Let's see, boards complaints that I haven't experienced? The biggest one that comes to mind:
"I ONLY PLAY PATHFINDER BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT EVERYONE ELSE PLAYS, AND NOBODY HAS HEARD OF/IS WILLING TO TRY ANYTHING ELSE."
My group alternates. Right now we're playing Exalted. Before this we were playing a custom version of Aberrant (modified to be X-Men style mutants). After we might go to World of Darkness, or Pathfinder. Always customised.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While its not something I hear much, per se, it is something I encounter. Trying to give 5E a try with some of my home groups didn't have enough support for a table. People said that they had too much investment in PF/PFS. I was able to get a few WoD games going for a bit. Shadowrun, 3.5, MCWoD, Exalted, there just wasn't enough people willing to go to another system, all of which in my opinion are better games/systems.
A few even did outright say only PF.
While its not something I hear much, per se, it is something I encounter. Trying to give 5E a try with some of my home groups didn't have enough support for a table. People said that they had too much investment in PF/PFS. I was able to get a few WoD games going for a bit. Shadowrun, 3.5, MCWoD, Exalted, there just wasn't enough people willing to go to another system, all of which in my opinion are better games/systems.
A few even did outright say only PF.
I am really lucky that my group is willing to follow my lead on game rules. We have been deconstructing pathfinder and replacing it subsystem by subsystem. We are about to replace magic. And I think we are going to give a good portion of the weapon-combat rules a make over.
One issue that may prove interesting is the 5th table member had to leave because of work changes. If/when I advertise to fill his spot will the new comer be open to a heavily adapted pathfinder (basically our own D20 variant), and can I really even advertise it AS pathfinder?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While its not something I hear much, per se, it is something I encounter. Trying to give 5E a try with some of my home groups didn't have enough support for a table. People said that they had too much investment in PF/PFS. I was able to get a few WoD games going for a bit. Shadowrun, 3.5, MCWoD, Exalted, there just wasn't enough people willing to go to another system, all of which in my opinion are better games/systems.
A few even did outright say only PF.
I am really lucky that my group is willing to follow my lead on game rules. We have been deconstructing pathfinder and replacing it subsystem by subsystem. We are about to replace magic. And I think we are going to give a good portion of the weapon-combat rules a make over.
One issue that may prove interesting is the 5th table member had to leave because of work changes. If/when I advertise to fill his spot will the new comer be open to a heavily adapted pathfinder (basically our own D20 variant), and can I really even advertise it AS pathfinder?
I'd advertise it like you said, "heavily adapted pathfinder (basically our own D20 variant". I'd do a meetup with the potential new recruit and discuss the game and get a feel of them. Don't just take the first person who is interested. Then again that is my advice for any game.
While its not something I hear much, per se, it is something I encounter. Trying to give 5E a try with some of my home groups didn't have enough support for a table. People said that they had too much investment in PF/PFS. I was able to get a few WoD games going for a bit. Shadowrun, 3.5, MCWoD, Exalted, there just wasn't enough people willing to go to another system, all of which in my opinion are better games/systems.
A few even did outright say only PF.
Basically the boat I'm in for one of my groups. People don't want to learn anything new, so we're stuck with PF and just MAY try a game of 5e in that group.
Of course, the one time we tried Savage Worlds, everyone thought it was much more complex than PF. No, it really isn't. It's like a fifth as complex. You're just used to 3.X and have internalize all the rules.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I would like to try something new from time to time but after all the rules I have learned from PF trying a new ruleset feels like a homework instead of something fun.
I stick with pathfinder because that is what I am used to and I'm hesitant about change, however, if I was invited to play a non-pathfinder game I would gladly join in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stick with pathfinder because that is what I am used to and I'm hesitant about change, however, if I was invited to play a non-pathfinder game I would gladly join in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One must be ever vigilant vs
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone seen the Invisible Boatmobile?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disdain people set in their ways and unwilling to at least try something new. Or who use nostalgia to justify favoritism.
I have a player in my group who swears second ed is the best thing since sliced bread (sliced bread having been invented a year before he started playing, by the way he tells it). He can't defend the mechanical superiority, so now he's resorted to saying there was more flavor text back then.
I tried explaining to him that Pathfinder releases like 5x as many flavor books as rules, and he just...
Well, he's just a grumpy dude, really. Suffice to say, he practically embodied a stereotype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stick with pathfinder because that is what I am used to and I'm hesitant about change, however, if I was invited to play a non-pathfinder game I would gladly join in.** spoiler omitted **
*tries to find clever thing to say that indicates I got the joke and is both de-escalating and honest*
*fails the DC*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*drags the thread back to the Original Topic*
We don't lock down our communications if someone gets upset.
Our home group is pretty perceptive as a whole and can typically pick up on issues/triggers/concerns and we call a 'time-out' and have a side-discussion to figure out how to handle that as a group. It's part of why we've been together for about four or so years now, despite the logistical nightmare of finagling a schedule that can accommodate a bunch of players Down Under, a few in Europe, a couple in Asia, and a couple in N. America...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disdain people set in their ways and unwilling to at least try something new. Or who use nostalgia to justify favoritism.
I have a player in my group who swears second ed is the best thing since sliced bread (sliced bread having been invented a year before he started playing, by the way he tells it). He can't defend the mechanical superiority, so now he's resorted to saying there was more flavor text back then.
I tried explaining to him that Pathfinder releases like 5x as many flavor books as rules, and he just...
Well, he's just a grumpy dude, really. Suffice to say, he practically embodied a stereotype.
To be fair to your friend, I've yet to read any book (pathfinder or otherwise) as flavorful as 2e's Planescape campaign setting. I mean - come on - you have the entire entry box set into the campaign setting written in-character from a person from that campaign setting. And nearly every Planescape book is written like that! It's fantastic! I've yet to read a pathfinder book written from the perspective of a character in that setting. It just doesn't happen anymore. Think about it - how many pathfinder books are written in heavy slang of the local culture the book was written for? I haven't found one yet.
But as much as I love 2e (and especially Planescape), I like PF better. One thing to comment on, though, I do have trouble getting my PF players to do some of the flavorful/creative things we used to do in 2e. I think this is because PF sets up a mentality whee you feel like you need a feat or skill to be able to do something, and if you don't have that particular ability that says you can, then you assume you can't. 2e never had that, because there was just so much that wasn't in the rules that you'd make up the rest.
Even with all that, though, I'd still play PF over 2e. Heck, I've even converted a lot of the Planescape modules and campaigns to PF just for the flavor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though everyone has their own interpretations of Evil or Chaotic PCs, none of my regular players use chaos or evil as excuses to be a+*@%~#s—they play the character first and foremost, and if the character happens to be Chaotic or Evil, that's just something informing what their character is willing to stoop to.
And those players who aren't able to handle this basic rule? They don't become regular.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...And those players who aren't able to handle this basic rule? They don't become regular.
So what you're saying is they need more fiber in their diet?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disdain people set in their ways and unwilling to at least try something new. Or who use nostalgia to justify favoritism.
I have a player in my group who swears second ed is the best thing since sliced bread (sliced bread having been invented a year before he started playing, by the way he tells it). He can't defend the mechanical superiority, so now he's resorted to saying there was more flavor text back then.
I tried explaining to him that Pathfinder releases like 5x as many flavor books as rules, and he just...
Well, he's just a grumpy dude, really. Suffice to say, he practically embodied a stereotype.
To be fair to your friend, I've yet to read any book (pathfinder or otherwise) as flavorful as 2e's Planescape campaign setting. I mean - come on - you have the entire entry box set into the campaign setting written in-character from a person from that campaign setting. And nearly every Planescape book is written like that! It's fantastic! I've yet to read a pathfinder book written from the perspective of a character in that setting. It just doesn't happen anymore. Think about it - how many pathfinder books are written in heavy slang of the local culture the book was written for? I haven't found one yet.
But as much as I love 2e (and especially Planescape), I like PF better. One thing to comment on, though, I do have trouble getting my PF players to do some of the flavorful/creative things we used to do in 2e. I think this is because PF sets up a mentality whee you feel like you need a feat or skill to be able to do something, and if you don't have that particular ability that says you can, then you assume you can't. 2e never had that, because there was just so much that wasn't in the rules that you'd make up the rest.
Even with all that, though, I'd still play PF over 2e. Heck, I've even converted a lot of the Planescape modules and campaigns to PF just for the flavor.
I know. That's why I converted Planescape to Pathfinder. You don't have to use an inferior ruleset just because the flavor text is better. You seem to understand that. He does not.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While Im not a 2E superfan, it is worth remembering that the value of a rules system is subjective. While there are some things that 3E did better, there are some things that it also does worse. 2E for example is a much more gritty game where death and permanent issues are serious issues, and so require more serious thought and planning in play. A few hundred/thousand GP will not solve it for you when you get back to town.
In 3E and even moreso in PF, death or penalties are nust temporary distractions most of the time. Poison, "meh". Traps, "thats what a wand is for".
Mage stuff was rare, healing was actually miraculous, and danger was actually dangerous. There where not Paladins on every street corner, and no one bothered asking for a wand of CLWs at level 1. It just didnt happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to houserule resurrection right out of my campaign, or at least make it mindbogglingly rare, so rare that you can't expect to resurrect dead players when you get to the next town.
Death is supposed to be special dammit!
Actually ontopic, dime-a-dozen resurrection doesn't happen in the games I play in with my group. I don't know if it's because we don't think about it or because the other GMs in our group grant full hit die and so we have a lot of hp and are seldom at risk of death.
Though everyone has their own interpretations of Evil or Chaotic PCs, none of my regular players use chaos or evil as excuses to be a*+*!+~s—they play the character first and foremost, and if the character happens to be Chaotic or Evil, that's just something informing what their character is willing to stoop to.
And those players who aren't able to handle this basic rule? They don't become regular.
We had two players like this. They were kicked from the game and we didn't have problems with chaotic stupid since.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer easy resurrection to the revolving door of PCs, where someone flashes their PC card and is just in the thick of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use hero points to give PCs some lasting power so I can take the gloves off as GM. Its seems to work out for us we have 2-3 deaths on average in the lifespan of an AP. Though technically probably about 12 deaths without HP usage.
My players were afraid of death. I gave them hero points. They save them up and use them for kingdom economy rolls, because they dominate combat. SMH.
Caster martial disparity doesn't USUALLy get out of hand. Most games are too low level for that to be fully kicking in though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair to your friend, I've yet to read any book (pathfinder or otherwise) as flavorful as 2e's Planescape campaign setting. I mean - come on - you have the entire entry box set into the campaign setting written in-character from a person from that campaign setting. And nearly every Planescape book is written like that! It's fantastic! I've yet to read a pathfinder book written from the perspective of a character in that setting. It just doesn't happen anymore. Think about it - how many pathfinder books are written in heavy slang of the local culture the book was written for? I haven't found one yet.
You've just described the reason I hated reading Planescape materials. I found that patois extremely annoying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You've just described the reason I hated reading Planescape materials. I found that patois extremely annoying.
To be fair to your friend, I've yet to read any book (pathfinder or otherwise) as flavorful as 2e's Planescape campaign setting. I mean - come on - you have the entire entry box set into the campaign setting written in-character from a person from that campaign setting. And nearly every Planescape book is written like that! It's fantastic! I've yet to read a pathfinder book written from the perspective of a character in that setting. It just doesn't happen anymore. Think about it - how many pathfinder books are written in heavy slang of the local culture the book was written for? I haven't found one yet.
I didn't care for the art, myself. Or the art they used. It just set my teeth on edge for some reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Guide to Darkmoon Vale actually does the regional slang thing, but very lightly (and I am thankful for that). A box introduces a small number of slang terms (for example, 'cutyard' or 'mudpot'), and these words are occasionally used in the text. It works naturally.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't care for the art, myself. Or the art they used. It just set my teeth on edge for some reason.You've just described the reason I hated reading Planescape materials. I found that patois extremely annoying.
To be fair to your friend, I've yet to read any book (pathfinder or otherwise) as flavorful as 2e's Planescape campaign setting. I mean - come on - you have the entire entry box set into the campaign setting written in-character from a person from that campaign setting. And nearly every Planescape book is written like that! It's fantastic! I've yet to read a pathfinder book written from the perspective of a character in that setting. It just doesn't happen anymore. Think about it - how many pathfinder books are written in heavy slang of the local culture the book was written for? I haven't found one yet.
I, on the other hand, miss DiTerlizzi's art, and would prefer it to Reynolds.
Beauty really is in the eye of the .
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to houserule resurrection right out of my campaign, or at least make it mindbogglingly rare, so rare that you can't expect to resurrect dead players when you get to the next town.
Death is supposed to be special dammit!
Actually ontopic, dime-a-dozen resurrection doesn't happen in the games I play in with my group. I don't know if it's because we don't think about it or because the other GMs in our group grant full hit die and so we have a lot of hp and are seldom at risk of death.
[OT]
There's an awesome article on the matter in an old issue of Dragon Magazine (3.5 run), with some limitations to apply - resurrection possible on certain places/holidays/phases of the moon/etc - and some really nasty side-effects (you open the door to the other side, but you're not so sure that only the desired soul goes through the passage) which scale up with the character level, so the more powerful he is, the worst things happen.
Once you have a resurrection on a disputed holy ground on the eve of an astronomical convergence trying not to allow angry spirits of the unquiet dead to follow up your fallen companion... well, it's nice the first time, but afterwards your players will consider their lost characters as gone for good.
[/OT]
You've just described the reason I hated reading Planescape materials. I found that patois extremely annoying.
To be fair to your friend, I've yet to read any book (pathfinder or otherwise) as flavorful as 2e's Planescape campaign setting. I mean - come on - you have the entire entry box set into the campaign setting written in-character from a person from that campaign setting. And nearly every Planescape book is written like that! It's fantastic! I've yet to read a pathfinder book written from the perspective of a character in that setting. It just doesn't happen anymore. Think about it - how many pathfinder books are written in heavy slang of the local culture the book was written for? I haven't found one yet.
Annoyed the hell out me too, and that weird typeface- uggg.
I didnt care for the artwork either, too baroque. That said Paizos art is too baroque, too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to houserule resurrection right out of my campaign, or at least make it mindbogglingly rare, so rare that you can't expect to resurrect dead players when you get to the next town.
Death is supposed to be special dammit!
Actually ontopic, dime-a-dozen resurrection doesn't happen in the games I play in with my group. I don't know if it's because we don't think about it or because the other GMs in our group grant full hit die and so we have a lot of hp and are seldom at risk of death.
Yesbut- As I posted before:
For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”
Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."
The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.
The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?
While Im not a 2E superfan, it is worth remembering that the value of a rules system is subjective.
Absolutely this. What you may think is the greatest rules may be absolutely horrid to someone else, and what they consider the best rules evah...are things that you wouldn't play if you were given a choice between it and the grave.
I love PF, but honestly I can't say the rules of it are actually better then D&D 2e for me. I love the flavor of PF, but 2e had a simplicity and a feel that is awesome. For me, neither one is actually the best rules, but I wouldn't say that PF is better than 2e in my subjective opinion.
I currently play PF a whole lot more, and enjoy the snot out of it. For me it rocks all over 3e and 3.5, but that's my OWN opinion of the matter.
I would play in a 2e game with a good DM in a heartbeat though, and for me, though I wouldn't rate 2e better than PF, but would rate 2e far better than 3e or 3.5 any day.
And that's because what is the best system, or greatest system is all in our heads and based upon what we like in a game system and our own opinion of what we like or don't like.
PS: Prefer a great 1e campaign to 2e though...personal preference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to houserule resurrection right out of my campaign, or at least make it mindbogglingly rare, so rare that you can't expect to resurrect dead players when you get to the next town.
Death is supposed to be special dammit!
Actually ontopic, dime-a-dozen resurrection doesn't happen in the games I play in with my group. I don't know if it's because we don't think about it or because the other GMs in our group grant full hit die and so we have a lot of hp and are seldom at risk of death.
Yesbut- As I posted before:
For all those complaining Raise dead is too easy:Oh yeah.Players: “Hey Bob, we have to go on a quest for about 4 nites of gaming in order to raise you, so I guess you can just stay home or you can play my Mount.”
Bob: “yeah, sounds like real fun. Look, instead- here’s Knuckles the 87th , go ahead and loot Knuckles the 86th body. He's got some cool stuff."
The whole idea of “death should mean something” becomes meaningless when we all realize that D&D is a Game, Games should be Fun, and in order to have Fun you have to Play. Thereby, when a Player’s PC dies either you Raise him or he brings in another. Raising is preferable story-wise, and costs resources. Bringing in another costs continuity and actually increases party wealth. Not to mention, instead of an organic played-from-1st-PC we have a PC generated at that level, which can lead to some odd min/maxing.
The third alternative is “Sorry Bob, Knuckles is dead. You’re out of the campaign, we’ll let you know when the next one is starting, should be in about a year or so.’ Really?
I play roguelike games (which incidentally were inspired by DnD) and in these games, permadeath is the norm. You start over on a new character if your character dies (who can be as similar or different to your previous character as you like) Games are locked so that you can't just reboot to last save if something bad happens (ok you can forcequit and backup saves in dwarf fortress). Most players in my group have also played roguelikes (dwarf fortress)
I think in our games, there is an implicit, but not stated, understanding that when a character dies, it dies for good. Maybe resurrection exists, but no one has talked about it, and no one actually has the ability, so I don't know what our practice is on that.
It might honestly depend on the group and the game whether resurrection should be present or easily accessible or not. Some people just want to keep playing the same character, or some people may be fine with bringing in a new one.
For example in our games, new players entering the middle of the campaign, or people leaving in the middle of the campaign is common. This doesn't seem to harm our continuity, since it is often easy to retcon in that someone left on a religious mission for their church or that we found a willing adventurer in town, or prisoner in the dungeon willing to join our party.
Thus, the idea is implicit that if your character dies, you can simply roll a new one and we can recruit him at the next town. And since we tend to have lots of different ideas for characters, we don't seem to fall into the knuckles the 87th problem.
But that's just our group, and every group is different.
And the third alternative is indeed terrible. I wouldn't contemplate it for a moment. No point kicking a player out of an entire campaign just cus the wyrd didn't favor his character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An instantly trusted stranger in a world full of backstabbing NPCs who gets to flash his PC card and automatically be in the know, for me at least, kills immersion way more than rezzing. At least rezzes have narrative consistency in a world with magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An instantly trusted stranger in a world full of backstabbing NPCs who gets to flash his PC card and automatically be in the know, for me at least, kills immersion way more than rezzing. At least rezzes have narrative consistency in a world with magic.
That's fair. what works in our games may not work in yours.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to houserule resurrection right out of my campaign, or at least make it mindbogglingly rare, so rare that you can't expect to resurrect dead players when you get to the next town.
Death is supposed to be special dammit!
Actually ontopic, dime-a-dozen resurrection doesn't happen in the games I play in with my group. I don't know if it's because we don't think about it or because the other GMs in our group grant full hit die and so we have a lot of hp and are seldom at risk of death.
I do ban raising, reincarnating, and resurrecting people. Hasn't really proven much of a problem, because the death rate just isn't that high in the first place, and if I TPK the group because I misjudged a challenge, I'll chalk that up to GM error and forget that whole session ever happened.
In the rare event a PC is dead, not to worry about replacement. I put the players in the shoes of government agents in every campaign setting I've written in, like, the past three years. That makes it really easy to replace dead characters in a manner that makes sense. The PCs' superiors assign somebody new to replace the fallen, and the PCs give that person information because they kind of have to. May not fully trust a rookie until they prove themself, but they'll work with who is assigned to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the home campaigns I was in had a most unholy mix of Kingdom Builder and Mythic Adventures in PF.
As a result, with our colony starting out, the PCs actually had better skills than most of the other colonists.
Our GM used some death encounters to serve as a suitably epic launch point for a character to attain their first Mythic tier... Rare enough to MEAN something, but available under the right circumstances and it kept to the continuity of the campaign.
Back to the Original Topic:
While we've had the voice over internet server go down at points, or the maps we've never lost it AND the maps we play on at the same time.
I can't say I ever understood all the love people have for 2E. I hated that system even back in high school when I was playing it. THAC0 is an abomination that should die in flames. That backwards a$$ math made every attack roll take twice as long as it should have. To each their own however, and I have to admit I still have some love for the monster manuals from that edition, they were so well done!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I never while playing PF saw the infamous "broken combination that invalidated all other party members". Maybe that's a myth, or maybe the gamers in my group just stay away from builds like that.
One of our players (the one with the absolutely gorgeous beard) is a mad genius and made a completely overpowered monster of a Vivisectionist that took down the GM's final boss in two hits, though some of that OP may simply be due to the GM's incompetence.
He never used it again, though, because he's a good guy at heart and has the better sense not to totally wreck people's campaigns.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That backwards a$$ math made every attack roll take twice as long as it should have.
I've never understood this. I am not good with math, like, at all, but adding and subtracting negative numbers is third grade math... And one of the things that gamers just love to point out to non-gamers is that playing RPGs, teaches one the basics of mathematics...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't say I ever understood all the love people have for 2E. I hated that system even back in high school when I was playing it. THAC0 is an abomination that should die in flames. That backwards a$$ math made every attack roll take twice as long as it should have. To each their own however, and I have to admit I still have some love for the monster manuals from that edition, they were so well done!
I suppose it just depends on your grasp of certain items. I know a guy with an IQ of 85 who has an easier time with 2e THACO than D20 AC and attack rolls. He could never pass algebra, which is unfortunate as he's a very nice guy.
In that light, it's not the math that is so hard, perhaps, but how one can grasp certain concepts.
Perhaps it's the concepts of D20 that make it impossible for him to calculate his own bonuses to hit round to round (as you know, different modifiers can affect your Bonus Attack Bonus each round, such as flanking, cover, and other things) but for others like yourself, make it easier to understand.
While at the same time, some concepts in 2e are difficult for you, and yet easy for others (for example, with 2e it's basically whatever your THAC0 (say 20) and subtract their AC (so if it was a 6 AC, 20-6 = 14), as excessively simple and easy for others.
Which is where the disconnect comes in where someone says they just can't grasp THAC0, while for others (like myself) it's one of the easiest and simple things to do (as in, learned how to subtract and do stuff with THACO in 1st grade, some of the 3e stuff actually comes close to an algebraic formula occasionally with some of the modifiers you have to figure out).
However, whether one likes a system or not is still a matter of opinion rather than a fact of whether a system is good or not, normally. (There are SOME exceptions I suppose, but neither PF or 2e are one of those from what I've seen).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that THAC0 is horrible - it's just almost every other system out there has a simpler or more streamlined option. Mediocre isn't terrible, but when good is an option, why settle for okay?
It's not that THAC0 is horrible - it's just almost every other system out there has a simpler or more streamlined option. Mediocre isn't terrible, but when good is an option, why settle for okay?
As I said, the guy has an IQ of 85, for him, subtraction of 20-AC is a VERY simple concept. THAC0 is inclusive of to hit modifiers and other items, so it's normally all wrapped into one thing.
Apparantly, for some people here, it is not.
At the same time, Adding something to your Attack Bonus under 3e had far more modifiers, and a lot more items to resolve (such as when to do an Attack of Opportunity, which may be easy for you, but not so easy for someone whose IQ is 85) which is not as simple for him to figure out.
THAC0 is pretty streamlined for those who get it. In fact, for many its far more streamed than AB or BAB.
For you, BAB is more streamlined, however, in this instance, streamlined is ALSO apparently a figure of opinion.
BAB and all the modifiers is actually pretty close to algebra once you figure things in (especially if you are trying to figure out DPR, which for min/max players is a pretty essential thng), which for many is not quite as streamlined as people want to make it appear.
The AB is pretty simple in idea (simple addition...right), but once you start adding other factors in with the feats and other things, it gets pretty complex really quick.
As another factor, my 4 year old can figure out THAC0 (which should probably mean, it's not that complex at all, unless someone thinks they can't figure out what a 4 year old can), and they can figure out the Attack bonus and what they may need to hit with a BAB but once the modifiers come out in most D20 games, it quickly gets beyond them (they ARE 4).
As I said, its not really streamlined or complexity (though it may seem to some) as much as it is the concepts that one is talented towards or not. Many may find THAC0 a very easy concept to grasp and figure out (the guy with an 85 IQ and my 4 year old) whilst others find it far out of reach and hence can't comprehend it in an easy fashion (apparently several here). On the otherhand, perhaps their D20 games have concepts those very same people find very easy to grasp, but a guy with an IQ of 85 and my 4 year old find waaaay to complicated or complex for their mental abilities.
It's all a matter of what concepts you find easy or not. That's why some people find history, English, math, or something else very easy, but another subject extremely hard and complex. People are different, have different talents, and different tastes.