I used both. I understood this as well, I think most anyone who did
> >>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
> >>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
> >>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
> >>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
> >>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>
> >> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
> >> quite frankly.
> > Than I guess the several groups I gamed with back in the day were
> >stupid. Because we used them both.
>
> Back in the day I used weapon speed all the time.
>
> The main problem with "weapon vs. armor" is that it was poorly explained.
> It was supposed to be weapon versus armor type, but it was written as
> weapon versus armor class. If you read closely, you'll notice that they
> only listed armor classes that you might get from nonmagical armor--because
> it was really "weapon versus the type of armor whose base armor class is
> this number"; splint mail is AC 4, so you'd use the AC 4 line for splint
> mail--even if it was +5 splint mail. But nobody understood this.
use WVA understood this.
Admittedly I was the only one in my circles that used WVA.
- Justisaur
Justisaur
Jul 9, 2012, 2:32:51 PM7/9/12
to
On Jul 8, 5:56 pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=lege...
Can you unite Monopoly and Chess? Sure, but it would be neither, and
likely wouldn't appeal to anyone who liked to play either.
There's also the fact that my version of Monopoly-Chess would likely
be nothing like someone else's. Admittedly I was contemplating the
same thing, with my 'best rules from each edition'.
> First off, why is that our goal? There are many reasons. First and foremost,
> however, is that if you're playing any version of Dungeons & Dragons, you're a
> D&D player and a "part of the fold." The days of edition wars and divided
> factions among D&D fans are over. Or at least, they should be. (In fact, they
> should have never started.) I'll be frank: the fracturing of the D&D community,
> no matter what the cause, is just foolish. We all have far more in common than
> we have differences.
>
Way too late for that. I'll likely play 5e just because getting
people to play it will likely be far easier than using something I'd
really like to play. House rulling either 3e or 4e into something I'd
want to play would be difficult to impossible. Hopefully it will be
close enough I can house rule it up easily enough, but I doubt it.
> So a rules system that allows people to play in the style that they like,
> rather than a style that a game designer or game company wants them to like,
> makes a lot more sense. As a designer myself, I know that it's not my job to
> convince you to play D&D in a particular way. It's my job to give you the tools
> you need to play the way you want and then get out of your way. And that's what
> the new iteration of Dungeons & Dragons is meant to be about. There is no wrong
> way to play D&D.
There is if you are a player who wants to play an artificer, but the
only DM around won't allow them, or vice versa a DM who know the the
artificer the player wants to make is broken beyond repair.
> But what does it mean to play in the "style" of various editions? That's a
> complex issue. It has involved, for me and my fellow designers, looking at the
> different editions and trying to distill down the essence of each one. For
> example, is it important that "elf" remains a class to someone who enjoyed
> Original D&D (1974) or Basic D&D? I'd argue, no. What's far more important for
> that player is an open-ended system with a lot of emphasis on the Dungeon
> Master, lots of exploration, and simple mechanics that enable fast combat, to
> name just a few things.
The goal of AD&D was to have a consistent set of rules to enable
tournament play... it failed miserably at that, but that was it's
goal... If every game is wildly different how do you write an
adventure to use with it?
> Then 2E came along and made only minor changes to the rules, but it made
> important changes to the style of gameplay. The Player's Handbook was not
> significantly different, but the Dungeon Master's Guide was. We started reading
> phrases such as "it's all about the story." Worldbuilding became more important
> than adventure design. If in OD&D one DM might say to another, "let me tell you
> about my dungeon," in the 2E era, a DM might say to another, "let me tell you
> about my world." As the system developed with many supplements, simulation and
> game balance took a back seat to story, setting, and interesting characters.
> Kits and nonweapon proficiencies, some of the major new(-ish) changes,
> showcased character development in interesting ways. This suggests that,
> broadly speaking, 2E players enjoy epic storylines and tools to create
> well-developed characters.
Hmm. Worldbuilding, perhaps that's why 2e was my favorite.
> With the advent of 3E, which brought along many significant rules changes, the
> game's design once again embraced simulation, and balance became more
> important.
Could have fooled me. 3e threw any semblance of balance out the
window.
> Character development became even more of a focus, and all flavor
> was backed up with mechanics. Less responsibility was put upon the Dungeon
> Master as various actions and options were specifically mechanically defined
> and standardized.
Could have fooled me even more. I had a hell of a lot more to do as a
DM. Far more than 2e.
> Combat became far more complex, and while it was also more
> interesting,
Complex does not equate to interesting.
> it moved more slowly.
Not really, when your resident powergamer kills everything on the
first round. Or you attempt to challenge him, and everyone else in
the party dies on the first round.
> When 4E debuted, the game once again underwent a radical change. This time, the
> most significant change was the way character classes were expressed. Balance
> and standardization became even more important, combat more complex, and
> cinematic action and heroic power levels were the focus.
More like anti-cinematic, since powers have no indication of how they
appear or even act, being entirely gamist constructs.
> Character powers
> ensured that everyone always had something interesting and dynamic to do every
> round.
Again interesting is not ensured. In fact it became far less so as
you do the same thing every fight, or at least every 4 fights.
The DM had even less responsibility, and her job was made easier with
> interesting innovations to NPC and monster design. Miniatures and a grid were
> absolutely required. 4E players like even more balance and tactical play, and
> they want even more interesting and straightforward options for their
> characters. In addition, simple and quick preparation for the DM is a must.
Neither interesting nor straightforward based on my experience, many
players having a very difficult time of interpreting how their powers
are supposed to work or visualizing what they are actually doing.
> Last week, I talked about why we might be interested in uniting the editions,
> and how we might look at the tones and play styles of those editions to capture
> what we seek to have in D&D. To be clear, we're not talking about creating a
> bridge so that you can play 1E and 4E at the same time. Instead, we're allowing
> you to play a 1E-style game or a 4E-style game with the same rules. Also,
> players at the table can choose the style of character they want to play. In
> short, let's talk about style and D&D.
Huge red flag here. A player with a 1e wizard and another with a 3e
one? I don't think that will work balance wise. Also with the item
creation differing completely between those editions.
>
> The way we want to accomplish handling the style of play is with a modular
> approach. If 3E style is about character customization and a tactical view of
> combat, options should allow you to customize characters with feats and skills,
> plus play with a grid and miniatures (and have rules that support threatened
> areas, attacks of opportunity, and so forth). But in a 2E-style game, some or
> all of these options would not be desirable. Because of this truly modular
> approach, it means you don't have to pick an edition style. You can have the
> simple, fast combat of 1E with the character customizing skills of 3E, or any
> other combination.
Ugh, I sense Hero style character unbalance hitting this edition even
worse than 3e.
> That's something that we're working on right now. But some of the answers are
> obvious. Six ability scores ranging from 3 to 18. Fighters, clerics, wizards,
> and rogues. (Or, if you prefer, fighting-men, clerics, magic-users, and
> thieves.) Character levels. Experience points. Rolling a d20 to attack. Magic
> missiles. Fireballs. Hold person. And so on.
The names change between one edition and the next, and the spells
between one and another, so much so that magic-missile in 4e has
almost no resemblance to what it did in any prior edition except
name.
> In effect, what you end up with is a fully playable game with its own style.
> Think of it this way: It would be wrong to say that there is no inherent D&D
> style that carries across the nearly forty-year lifespan of the game. What you
> really end up with, in this approach, is a game that ends up looking—not
> coincidentally—like original D&D. Not entirely, of course, and not precisely,
> but close. It's a game that captures the feel of OD&D.
OD&D was just barely more than a wargame. Though I've never played
it, so I can't really comment. From what I've read of it, it seems
like that would be an acceptable base though.
- Justisaur
> http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=lege...
>
> In an earlier column, I mentioned that one of the goals of the new iteration of
> Dungeons & Dragons was to unite the editions. Judging by the reaction, this is
> a contentious topic, and an important one. So let's delve into it more deeply.
>
Impossible for the reasons you mention in your next post.
> In an earlier column, I mentioned that one of the goals of the new iteration of
> Dungeons & Dragons was to unite the editions. Judging by the reaction, this is
> a contentious topic, and an important one. So let's delve into it more deeply.
>
Can you unite Monopoly and Chess? Sure, but it would be neither, and
likely wouldn't appeal to anyone who liked to play either.
There's also the fact that my version of Monopoly-Chess would likely
be nothing like someone else's. Admittedly I was contemplating the
same thing, with my 'best rules from each edition'.
> First off, why is that our goal? There are many reasons. First and foremost,
> however, is that if you're playing any version of Dungeons & Dragons, you're a
> D&D player and a "part of the fold." The days of edition wars and divided
> factions among D&D fans are over. Or at least, they should be. (In fact, they
> should have never started.) I'll be frank: the fracturing of the D&D community,
> no matter what the cause, is just foolish. We all have far more in common than
> we have differences.
>
people to play it will likely be far easier than using something I'd
really like to play. House rulling either 3e or 4e into something I'd
want to play would be difficult to impossible. Hopefully it will be
close enough I can house rule it up easily enough, but I doubt it.
> So a rules system that allows people to play in the style that they like,
> rather than a style that a game designer or game company wants them to like,
> makes a lot more sense. As a designer myself, I know that it's not my job to
> convince you to play D&D in a particular way. It's my job to give you the tools
> you need to play the way you want and then get out of your way. And that's what
> the new iteration of Dungeons & Dragons is meant to be about. There is no wrong
> way to play D&D.
only DM around won't allow them, or vice versa a DM who know the the
artificer the player wants to make is broken beyond repair.
> But what does it mean to play in the "style" of various editions? That's a
> complex issue. It has involved, for me and my fellow designers, looking at the
> different editions and trying to distill down the essence of each one. For
> example, is it important that "elf" remains a class to someone who enjoyed
> Original D&D (1974) or Basic D&D? I'd argue, no. What's far more important for
> that player is an open-ended system with a lot of emphasis on the Dungeon
> Master, lots of exploration, and simple mechanics that enable fast combat, to
> name just a few things.
tournament play... it failed miserably at that, but that was it's
goal... If every game is wildly different how do you write an
adventure to use with it?
> Then 2E came along and made only minor changes to the rules, but it made
> important changes to the style of gameplay. The Player's Handbook was not
> significantly different, but the Dungeon Master's Guide was. We started reading
> phrases such as "it's all about the story." Worldbuilding became more important
> than adventure design. If in OD&D one DM might say to another, "let me tell you
> about my dungeon," in the 2E era, a DM might say to another, "let me tell you
> about my world." As the system developed with many supplements, simulation and
> game balance took a back seat to story, setting, and interesting characters.
> Kits and nonweapon proficiencies, some of the major new(-ish) changes,
> showcased character development in interesting ways. This suggests that,
> broadly speaking, 2E players enjoy epic storylines and tools to create
> well-developed characters.
> With the advent of 3E, which brought along many significant rules changes, the
> game's design once again embraced simulation, and balance became more
> important.
window.
> Character development became even more of a focus, and all flavor
> was backed up with mechanics. Less responsibility was put upon the Dungeon
> Master as various actions and options were specifically mechanically defined
> and standardized.
DM. Far more than 2e.
> Combat became far more complex, and while it was also more
> interesting,
> it moved more slowly.
Not really, when your resident powergamer kills everything on the
first round. Or you attempt to challenge him, and everyone else in
the party dies on the first round.
> When 4E debuted, the game once again underwent a radical change. This time, the
> most significant change was the way character classes were expressed. Balance
> and standardization became even more important, combat more complex, and
> cinematic action and heroic power levels were the focus.
appear or even act, being entirely gamist constructs.
> Character powers
> ensured that everyone always had something interesting and dynamic to do every
> round.
you do the same thing every fight, or at least every 4 fights.
The DM had even less responsibility, and her job was made easier with
> interesting innovations to NPC and monster design. Miniatures and a grid were
> absolutely required. 4E players like even more balance and tactical play, and
> they want even more interesting and straightforward options for their
> characters. In addition, simple and quick preparation for the DM is a must.
players having a very difficult time of interpreting how their powers
are supposed to work or visualizing what they are actually doing.
> Last week, I talked about why we might be interested in uniting the editions,
> and how we might look at the tones and play styles of those editions to capture
> what we seek to have in D&D. To be clear, we're not talking about creating a
> bridge so that you can play 1E and 4E at the same time. Instead, we're allowing
> you to play a 1E-style game or a 4E-style game with the same rules. Also,
> players at the table can choose the style of character they want to play. In
> short, let's talk about style and D&D.
one? I don't think that will work balance wise. Also with the item
creation differing completely between those editions.
>
> The way we want to accomplish handling the style of play is with a modular
> approach. If 3E style is about character customization and a tactical view of
> combat, options should allow you to customize characters with feats and skills,
> plus play with a grid and miniatures (and have rules that support threatened
> areas, attacks of opportunity, and so forth). But in a 2E-style game, some or
> all of these options would not be desirable. Because of this truly modular
> approach, it means you don't have to pick an edition style. You can have the
> simple, fast combat of 1E with the character customizing skills of 3E, or any
> other combination.
worse than 3e.
> That's something that we're working on right now. But some of the answers are
> obvious. Six ability scores ranging from 3 to 18. Fighters, clerics, wizards,
> and rogues. (Or, if you prefer, fighting-men, clerics, magic-users, and
> thieves.) Character levels. Experience points. Rolling a d20 to attack. Magic
> missiles. Fireballs. Hold person. And so on.
between one and another, so much so that magic-missile in 4e has
almost no resemblance to what it did in any prior edition except
name.
> In effect, what you end up with is a fully playable game with its own style.
> Think of it this way: It would be wrong to say that there is no inherent D&D
> style that carries across the nearly forty-year lifespan of the game. What you
> really end up with, in this approach, is a game that ends up looking—not
> coincidentally—like original D&D. Not entirely, of course, and not precisely,
> but close. It's a game that captures the feel of OD&D.
it, so I can't really comment. From what I've read of it, it seems
like that would be an acceptable base though.
- Justisaur
Justisaur
Jul 9, 2012, 2:48:41 PM7/9/12
to
On Jul 8, 5:56 pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=lege...
> http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=lege...
> Over the last couple of weeks, I've written about why we want to try to unify
> the editions, and how we're going to pull it off. Here are some more
> miscellaneous thoughts about the process that are worth discussing as well.
>
> Stuff to Leave Behind
> Although we don't currently see universal consensus on this, it seems likely
> that there are a handful of things from prior editions that we don't want to
> bring forward into a new iteration of D&D. Not everything about every version
> of the game was absolutely golden.
>
> For example, it would be difficult to imagine that THAC0 would make a comeback.
> Armor Class values going down to represent them getting better.
Conceptually the 3+ way makes more sense, after re-exploring pre 3e
> the editions, and how we're going to pull it off. Here are some more
> miscellaneous thoughts about the process that are worth discussing as well.
>
> Stuff to Leave Behind
> Although we don't currently see universal consensus on this, it seems likely
> that there are a handful of things from prior editions that we don't want to
> bring forward into a new iteration of D&D. Not everything about every version
> of the game was absolutely golden.
>
> For example, it would be difficult to imagine that THAC0 would make a comeback.
> Armor Class values going down to represent them getting better.
the math is significantly easier with the old way. The non-formulaic
tables for improving attacks with HD make it more difficult though.
> System shock rolls.
It can be useful having a very rarely failed 'save' to put some fear
or avoidance to certain situations. For instance using wishes or
haste. Both extremely powerful, but come with the possibility of
causing death. It makes them feel particularly magic.
> Racial level limits. Gender-based ability score maximums.
latter.
> Further, there's stuff that is kind of on the fence in this regard. What about
> a system that resembled the weapons versus armor table in 1st Edition? Could we
> make that work as a part of a simulationist rules module? Maybe. Racial class
> restrictions? Sure (but why?). Are these good ideas? Bad ideas?
weapons and differentiate them, mostly those more available to wealthy
adventurers as compared to impoverished goblins, but it can be done
just as well and easier with the 3e/4e system of crit differentiation,
bonuses to hit ect, though I find crits far too often in either, and
niggling little bonuses annoying and anti-simple.
> But how much new material is too much? That's the question. How can we capture
> the feel and tone of your favorite edition if we add in mechanics or material
> that's never been in a prior edition? And yet, how can we convince anyone to
> play a game that is just a rehash of what's come before?
very very right with 4e. Encounters was a great ide in both respects,
and something that they failed to do while 3e was out. If they
continue that support with an acceptable to play edition I think
they'll have a winner. Both of those are questionable though.
> One way is simply through the customization of the rules modules that I wrote
> about last week. That is to say, although you can recreate the feel of 2nd
> Edition using them, you can also recreate the feel of 2nd Edition with a few
> options from 3rd or 4th as well. You wouldn't have to choose a past edition.
> You'd customize the game to make it yours. Imagine a game with Basic D&D's
> simplicity but with the powers of 4th Edition. Or a game that has the character
> customization abilities of 3rd Edition without all the tactical rules. Or any
> other combination you desire. We believe it's perfectly possible.
>
DMs. One of the annoyances of 4e is that as a DM I had no idea what
the hell powers player had, how they worked, etc. Often they didn't
know either.
> We are experimenting, however, with some material that is truly and entirely
> new. Class abilities that capture the core feel of a class, for example, even
> though they've never been presented in any version of the class. For example,
> we might take the idea of a ranger's favored enemy but express that idea in a
> completely different way.
edition? Sure, I know as a DM, it's difficult not to tinker, but I
think they need to work on the core first before throwing more
untested ideas upon everyone. Do that in expansions.
>
> We are also experimenting with variations on task resolution. What if, for
> example, something that used to give you a bonus or a penalty instead modified
> the dice you roll? A bonus to your attack roll might be the ability to roll
> 2d20 and take the best roll, for example.
- Justisaur
Justisaur
Jul 9, 2012, 2:54:00 PM7/9/12
to
On Jul 8, 5:59 pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> In our latest Legends & Lore poll, we asked what elements of D&D mechanics
> you wanted to see preserved. One of the listed elements was a limit on
> ability scores based on gender. There is no way such a pointless rule is
> going to end up in the game, whether in the core or as a rules module, which
> is why it was under the article header “Stuff to Leave Behind.” We never
> intended that as a serious option.
O.K. there are some simulationists who do like and use that rule.
> In our latest Legends & Lore poll, we asked what elements of D&D mechanics
> you wanted to see preserved. One of the listed elements was a limit on
> ability scores based on gender. There is no way such a pointless rule is
> going to end up in the game, whether in the core or as a rules module, which
> is why it was under the article header “Stuff to Leave Behind.” We never
> intended that as a serious option.
Some even say it's a balancing factor as females in 1e are subject to
far less charm type attacks. Horrible I agree though, and glad to see
it not being considered, but I can see why it might be assumed it's a
possibility.
> We forgot that articles like Legends &
> Lore are an important window into the development process, one where
> something intended as a joke option can come across as an actual proposal.
like an option either the way it was phrased. There sure are some
gems of people reading this stuff.
- Justisaur
Nicole Massey
Jul 9, 2012, 2:58:12 PM7/9/12
to
"Ken Arromdee" <arro...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:jteptc$6r4$1...@blue-new.rahul.net...
> In article <jtelfd$rad$1...@dont-email.me>, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>>>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>>>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>>>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>>>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>>>
>>> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
>>> quite frankly.
>> Than I guess the several groups I gamed with back in the day were
>>stupid. Because we used them both.
>
> Back in the day I used weapon speed all the time.
>
> The main problem with "weapon vs. armor" is that it was poorly explained.
> It was supposed to be weapon versus armor type, but it was written as
> weapon versus armor class. If you read closely, you'll notice that they
> only listed armor classes that you might get from nonmagical
> armor--because
> it was really "weapon versus the type of armor whose base armor class is
> this number"; splint mail is AC 4, so you'd use the AC 4 line for splint
> mail--even if it was +5 splint mail. But nobody
We understood it quite well, and I know of folks who used it exactly that
> wrote:
>>>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>>>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>>>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>>>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>>>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>>>
>>> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
>>> quite frankly.
>> Than I guess the several groups I gamed with back in the day were
>>stupid. Because we used them both.
>
> Back in the day I used weapon speed all the time.
>
> The main problem with "weapon vs. armor" is that it was poorly explained.
> It was supposed to be weapon versus armor type, but it was written as
> weapon versus armor class. If you read closely, you'll notice that they
> only listed armor classes that you might get from nonmagical
> armor--because
> it was really "weapon versus the type of armor whose base armor class is
> this number"; splint mail is AC 4, so you'd use the AC 4 line for splint
> mail--even if it was +5 splint mail. But nobody
way. Remember that AD&D was only one step removed from a Wargame at that
point, and these were things to help resolve things like simultaneous
initiative rolls and the limitations of non-rigid armors (padded, leather,
chain, splint, etc) when facing mass weapons. And yes, both of these were
not well explained in either the Player's Handbook or Dungeonmaster's Guide,
so they were things often left out. Weapon speed was the most confused part
of the two -- I know people (myself included) who used it as a modifier to
initiative, which is not how it was designed to be used.
Justisaur
Jul 9, 2012, 5:03:51 PM7/9/12
to
On Jul 9, 11:58 am, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
> "Ken Arromdee" <arrom...@rahul.net> wrote in message
>
> news:jteptc$6r4$1...@blue-new.rahul.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <jtelfd$ra...@dont-email.me>, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net>
I find it funny that 2e incorporated that misconception into the
rules.
- Justisaur
> "Ken Arromdee" <arrom...@rahul.net> wrote in message
>
> news:jteptc$6r4$1...@blue-new.rahul.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <jtelfd$ra...@dont-email.me>, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net>
rules.
- Justisaur
I
Jul 9, 2012, 5:45:35 PM7/9/12
to
combat section, and see how much of it I never used; for example, weapon
speed factors verus spell casting times. We pretty much played the game
where segments of casting time meant nothing--every spell that was less
than a round went off on the caster's initiative point. Somehow I
glossed over or ignored the idea that a caster's spell had less of a
chance to complete successfully if he was being attacked with a dagger
instead of a battleaxe.
Surprise, too, ended up being more complicated than I remember, what
with comparing different results to people's dexterity and all that. We
played it straight surprise 1-2, period, without bothering to figure out
which side had more or less surprise.
--
Greg's wrong guesses so far:
Aratzio
Spooge
Mad As A Box Of Frogs
Vince
Art Deco
Mike Manners aka Bitty Bill
Johnny Dollar
Kevin Cannon
yourfriend
Fred Hall
idlehands
Sean Monaghan
NotYourFathersChevy
I
Jul 9, 2012, 5:46:50 PM7/9/12
to
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> In article <jtelfd$rad$1...@dont-email.me>, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>>>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>>>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>>>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>>>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>>> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
>>> quite frankly.
>> Than I guess the several groups I gamed with back in the day were
>> stupid. Because we used them both.
>
> Back in the day I used weapon speed all the time.
>
> The main problem with "weapon vs. armor" is that it was poorly explained.
> It was supposed to be weapon versus armor type, but it was written as
> weapon versus armor class. If you read closely, you'll notice that they
> only listed armor classes that you might get from nonmagical armor--because
> it was really "weapon versus the type of armor whose base armor class is
> this number"; splint mail is AC 4, so you'd use the AC 4 line for splint
> mail--even if it was +5 splint mail. But nobody understood this.
This was clear to us, but since we rarely had humanoid vs. humanoid
> In article <jtelfd$rad$1...@dont-email.me>, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>>>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>>>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>>>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>>>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>>> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
>>> quite frankly.
>> Than I guess the several groups I gamed with back in the day were
>> stupid. Because we used them both.
>
> Back in the day I used weapon speed all the time.
>
> The main problem with "weapon vs. armor" is that it was poorly explained.
> It was supposed to be weapon versus armor type, but it was written as
> weapon versus armor class. If you read closely, you'll notice that they
> only listed armor classes that you might get from nonmagical armor--because
> it was really "weapon versus the type of armor whose base armor class is
> this number"; splint mail is AC 4, so you'd use the AC 4 line for splint
> mail--even if it was +5 splint mail. But nobody understood this.
combat it almost never got used.
I
Jul 9, 2012, 5:48:51 PM7/9/12
to
primary architect of 4E (Mike Mearls) is developing 5E does worry me.
Now I don't see it as impossible to create a layered ruleset that
incorporates the various edition playstyles; it's just that I don't have
confidence MM can pull that off.
Jim Davies
Jul 9, 2012, 6:26:18 PM7/9/12
to
On the grave of arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) is inscribed:
>In article <jtelfd$rad$1...@dont-email.me>, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>>>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>>>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>>>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>>>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>>>
>>> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
>>> quite frankly.
>> Than I guess the several groups I gamed with back in the day were
>>stupid. Because we used them both.
It's not stupid to do what the rules say. It is stupid to keep using
those rules if they're stupid. Mind you, I was pretty stupid too back
then.
>Back in the day I used weapon speed all the time.
>
>The main problem with "weapon vs. armor" is that it was poorly explained.
>It was supposed to be weapon versus armor type, but it was written as
>weapon versus armor class. If you read closely, you'll notice that they
>only listed armor classes that you might get from nonmagical armor--because
>it was really "weapon versus the type of armor whose base armor class is
>this number"; splint mail is AC 4, so you'd use the AC 4 line for splint
>mail--even if it was +5 splint mail. But nobody understood this.
But that doesn't make sense either. The only way in the core PHB1
(besides dex, magic, etc) to be AC9 is to have a shield and no armour,
and the only way to be AC 2 is plate and shield. So why did they give
values for them? And why is it easier to hit someone with a 2H sword
if he wears leather armour than if he wears nothing? And why is it
easier to hit someone with a foot flail if he carries a shield unless
he wears armour?
And given that many opponents had neither armour nor weapons but
claws, teeth and scales, how did they fit in? And this applies equally
to weapon speed factors.
Not to mention how the whole thing was a way to utterly screw monks,
in case they weren't sufficiently screwed already.
The whole thing was a godawful mess.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
There is no God. But there is pudding!
>In article <jtelfd$rad$1...@dont-email.me>, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>>>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>>>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>>>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>>>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>>>
>>> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
>>> quite frankly.
>> Than I guess the several groups I gamed with back in the day were
>>stupid. Because we used them both.
those rules if they're stupid. Mind you, I was pretty stupid too back
then.
>Back in the day I used weapon speed all the time.
>
>The main problem with "weapon vs. armor" is that it was poorly explained.
>It was supposed to be weapon versus armor type, but it was written as
>weapon versus armor class. If you read closely, you'll notice that they
>only listed armor classes that you might get from nonmagical armor--because
>it was really "weapon versus the type of armor whose base armor class is
>this number"; splint mail is AC 4, so you'd use the AC 4 line for splint
>mail--even if it was +5 splint mail. But nobody understood this.
(besides dex, magic, etc) to be AC9 is to have a shield and no armour,
and the only way to be AC 2 is plate and shield. So why did they give
values for them? And why is it easier to hit someone with a 2H sword
if he wears leather armour than if he wears nothing? And why is it
easier to hit someone with a foot flail if he carries a shield unless
he wears armour?
And given that many opponents had neither armour nor weapons but
claws, teeth and scales, how did they fit in? And this applies equally
to weapon speed factors.
Not to mention how the whole thing was a way to utterly screw monks,
in case they weren't sufficiently screwed already.
The whole thing was a godawful mess.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
There is no God. But there is pudding!
David Lamb
Jul 9, 2012, 6:30:55 PM7/9/12
to
On 08/07/2012 9:52 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
> This is pretty ridiculous. You can't unite the editions. They're
> disparate rulesets, ranging from "related-but-not-the-same" to "utterly
> disjoint".
>
> If you make something you can bang on until you make it work sorta like
> a given edition? Congratulations, you've made GURPS or Champions.
> Thanks, but no thanks.
I think they picked the wrong word when they said "unite". When I read
>
> This is pretty ridiculous. You can't unite the editions. They're
> disparate rulesets, ranging from "related-but-not-the-same" to "utterly
> disjoint".
>
> If you make something you can bang on until you make it work sorta like
> a given edition? Congratulations, you've made GURPS or Champions.
> Thanks, but no thanks.
it I got the impression they were identifying key elements of the "feel"
of each edition (such as how much "simulation" and "character
customization" there should be), defining a core set of rules, and
adding collections of related optional rules that pushed the game in
whatever directions the playing group preferred.
I didn't get the impression they intended to cover every bit of every
edition, which would be a horrid and undesirable task -- just enough to
approximate whichever vaguely-defined "feel" or "flavour" of each
edition a group might prefer.
Justisaur
Jul 9, 2012, 7:06:27 PM7/9/12
to
On Jul 9, 3:26 pm, Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
> On the grave of arrom...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) is inscribed:
although even more complicated by having armor and shields separate on
the table and adding the two values together. I know of some people
that did that, and expanded it to specific armors instead of just ACs.
> And why is it easier to hit someone with a 2H sword
> if he wears leather armour than if he wears nothing?
Slows him down just enough perhaps?
> And why is it
> easier to hit someone with a foot flail if he carries a shield unless
> he wears armour?
That one is a bit easier, due to the way a flail hits someone, if
there is a shield it provides little to no protection because the
flail just goes around it, and could actually make it hit harder.
> And given that many opponents had neither armour nor weapons but
> claws, teeth and scales, how did they fit in? And this applies equally
> to weapon speed factors.
Natural weapons are 0 (perhaps 1 or 2 depending upon where you look)
and the ACs are set with them as the basis so need no adjustment.
> Not to mention how the whole thing was a way to utterly screw monks,
> in case they weren't sufficiently screwed already.
Not sure why you say that. I rather like 1e monks.
- Justisaur
> On the grave of arrom...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) is inscribed:
>
> But that doesn't make sense either. The only way in the core PHB1
> (besides dex, magic, etc) to be AC9 is to have a shield and no armour,
> and the only way to be AC 2 is plate and shield. So why did they give
> values for them?
The values count shields. Gygax could have made it a bit clearer
> But that doesn't make sense either. The only way in the core PHB1
> (besides dex, magic, etc) to be AC9 is to have a shield and no armour,
> and the only way to be AC 2 is plate and shield. So why did they give
> values for them?
although even more complicated by having armor and shields separate on
the table and adding the two values together. I know of some people
that did that, and expanded it to specific armors instead of just ACs.
> And why is it easier to hit someone with a 2H sword
> if he wears leather armour than if he wears nothing?
> And why is it
> easier to hit someone with a foot flail if he carries a shield unless
> he wears armour?
there is a shield it provides little to no protection because the
flail just goes around it, and could actually make it hit harder.
> And given that many opponents had neither armour nor weapons but
> claws, teeth and scales, how did they fit in? And this applies equally
> to weapon speed factors.
and the ACs are set with them as the basis so need no adjustment.
> Not to mention how the whole thing was a way to utterly screw monks,
> in case they weren't sufficiently screwed already.
- Justisaur
Jim Davies
Jul 9, 2012, 8:47:25 PM7/9/12
to
On the grave of Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> is inscribed:
>
>> Not to mention how the whole thing was a way to utterly screw monks,
>> in case they weren't sufficiently screwed already.
>
>Not sure why you say that. I rather like 1e monks.
A monk (who already has a terrible AC and poor hp) wears no armour. A
lot of weapons do quite well against no armour (look at bows!). And
conversely, open hand and several monk weapons (mostly the sticks and
clubs) are terrible against heavy armour.
Admittedly they can use polearms, which are OK against armour and let
the monk stay out of the front line. Crossbows are pretty decent and
handaxes are OK.
As for monks themselves, they're very MAD but get little or no benefit
from their stats (no Dex to AC, no Str to hit, no class bonus from
Wisdom) . They fight like thieves (ie, badly) and their open hand
attacks are pretty inconsequential until about 6th level when multiple
attacks kick in. Open hand stun almost never happens because of the
lousy THAC0 and lack of Str or weapon to-hit bonus. So an 8th level
monk would need to roll a 19 to stun a RAW AC5 hobgoblin.
hp are low and AC is crap for obvious reasons. Even at very high
levels it's modest because of the restrictions on equipment.
Most monk abilities are pretty much useless, or very situational at
best. Dodge arrows is nice and Speak with Animals can be handy, but
the first really useful abilities (pseudo-evasion, immune to poison)
are defensive and kick in at 9th and 11th level by which time the monk
has probably made his save anyway. Quivering palm is cool if you ever
get to 13th level, having eliminated several of your superiors for no
well-understood reason. Resistance to surprise is a joke, and plays
merry hell with the other surprise mechanics because it uses the wrong
dice.
Monks get the useful thief abilities, but in 1e most of those
abilities are so unreliable at low levels (remember you're a human, so
no infravision or racial bonuses) that they're weak (open locks, FRT,
Hear) or positively hazardous (FRT, HinS, MS, climb).
You need more xp than most classes (2,250 to 2nd, 350,000 to 9th) and
far more than the others at high level.
OTOH, saves are good, and fast movement is actually quite fast. Which
is a good thing, because you don't belong anywhere near someone who
wants to hit you.
I note that the monk in Diary of Pain has survived to gain a few
levels by not doing anything except dodging the odd arrow and finding
vast pots of gems while Pain and Diane's animals do all the work.
>
>> Not to mention how the whole thing was a way to utterly screw monks,
>> in case they weren't sufficiently screwed already.
>
>Not sure why you say that. I rather like 1e monks.
lot of weapons do quite well against no armour (look at bows!). And
conversely, open hand and several monk weapons (mostly the sticks and
clubs) are terrible against heavy armour.
Admittedly they can use polearms, which are OK against armour and let
the monk stay out of the front line. Crossbows are pretty decent and
handaxes are OK.
As for monks themselves, they're very MAD but get little or no benefit
from their stats (no Dex to AC, no Str to hit, no class bonus from
Wisdom) . They fight like thieves (ie, badly) and their open hand
attacks are pretty inconsequential until about 6th level when multiple
attacks kick in. Open hand stun almost never happens because of the
lousy THAC0 and lack of Str or weapon to-hit bonus. So an 8th level
monk would need to roll a 19 to stun a RAW AC5 hobgoblin.
hp are low and AC is crap for obvious reasons. Even at very high
levels it's modest because of the restrictions on equipment.
Most monk abilities are pretty much useless, or very situational at
best. Dodge arrows is nice and Speak with Animals can be handy, but
the first really useful abilities (pseudo-evasion, immune to poison)
are defensive and kick in at 9th and 11th level by which time the monk
has probably made his save anyway. Quivering palm is cool if you ever
get to 13th level, having eliminated several of your superiors for no
well-understood reason. Resistance to surprise is a joke, and plays
merry hell with the other surprise mechanics because it uses the wrong
dice.
Monks get the useful thief abilities, but in 1e most of those
abilities are so unreliable at low levels (remember you're a human, so
no infravision or racial bonuses) that they're weak (open locks, FRT,
Hear) or positively hazardous (FRT, HinS, MS, climb).
You need more xp than most classes (2,250 to 2nd, 350,000 to 9th) and
far more than the others at high level.
OTOH, saves are good, and fast movement is actually quite fast. Which
is a good thing, because you don't belong anywhere near someone who
wants to hit you.
I note that the monk in Diary of Pain has survived to gain a few
levels by not doing anything except dodging the odd arrow and finding
vast pots of gems while Pain and Diane's animals do all the work.
David Trimboli
Jul 9, 2012, 9:37:13 PM7/9/12
to
On 7/8/2012 9:52 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
> This is pretty ridiculous. You can't unite the editions. They're
> disparate rulesets, ranging from "related-but-not-the-same" to "utterly
> disjoint".
Always with you it cannot be done. :)
>
> This is pretty ridiculous. You can't unite the editions. They're
> disparate rulesets, ranging from "related-but-not-the-same" to "utterly
> disjoint".
--
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jul 9, 2012, 11:21:11 PM7/9/12
to
On 7/9/12 6:30 PM, David Lamb wrote:
> On 08/07/2012 9:52 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>
>> This is pretty ridiculous. You can't unite the editions. They're
>> disparate rulesets, ranging from "related-but-not-the-same" to "utterly
>> disjoint".
>>
>> If you make something you can bang on until you make it work sorta like
>> a given edition? Congratulations, you've made GURPS or Champions.
>> Thanks, but no thanks.
>
> I think they picked the wrong word when they said "unite". When I read
> it I got the impression they were identifying key elements of the "feel"
> of each edition (such as how much "simulation" and "character
> customization" there should be), defining a core set of rules, and
> adding collections of related optional rules that pushed the game in
> whatever directions the playing group preferred.
But you can't do that, either. Because different people perceive that
> On 08/07/2012 9:52 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>
>> This is pretty ridiculous. You can't unite the editions. They're
>> disparate rulesets, ranging from "related-but-not-the-same" to "utterly
>> disjoint".
>>
>> If you make something you can bang on until you make it work sorta like
>> a given edition? Congratulations, you've made GURPS or Champions.
>> Thanks, but no thanks.
>
> I think they picked the wrong word when they said "unite". When I read
> it I got the impression they were identifying key elements of the "feel"
> of each edition (such as how much "simulation" and "character
> customization" there should be), defining a core set of rules, and
> adding collections of related optional rules that pushed the game in
> whatever directions the playing group preferred.
"feel" differently, and what some people consider the defining
characteristic of an edition, others see as irrelevant, or even see it
as the opposite.
For instance, many people have called 3e more simulationist/crunch
oriented, while I've considered it vastly more roleplaying-friendly than
the prior editions. How do you manage to bring out the "key elements"
when they're perceived in diametric opposition?
Wanna unite all the editions? Gimme a big monster hardback with the PHB
for ALL the editions in it.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jul 9, 2012, 11:21:50 PM7/9/12
to
On 7/9/12 9:37 PM, David Trimboli wrote:
> On 7/8/2012 9:52 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>
>> This is pretty ridiculous. You can't unite the editions. They're
>> disparate rulesets, ranging from "related-but-not-the-same" to "utterly
>> disjoint".
>
> Always with you it cannot be done. :)
>
Quoting the true Dark Lord of the Sith, I see.
> On 7/8/2012 9:52 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>
>> This is pretty ridiculous. You can't unite the editions. They're
>> disparate rulesets, ranging from "related-but-not-the-same" to "utterly
>> disjoint".
>
> Always with you it cannot be done. :)
>
Nicole Massey
Jul 10, 2012, 2:38:32 AM7/10/12
to
"Justisaur" <just...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2fb07ab-09b5-49d5...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
edition seemed to not use what they'd created to good effect. There was a
conversation a while back on the First Edition AD&D Yahoogroup about this,
and it was interesting to see the different ways people handled initiative.
I don't do it BTB, I roll individual initiative with reaction adjustments
and the like, and using something of a tweak for the odd multiple combats
per round thing. I formerly used roundless initiative, but I've since
decided that isn't appropriate for the abstract combat system of AD&D, so I
handl AD&D combat using rounds and then eschew them when running Rolemaster.
(And it's the norm for Artistry combat)
Justisaur
Jul 10, 2012, 1:15:14 PM7/10/12
to
On Jul 9, 5:47 pm, Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
> On the grave of Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> is inscribed:
I view them as a subclass of Thief, you can do all the important
thiefy things for the party and get a bunch of stuff that makes you
better at surviving traps, or scouting, you didn't find, all while not
having to be a thief (i.e. an ass who gets himself killed for stealing
from the party that no one really wants around anyway).
The XP, level, and magic item restrictions are annoyances, but don't
kill the class. The magic item restrictions are somewhat freeing, as
you don't need to get into intra-party politics about who gets what
for the most part. I've had several people play them back in the day
and did quite well, and I've done the same. I prefer the OA version
slightly, and the class could use some serious tweaking, but it is
playable. I'd argue more so than the 3e version where the MAD
seriously hurts. I haven't seen anyone play a monk in 3e ever.
The poor monk in DoP suffers from poor con (which does actually help
monks) and poor hp rolls, and he is contributing by being the trap
monkey. He's also the lowest level of the henchmen so I'm trying to
keep him out of trouble until he gets some levels (and hopefully rolls
a better number on his next hd).
- Justisaur
> On the grave of Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> is inscribed:
thiefy things for the party and get a bunch of stuff that makes you
better at surviving traps, or scouting, you didn't find, all while not
having to be a thief (i.e. an ass who gets himself killed for stealing
from the party that no one really wants around anyway).
The XP, level, and magic item restrictions are annoyances, but don't
kill the class. The magic item restrictions are somewhat freeing, as
you don't need to get into intra-party politics about who gets what
for the most part. I've had several people play them back in the day
and did quite well, and I've done the same. I prefer the OA version
slightly, and the class could use some serious tweaking, but it is
playable. I'd argue more so than the 3e version where the MAD
seriously hurts. I haven't seen anyone play a monk in 3e ever.
The poor monk in DoP suffers from poor con (which does actually help
monks) and poor hp rolls, and he is contributing by being the trap
monkey. He's also the lowest level of the henchmen so I'm trying to
keep him out of trouble until he gets some levels (and hopefully rolls
a better number on his next hd).
- Justisaur
Jim Davies
Jul 10, 2012, 8:27:43 PM7/10/12
to
On the grave of Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> is inscribed:
>On Jul 9, 5:47�pm, Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>> On the grave of Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> is inscribed:
>I view them as a subclass of Thief, you can do all the important
>thiefy things for the party and get a bunch of stuff that makes you
>better at surviving traps, or scouting, you didn't find, all while not
>having to be a thief (i.e. an ass who gets himself killed for stealing
>from the party that no one really wants around anyway).
The monk does some of the necessary thief stuff (pick locks, remove
traps) and a couple of gimmicky things (speak with animals, run very
fast, fight unarmed when the Duchess's birthday party gets attacked)
but is otherwise something of a liability and doesn't hold its end up
in a fight.
>and the class could use some serious tweaking, but it is
>playable.
I'm annoyed that I lost my 1e monk rewrite, but it included things
like
d6 hit dice, inc 2d6 at first level
AC=10 - level - dex bonus (or maybe a little better)
Str to-hit bonus restored
Attack and save as cleric
and probably a lower xp requirement
which made it at least worth trying, rather than a liability.
>I'd argue more so than the 3e version where the MAD
>seriously hurts. I haven't seen anyone play a monk in 3e ever.
In 1e, you didn't have point buy, and very often the only way to
qualify for a class (esp paladin) was by DM fiat whereby you'd say "I
want to play a Monk" and the DM would grant the relevant minima to the
relevant scores. So you didn't have to sink your 16 into Wisdom and
settle for 12 Con. Not like that in 3e.
>The poor monk in DoP suffers from poor con (which does actually help
>monks) and poor hp rolls, and he is contributing by being the trap
>monkey. He's also the lowest level of the henchmen so I'm trying to
>keep him out of trouble until he gets some levels (and hopefully rolls
>a better number on his next hd).
Waiting...
>On Jul 9, 5:47�pm, Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>> On the grave of Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> is inscribed:
>> >Not sure why you say that. I rather like 1e monks.
snips
>I view them as a subclass of Thief, you can do all the important
>thiefy things for the party and get a bunch of stuff that makes you
>better at surviving traps, or scouting, you didn't find, all while not
>having to be a thief (i.e. an ass who gets himself killed for stealing
>from the party that no one really wants around anyway).
traps) and a couple of gimmicky things (speak with animals, run very
fast, fight unarmed when the Duchess's birthday party gets attacked)
but is otherwise something of a liability and doesn't hold its end up
in a fight.
>and the class could use some serious tweaking, but it is
>playable.
like
d6 hit dice, inc 2d6 at first level
AC=10 - level - dex bonus (or maybe a little better)
Str to-hit bonus restored
Attack and save as cleric
and probably a lower xp requirement
which made it at least worth trying, rather than a liability.
>I'd argue more so than the 3e version where the MAD
>seriously hurts. I haven't seen anyone play a monk in 3e ever.
qualify for a class (esp paladin) was by DM fiat whereby you'd say "I
want to play a Monk" and the DM would grant the relevant minima to the
relevant scores. So you didn't have to sink your 16 into Wisdom and
settle for 12 Con. Not like that in 3e.
>The poor monk in DoP suffers from poor con (which does actually help
>monks) and poor hp rolls, and he is contributing by being the trap
>monkey. He's also the lowest level of the henchmen so I'm trying to
>keep him out of trouble until he gets some levels (and hopefully rolls
>a better number on his next hd).
tussock
Jul 10, 2012, 8:27:47 AM7/10/12
to
Justisaur wrote:
>> System shock rolls.
>
> It can be useful having a very rarely failed 'save' to put some fear
> or avoidance to certain situations. For instance using wishes or
> haste. Both extremely powerful, but come with the possibility of
> causing death. It makes them feel particularly magic.
Uh, they both use aging in AD&D, and forced downtime for wishes. System
>> System shock rolls.
>
> It can be useful having a very rarely failed 'save' to put some fear
> or avoidance to certain situations. For instance using wishes or
> haste. Both extremely powerful, but come with the possibility of
> causing death. It makes them feel particularly magic.
Shocks are polymorph, stoning, and dying (or rather, getting raised).
>> Further, there's stuff that is kind of on the fence in this regard. What
>> about a system that resembled the weapons versus armor table in 1st
>> Edition?
>> One of the annoyances of 4e is that as a DM I had no idea what
> the hell powers player had, how they worked, etc. Often they didn't
> know either.
does Diablo call its bashy power? Bash! And the quick jabby one? Jab! It's
not rocket science, eh. Fireball should be a ball of fire. Lightning bolt
should be ... you probably know this one.
>> We are experimenting, however, with some material that is truly and
>> entirely new. Class abilities that capture the core feel of a class, for
>> example, even though they've never been presented in any version of the
>> class. For example, we might take the idea of a ranger's favored enemy
>> but express that idea in a completely different way.
>
> Hrm. Didn't you do enough of that in 4e to last at least another
> edition? Sure, I know as a DM, it's difficult not to tinker, but I
> think they need to work on the core first before throwing more
> untested ideas upon everyone. Do that in expansions.
mechanical. Like, they desperately need to go back to giving Rangers +lots
vs half the monster manual. 3e Favoured Enemy is a disempowing junk ability
that tries to bring the same "feel" and infact does the opposite.
--
tussock
tussock
Jul 10, 2012, 8:04:14 AM7/10/12
to
Justisaur wrote:
<snips>
ones. It's not a terrilbe idea to try and bring the best of all of them
together. The thing is, like you say, the 5e designers clearly disagree with
me about what is best.
Then again, I disagree with what I thought a few years back too. The OSR
kinda broke my brain when it came to systematic rule structures. Fighter, 5
hp, AC 6. Give him/her a name if they make 2nd level. Fun.
Helps that the monsters can be similarly structured I suppose. "4 HD, AC
3" can totally just explain everything you need.
>> There is no wrong way to play D&D.
>
> There is if you are a player who wants to play an artificer, but the
> only DM around won't allow them, or vice versa a DM who know the the
> artificer the player wants to make is broken beyond repair.
That's not strictly "playing D&D", that's negotiating a rule set. That's
where declaring what is in up front works: 5-9 races, 5-9 classes, further
options will be carefully considered and rejected.
Heh, 5e is being *designed* to be that argument for eternity. 8]
> Mike Mearls wrote:
>> For example, is it important that "elf" remains a class to someone
>> who enjoyed Original D&D (1974) or Basic D&D? I'd argue, no. What's far
>> more important for that player is an open-ended system with a lot of
>> emphasis on the Dungeon Master, lots of exploration, and simple mechanics
>> that enable fast combat, to name just a few things.
Hmm. I suspect that almost everyone playing elves at the time enjoyed
the ability to both cast spells and fight well as a basic class function,
and that everything else in that list was just what they happened to be
doing with their elf while hanging out with friends.
>> Then 2E came along and made only minor changes to the rules, but it made
>> important changes to the style of gameplay. The Player's Handbook was not
>> significantly different, but the Dungeon Master's Guide was. We started
>> reading phrases such as "it's all about the story." Worldbuilding became
>> more important than adventure design. If in OD&D one DM might say to
>> another, "let me tell you about my dungeon," in the 2E era, a DM might
>> say to another, "let me tell you about my world." As the system developed
>> with many supplements, simulation and game balance took a back seat to
>> story, setting, and interesting characters.
Don't believe everything you read in an RPG book, Mike. 2nd edition is
crazy simulationist about its world building, and most of the rules changes
from AD&D are to make things "more balanced".
It *lost* a lot of the flavour in AD&D; the core books are quite bland
in comparison, though that monster fluff continues to impress as an aid to
my ever-limited creativity.
>> Kits and nonweapon proficiencies, some of the major new(-ish) changes,
>> showcased character development in interesting ways. This suggests that,
>> broadly speaking, 2E players enjoy epic storylines and tools to create
>> well-developed characters.
Hah! So /that's/ why everyone wanted to play Drow Bladesingers. The
character development. /Nothing at all/ to do with the +lots to everything
and casting spells while attacking with two swords trick. </SARCASM>
> Hmm. Worldbuilding, perhaps that's why 2e was my favorite.
It epitomises throwing everything from everywhere and everywhen into a
villiage of 200 people and pretending that makes sense. There's at least
four species of immense dragons who walk around cities in human form all the
time, because *why not*!. Worldbuilding indeed.
Delightfully stupid worlds, I guess. 8]
<snip>
edition before it. Unfortunately, letting Wizards do whatever they want does
horrible things to the self-esteem of non-casters.
Otherwise, it's a huge improvement on, say, Skills & Powers in terms of
game balance. You can play 1st-13th without anyone being hopelessly
outclassed by any other character (ignoring Monks). Even an Elf Paladin,
while weak, can totally contribute without instantly dying in a hard fight
(any more than other characters do).
> I had a hell of a lot more to do [in 3e] as a DM. Far more than 2e.
Prep time in 3e is strangly unlimited.
Interesting that the 3e designers seemed to all admit to not using most
of the rules for detailing characters (outside their day job), just gave
their NPCs whatever spells/feats felt right during the fights.
Which is what EGG said about the fiddly bits of AD&D. I suspect if 5e
was written to how the designers actually *played* each edition they
designed after a few years with it, it'd be quite good, and all of 50 pages
including a lot of full-page art. 8]
>> [3e combat] moved more slowly.
even in 4th (penalty stacks and big crits and action points or something).
But 3e is still much slower (and 4e again), even with the one-round
fights. A lot of 2nd edition fights would be over before you could even
figure out who won initiative in 3e, and a full-session fight would have
/hundreds/ of levelled opponents.
>> Character powers ensured that everyone always had something
>> interesting and dynamic to do every round.
>
> Again interesting is not ensured. In fact it became far less so as
> you do the same thing every fight, or at least every 4 fights.
Quite. He's confusing the PR with reality. Still, it's nice that they're
trying not to offend their active purchasers (or people who would be
actively purchasing if they had anything to sell).
> [...] magic-missile in 4e has almost no resemblance to what it did in
Missile wasn't even in the early books. The Darkness spell in Chainmail
turned the whole battlefield to night so your Orcs didn't suffer the usual
penalties, and the Vampires could come out. By the time 3.5 arrived it
doesn't do anything at all in a very small area and would be a poor choice
for a cantrip.
--
tussock
<snips>
> There's also the fact that my version of Monopoly-Chess would likely
> be nothing like someone else's. Admittedly I was contemplating the
> same thing, with my 'best rules from each edition'.
There's good things in all the editions, including the even numbered
> be nothing like someone else's. Admittedly I was contemplating the
> same thing, with my 'best rules from each edition'.
ones. It's not a terrilbe idea to try and bring the best of all of them
together. The thing is, like you say, the 5e designers clearly disagree with
me about what is best.
Then again, I disagree with what I thought a few years back too. The OSR
kinda broke my brain when it came to systematic rule structures. Fighter, 5
hp, AC 6. Give him/her a name if they make 2nd level. Fun.
Helps that the monsters can be similarly structured I suppose. "4 HD, AC
3" can totally just explain everything you need.
>> There is no wrong way to play D&D.
>
> There is if you are a player who wants to play an artificer, but the
> only DM around won't allow them, or vice versa a DM who know the the
> artificer the player wants to make is broken beyond repair.
where declaring what is in up front works: 5-9 races, 5-9 classes, further
options will be carefully considered and rejected.
Heh, 5e is being *designed* to be that argument for eternity. 8]
> Mike Mearls wrote:
>> For example, is it important that "elf" remains a class to someone
>> who enjoyed Original D&D (1974) or Basic D&D? I'd argue, no. What's far
>> more important for that player is an open-ended system with a lot of
>> emphasis on the Dungeon Master, lots of exploration, and simple mechanics
>> that enable fast combat, to name just a few things.
the ability to both cast spells and fight well as a basic class function,
and that everything else in that list was just what they happened to be
doing with their elf while hanging out with friends.
>> Then 2E came along and made only minor changes to the rules, but it made
>> important changes to the style of gameplay. The Player's Handbook was not
>> significantly different, but the Dungeon Master's Guide was. We started
>> reading phrases such as "it's all about the story." Worldbuilding became
>> more important than adventure design. If in OD&D one DM might say to
>> another, "let me tell you about my dungeon," in the 2E era, a DM might
>> say to another, "let me tell you about my world." As the system developed
>> with many supplements, simulation and game balance took a back seat to
>> story, setting, and interesting characters.
crazy simulationist about its world building, and most of the rules changes
from AD&D are to make things "more balanced".
It *lost* a lot of the flavour in AD&D; the core books are quite bland
in comparison, though that monster fluff continues to impress as an aid to
my ever-limited creativity.
>> Kits and nonweapon proficiencies, some of the major new(-ish) changes,
>> showcased character development in interesting ways. This suggests that,
>> broadly speaking, 2E players enjoy epic storylines and tools to create
>> well-developed characters.
character development. /Nothing at all/ to do with the +lots to everything
and casting spells while attacking with two swords trick. </SARCASM>
> Hmm. Worldbuilding, perhaps that's why 2e was my favorite.
villiage of 200 people and pretending that makes sense. There's at least
four species of immense dragons who walk around cities in human form all the
time, because *why not*!. Worldbuilding indeed.
Delightfully stupid worlds, I guess. 8]
<snip>
> 3e threw any semblance of balance out the window.
3e was to be the "yes you can" edition, in contrast to the "DM says NO!"
edition before it. Unfortunately, letting Wizards do whatever they want does
horrible things to the self-esteem of non-casters.
Otherwise, it's a huge improvement on, say, Skills & Powers in terms of
game balance. You can play 1st-13th without anyone being hopelessly
outclassed by any other character (ignoring Monks). Even an Elf Paladin,
while weak, can totally contribute without instantly dying in a hard fight
(any more than other characters do).
> I had a hell of a lot more to do [in 3e] as a DM. Far more than 2e.
Prep time in 3e is strangly unlimited.
Interesting that the 3e designers seemed to all admit to not using most
of the rules for detailing characters (outside their day job), just gave
their NPCs whatever spells/feats felt right during the fights.
Which is what EGG said about the fiddly bits of AD&D. I suspect if 5e
was written to how the designers actually *played* each edition they
designed after a few years with it, it'd be quite good, and all of 50 pages
including a lot of full-page art. 8]
>> [3e combat] moved more slowly.
>
> Not really, when your resident powergamer kills everything on the
> first round. Or you attempt to challenge him, and everyone else in
> the party dies on the first round.
I've seen that in all the edtions I've played, and read a bit about it
> Not really, when your resident powergamer kills everything on the
> first round. Or you attempt to challenge him, and everyone else in
> the party dies on the first round.
even in 4th (penalty stacks and big crits and action points or something).
But 3e is still much slower (and 4e again), even with the one-round
fights. A lot of 2nd edition fights would be over before you could even
figure out who won initiative in 3e, and a full-session fight would have
/hundreds/ of levelled opponents.
>> Character powers ensured that everyone always had something
>> interesting and dynamic to do every round.
>
> Again interesting is not ensured. In fact it became far less so as
> you do the same thing every fight, or at least every 4 fights.
trying not to offend their active purchasers (or people who would be
actively purchasing if they had anything to sell).
> [...] magic-missile in 4e has almost no resemblance to what it did in
> any prior edition except name.
Most of the spells have dramatically changed over the years, and Magic
Missile wasn't even in the early books. The Darkness spell in Chainmail
turned the whole battlefield to night so your Orcs didn't suffer the usual
penalties, and the Vampires could come out. By the time 3.5 arrived it
doesn't do anything at all in a very small area and would be a poor choice
for a cantrip.
--
tussock
Harold Groot
Jul 10, 2012, 10:03:33 PM7/10/12
to
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 10:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
<just...@gmail.com> wrote:
So much depends on the campaigns/players.
Over the years there has been very little "intra-party politics" over
treasure in the campaigns I've been in. As long as the party rules for
treasure distribution are agreed upon before the campaign starts,
things have run fine. It hasn't mattered if was "roll dice for order
of choice" or "things will be given to the one who can best use it" or
pretty much any other system.
In our high-level 3.5E game we just ended a major chapter. Everyone
turned 15th level and we had a high-level haul of treasure. Our group
has been using "Whoever can best use it, gets it" as our primary
system of treasure distribution. The whole thing took about 15-20
minutes to divvy up. Some discussion, a little dice rolling when there
was no clear advantage to any particular PC getting something and
overall levels of magic by the PCs was roughly equal, but no heated
words or arguments.
As for monks - I've played monks in all editions through 3.5
(including the 1E variation presented in Dragon Magazine). The last
3.5E monk I played was even in a campaign that the DM described as
being for "high powered" characters. But as I've mentioned before, I'm
usually doing "pick a theme and run with it" rather than "optimize the
whole PC to the max".
<just...@gmail.com> wrote:
Over the years there has been very little "intra-party politics" over
treasure in the campaigns I've been in. As long as the party rules for
treasure distribution are agreed upon before the campaign starts,
things have run fine. It hasn't mattered if was "roll dice for order
of choice" or "things will be given to the one who can best use it" or
pretty much any other system.
In our high-level 3.5E game we just ended a major chapter. Everyone
turned 15th level and we had a high-level haul of treasure. Our group
has been using "Whoever can best use it, gets it" as our primary
system of treasure distribution. The whole thing took about 15-20
minutes to divvy up. Some discussion, a little dice rolling when there
was no clear advantage to any particular PC getting something and
overall levels of magic by the PCs was roughly equal, but no heated
words or arguments.
As for monks - I've played monks in all editions through 3.5
(including the 1E variation presented in Dragon Magazine). The last
3.5E monk I played was even in a campaign that the DM described as
being for "high powered" characters. But as I've mentioned before, I'm
usually doing "pick a theme and run with it" rather than "optimize the
whole PC to the max".
Ken Arromdee
Jul 11, 2012, 10:43:38 AM7/11/12
to
In article <k7fpv715en4ls3ub6...@4ax.com>,
that had higher minima and also made "use the minimum if you didn't roll
it" as an official rule and not DM fiat any more.
Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>In 1e, you didn't have point buy, and very often the only way to
>qualify for a class (esp paladin) was by DM fiat whereby you'd say "I
>want to play a Monk" and the DM would grant the relevant minima to the
>relevant scores. So you didn't have to sink your 16 into Wisdom and
>settle for 12 Con. Not like that in 3e.
You had Unearthed Arcana, which allowed rolling more dice for the scores
>In 1e, you didn't have point buy, and very often the only way to
>qualify for a class (esp paladin) was by DM fiat whereby you'd say "I
>want to play a Monk" and the DM would grant the relevant minima to the
>relevant scores. So you didn't have to sink your 16 into Wisdom and
>settle for 12 Con. Not like that in 3e.
that had higher minima and also made "use the minimum if you didn't roll
it" as an official rule and not DM fiat any more.
Justisaur
Jul 11, 2012, 12:48:12 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 10, 5:27 pm, Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
> On the grave of Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> is inscribed:
>
> >On Jul 9, 5:47 pm, Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
> >> On the grave of Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> is inscribed:
> >> >Not sure why you say that. I rather like 1e monks.
>
> On the grave of Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> is inscribed:
>
> >On Jul 9, 5:47 pm, Jim Davies <j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
> >> On the grave of Justisaur <justis...@gmail.com> is inscribed:
> >> >Not sure why you say that. I rather like 1e monks.
>
> >and the class could use some serious tweaking, but it is
> >playable.
>
> I'm annoyed that I lost my 1e monk rewrite, but it included things
> like
> d6 hit dice, inc 2d6 at first level
> AC=10 - level - dex bonus (or maybe a little better)
> Str to-hit bonus restored
I do str and dex bonuses until class bonuses are higher when I'm
> >playable.
>
> I'm annoyed that I lost my 1e monk rewrite, but it included things
> like
> d6 hit dice, inc 2d6 at first level
> AC=10 - level - dex bonus (or maybe a little better)
> Str to-hit bonus restored
houseruling.
> Attack and save as cleric
remember for sure. Errata, OA, or something in The Dragon perhaps.
> and probably a lower xp requirement
>
> which made it at least worth trying, rather than a liability.
even then paired with a druid the speak with animals is awesome (when
I remember it).
> In 1e, you didn't have point buy, and very often the only way to
> qualify for a class (esp paladin) was by DM fiat whereby you'd say "I
> want to play a Monk" and the DM would grant the relevant minima to the
> relevant scores.
general. I think just changing them to 'raise scores to minimum'
works reasonably well if the classes are fairly balanced, which is
what I'm doing in my PBP game. The only ones that really aren't are
the fighter sub-classes, it's easy enough to make fighter better with
say a variation of specialization and then just do that though. It's
not like fighters didn't need some love anyway.
> >The poor monk in DoP suffers from poor con (which does actually help
> >monks) and poor hp rolls, and he is contributing by being the trap
> >monkey. He's also the lowest level of the henchmen so I'm trying to
> >keep him out of trouble until he gets some levels (and hopefully rolls
> >a better number on his next hd).
>
> Waiting...
doing that with. I haven't totally given it up though. :)
- Justisaur
Harold Groot
Jul 11, 2012, 4:02:43 PM7/11/12
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:48:12 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
<just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Attack and save as cleric
>I think there's some "official" source that changed this, but I don't
>remember for sure. Errata, OA, or something in The Dragon perhaps.
The line in the 1E PH Monk section about monks attacking as a thief
<just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Attack and save as cleric
>I think there's some "official" source that changed this, but I don't
>remember for sure. Errata, OA, or something in The Dragon perhaps.
was changed to attacking as a cleric in the errata that was published
in The Dragon. The 1E DMG always (correctly) had them attacking as a
cleric but making saves as a thief. Since the DMG was supposed to take
precendence over the PH anyway, most people played it correctly.
Ubiquitous
Jul 9, 2012, 9:15:00 AM7/9/12
to
In article <jtelfd$rad$1...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net wrote:
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
>On 7/9/2012 9:07 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> que...@infionline.net wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:56:20 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> Regarding 1E they said
>>>
>>>> Likewise, there were options for very high simulation, such as
>>>> weapon speeds and the weapons vs. armor table, but most people didn't
>>>> use them either.)
>>>
>> que...@infionline.net wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:56:20 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> Regarding 1E they said
>>>
>>>> Likewise, there were options for very high simulation, such as
>>>> weapon speeds and the weapons vs. armor table, but most people didn't
>>>> use them either.)
>>>
>>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>>
>> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
>> quite frankly.
>
> Than I guess the several groups I gamed with back in the day
> were stupid. Because we used them both.
My condolences.
>>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>>
>> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
>> quite frankly.
>
> Than I guess the several groups I gamed with back in the day
> were stupid. Because we used them both.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
Keith Davies
Jul 15, 2012, 8:06:31 PM7/15/12
to
I <ia...@glorb.invalid> wrote:
> Ubiquitous wrote:
>> que...@infionline.net wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:56:20 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding 1E they said
>>>
>>>> Likewise, there were options for very high simulation, such as
>>>> weapon speeds and the weapons vs. armor table, but most people didn't
>>>> use them either.)
>>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>>
>> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
>> quite frankly.
>>
>>> When they try to retcon obvious things like that, it makes me wonder
>>> about the veracity of the whole thing.
>>
>> I guess this is their way of admitting 4th edition was a HUGE mistake.
>
> They will never admit 4E was a huge mistake; and the fact that the
> primary architect of 4E (Mike Mearls) is developing 5E does worry me.
>
> Now I don't see it as impossible to create a layered ruleset that
> incorporates the various edition playstyles; it's just that I don't have
> confidence MM can pull that off.
I realized a while ago that Echelon (http://www.echelond20.org/ -- my
> Ubiquitous wrote:
>> que...@infionline.net wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:56:20 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding 1E they said
>>>
>>>> Likewise, there were options for very high simulation, such as
>>>> weapon speeds and the weapons vs. armor table, but most people didn't
>>>> use them either.)
>>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>>
>> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
>> quite frankly.
>>
>>> When they try to retcon obvious things like that, it makes me wonder
>>> about the veracity of the whole thing.
>>
>> I guess this is their way of admitting 4th edition was a HUGE mistake.
>
> They will never admit 4E was a huge mistake; and the fact that the
> primary architect of 4E (Mike Mearls) is developing 5E does worry me.
>
> Now I don't see it as impossible to create a layered ruleset that
> incorporates the various edition playstyles; it's just that I don't have
> confidence MM can pull that off.
fix of D&D, not yet complete) can do a pretty good job of it depending
how you apply it.
First, realize that you have to build a *framework*, rather than an
actual *game*, that can then be configured as needed to make the game
you want.
It's dead easy to emulate D&D 3.x and D&D 4e with Echelon. AD&D and
BECMI are a little harder (those +1/3 and +2/3 BAB progressions are a
bit trickier, have to change modes from the 3.x and 4e behavior) but
doable.
Thing to remember: framework. You're *not* going to end up with
characters you can mix and match between games. Give that one up right
now, because it isn't going to happen.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "chain letter and chain mail...
keith....@kjdavies.org not the same thing, right?"
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org -- Naomi
Echelon: http://www.echelond20.org
Ubiquitous
Jul 29, 2012, 8:05:45 AM7/29/12
to
just...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Jul 8, 5:56�pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=lege...
>
>> Over the last couple of weeks, I've written about why we want to try to unify
>> the editions, and how we're going to pull it off. Here are some more
>> miscellaneous thoughts about the process that are worth discussing as well.
>>
>> Stuff to Leave Behind
>> Although we don't currently see universal consensus on this, it seems likely
>> that there are a handful of things from prior editions that we don't want to
>> bring forward into a new iteration of D&D. Not everything about every version
>> of the game was absolutely golden.
>>
>> For example, it would be difficult to imagine that THAC0 would make a
>> comeback.Armor Class values going down to represent them getting better.
>On Jul 8, 5:56�pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=lege...
>
>> Over the last couple of weeks, I've written about why we want to try to unify
>> the editions, and how we're going to pull it off. Here are some more
>> miscellaneous thoughts about the process that are worth discussing as well.
>>
>> Stuff to Leave Behind
>> Although we don't currently see universal consensus on this, it seems likely
>> that there are a handful of things from prior editions that we don't want to
>> bring forward into a new iteration of D&D. Not everything about every version
>> of the game was absolutely golden.
>>
>> For example, it would be difficult to imagine that THAC0 would make a
>
>Conceptually the 3+ way makes more sense, after re-exploring pre 3e
>the math is significantly easier with the old way. The non-formulaic
>tables for improving attacks with HD make it more difficult though.
I don't think the old THAC0 math was easier than 3E. I recall having a player
>Conceptually the 3+ way makes more sense, after re-exploring pre 3e
>the math is significantly easier with the old way. The non-formulaic
>tables for improving attacks with HD make it more difficult though.
who had no clue about subtraction involving negative numbers.
>> System shock rolls.
>
>It can be useful having a very rarely failed 'save' to put some fear
>or avoidance to certain situations. For instance using wishes or
>haste. Both extremely powerful, but come with the possibility of
>causing death. It makes them feel particularly magic.
ended up ignoring the aging effect, although in theory it was a way to limit
overuse of that spell. OTOH, we have a player who refuses to cast Commune b/c
she doesn't want to pay the XP cost; very frustrating!
>> Racial level limits. Gender-based ability score maximums.
>
>Those I heartily agree with being bad. Gygax even regretted the
>latter.
to track.
>> Further, there's stuff that is kind of on the fence in this regard. What
>> about a system that resembled the weapons versus armor table in 1st Edition?
>> Could we make that work as a part of a simulationist rules module? Maybe.
>> Racial class restrictions? Sure (but why?). Are these good ideas? Bad ideas?
>
>Hard to say. As I use WvA - it does increase the value of certain
>weapons and differentiate them, mostly those more available to wealthy
>adventurers as compared to impoverished goblins, but it can be done
>just as well and easier with the 3e/4e system of crit differentiation,
>bonuses to hit ect, though I find crits far too often in either, and
>niggling little bonuses annoying and anti-simple.
were based on AC value, no the type of armor.
Ubiquitous
Jul 29, 2012, 8:30:55 AM7/29/12
to
In article <3njtc9x...@scrub2.WOOLEY>, sc...@clear.net.nz wrote:
>Justisaur wrote:
>>> System shock rolls.
>>
>> It can be useful having a very rarely failed 'save' to put some fear
>> or avoidance to certain situations. For instance using wishes or
>> haste. Both extremely powerful, but come with the possibility of
>> causing death. It makes them feel particularly magic.
>
> Uh, they both use aging in AD&D, and forced downtime for wishes.
> System Shocks are polymorph, stoning, and dying (or rather, getting
> raised).
Ah, so I wasn't mistaken about Haste.
>Justisaur wrote:
>>> System shock rolls.
>>
>> It can be useful having a very rarely failed 'save' to put some fear
>> or avoidance to certain situations. For instance using wishes or
>> haste. Both extremely powerful, but come with the possibility of
>> causing death. It makes them feel particularly magic.
>
> Uh, they both use aging in AD&D, and forced downtime for wishes.
> System Shocks are polymorph, stoning, and dying (or rather, getting
> raised).
Ubiquitous
Jul 29, 2012, 8:32:35 AM7/29/12
to
just...@gmail.com wrote:
>in the DMG section on aging.
Now I have to go look! *grumble*
>On Jul 10, 5:27�am, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> Justisaur wrote:
>> >> System shock rolls.
>>
>> > It can be useful having a very rarely failed 'save' to put some fear
>> > or avoidance to certain situations. �For instance using wishes or
>> > haste. �Both extremely powerful, but come with the possibility of
>> > causing death. �It makes them feel particularly magic.
>>
>> � Uh, they both use aging in AD&D, and forced downtime for wishes.
>> System Shocks are polymorph, stoning, and dying (or rather, getting
>> raised).
>
>System shock is for anything that causes unnatural aging as well, it's
>> Justisaur wrote:
>> >> System shock rolls.
>>
>> > It can be useful having a very rarely failed 'save' to put some fear
>> > or avoidance to certain situations. �For instance using wishes or
>> > haste. �Both extremely powerful, but come with the possibility of
>> > causing death. �It makes them feel particularly magic.
>>
>> � Uh, they both use aging in AD&D, and forced downtime for wishes.
>> System Shocks are polymorph, stoning, and dying (or rather, getting
>> raised).
>
>in the DMG section on aging.
Now I have to go look! *grumble*
Ubiquitous
Jul 29, 2012, 11:24:05 AM7/29/12
to
In article <jtg738$108$1...@dont-email.me>, sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com
wrote:
>Wanna unite all the editions? Gimme a big monster hardback with the PHB
>for ALL the editions in it.
("like")++
wrote:
>Wanna unite all the editions? Gimme a big monster hardback with the PHB
>for ALL the editions in it.
Ubiquitous
Jul 29, 2012, 12:26:11 PM7/29/12
to
In article <jteptc$6r4$1...@blue-new.rahul.net>, arro...@rahul.net wrote:
>In article <jtelfd$rad$1...@dont-email.me>, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <jtelfd$rad$1...@dont-email.me>, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Gee, somehow I must have missed the bit in 1E that described the
>>>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>>>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>>>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>>>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>>>
>>> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
>>> quite frankly.
>>
>>>> "weapon speeds" and "weapon vs armor" as being OPTIONS. All the
>>>> players I knew back then were under the firm impression that they were
>>>> considered Rules As Written, and that it was the PLAYERS who almost
>>>> unanimously decided to give them the heave-ho.
>>>
>>> I didn't realize there were people stupid enough to use those rules,
>>> quite frankly.
>>
>> Than I guess the several groups I gamed with back in the day were
>> stupid. Because we used them both.
>
>> stupid. Because we used them both.
>
>Back in the day I used weapon speed all the time.
>
>The main problem with "weapon vs. armor" is that it was poorly explained.
>It was supposed to be weapon versus armor type, but it was written as
>weapon versus armor class. If you read closely, you'll notice that they
>only listed armor classes that you might get from nonmagical armor--because
>it was really "weapon versus the type of armor whose base armor class is
>this number"; splint mail is AC 4, so you'd use the AC 4 line for splint
>mail--even if it was +5 splint mail. But nobody understood this.
>
>The main problem with "weapon vs. armor" is that it was poorly explained.
>It was supposed to be weapon versus armor type, but it was written as
>weapon versus armor class. If you read closely, you'll notice that they
>only listed armor classes that you might get from nonmagical armor--because
>it was really "weapon versus the type of armor whose base armor class is
>this number"; splint mail is AC 4, so you'd use the AC 4 line for splint
I understood that's what they were trying to do, but since there were no armor
class categories yet, there was no way to determine the bonsuses if you were
attacking, for example, Asmodius with a -7 AC.
---
Ubiquitous
Jul 29, 2012, 12:38:48 PM7/29/12
to
I liked them but they were incredibly fragile as described. I myself
preferred the version in Dragon (and one of the Best of Dragons),
although they got to be a bit much at high levels.
>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
"MAD"?
>but get little or no benefit from their stats (no Dex to AC, no Str to
>hit, no class bonus from Wisdom) .
They don't? I don't remember that.
>They fight like thieves (ie, badly)
I remember them fighting like clerics.
preferred the version in Dragon (and one of the Best of Dragons),
although they got to be a bit much at high levels.
>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
>but get little or no benefit from their stats (no Dex to AC, no Str to
>hit, no class bonus from Wisdom) .
>They fight like thieves (ie, badly)
Ubiquitous
Jul 29, 2012, 12:46:34 PM7/29/12
to
que...@infionline.net wrote:
>As for monks - I've played monks in all editions through 3.5
>(including the 1E variation presented in Dragon Magazine). The last
>3.5E monk I played was even in a campaign that the DM described as
>being for "high powered" characters. But as I've mentioned before, I'm
>usually doing "pick a theme and run with it" rather than "optimize the
>whole PC to the max".
We've had several player monk chars in our games and encountered NPC ones
>As for monks - I've played monks in all editions through 3.5
>(including the 1E variation presented in Dragon Magazine). The last
>3.5E monk I played was even in a campaign that the DM described as
>being for "high powered" characters. But as I've mentioned before, I'm
>usually doing "pick a theme and run with it" rather than "optimize the
>whole PC to the max".
as well (the DM realized that making them specialize in tripping others
was quite potent).
Keith Davies
Jul 30, 2012, 4:00:11 PM7/30/12
to
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>
>>>Not sure why you say that. I rather like 1e monks.
>
> I liked them but they were incredibly fragile as described. I myself
> preferred the version in Dragon (and one of the Best of Dragons),
> although they got to be a bit much at high levels.
>
>>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
>
> "MAD"?
Multiple Ability Dependent, they need several ability scores to be high
> j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>
>>>Not sure why you say that. I rather like 1e monks.
>
> I liked them but they were incredibly fragile as described. I myself
> preferred the version in Dragon (and one of the Best of Dragons),
> although they got to be a bit much at high levels.
>
>>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
>
> "MAD"?
to gain full effect of their mojo.
Compare Single Ability Dependent (wizards and sorcerers), who really
only need one high ability score.
I honestly would mind MAD in a point-buy scenario if it were just a
shorthand for specialization. A Wis-monk and a Dex-monk might be the
same class, just each gets different amounts of the class mojo.
However, it seems they tried to design the classes to be balanced if
each character had lots of each type of mojo available.
For instance, Paladins want good Strength (expected to tank well), good
Charisma (/lay on hands/ and some other stuff can depend on it... but
they are relatively crap at some of them compared to clerics), Wisdom
(divine spell casting), Constitution (tanking).
They are generally substandard to _Fighters_ in combat (though their
smite can be nice to have around), definitely substandard to Clerics in
casting and channeling.
Years ago I wrote an article here about Dual Ability Dependence you
might be interested in.
It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
possibly with Str as a backup. Spontaneous casting from the Cleric list
as a Cleric half the level (Paladin spell access is almost a proper
subset of Cleric), use Charisma to channel, plus normal access to
Fighter stuff.
Or dump the core Paladin for Fighter/Cleric multiclass, then maybe give
them a prestige class to blend them a little tighter and call it a day.
Jim Davies
Jul 30, 2012, 5:01:56 PM7/30/12
to
On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>possibly with Str as a backup.
And oddly enough, PF paladins use Cha as their casting stat. So they
have very little use for Wisdom any more. It helps quite a bit with
the madness.
>It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>possibly with Str as a backup.
have very little use for Wisdom any more. It helps quite a bit with
the madness.
Nicole Massey
Jul 30, 2012, 5:30:32 PM7/30/12
to
"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:jv5tb7$51f$1...@dont-email.me...
but words got in the way of making that clear.
Nicole Massey
Jul 30, 2012, 5:34:30 PM7/30/12
to
news:jv6db2$6to$2...@dont-email.me...
clerics, while in the PHB it says thieves. They meant clerics, and this was
in the Dragon magazine issue with the eratta.
> j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>
>>>Not sure why you say that. I rather like 1e monks.
>
> I liked them but they were incredibly fragile as described. I myself
> preferred the version in Dragon (and one of the Best of Dragons),
> although they got to be a bit much at high levels.
>
>>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
>
> "MAD"?
>
>>but get little or no benefit from their stats (no Dex to AC, no Str to
>>hit, no class bonus from Wisdom) .
>
> They don't? I don't remember that.
>
>>They fight like thieves (ie, badly)
>
> I remember them fighting like clerics.
Yes, this was covered in the Errata -- in the DMG it says they fight like
>
>>>Not sure why you say that. I rather like 1e monks.
>
> I liked them but they were incredibly fragile as described. I myself
> preferred the version in Dragon (and one of the Best of Dragons),
> although they got to be a bit much at high levels.
>
>>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
>
> "MAD"?
>
>>but get little or no benefit from their stats (no Dex to AC, no Str to
>>hit, no class bonus from Wisdom) .
>
> They don't? I don't remember that.
>
>>They fight like thieves (ie, badly)
>
> I remember them fighting like clerics.
clerics, while in the PHB it says thieves. They meant clerics, and this was
in the Dragon magazine issue with the eratta.
Ubiquitous
Jul 30, 2012, 5:47:01 PM7/30/12
to
In article <jv6ul8$aup$1...@news.albasani.net>, ny...@gypsyheir.com wrote:
>"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
especially if you have to make a SWAG about the armor type of a monster with AC
2?
>"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> just...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>Hard to say. As I use WvA - it does increase the value of certain
>>>weapons and differentiate them, mostly those more available to wealthy
>>>adventurers as compared to impoverished goblins, but it can be done
>>>just as well and easier with the 3e/4e system of crit differentiation,
>>>bonuses to hit ect, though I find crits far too often in either, and
>>>niggling little bonuses annoying and anti-simple.
>>
>> I never found WvA adjustments worth the effort, plus, if memory serves,
>> they were based on AC value, no the type of armor.
>
>Sort of a typo -- they were "supposed" to be based on armor type, not class,
>but words got in the way of making that clear.
I could see the logic behind it, but is it _really_ worth the effort,
>>>Hard to say. As I use WvA - it does increase the value of certain
>>>weapons and differentiate them, mostly those more available to wealthy
>>>adventurers as compared to impoverished goblins, but it can be done
>>>just as well and easier with the 3e/4e system of crit differentiation,
>>>bonuses to hit ect, though I find crits far too often in either, and
>>>niggling little bonuses annoying and anti-simple.
>>
>> I never found WvA adjustments worth the effort, plus, if memory serves,
>> they were based on AC value, no the type of armor.
>
>Sort of a typo -- they were "supposed" to be based on armor type, not class,
>but words got in the way of making that clear.
especially if you have to make a SWAG about the armor type of a monster with AC
2?
Ubiquitous
Jul 30, 2012, 5:50:49 PM7/30/12
to
keith....@kjdavies.org wrote:
>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>>>Not sure why you say that. I rather like 1e monks.
>>
>> I liked them but they were incredibly fragile as described. I myself
>> preferred the version in Dragon (and one of the Best of Dragons),
>> although they got to be a bit much at high levels.
>>
>>>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
>>
>> "MAD"?
>
>Multiple Ability Dependent, they need several ability scores to be high
>to gain full effect of their mojo.
Ah, thanks!
>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>>>Not sure why you say that. I rather like 1e monks.
>>
>> I liked them but they were incredibly fragile as described. I myself
>> preferred the version in Dragon (and one of the Best of Dragons),
>> although they got to be a bit much at high levels.
>>
>>>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
>>
>> "MAD"?
>
>Multiple Ability Dependent, they need several ability scores to be high
>to gain full effect of their mojo.
>Compare Single Ability Dependent (wizards and sorcerers), who really
>only need one high ability score.
>
>I honestly would mind MAD in a point-buy scenario if it were just a
>shorthand for specialization. A Wis-monk and a Dex-monk might be the
>same class, just each gets different amounts of the class mojo.
>However, it seems they tried to design the classes to be balanced if
>each character had lots of each type of mojo available.
>
>For instance, Paladins want good Strength (expected to tank well), good
>Charisma (/lay on hands/ and some other stuff can depend on it... but
>they are relatively crap at some of them compared to clerics), Wisdom
>(divine spell casting), Constitution (tanking).
>
>They are generally substandard to _Fighters_ in combat (though their
>smite can be nice to have around), definitely substandard to Clerics in
>casting and channeling.
>
>Years ago I wrote an article here about Dual Ability Dependence you
>might be interested in.
>It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>possibly with Str as a backup. Spontaneous casting from the Cleric
>list as a Cleric half the level (Paladin spell access is almost a
>proper subset of Cleric), use Charisma to channel, plus normal access
>to Fighter stuff.
>
>Or dump the core Paladin for Fighter/Cleric multiclass, then maybe give
>them a prestige class to blend them a little tighter and call it a day.
class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
I found intriguing.
Ubiquitous
Jul 30, 2012, 5:53:19 PM7/30/12
to
j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>>It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>possibly with Str as a backup.
>
>And oddly enough, PF paladins use Cha as their casting stat. So they
>have very little use for Wisdom any more. It helps quite a bit with
>the madness.
I like that! I wonder if there's a feat I could use to implement it?
>On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>>It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>possibly with Str as a backup.
>
>And oddly enough, PF paladins use Cha as their casting stat. So they
>have very little use for Wisdom any more. It helps quite a bit with
>the madness.
Ubiquitous
Jul 30, 2012, 5:54:38 PM7/30/12
to
In article <jv6usm$bce$1...@news.albasani.net>, ny...@gypsyheir.com wrote:
>"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>>They fight like thieves (ie, badly)
>>
>> I remember them fighting like clerics.
>
>Yes, this was covered in the Errata -- in the DMG it says they fight
>like clerics, while in the PHB it says thieves. They meant clerics,
>and this was in the Dragon magazine issue with the eratta.
I don't remember the eratta but I do rememeber it in the DMG.
>>
>> I remember them fighting like clerics.
>
>Yes, this was covered in the Errata -- in the DMG it says they fight
>like clerics, while in the PHB it says thieves. They meant clerics,
>and this was in the Dragon magazine issue with the eratta.
Tetsubo
Jul 30, 2012, 5:59:26 PM7/30/12
to
On 7/30/2012 5:01 PM, Jim Davies wrote:
> On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>
>> It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>> possibly with Str as a backup.
>
> And oddly enough, PF paladins use Cha as their casting stat. So they
> have very little use for Wisdom any more. It helps quite a bit with
> the madness.
Which is why PF is the first system I would consider playing a Paladin in.
> On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>
>> It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>> possibly with Str as a backup.
>
> And oddly enough, PF paladins use Cha as their casting stat. So they
> have very little use for Wisdom any more. It helps quite a bit with
> the madness.
>
> --
> Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
>
> D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
>
> There is no God. But there is pudding!
>
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Nicole Massey
Jul 30, 2012, 5:56:30 PM7/30/12
to
news:jv6vcv$ss$2...@dont-email.me...
It makes a huge difference in some cases. Chain sucks against mass weapons,
and this isn't well represented unless you use these rules. That said, it
was never fully realized, and only worked when fighting armored opponents. I
guess someone could run through the various monster books and figure out
basic armor types for the different critters, but that's a lot of work for
the least used component of the game. (That said, if anyone wants to do it
I'll publish it in &)
and this isn't well represented unless you use these rules. That said, it
was never fully realized, and only worked when fighting armored opponents. I
guess someone could run through the various monster books and figure out
basic armor types for the different critters, but that's a lot of work for
the least used component of the game. (That said, if anyone wants to do it
I'll publish it in &)
Keith Davies
Jul 30, 2012, 6:30:25 PM7/30/12
to
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
_Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
> keith....@kjdavies.org wrote:
>
>>It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>possibly with Str as a backup. Spontaneous casting from the Cleric
>>list as a Cleric half the level (Paladin spell access is almost a
>>proper subset of Cleric), use Charisma to channel, plus normal access
>>to Fighter stuff.
>>
>>Or dump the core Paladin for Fighter/Cleric multiclass, then maybe give
>>them a prestige class to blend them a little tighter and call it a day.
>
> I recall the Unearthed Arcana had an interesting option for prestigue
> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
> I found intriguing.
As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>
>>It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>possibly with Str as a backup. Spontaneous casting from the Cleric
>>list as a Cleric half the level (Paladin spell access is almost a
>>proper subset of Cleric), use Charisma to channel, plus normal access
>>to Fighter stuff.
>>
>>Or dump the core Paladin for Fighter/Cleric multiclass, then maybe give
>>them a prestige class to blend them a little tighter and call it a day.
>
> I recall the Unearthed Arcana had an interesting option for prestigue
> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
> I found intriguing.
certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
_Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
Tetsubo
Jul 30, 2012, 6:42:19 PM7/30/12
to
On 7/30/2012 6:30 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> keith....@kjdavies.org wrote:
>>
>>> It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>> possibly with Str as a backup. Spontaneous casting from the Cleric
>>> list as a Cleric half the level (Paladin spell access is almost a
>>> proper subset of Cleric), use Charisma to channel, plus normal access
>>> to Fighter stuff.
>>>
>>> Or dump the core Paladin for Fighter/Cleric multiclass, then maybe give
>>> them a prestige class to blend them a little tighter and call it a day.
>>
>> I recall the Unearthed Arcana had an interesting option for prestigue
>> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
>> I found intriguing.
>
> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>
> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>
>
> Keith
>
I prefer the PF concept of a core class with an archetype attached. I
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> keith....@kjdavies.org wrote:
>>
>>> It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>> possibly with Str as a backup. Spontaneous casting from the Cleric
>>> list as a Cleric half the level (Paladin spell access is almost a
>>> proper subset of Cleric), use Charisma to channel, plus normal access
>>> to Fighter stuff.
>>>
>>> Or dump the core Paladin for Fighter/Cleric multiclass, then maybe give
>>> them a prestige class to blend them a little tighter and call it a day.
>>
>> I recall the Unearthed Arcana had an interesting option for prestigue
>> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
>> I found intriguing.
>
> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>
> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>
>
> Keith
>
have grown less enamored with PRCs. I feel it dilutes the overall class.
I also thinks it encourages the 'dipping' culture. Which just makes
things a complicated mess. Core with a theme is far better to my mind.
David Lamb
Jul 30, 2012, 7:27:56 PM7/30/12
to
On 30/07/2012 4:00 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
> It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
> possibly with Str as a backup. Spontaneous casting from the Cleric list
> as a Cleric half the level (Paladin spell access is almost a proper
> subset of Cleric), use Charisma to channel, plus normal access to
> Fighter stuff.
I'd probably go with something similar, but allowing substitution of Cha
> It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
> possibly with Str as a backup. Spontaneous casting from the Cleric list
> as a Cleric half the level (Paladin spell access is almost a proper
> subset of Cleric), use Charisma to channel, plus normal access to
> Fighter stuff.
for Con to represent divine favour (since HP are supposed to be a mix of
toughness, luck, and anything else people can think of to make one Hard
To Kill). So they'd just be Cha/Str, mostly Cha.
Ubiquitous
Jul 30, 2012, 8:49:50 PM7/30/12
to
In article <jv72ka$6ii$2...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net wrote:
>On 7/30/2012 6:30 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> keith....@kjdavies.org wrote:
>>>> It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>>> possibly with Str as a backup. Spontaneous casting from the Cleric
>>>> list as a Cleric half the level (Paladin spell access is almost a
>>>> proper subset of Cleric), use Charisma to channel, plus normal access
>>>> to Fighter stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Or dump the core Paladin for Fighter/Cleric multiclass, then maybe give
>>>> them a prestige class to blend them a little tighter and call it a day.
>>>
>>> I recall the Unearthed Arcana had an interesting option for prestigue
>>> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
>>> I found intriguing.
>>
>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>
>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>
>On 7/30/2012 6:30 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> keith....@kjdavies.org wrote:
>>>> It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>>> possibly with Str as a backup. Spontaneous casting from the Cleric
>>>> list as a Cleric half the level (Paladin spell access is almost a
>>>> proper subset of Cleric), use Charisma to channel, plus normal access
>>>> to Fighter stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Or dump the core Paladin for Fighter/Cleric multiclass, then maybe give
>>>> them a prestige class to blend them a little tighter and call it a day.
>>>
>>> I recall the Unearthed Arcana had an interesting option for prestigue
>>> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
>>> I found intriguing.
>>
>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>
>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>
> I prefer the PF concept of a core class with an archetype attached. I
> have grown less enamored with PRCs. I feel it dilutes the overall class.
> I also thinks it encourages the 'dipping' culture. Which just makes
> things a complicated mess. Core with a theme is far better to my mind.
Is this a new development in PF? I don't recall that in my basic rulebook.
> have grown less enamored with PRCs. I feel it dilutes the overall class.
> I also thinks it encourages the 'dipping' culture. Which just makes
> things a complicated mess. Core with a theme is far better to my mind.
Nicole Massey
Jul 30, 2012, 11:29:19 PM7/30/12
to
news:jv7a3o$sk7$1...@dont-email.me...
I wish they hadn't recycled so many book names. When Unearthed Arcana was
first mentioned I was scratching my head trying to remember of what y'all
speak until I realized it was a 3x thing instead of the 1x book.
first mentioned I was scratching my head trying to remember of what y'all
speak until I realized it was a 3x thing instead of the 1x book.
Grant Anderson
Jul 31, 2012, 2:17:24 AM7/31/12
to
>> I recall the Unearthed Arcana had an interesting option for prestigue
>> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
>> I found intriguing.
>
> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>
> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
BECMI had prestige classes for druid, paladin and avenger (and knight,
>> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
>> I found intriguing.
>
> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>
> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
although they didn't get as many toys as paladins and avengers).
--
Grant
Ubiquitous
Jul 31, 2012, 4:31:00 AM7/31/12
to
In article <jv7jlv$ndv$1...@news.albasani.net>, ny...@gypsyheir.com wrote:
>"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
Tetsubo
Jul 31, 2012, 7:33:04 AM7/31/12
to
has been done in every rule book published for PF since. If you haven't
looked at the APG, I highly recommend it. Heck, I recommend all of the
PF Advanced and Ultimate books.
Justisaur
Jul 31, 2012, 11:51:07 AM7/31/12
to
- Justisaur
El Rico D
Jul 31, 2012, 12:57:08 PM7/31/12
to
On Jul 30, 1:00 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> > j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>
> >>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
>
> > "MAD"?
>
> Multiple Ability Dependent, they need several ability scores to be high
> to gain full effect of their mojo.
>
> Compare Single Ability Dependent (wizards and sorcerers), who really
> only need one high ability score.
By comparison, in 4e Essentials that has mostly been done away with.
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> > j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>
> >>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
>
> > "MAD"?
>
> Multiple Ability Dependent, they need several ability scores to be high
> to gain full effect of their mojo.
>
> Compare Single Ability Dependent (wizards and sorcerers), who really
> only need one high ability score.
Attack rolls and damage rolls use your highest attribute, whatever it
might be. Wizards attack with their Int mod, Warlocks with their
Charisma, et cetera; and add the same to damage rolls.
Jim Davies
Jul 31, 2012, 2:57:13 PM7/31/12
to
On the grave of Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> is inscribed:
>On 7/30/2012 8:49 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> In article <jv72ka$6ii$2...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> I prefer the PF concept of a core class with an archetype attached.
others are way too good.
I like most of the APG, with the exception of the Summoner which looks
an unbalanced mess. I've not tried the Ultimate books, not least
because of the inevitable splatbook inflation they seem to bring.
Casters have benefited most out of them.
If nothing else, you should have the (official) PRD and (unofficial)
PFSRD bookmarked:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/home
>On 7/30/2012 8:49 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> In article <jv72ka$6ii$2...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> I prefer the PF concept of a core class with an archetype attached.
>> Is this a new development in PF? I don't recall that in my basic rulebook.
>>
>
> I believe it was first introduced in the Advanced Players Guide. But it
>has been done in every rule book published for PF since. If you haven't
>looked at the APG, I highly recommend it. Heck, I recommend all of the
>PF Advanced and Ultimate books.
I like archetypes too, though some of them seem a bit useless and
>>
>
> I believe it was first introduced in the Advanced Players Guide. But it
>has been done in every rule book published for PF since. If you haven't
>looked at the APG, I highly recommend it. Heck, I recommend all of the
>PF Advanced and Ultimate books.
others are way too good.
I like most of the APG, with the exception of the Summoner which looks
an unbalanced mess. I've not tried the Ultimate books, not least
because of the inevitable splatbook inflation they seem to bring.
Casters have benefited most out of them.
If nothing else, you should have the (official) PRD and (unofficial)
PFSRD bookmarked:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/home
Keith Davies
Jul 31, 2012, 2:57:32 PM7/31/12
to
Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>
>>>>Not sure why you say that. I rather like 1e monks.
>>
>> I liked them but they were incredibly fragile as described. I myself
>> preferred the version in Dragon (and one of the Best of Dragons),
>> although they got to be a bit much at high levels.
>>
>>>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
>>
>> "MAD"?
>
> Multiple Ability Dependent, they need several ability scores to be high
> to gain full effect of their mojo.
>
> Compare Single Ability Dependent (wizards and sorcerers), who really
> only need one high ability score.
>
> I honestly would mind MAD in a point-buy scenario if it were just a
wouldn't *
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>
>>>>Not sure why you say that. I rather like 1e monks.
>>
>> I liked them but they were incredibly fragile as described. I myself
>> preferred the version in Dragon (and one of the Best of Dragons),
>> although they got to be a bit much at high levels.
>>
>>>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
>>
>> "MAD"?
>
> Multiple Ability Dependent, they need several ability scores to be high
> to gain full effect of their mojo.
>
> Compare Single Ability Dependent (wizards and sorcerers), who really
> only need one high ability score.
>
> I honestly would mind MAD in a point-buy scenario if it were just a
> shorthand for specialization. A Wis-monk and a Dex-monk might be the
> same class, just each gets different amounts of the class mojo.
> However, it seems they tried to design the classes to be balanced if
> each character had lots of each type of mojo available.
Keith Davies
Jul 31, 2012, 2:58:42 PM7/31/12
to
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>
>>>It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>>possibly with Str as a backup.
>>
>>And oddly enough, PF paladins use Cha as their casting stat. So they
>>have very little use for Wisdom any more. It helps quite a bit with
>>the madness.
>
> I like that! I wonder if there's a feat I could use to implement it?
It's called "change the rule".
> j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>
>>>It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>>possibly with Str as a backup.
>>
>>And oddly enough, PF paladins use Cha as their casting stat. So they
>>have very little use for Wisdom any more. It helps quite a bit with
>>the madness.
>
> I like that! I wonder if there's a feat I could use to implement it?
As strange as it might sound coming from me, not everything needs to be
a feat, especially when it's a fundamental change like this.
Keith Davies
Jul 31, 2012, 3:02:21 PM7/31/12
to
Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 7/30/2012 6:30 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>
>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>
> On 7/30/2012 6:30 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>
>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>
> I prefer the PF concept of a core class with an archetype attached. I
> have grown less enamored with PRCs. I feel it dilutes the overall class.
> I also thinks it encourages the 'dipping' culture. Which just makes
> things a complicated mess. Core with a theme is far better to my mind.
I ditched classes entirely for Echelon, in part because of this.
> have grown less enamored with PRCs. I feel it dilutes the overall class.
> I also thinks it encourages the 'dipping' culture. Which just makes
> things a complicated mess. Core with a theme is far better to my mind.
Character construction meant that class levels were building blocks
rather than character concepts. Some versions of D&D instead work with
classes as character concepts that can be modified (4e, Adventurer
Conqueror King and most other OSR versions, but not all -- the original
versions didn't really offer much by way of customization mechanically).
I decided to bail on that and provide a different model of building
blocks.
Tetsubo
Jul 31, 2012, 3:55:27 PM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 3:02 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
> Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 6:30 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
>>>
>>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>>
>>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>>
>> I prefer the PF concept of a core class with an archetype attached. I
>> have grown less enamored with PRCs. I feel it dilutes the overall class.
>> I also thinks it encourages the 'dipping' culture. Which just makes
>> things a complicated mess. Core with a theme is far better to my mind.
>
> I ditched classes entirely for Echelon, in part because of this.
> Character construction meant that class levels were building blocks
> rather than character concepts. Some versions of D&D instead work with
> classes as character concepts that can be modified (4e, Adventurer
> Conqueror King and most other OSR versions, but not all -- the original
> versions didn't really offer much by way of customization mechanically).
> I decided to bail on that and provide a different model of building
> blocks.
>
>
> Keith
>
I apologize, but I haven't kept up with the development of Echelon as I
> Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7/30/2012 6:30 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
>>>
>>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>>
>>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>>
>> I prefer the PF concept of a core class with an archetype attached. I
>> have grown less enamored with PRCs. I feel it dilutes the overall class.
>> I also thinks it encourages the 'dipping' culture. Which just makes
>> things a complicated mess. Core with a theme is far better to my mind.
>
> I ditched classes entirely for Echelon, in part because of this.
> Character construction meant that class levels were building blocks
> rather than character concepts. Some versions of D&D instead work with
> classes as character concepts that can be modified (4e, Adventurer
> Conqueror King and most other OSR versions, but not all -- the original
> versions didn't really offer much by way of customization mechanically).
> I decided to bail on that and provide a different model of building
> blocks.
>
>
> Keith
>
should have. Have you got it to a point where it could be released as a
'complete' document? Thanks.
Keith Davies
Jul 31, 2012, 4:32:22 PM7/31/12
to
Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 7/31/2012 3:02 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
>> Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2012 6:30 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>>>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>>>
>>>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>>>
>>> I prefer the PF concept of a core class with an archetype attached. I
>>> have grown less enamored with PRCs. I feel it dilutes the overall class.
>>> I also thinks it encourages the 'dipping' culture. Which just makes
>>> things a complicated mess. Core with a theme is far better to my mind.
>>
>> I ditched classes entirely for Echelon, in part because of this.
>> Character construction meant that class levels were building blocks
>> rather than character concepts. Some versions of D&D instead work with
>> classes as character concepts that can be modified (4e, Adventurer
>> Conqueror King and most other OSR versions, but not all -- the original
>> versions didn't really offer much by way of customization mechanically).
>> I decided to bail on that and provide a different model of building
>> blocks.
>
> On 7/31/2012 3:02 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
>> Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 7/30/2012 6:30 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>>>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>>>
>>>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>>>
>>> I prefer the PF concept of a core class with an archetype attached. I
>>> have grown less enamored with PRCs. I feel it dilutes the overall class.
>>> I also thinks it encourages the 'dipping' culture. Which just makes
>>> things a complicated mess. Core with a theme is far better to my mind.
>>
>> I ditched classes entirely for Echelon, in part because of this.
>> Character construction meant that class levels were building blocks
>> rather than character concepts. Some versions of D&D instead work with
>> classes as character concepts that can be modified (4e, Adventurer
>> Conqueror King and most other OSR versions, but not all -- the original
>> versions didn't really offer much by way of customization mechanically).
>> I decided to bail on that and provide a different model of building
>> blocks.
>
> I apologize, but I haven't kept up with the development of Echelon as I
> should have. Have you got it to a point where it could be released as a
> 'complete' document? Thanks.
Nope!
> should have. Have you got it to a point where it could be released as a
> 'complete' document? Thanks.
Tetsubo
Jul 31, 2012, 5:12:45 PM7/31/12
to
On 7/31/2012 4:32 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
> Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7/31/2012 3:02 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
>>> Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/2012 6:30 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>>>>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>>>>
>>>>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer the PF concept of a core class with an archetype attached. I
>>>> have grown less enamored with PRCs. I feel it dilutes the overall class.
>>>> I also thinks it encourages the 'dipping' culture. Which just makes
>>>> things a complicated mess. Core with a theme is far better to my mind.
>>>
>>> I ditched classes entirely for Echelon, in part because of this.
>>> Character construction meant that class levels were building blocks
>>> rather than character concepts. Some versions of D&D instead work with
>>> classes as character concepts that can be modified (4e, Adventurer
>>> Conqueror King and most other OSR versions, but not all -- the original
>>> versions didn't really offer much by way of customization mechanically).
>>> I decided to bail on that and provide a different model of building
>>> blocks.
>>
>> I apologize, but I haven't kept up with the development of Echelon as I
>> should have. Have you got it to a point where it could be released as a
>> 'complete' document? Thanks.
>
> Nope!
Well, get hopping man! What do you think you have, a life?
> Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7/31/2012 3:02 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
>>> Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/2012 6:30 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>>>>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>>>>
>>>>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer the PF concept of a core class with an archetype attached. I
>>>> have grown less enamored with PRCs. I feel it dilutes the overall class.
>>>> I also thinks it encourages the 'dipping' culture. Which just makes
>>>> things a complicated mess. Core with a theme is far better to my mind.
>>>
>>> I ditched classes entirely for Echelon, in part because of this.
>>> Character construction meant that class levels were building blocks
>>> rather than character concepts. Some versions of D&D instead work with
>>> classes as character concepts that can be modified (4e, Adventurer
>>> Conqueror King and most other OSR versions, but not all -- the original
>>> versions didn't really offer much by way of customization mechanically).
>>> I decided to bail on that and provide a different model of building
>>> blocks.
>>
>> I apologize, but I haven't kept up with the development of Echelon as I
>> should have. Have you got it to a point where it could be released as a
>> 'complete' document? Thanks.
>
> Nope!
>
>
> Keith
Nicole Massey
Jul 31, 2012, 6:07:19 PM7/31/12
to
"Justisaur" <just...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a94f3488-64de-4d69...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
too, like this:
Armor Class: 2 (splint)
Ubiquitous
Jul 31, 2012, 8:50:28 PM7/31/12
to
keith....@kjdavies.org wrote:
>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>>On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>>>>It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>>>possibly with Str as a backup.
>>>
>>>And oddly enough, PF paladins use Cha as their casting stat. So they
>>>have very little use for Wisdom any more. It helps quite a bit with
>>>the madness.
>>
>> I like that! I wonder if there's a feat I could use to implement it?
>
>It's called "change the rule".
>
>As strange as it might sound coming from me, not everything needs to be
>a feat, especially when it's a fundamental change like this.
But I don't want to change the rule, just make an option.
>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>>On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>>>>It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>>>possibly with Str as a backup.
>>>
>>>And oddly enough, PF paladins use Cha as their casting stat. So they
>>>have very little use for Wisdom any more. It helps quite a bit with
>>>the madness.
>>
>> I like that! I wonder if there's a feat I could use to implement it?
>
>It's called "change the rule".
>
>As strange as it might sound coming from me, not everything needs to be
>a feat, especially when it's a fundamental change like this.
Ubiquitous
Jul 31, 2012, 8:53:05 PM7/31/12
to
Ubiquitous
Jul 31, 2012, 8:54:56 PM7/31/12
to
Ubiquitous
Jul 31, 2012, 8:59:48 PM7/31/12
to
In article <jv9l69$bed$1...@news.albasani.net>, ny...@gypsyheir.com wrote:
>I've read a thread of someone working on that over on DF.
everything in the monster books equates to...
>"Justisaur" <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 30, 2:30 pm, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
>On Jul 30, 2:30 pm, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
>It wouldn't be all that hard, just time consuming. It'd be easy to notate,
>too, like this:
>
>Armor Class: 2 (splint)
Like I said, you're going to spend a lot of time making SWAGs about what armor type
>too, like this:
>
>Armor Class: 2 (splint)
everything in the monster books equates to...
Keith Davies
Jul 31, 2012, 10:28:46 PM7/31/12
to
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> keith....@kjdavies.org wrote:
>>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>>>On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>
>>>>>It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>>>>possibly with Str as a backup.
>>>>
>>>>And oddly enough, PF paladins use Cha as their casting stat. So they
>>>>have very little use for Wisdom any more. It helps quite a bit with
>>>>the madness.
>>>
>>> I like that! I wonder if there's a feat I could use to implement it?
>>
>>It's called "change the rule".
>>
>>As strange as it might sound coming from me, not everything needs to be
>>a feat, especially when it's a fundamental change like this.
>
> But I don't want to change the rule, just make an option.
So allow it as an option and let it go. Anything that makes obvious
> keith....@kjdavies.org wrote:
>>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>>>On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>
>>>>>It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>>>>possibly with Str as a backup.
>>>>
>>>>And oddly enough, PF paladins use Cha as their casting stat. So they
>>>>have very little use for Wisdom any more. It helps quite a bit with
>>>>the madness.
>>>
>>> I like that! I wonder if there's a feat I could use to implement it?
>>
>>It's called "change the rule".
>>
>>As strange as it might sound coming from me, not everything needs to be
>>a feat, especially when it's a fundamental change like this.
>
> But I don't want to change the rule, just make an option.
sense to take and becomes a must-have either is too powerful (this
isn't) or amounts to a feat tax.
Keith Davies
Jul 31, 2012, 10:29:12 PM7/31/12
to
Keith Davies
Jul 31, 2012, 10:30:09 PM7/31/12
to
same damage" regardless of class.
David Lamb
Jul 31, 2012, 10:54:41 PM7/31/12
to
On 31/07/2012 10:30 PM, Keith Davies wrote:
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> elr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> By comparison, in 4e Essentials that has mostly been done away with.
>>> Attack rolls and damage rolls use your highest attribute, whatever it
>>> might be. Wizards attack with their Int mod, Warlocks with their
>>> Charisma, et cetera; and add the same to damage rolls.
>>
>> Unless I am missing something, that sounds incredibly stupid.
>
> It amounts to "everyone hits about the same frequency, for about the
> same damage" regardless of class.
I repeat Ubi's observation.
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> elr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> By comparison, in 4e Essentials that has mostly been done away with.
>>> Attack rolls and damage rolls use your highest attribute, whatever it
>>> might be. Wizards attack with their Int mod, Warlocks with their
>>> Charisma, et cetera; and add the same to damage rolls.
>>
>> Unless I am missing something, that sounds incredibly stupid.
>
> It amounts to "everyone hits about the same frequency, for about the
> same damage" regardless of class.
Ubiquitous
Jul 31, 2012, 11:09:41 PM7/31/12
to
keith....@kjdavies.org wrote:
>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> In article <jv7t9m$jv9$1...@dont-email.me>, gpsan...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>On 31/07/2012 10:30 a.m., Keith Davies wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>> I recall the Unearthed Arcana had an interesting option for prestigue
>>>>> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
>>>>> I found intriguing.
>>>>
>>>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>>>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>>>
>>>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>>>
>>>BECMI had prestige classes for druid, paladin and avenger (and knight,
>>>although they didn't get as many toys as paladins and avengers).
>>
>> BECMI?
>
>Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal. Mentzer D&D.
The boxed sets? They introduced the concept of prestge classes?
>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> In article <jv7t9m$jv9$1...@dont-email.me>, gpsan...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>On 31/07/2012 10:30 a.m., Keith Davies wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>> I recall the Unearthed Arcana had an interesting option for prestigue
>>>>> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
>>>>> I found intriguing.
>>>>
>>>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>>>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>>>
>>>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>>>
>>>BECMI had prestige classes for druid, paladin and avenger (and knight,
>>>although they didn't get as many toys as paladins and avengers).
>>
>> BECMI?
>
>Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal. Mentzer D&D.
Ubiquitous
Jul 31, 2012, 11:10:43 PM7/31/12
to
keith....@kjdavies.org wrote:
>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> elr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>On Jul 30, 1:00?pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> > j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>>> >>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
>>>>
>>>> > "MAD"?
>>>>
>>>> Multiple Ability Dependent, they need several ability scores to be high
>>>> to gain full effect of their mojo.
>>>>
>>>> Compare Single Ability Dependent (wizards and sorcerers), who really
>>>> only need one high ability score.
>>>
>>>By comparison, in 4e Essentials that has mostly been done away with.
>>>Attack rolls and damage rolls use your highest attribute, whatever it
>>>might be. Wizards attack with their Int mod, Warlocks with their
>>>Charisma, et cetera; and add the same to damage rolls.
>>
>> Unless I am missing something, that sounds incredibly stupid.
>
>It amounts to "everyone hits about the same frequency, for about the
>same damage" regardless of class.
Thanks for the confirmation?
>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> elr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>On Jul 30, 1:00?pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> > j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>>>> >>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
>>>>
>>>> > "MAD"?
>>>>
>>>> Multiple Ability Dependent, they need several ability scores to be high
>>>> to gain full effect of their mojo.
>>>>
>>>> Compare Single Ability Dependent (wizards and sorcerers), who really
>>>> only need one high ability score.
>>>
>>>By comparison, in 4e Essentials that has mostly been done away with.
>>>Attack rolls and damage rolls use your highest attribute, whatever it
>>>might be. Wizards attack with their Int mod, Warlocks with their
>>>Charisma, et cetera; and add the same to damage rolls.
>>
>> Unless I am missing something, that sounds incredibly stupid.
>
>It amounts to "everyone hits about the same frequency, for about the
>same damage" regardless of class.
Justisaur
Jul 31, 2012, 11:35:24 PM7/31/12
to
On Jul 31, 8:09 pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
red) and Rules Compendium...
They introduced an awful lot more than just prestige classes, I was
rather surprised when I started looking Rules Compendium, as I'd never
played anything beyond Red Box, and that probably only one game.
It looked like 3e took an awful lot from BECMI, Prestige Classes
(Paladin, Druid, Mystic, among others), Feats (at least for Fighters
in the form of Weapon Mastery choices of things similar to cleave and
power attack), Simple Ability Score Bonuses, although it's been well
over a year since I've really looked at it so I could be mis-
remembering some of it.
It's also the most commercially successful version of D&D, although
exact numbers for 3e aren't available, so can't say for sure 3e didn't
sell more.
- Justisaur
> >> In article <jv7t9m$jv...@dont-email.me>, gpsander...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>On 31/07/2012 10:30 a.m., Keith Davies wrote:
> >>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>>>> I recall the Unearthed Arcana had an interesting option for prestigue
> >>>>> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
> >>>>> I found intriguing.
>
> >>>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
> >>>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>
> >>>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>
> >>>BECMI had prestige classes for druid, paladin and avenger (and knight,
> >>>although they didn't get as many toys as paladins and avengers).
>
> >> BECMI?
>
> >Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal. Mentzer D&D.
>
> The boxed sets? They introduced the concept of prestge classes?
Yes, also known as "Red Box" basic (although the other ones weren't
> >>>On 31/07/2012 10:30 a.m., Keith Davies wrote:
> >>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>>>> I recall the Unearthed Arcana had an interesting option for prestigue
> >>>>> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
> >>>>> I found intriguing.
>
> >>>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
> >>>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>
> >>>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>
> >>>BECMI had prestige classes for druid, paladin and avenger (and knight,
> >>>although they didn't get as many toys as paladins and avengers).
>
> >> BECMI?
>
> >Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal. Mentzer D&D.
>
> The boxed sets? They introduced the concept of prestge classes?
red) and Rules Compendium...
They introduced an awful lot more than just prestige classes, I was
rather surprised when I started looking Rules Compendium, as I'd never
played anything beyond Red Box, and that probably only one game.
It looked like 3e took an awful lot from BECMI, Prestige Classes
(Paladin, Druid, Mystic, among others), Feats (at least for Fighters
in the form of Weapon Mastery choices of things similar to cleave and
power attack), Simple Ability Score Bonuses, although it's been well
over a year since I've really looked at it so I could be mis-
remembering some of it.
It's also the most commercially successful version of D&D, although
exact numbers for 3e aren't available, so can't say for sure 3e didn't
sell more.
- Justisaur
Grant Anderson
Aug 1, 2012, 12:19:07 AM8/1/12
to
gold boxes respectively.)
--
Grant
Nicole Massey
Aug 1, 2012, 12:51:07 AM8/1/12
to
news:jv9up0$pf0$3...@dont-email.me...
I agree. Let's buff non-fighter classes even more by making them hit with
things they're good at instead of something they are weak at specifically to
keep them balanced. Another reason fourth edition sounds broken to me.
things they're good at instead of something they are weak at specifically to
keep them balanced. Another reason fourth edition sounds broken to me.
Nicole Massey
Aug 1, 2012, 12:53:24 AM8/1/12
to
news:jv9v24$pf0$4...@dont-email.me...
Yeah, but that only needs to be done once, and much of it is self evident.
Different armors have different physical characteristics, resulting in
analogues to the outsides of different monsters.
Different armors have different physical characteristics, resulting in
analogues to the outsides of different monsters.
Ubiquitous
Jul 31, 2012, 11:36:00 PM7/31/12
to
just...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Jul 31, 8:09�pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> keith.dav...@kjdavies.org wrote:
>>>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>On Jul 31, 8:09�pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> keith.dav...@kjdavies.org wrote:
>>>Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> gpsander...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>BECMI had prestige classes for druid, paladin and avenger (and knight,
>>>>>although they didn't get as many toys as paladins and avengers).
>>
>>>> BECMI?
>>
>>>Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal. �Mentzer D&D.
>>
>> The boxed sets? They introduced the concept of prestge classes?
>
>Yes, also known as "Red Box" basic (although the other ones weren't
>red) and Rules Compendium...
>
>They introduced an awful lot more than just prestige classes, I was
>rather surprised when I started looking Rules Compendium, as I'd never
>played anything beyond Red Box, and that probably only one game.
>
>It looked like 3e took an awful lot from BECMI, Prestige Classes
>(Paladin, Druid, Mystic, among others), Feats (at least for Fighters
>in the form of Weapon Mastery choices of things similar to cleave and
>power attack), Simple Ability Score Bonuses, although it's been well
>over a year since I've really looked at it so I could be mis-
>remembering some of it.
We played the original boxed rules, then the red and blue(?) ones before
>>>>>BECMI had prestige classes for druid, paladin and avenger (and knight,
>>>>>although they didn't get as many toys as paladins and avengers).
>>
>>>> BECMI?
>>
>>>Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal. �Mentzer D&D.
>>
>> The boxed sets? They introduced the concept of prestge classes?
>
>Yes, also known as "Red Box" basic (although the other ones weren't
>red) and Rules Compendium...
>
>They introduced an awful lot more than just prestige classes, I was
>rather surprised when I started looking Rules Compendium, as I'd never
>played anything beyond Red Box, and that probably only one game.
>
>It looked like 3e took an awful lot from BECMI, Prestige Classes
>(Paladin, Druid, Mystic, among others), Feats (at least for Fighters
>in the form of Weapon Mastery choices of things similar to cleave and
>power attack), Simple Ability Score Bonuses, although it's been well
>over a year since I've really looked at it so I could be mis-
>remembering some of it.
switching
to AD&D.
Tetsubo
Aug 1, 2012, 7:44:09 AM8/1/12
to
race-as-class. A horrible idea that I always hated.
Keith Davies
Aug 1, 2012, 11:38:58 AM8/1/12
to
Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
AD&D1 _Unearthed Arcana_ had the Thief-Acrobat, and even AD&D1 _Player's
Handbook_ had the Bard. I'd be prepared to accept those are prior art
for prestige classes. For that matter, Warhammer FRPG always had
characters changing professions.
_Unearthed Arcana_ also had weapon specialization, though I'm not sure
if that book included double specialization.
AD&D2 had proficiencies (weapon and nonweapon), weapon specialization.
Later books (including the Celtic Historical Reference) had the first
thing that _really_ looked like feats to me, spending proficiency slots
to gain the ability to perform specific acts such as the gae bolg.
> On Jul 31, 8:09?pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> keith.dav...@kjdavies.org wrote:
>> >Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> >> In article <jv7t9m$jv...@dont-email.me>, gpsander...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>>On 31/07/2012 10:30 a.m., Keith Davies wrote:
>> >>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> >>>>> I recall the Unearthed Arcana had an interesting option for prestigue
>> >>>>> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
>> >>>>> I found intriguing.
>>
>> >>>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>> >>>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>
>> >>>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>>
>> >>>BECMI had prestige classes for druid, paladin and avenger (and knight,
>> >>>although they didn't get as many toys as paladins and avengers).
>>
>> >> BECMI?
>>
>> >Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal. ?Mentzer D&D.
>> keith.dav...@kjdavies.org wrote:
>> >Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> >> In article <jv7t9m$jv...@dont-email.me>, gpsander...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >>>On 31/07/2012 10:30 a.m., Keith Davies wrote:
>> >>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> >>>>> I recall the Unearthed Arcana had an interesting option for prestigue
>> >>>>> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
>> >>>>> I found intriguing.
>>
>> >>>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>> >>>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>
>> >>>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>>
>> >>>BECMI had prestige classes for druid, paladin and avenger (and knight,
>> >>>although they didn't get as many toys as paladins and avengers).
>>
>> >> BECMI?
>>
>>
>> The boxed sets? They introduced the concept of prestge classes?
>
> Yes, also known as "Red Box" basic (although the other ones weren't
> red) and Rules Compendium...
>
> They introduced an awful lot more than just prestige classes, I was
> rather surprised when I started looking Rules Compendium, as I'd never
> played anything beyond Red Box, and that probably only one game.
>
> It looked like 3e took an awful lot from BECMI, Prestige Classes
> (Paladin, Druid, Mystic, among others), Feats (at least for Fighters
> in the form of Weapon Mastery choices of things similar to cleave and
> power attack), Simple Ability Score Bonuses, although it's been well
> over a year since I've really looked at it so I could be mis-
> remembering some of it.
I'm not entirely convinced these things originated in BECMI.
>> The boxed sets? They introduced the concept of prestge classes?
>
> Yes, also known as "Red Box" basic (although the other ones weren't
> red) and Rules Compendium...
>
> They introduced an awful lot more than just prestige classes, I was
> rather surprised when I started looking Rules Compendium, as I'd never
> played anything beyond Red Box, and that probably only one game.
>
> It looked like 3e took an awful lot from BECMI, Prestige Classes
> (Paladin, Druid, Mystic, among others), Feats (at least for Fighters
> in the form of Weapon Mastery choices of things similar to cleave and
> power attack), Simple Ability Score Bonuses, although it's been well
> over a year since I've really looked at it so I could be mis-
> remembering some of it.
AD&D1 _Unearthed Arcana_ had the Thief-Acrobat, and even AD&D1 _Player's
Handbook_ had the Bard. I'd be prepared to accept those are prior art
for prestige classes. For that matter, Warhammer FRPG always had
characters changing professions.
_Unearthed Arcana_ also had weapon specialization, though I'm not sure
if that book included double specialization.
AD&D2 had proficiencies (weapon and nonweapon), weapon specialization.
Later books (including the Celtic Historical Reference) had the first
thing that _really_ looked like feats to me, spending proficiency slots
to gain the ability to perform specific acts such as the gae bolg.
El Rico D
Aug 1, 2012, 12:40:58 PM8/1/12
to
On Jul 31, 7:30 pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> > elri...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>On Jul 30, 1:00?pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> >>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>> > j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>
> >>> >>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
>
> >>> > "MAD"?
>
> >>> Multiple Ability Dependent, they need several ability scores to be high
> >>> to gain full effect of their mojo.
>
> >>> Compare Single Ability Dependent (wizards and sorcerers), who really
> >>> only need one high ability score.
>
> >>By comparison, in 4e Essentials that has mostly been done away with.
> >>Attack rolls and damage rolls use your highest attribute, whatever it
> >>might be. Wizards attack with their Int mod, Warlocks with their
> >>Charisma, et cetera; and add the same to damage rolls.
>
> > Unless I am missing something, that sounds incredibly stupid.
>
> It amounts to "everyone hits about the same frequency, for about the
> same damage" regardless of class.
>
> Keith
The fighter hits the target for damage, and slides him a couple
> >>On Jul 30, 1:00?pm, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> >>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> >>> > j...@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org wrote:
>
> >>> >>As for monks themselves, they're very MAD
>
> >>> > "MAD"?
>
> >>> Multiple Ability Dependent, they need several ability scores to be high
> >>> to gain full effect of their mojo.
>
> >>> Compare Single Ability Dependent (wizards and sorcerers), who really
> >>> only need one high ability score.
>
> >>By comparison, in 4e Essentials that has mostly been done away with.
> >>Attack rolls and damage rolls use your highest attribute, whatever it
> >>might be. Wizards attack with their Int mod, Warlocks with their
> >>Charisma, et cetera; and add the same to damage rolls.
>
> > Unless I am missing something, that sounds incredibly stupid.
>
> It amounts to "everyone hits about the same frequency, for about the
> same damage" regardless of class.
>
> Keith
squares from the force of his hit.
The mage hits the target for damage, and slides him a couple squares
from icy manipulation.
The warlock hits the target for damage, and slides him a couple
squares through psychic confusion.
What a lovely game.
Ken Arromdee
Aug 1, 2012, 1:32:12 PM8/1/12
to
In article <jvacrd$3r1$1...@news.albasani.net>,
I'd fully expect wizards to be good with hitting with spells and fighters
to be good with hitting with swords.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
Nicole Massey <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
>I agree. Let's buff non-fighter classes even more by making them hit with
>things they're good at instead of something they are weak at specifically to
>keep them balanced. Another reason fourth edition sounds broken to me.
"Making them hit" isn't granular enough.
>I agree. Let's buff non-fighter classes even more by making them hit with
>things they're good at instead of something they are weak at specifically to
>keep them balanced. Another reason fourth edition sounds broken to me.
I'd fully expect wizards to be good with hitting with spells and fighters
to be good with hitting with swords.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
Nicole Massey
Aug 1, 2012, 2:05:35 PM8/1/12
to
"Keith Davies" <keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
news:slrnk1ijci.n1...@kjdavies.org...
specialization rules.
Justisaur
Aug 1, 2012, 3:16:42 PM8/1/12
to
On Aug 1, 8:38 am, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
That could be. Bard is a real 3e style Prestige Class requiring you
to go through a couple classes to qualify first.
> For that matter, Warhammer FRPG always had
> characters changing professions.
A little different than prestige classes.
>
> _Unearthed Arcana_ also had weapon specialization, though I'm not sure
> if that book included double specialization.
>
> AD&D2 had proficiencies (weapon and nonweapon), weapon specialization.
> Later books (including the Celtic Historical Reference) had the first
> thing that _really_ looked like feats to me, spending proficiency slots
> to gain the ability to perform specific acts such as the gae bolg.
>
2e postdates BECMI though, and the feats look almost exactly the same
as some of the weapon mastery (i.e. Power Attack & Cleave).
- Justisaur
to go through a couple classes to qualify first.
> For that matter, Warhammer FRPG always had
> characters changing professions.
>
> _Unearthed Arcana_ also had weapon specialization, though I'm not sure
> if that book included double specialization.
>
> AD&D2 had proficiencies (weapon and nonweapon), weapon specialization.
> Later books (including the Celtic Historical Reference) had the first
> thing that _really_ looked like feats to me, spending proficiency slots
> to gain the ability to perform specific acts such as the gae bolg.
>
as some of the weapon mastery (i.e. Power Attack & Cleave).
- Justisaur
tussock
Aug 1, 2012, 11:41:38 AM8/1/12
to
Nicole Massey wrote:
shield. Bonuses to defence are supposed to subtract from the attack roll
rather than change your AC.
Not that anyone used it that way, but it's how the DM could get away
with not telling anyone their magic item bonuses for years on end, because
they had to track all those numbers behind the screen anyway.
Each player called out their attack die, but the DM added attack
bonuses, subtracted defence bonuses, and compared the total to the "player
attacks monster" matrix in the DMG.
Everything modifying your AC and THAC0 directly is a 2nd edition thing.
--
tussock
> Ubiquitous wrote:
>> I never found WvA adjustments worth the effort, plus, if memory serves,
>> they were based on AC value, no the type of armor.
>
> Sort of a typo -- they were "supposed" to be based on armor type, not
> class, but words got in the way of making that clear.
The 1st edition idea is that your AC is always just your armour and
>> I never found WvA adjustments worth the effort, plus, if memory serves,
>> they were based on AC value, no the type of armor.
>
> Sort of a typo -- they were "supposed" to be based on armor type, not
> class, but words got in the way of making that clear.
shield. Bonuses to defence are supposed to subtract from the attack roll
rather than change your AC.
Not that anyone used it that way, but it's how the DM could get away
with not telling anyone their magic item bonuses for years on end, because
they had to track all those numbers behind the screen anyway.
Each player called out their attack die, but the DM added attack
bonuses, subtracted defence bonuses, and compared the total to the "player
attacks monster" matrix in the DMG.
Everything modifying your AC and THAC0 directly is a 2nd edition thing.
--
tussock
tussock
Aug 1, 2012, 11:26:58 AM8/1/12
to
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> Multiple Ability Dependent, they need several ability scores to be high
>> to gain full effect of their mojo.
>>
>> Compare Single Ability Dependent (wizards and sorcerers), who really
>> only need one high ability score.
>>
>> I honestly [wouldn't] mind MAD in a point-buy scenario if it were just a
>> Multiple Ability Dependent, they need several ability scores to be high
>> to gain full effect of their mojo.
>>
>> Compare Single Ability Dependent (wizards and sorcerers), who really
>> only need one high ability score.
>>
>> shorthand for specialization. A Wis-monk and a Dex-monk might be the
>> same class, just each gets different amounts of the class mojo.
>> However, it seems they tried to design the classes to be balanced if
>> each character had lots of each type of mojo available.
They designed 3e characters to be rolled, some having more high stats
than others. It's right there in the front of every PHB. Point-Buy is just a
secret campaign option in the DMG.
You'll note that AD&D Monks and Paladins /require/ lots of high stats?
3e said /if/ your Monk or Paladin has that, he's going to be appropriately
powerful, and otherwise maybe suck a bit. Your choice.
So in 3e if you roll 16/14/12/10/8/8, you play a Fighter in heavy
armour, /not/ a Paladin. If you roll 16/16/14/14/12/8, you can play the
team's Paladin and not suck by comparison.
But point-buy makes your 4th and 5th stat the same price as your 2nd
one, so messes that up completely, despite the 4th stat being worthless for
everyone but a couple of weak classes, and greatly favouring Wizards.
Easily enough fixed I guess. Rather than charge more for high stats,
charge more for the character's highest stat, and less for the lower ones.
--
tussock
Keith Davies
Aug 1, 2012, 8:24:36 PM8/1/12
to
Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
_Rules Cyclopedia_, which was after 2e was around a while.
I won't argue it, though, I fully expect it was in (Companion?).
> On Aug 1, 8:38?am, Keith Davies <keith.dav...@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>
>> AD&D2 had proficiencies (weapon and nonweapon), weapon specialization.
>> Later books (including the Celtic Historical Reference) had the first
>> thing that _really_ looked like feats to me, spending proficiency slots
>> to gain the ability to perform specific acts such as the gae bolg.
>
> 2e postdates BECMI though, and the feats look almost exactly the same
> as some of the weapon mastery (i.e. Power Attack & Cleave).
I can't truly judge. I first remember the weapon mastery stuff from
>>
>> AD&D2 had proficiencies (weapon and nonweapon), weapon specialization.
>> Later books (including the Celtic Historical Reference) had the first
>> thing that _really_ looked like feats to me, spending proficiency slots
>> to gain the ability to perform specific acts such as the gae bolg.
>
> 2e postdates BECMI though, and the feats look almost exactly the same
> as some of the weapon mastery (i.e. Power Attack & Cleave).
_Rules Cyclopedia_, which was after 2e was around a while.
I won't argue it, though, I fully expect it was in (Companion?).
tussock
Aug 2, 2012, 7:31:54 AM8/2/12
to
Keith Davies wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
thereof and revenue from, morale for your cities, random domain-level
campaign events, mass combat, and unarmed combat systems (of typical
early-80's complexity).
Expert was the wilderness and overland adventures. Basic just the
dungeon bash. Master continued into planes-hopping.
UA and the Master Set both came out in 1985, so probably Gary and Frank
were working together on different ways to make the Fighters work a bit
better at the time, playtest for Gary's 2nd edition ideas.
--
tussock
> Justisaur wrote:
>> Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>>> AD&D2 had proficiencies (weapon and nonweapon), weapon specialization.
>>> Later books (including the Celtic Historical Reference) had the first
>>> thing that _really_ looked like feats to me, spending proficiency slots
>>> to gain the ability to perform specific acts such as the gae bolg.
>>
>> 2e postdates BECMI though, and the feats look almost exactly the same
>> as some of the weapon mastery (i.e. Power Attack & Cleave).
>
> I can't truly judge. I first remember the weapon mastery stuff from
> _Rules Cyclopedia_, which was after 2e was around a while.
>
> I won't argue it, though, I fully expect it was in (Companion?).
Master set for weapon "mastery". Companion had domains, rulership
>>
>>> AD&D2 had proficiencies (weapon and nonweapon), weapon specialization.
>>> Later books (including the Celtic Historical Reference) had the first
>>> thing that _really_ looked like feats to me, spending proficiency slots
>>> to gain the ability to perform specific acts such as the gae bolg.
>>
>> 2e postdates BECMI though, and the feats look almost exactly the same
>> as some of the weapon mastery (i.e. Power Attack & Cleave).
>
> I can't truly judge. I first remember the weapon mastery stuff from
> _Rules Cyclopedia_, which was after 2e was around a while.
>
> I won't argue it, though, I fully expect it was in (Companion?).
thereof and revenue from, morale for your cities, random domain-level
campaign events, mass combat, and unarmed combat systems (of typical
early-80's complexity).
Expert was the wilderness and overland adventures. Basic just the
dungeon bash. Master continued into planes-hopping.
UA and the Master Set both came out in 1985, so probably Gary and Frank
were working together on different ways to make the Fighters work a bit
better at the time, playtest for Gary's 2nd edition ideas.
--
tussock
Ubiquitous
Sep 11, 2012, 9:58:07 PM9/11/12
to
The boxed sets? They introduced the concept of prestge classes?
--
Islam is a peaceful religion, just as long as the women are beaten, the
boys buggered and the infidels are killed.
Ubiquitous
Sep 11, 2012, 10:00:11 PM9/11/12
to
keith....@kjdavies.org wrote:
>Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 8:09?pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> keith.dav...@kjdavies.org wrote:
>>> >Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 8:09?pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> keith.dav...@kjdavies.org wrote:
>>> >Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> >> gpsander...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> >>>BECMI had prestige classes for druid, paladin and avenger (and
>>> >>>knight,although they didn't get as many toys as paladins and
>>> >>>BECMI had prestige classes for druid, paladin and avenger (and
>>> >>>avengers).
>>>
>>> >> BECMI?
>>>
>>> >Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal. ?Mentzer D&D.
>>>
>>> The boxed sets? They introduced the concept of prestge classes?
>>
>> Yes, also known as "Red Box" basic (although the other ones weren't
>> red) and Rules Compendium...
>>
>> They introduced an awful lot more than just prestige classes, I was
>> rather surprised when I started looking Rules Compendium, as I'd
>> never played anything beyond Red Box, and that probably only one game.
>>
>> It looked like 3e took an awful lot from BECMI, Prestige Classes
>> (Paladin, Druid, Mystic, among others), Feats (at least for Fighters
>> in the form of Weapon Mastery choices of things similar to cleave and
>> power attack), Simple Ability Score Bonuses, although it's been well
>> over a year since I've really looked at it so I could be mis-
>> remembering some of it.
>
>I'm not entirely convinced these things originated in BECMI.
Nor am I.
>>>
>>> >> BECMI?
>>>
>>> >Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal. ?Mentzer D&D.
>>>
>>> The boxed sets? They introduced the concept of prestge classes?
>>
>> Yes, also known as "Red Box" basic (although the other ones weren't
>> red) and Rules Compendium...
>>
>> They introduced an awful lot more than just prestige classes, I was
>> rather surprised when I started looking Rules Compendium, as I'd
>> never played anything beyond Red Box, and that probably only one game.
>>
>> It looked like 3e took an awful lot from BECMI, Prestige Classes
>> (Paladin, Druid, Mystic, among others), Feats (at least for Fighters
>> in the form of Weapon Mastery choices of things similar to cleave and
>> power attack), Simple Ability Score Bonuses, although it's been well
>> over a year since I've really looked at it so I could be mis-
>> remembering some of it.
>
>I'm not entirely convinced these things originated in BECMI.
>AD&D1 _Unearthed Arcana_ had the Thief-Acrobat, and even AD&D1
>_Player's Handbook_ had the Bard. I'd be prepared to accept those
>are prior art for prestige classes. For that matter, Warhammer FRPG
>always had characters changing professions.
>
>_Unearthed Arcana_ also had weapon specialization, though I'm not sure
>if that book included double specialization.
>AD&D2 had proficiencies (weapon and nonweapon), weapon specialization.
>Later books (including the Celtic Historical Reference) had the first
>thing that _really_ looked like feats to me, spending proficiency slots
>to gain the ability to perform specific acts such as the gae bolg.
Ubiquitous
Sep 11, 2012, 9:55:33 PM9/11/12
to
> One of the things they didn't take and I was thrilled about, was
> race-as-class. A horrible idea that I always hated.
Yeah, I remember thinking that was weird, but weren't those 'class races'
> race-as-class. A horrible idea that I always hated.
effectively multi-classed? I recall the Elf had Magic-User and
Thief(?) abilities.
Ubiquitous
Sep 11, 2012, 10:03:34 PM9/11/12
to
In article <jv8fpf$5km$1...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net wrote:
>On 7/30/2012 8:49 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> In article <jv72ka$6ii$2...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>>> list as a Cleric half the level (Paladin spell access is almost a
>>>>>> proper subset of Cleric), use Charisma to channel, plus normal access
>>>>>> to Fighter stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or dump the core Paladin for Fighter/Cleric multiclass, then maybe give
>>>>>> them a prestige class to blend them a little tighter and call it a day.
>>> have grown less enamored with PRCs. I feel it dilutes the overall class.
>>> I also thinks it encourages the 'dipping' culture. Which just makes
>>> things a complicated mess. Core with a theme is far better to my mind.
>>
>> Is this a new development in PF? I don't recall that in my basic rulebook.
>>
>
> I believe it was first introduced in the Advanced Players Guide. But it
> has been done in every rule book published for PF since. If you haven't
> looked at the APG, I highly recommend it. Heck, I recommend all of the
> PF Advanced and Ultimate books.
Thanks! I'll be sure to check it out theenxt time I'm at a gaming store.
>On 7/30/2012 8:49 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> In article <jv72ka$6ii$2...@dont-email.me>, tet...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> keith....@kjdavies.org wrote:
>>>>>> It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>>>>> possibly with Str as a backup. Spontaneous casting from the Cleric
>>>>>> It wouldn't offend me to find Paladin changed to a Cha-driven class,
>>>>>> list as a Cleric half the level (Paladin spell access is almost a
>>>>>> proper subset of Cleric), use Charisma to channel, plus normal access
>>>>>> to Fighter stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or dump the core Paladin for Fighter/Cleric multiclass, then maybe give
>>>>>> them a prestige class to blend them a little tighter and call it a day.
>>>>>
>>>>> I recall the Unearthed Arcana had an interesting option for prestigue
>>>>> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
>>>>> I found intriguing.
>>>>
>>>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>>>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>>>
>>>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>>>
>>> I prefer the PF concept of a core class with an archetype attached. I
>>>>> I recall the Unearthed Arcana had an interesting option for prestigue
>>>>> class versions of the Paladin, Bard, and something else (Ranger?) that
>>>>> I found intriguing.
>>>>
>>>> As soon as I saw the description of prestige classes I decided paladin
>>>> certainly should be, ranger probably, barbarian possibly, bard could be.
>>>>
>>>> _Unearthed Arcana_ had prestige classes for paladin, ranger, and bard.
>>>
>>> have grown less enamored with PRCs. I feel it dilutes the overall class.
>>> I also thinks it encourages the 'dipping' culture. Which just makes
>>> things a complicated mess. Core with a theme is far better to my mind.
>>
>> Is this a new development in PF? I don't recall that in my basic rulebook.
>>
>
> I believe it was first introduced in the Advanced Players Guide. But it
> has been done in every rule book published for PF since. If you haven't
> looked at the APG, I highly recommend it. Heck, I recommend all of the
> PF Advanced and Ultimate books.
Thanks! I'll be sure to check it out theenxt time I'm at a gaming store.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages