The giant heap of customized (and, worse IMO, largely flavorless flat-bonus) magic items in d20 seems to me to stem from the same source as just about any wonkiness you'll find in the system - open-ended modifiers that escalate at wildly different rates. A combination of the right feats, class features and so on can seriously pile on the "plusses," making magic the great equalizer - and, in an increasing number of cases as you advance in levels - sometimes the only way to remain viable.
There's some talk about better saves for fighters in older editions. What was actually going on there was a constant improvement in saving throws as a defense without a counter-improvement in whatever you were saving against. Before 3rd Edition, there weren't any DCs for saves - you either rolled the given number and passed, or did not. It would be like, for example, setting all DC's to 20, across the board, with no chance to improve them. (I know there are hairs to be split, but that's basically it.) Fighters work at high level in (od&d clone) Labyrinth Lord, for example, in part because they more-or-less always take half-damage from fireballs (where were actually scary back then, due to hit-die-per-level caps, etc.), ignore compulsions and shake off save-or-die effects. I'm not saying wizards are "gimped," just that balance is different. Combined with item-use restrictions you can't just circumvent with a martial weapon feat or UMD skill, you're looking at an entirely different sort of balance.
I like Pathfinder/d20. A lot. But I honestly don't see how one can play this game into the middle-high levels without letting players have a reasonable amount of magic, if only to keep the mathematics stable.
|
I hate 2nd edition, our favorite edition is 3rd edition
Roy, once you start to respond to facts to what I posted I'll do so in kind.
"over 9,000" failden response is going to get the same back right at ya.
Teleport: You and your party try to get to the adventure. "Oops everyone dies."
Gate: You and your party try to get to the adventure. "Oops everyone dies."
Haste: Ok, you Haste the Fighter. He falls over dead.
Critical analysis isn't one of your strong points, is it?
You guys at the failden b~&@& about how casters are the only class in the game worth playing but when you are presented with examples of a risk vs. reward paradigm on spell use/balance between editions and changes which caused the problems you start to cry.
I've posted all my points with facts and reasoning to back them up and you have posted yours - unfortunately your response and reasoning is "2nd edition was the embodiment of DM vs. player adversarial play".
If you can't get beyond that to see the problems then you can't be helped.
I am astonished at the number of people who want to play Pathfinder "low magic". I. e. giving out way less magic items than intended by the designers, nerfing spellcasters etc.
This is HIGH FANTASY. Over the top, flashy, omnipresent magic is part of the game. Its not just flavour, its worked right into the mechanics. You cannot take it out without seriously reworking the rules (for a good example of a "low-magic fantasy" rework of d20 see Mongooses Conan d20), or killing all balance between classes and between characters and monsters.
Why bother? If you do not like over-the-top, flashy, omnipresent magic, I think Pathfinder is just not your game. There are many other good ones you can play that cater to your needs more.
|
In practice, weapon speeds are hefty enough that casters almost always go first. Add in their various special defenses (via spells) and I can remember numerous campaigns stretching hundreds of hours of play each in which casters I or others were playing lost less spells total than could be counted on one hand.
It's a nice drawback in theory, but it didn't really shake out in play.
(1) The initiative system worked really well. Verses a wizard only a fighter of Conan's mentality would keep using the Speed 10 two-handed sword rather than the Speed 2 dagger. Doing massive damage wasn't the name of the game, only disrupting, hell throw rocks.
My 2e mage focused on power words as I got sick of my high level spells going south on me - ever tried casting while a weapon specialised dart or dagger thrower was looking at you? If you used the rule that every +1 magic reduced the Speed of a magic weapon then non-spell casters became the bane of trying to get a high level spell off.
It seems to be that the newer systems reduce the requirement to (a) think about your action and (b) have consequence as there are feats/skills that negate much of the downside of casting in melee for example.
Yes wizards were powerful, but send in rabble until they run out of spells and there is no way 144 spell levels could be learned fast enough to stop being murdered. In high level play my Mage hardly ever had a full compliment of spells - just wasn't possible in a usual rest period, again thinking was involved in game.
As for the example of teleport etc of instant death. Too right, meaning they were for emergency use only or if your the gambling type and even then, well. The more I read the discussions here the more I wonder (for me) if the vaulted d20 system actually improved my enjoyment of RPG's? There seems to be so much more concern about every character class being able if "built" right to do exactly the same damage (because that is the purpose of roleplaying right).
S.
|
|
The issue started out with item distribution
So, what I wanted to say was that I am under the impression that a lot of players think that magic objects are a due and not a reward anymore... Am I the only one who feel that way?
This directly addressed the issue of wbl and thus low or higher magic item availability, so no/fail. Reading the thread may have helped.
Now they don't work, and it's already been established they don't work and why, but that's not the actual topic here.
No, that hasn't been established - maybe in your head or in another forum, but no not here.
It's perfectly viable to build, modify or run a game - in this case PFRPG - with low magic. Just because it's something you personally dislike (since it limits powerz), it doesn't mean that's the only way to play.
The game defaults to high magic, no one here is arguing that nor has anyone proposed anything other than that. That is why the issue of modifying spells (older editions) and or reducing spell selection came up in addition to the subject of DR, greater hps, CR disparity, etc. It's all to see if you can make a viable and workable system which didn't punish non-casters by just reducing magic items.
You don't need to run E6 if certain spells are changed, limited or returned to risk/reward (1st/2nd) for a game like that to work.
And the issue isn't heroic/non-heroic; by changing and omitting things you are not saying that the PCs will not fight ogres, shadows, etc. No one here has said they wanted a more "realist" setting with little or no monsters. When people are talking about low-magic games they are talking about the PCs power level - all PCs - across the board. Doesn't mean their PCs are chumps, nor does it means that they are the same as commoners. So all the heroic nonsense with high Hp, magic items and spells still exist – its just a question of the degree a group wants to play "low-magic" and how that gets worked out so the game actually functions.
The more I read the discussions here the more I wonder (for me) if the vaulted d20 system actually improved my enjoyment of RPG's?
I think a game system is always trying to outrun players' understanding of it.
We played 2E for a lot of years and had a ton of fun with it. Lots of severely (mechanically) suboptimal characters were played. But, over time, sometimes even by accident, players discover that some options are stronger than others, and you know? It isn't all that much fun being all the characters who had to run for their lives a round or two into a combat while the wizard stays behind and just owns the whole encounter.
By the end of our last 2E campaign, literally every character was dual classed fighter->wizard, and most of them had a third class worked in there, too. The DM had started to throw encounters strong enough to push the tough characters, which meant the weaker characters invariably died and were gradually replaced by characters who could keep up. When we came to realize there basically was only one competitive build, we ended up playing other games until a few years into the 3E era.
3E/3.5E were really the same experiences over again. The system breaks down in different places, but it still does break down. The first time you see someone who "gets it" play cleric or druid in 3.X, you're never going to be able to play fighter again without thinking, every time you're struggling, that a druid would blow right through the encounter. You never have to be a serious powergamer to come to understand any of these things; you just have to play, pay attention, and want to not be the liability character in the team.
Gradually, a game you really loved becomes a game you can't play anymore, because you're just too aware of its fault lines. None of that diminishes the fun we had with those or other games, or makes them less great of games. It just is what it is.
I'm not sure there's a good alternative to that cycle. 4E, at least in its core form, is a game I consider ruthlessly balanced, a game I consider to address all the major faults of previous editions, and yet, one that I don't find particularly fun to play. Maybe the best you really can do is to do another edition whenever the fault lines become too much and start again.
I cleaned up some posts. Harassment and flaming are against our messageboard rules.
|
|
I think a game system is always trying to outrun players' understanding of it.
I hear what your saying, just I have always been of the opinion that the radical 2e --> d20 system change was a tad throwing the baby out with the bath water.
In terms of playability 1e --> 2e was an improvement but not really a change as such, systems were refined and in some cases clarified to make sense. 2e --> 3e was, look it's new - full stop, 3e --> 4e has continued this trend. PF is a great idea, stopping and seeing about optimizing a ruleset based on experience rather than saying 'time for the next new thing'. In some ways PF didn't go far enough, but this was in fear of reducing backwards compatibility. The reliance and assumption of a certain amount of magical kit at any given level is an example of this. I lean towards the OP original idea of magic items being a reward rather than a right. 3e/PF (still) makes this concept difficult for the DM who doesn't hand out items like candy as the CR system (or whatever it's called) falls apart.
S.
I hear what your saying, just I have always been of the opinion that the radical 2e --> d20 system change was a tad throwing the baby out with the bath water.
In terms of playability 1e --> 2e was an improvement but not really a change as such, systems were refined and in some cases clarified to make sense. 2e --> 3e was, look it's new - full stop, 3e --> 4e has continued this trend. PF is a great idea, stopping and seeing about optimizing a ruleset based on experience rather than saying 'time for the next new thing'.
I disagree with you about the 2E->3E change.
I mean, sure, core 2E is a long way from core 3E, but consider all the stuff that was added on to 2E over the intervening 11 years, or tried in various settings or optional books.
A lot of what we think of as the iconic 3E concepts like more tactical combat rules, attacks of opportunity, metamagic feats, etc. were pretty much all tried in 2E, mostly in the Player's Option books. And, of course, some of the 3E stuff that wasn't in 2E comes from older editions still, like half-orc PCs and monks and barbarians.
I don't really consider the movement from THAC0 to base attack, from AC that goes down from 10 to AC that goes up, from weird charts for each of the six prime stats to a unified chart to be big changes -- these are all things that, to me, are natural streamlinings of the previous system that just seem natural once you've seen them.
The major different idea in 3E that really is a departure from 2E is its radically different take on multiclassing. Beyond that, I really don't think there's all that much new under the sun there.
|
|
I disagree with you about the 2E->3E change.
I mean, sure, core 2E is a long way from core 3E, but consider all the stuff that was added on to 2E over the intervening 11 years, or tried in various settings or optional books.
A lot of what we think of as the iconic 3E concepts like more tactical combat rules, attacks of opportunity, metamagic feats, etc. were pretty much all tried in 2E, mostly in the Player's Option books. And, of course, some of the 3E stuff that wasn't in 2E comes from older editions still, like half-orc PCs and monks and barbarians.
I don't really consider the movement from THAC0 to base attack, from AC that goes down from 10 to AC that goes up, from weird charts for each of the six prime stats to a unified chart to be big changes -- these are all things that, to me, are natural streamlinings of the previous system that just seem natural once you've seen them.
The major different idea in 3E that really is a departure from 2E is its radically different take on multiclassing. Beyond that, I really don't think there's all that much new under the sun there.
Funny, most of the things you mention are examples I would give as to why I don't find 2e --> d20 such an obvious leap! :)
Weird charts? They didn't and still don't seem that weird to me. It seemed a lot of 'it ain't broke, but we'll still fix it' to me. Still it was the game people played so I played it. I play PF now and enjoy it, perhaps PF will step closer to my ideal in PF2, perhaps not?
THAC0 --> BAB, why bother
Saving throws --> FORT/REF/WILL, I think more harm than good
unlimited level hp's --> huge mistake, thanks Monte
same XP table for all classes --> simple tool for addressing balance issues removed
multi-classing --> move towards a 'skill' rather than 'class' based system in a system designed to be class based... hmmmmm.
Horses for courses,
S.
THAC0 --> BAB, why bother
Because it's a much more intuitive mechanic, that's why. And that's all the justification that's necessary, really.
|
|
I find that I occasionally go over wealth by level since i dont really track it at all. However, I generally balance this as the cool trinkets are generally being well used by the monster/npc opponent who is rather competent with that item.
For aquiring magic items, I use a hybrid approach. Low level magics are exchanged in large city shops, but the powerful, and especially the destructive magic items require connections, permits, ect in order to buy them.
I will generally throw in som connections along the adventuring path, but try to emphasize the permits nad rules regarding more powerful destructive magics. I treat higher level fireball wands, staff of fire, ect as siege weapons with appropriate restrictions on use and sale.
|
|
Because it's a much more intuitive mechanic, that's why. And that's all the justification that's necessary, really.
THAC0 --> BAB, why bother
Roll a d20, roll high in both systems. Why is one more intuitive than the other, let alone 'much' more?
THAC0 system => THAC0 - roll d20 = AC hit
BAB system ==> roll d20 + BAB = AC hit
Unless the education systems of the 21st century are only teaching addition and not also subtraction now they look very similar to me.
S.
Because it's a much more intuitive mechanic, that's why. And that's all the justification that's necessary, really.
THAC0 --> BAB, why bother
Roll a d20, roll high in both systems. Why is one more intuitive than the other, let alone 'much' more?
THAC0 system => THAC0 - roll d20 = AC hit
BAB system ==> roll d20 + BAB = AC hitUnless the education systems of the 21st century are only teaching addition and not also subtraction now they look very similar to me.
S.
The concepts under the base mechanics are very different and that leads to a zag when the more intuitive operation is to zig. When the AC values range from 10 to -10, the better being at the lower end of the scale (particularly when a +1 magic bonus drives the AC value lower), you know you're dealing with a historical artifact of wargaming and not a mechanic designed to be intuitive. That forces the user of the mechanic, the player, to roll high with the intent of generating a low number, the AC hit.
The acid test is how an untrained user handles the mechanic. Can they intuit how it works? That's why the BAB system is much more intuitive.
When a +x item gives you a -x bonus, there's a problem.
Hell, let's figure out the rules with this fighter I have just made up!
"So, my strength gives me +2 to attack and +4 to damage. That makes my THAC0 what, 21?"
"No, it's 17."
"But my chart says I have 19, and +2 gives me - "
"No, you actually minus that two."
"...Huh. Do I do -4 damage, too?"
"No, that stays at +4."
"...Um, ok. And the dexterity that gives me -1 AC< is that...?"
"No, yeah, that actually is -1 AC."
"And my +1 ring?"
"-1 AC and -1 to your saves."
"...And the +1 weapon?"
"-1 to your THAC0 and +1 to your damage."
"Wait, to the +1 item gives me -1?"
"No see, that's a good thing."
"But +1 to another thing?"
"No, you actually want the higher number there."
That will never get confusing at all!
"Ugh fine, I'll just make a thief."
"Ok, roll a d100"
"I don't have a d100. Do those even exist?"
"Well, roll two d10's and try to get a low number."
"Wait, low number?"
|
|
When a +x item gives you a -x bonus, there's a problem.
Hell, let's figure out the rules with this fighter I have just made up!
"So, my strength gives me +2 to attack and +4 to damage. That makes my THAC0 what, 21?"
"No, it's 17."
"But my chart says I have 19, and +2 gives me - "
"No, you actually minus that two."
"...Huh. Do I do -4 damage, too?"
"No, that stays at +4."
"...Um, ok. And the dexterity that gives me -1 AC< is that...?"
"No, yeah, that actually is -1 AC."
"And my +1 ring?"
"-1 AC and -1 to your saves."
"...And the +1 weapon?"
"-1 to your THAC0 and +1 to your damage."
"Wait, to the +1 item gives me -1?"
"No see, that's a good thing."
"But +1 to another thing?"
"No, you actually want the higher number there."
That will never get confusing at all!
"Ugh fine, I'll just make a thief."
"Ok, roll a d100"
"I don't have a d100. Do those even exist?"
"Well, roll two d10's and try to get a low number."
"Wait, low number?"
Funny story: I played 3.5 before I ever played a game using 2e. I had to restart a baulder's gate game because I couldn't figure out why my fighter's AC got worse when he put on full plate.
|
|
That will never get confusing at all!
Unless trying to explain the rules to chimps using sign language I'm not seeing any concepts that the average person couldn't handle. History shows that mere mortals were able to understand the 'difficult' maths as the hobby became what it is today based on AC -4 being better than AC 6.
Hmmmm, "d20 system - even chimps can play"
You think I should get a trademark on that catch phrase?
S.
Unless trying to explain the rules to chimps using sign language I'm not seeing any concepts that the average person couldn't handle. History shows that mere mortals were able to understand the 'difficult' maths as the hobby became what it is today based on AC -4 being better than AC 6.
Yes, mere mortals could suss it out, but new players had a hump to climb over that was not there by necessity, rather by artifact (it was originally inspired by tables of armor values for Civil War naval wargaming). That's less conducive to good user experiences than a switch to more intuitive ascending armor classes. That alone makes a strong case for inclusion in the 3e revision.
That will never get confusing at all!Unless trying to explain the rules to chimps using sign language I'm not seeing any concepts that the average person couldn't handle. History shows that mere mortals were able to understand the 'difficult' maths as the hobby became what it is today based on AC -4 being better than AC 6.
Hmmmm, "d20 system - even chimps can play"
You think I should get a trademark on that catch phrase?
S.
I don't know anyone that misses Thac0. I do think something such as different leveling XP for different classes could bring more balance to the game, but Thac0 will never be voted back into the game.
PS: I don't think the game is really unbalanced, but the leveling thing had it right, people just like simplicity.
That will never get confusing at all!Unless trying to explain the rules to chimps using sign language I'm not seeing any concepts that the average person couldn't handle. History shows that mere mortals were able to understand the 'difficult' maths as the hobby became what it is today based on AC -4 being better than AC 6.
Hmmmm, "d20 system - even chimps can play"
You think I should get a trademark on that catch phrase?
S.
Oh no, the game is now less needlessly complex, and we have new players entering the hobby.
What a horrible fate!
Literally your entire argument was "Well so what if it was needlessly complex and made no sense and was counter-intuitive! At least then we could be smug about it!"
When i played 2nd ed. it was confusing at first, but i got it. It was only after 3e did i realise how backwards it was!
Thac0 sux. Accept. or don't. whatever.
A bonus should be a positive, not a negative.
btw, does anyone else think that Haste should still age the target 5 years? I thought that was orsm.
/sarcasm.
|
I am astonished at the number of people who want to play Pathfinder "low magic". I. e. giving out way less magic items than intended by the designers, nerfing spellcasters etc.
This is HIGH FANTASY. Over the top, flashy, omnipresent magic is part of the game. Its not just flavour, its worked right into the mechanics. You cannot take it out without seriously reworking the rules (for a good example of a "low-magic fantasy" rework of d20 see Mongooses Conan d20), or killing all balance between classes and between characters and monsters.
Why bother? If you do not like over-the-top, flashy, omnipresent magic, I think Pathfinder is just not your game. There are many other good ones you can play that cater to your needs more.
Ir can work well in a low magic campaign if the DM is willing to make the effort, and if the players accept the fact that they aren't automatically entitled to magic item X at level Y.
Also, are people really arguing that pre-3rd edition games were more complex than 3.X and PFRPG? Seriously?
Also, are people really arguing that pre-3rd edition games were more complex than 3.X and PFRPG? Seriously?
Not more complex, unnecessarily backwards.
Also, are people really arguing that pre-3rd edition games were more complex than 3.X and PFRPG? Seriously?
No, just rebutting an implication that changing one non-intuitive rule from 1e/2e to a more intuitive one was a pointless change. That's all. There's a lot of complexity to 1e/2e, but a lot of it rested on the DM's shoulders. The games were, I believe, less complex for most players than 3e.
I don't know anyone that misses Thac0.
Yeah, it's just a really non-intuitive mechanic. I know people who played 2E for years and still sometimes worked bonuses backwards.
You look at 2E and, really, none of it seemed that awkward at the time, but once you've seen a lot of these things streamlined into a common roll + bonus vs. DC mechanic you wonder why we never thought of it at the time.
I do think something such as different leveling XP for different classes could bring more balance to the game.
To me, this was always a poor idea -- the thief is beyond terrible, and he doesn't have a single ability that isn't done better by a level 2 or lower spell, but hey, he's the highest level guy! I'm not saying I don't think it could have a decent place, but "we know these two classes are really unbalanced, so one takes double the XP to hit level 2" seems to me like something that, if it seems like a good idea to you, should indicate that you need to do another pass on balancing classes rather than halfheartedly try to correct it with an XP chart.
(Although, really, we should have realized the old-school thief as it was written was a terrible idea when even Gary Gygax needed to break the class's rules in the Gord the Rogue books to make it sound interesting. For some values of interesting.)
Wow.
Thac0 was not some lead albatross, dragging the whole game down into the depths of inscrutible brokenness like some of you are trying to portray it.
One exceptionally simple thing I did for YEARS on the character sheets I designed was to simply list the weapons with all their non-situational bonuses added in on a Thac0 matrix.
My Example.
One moment of calculation on paper saved everyone from innumerable moments of bad math.
I can't believe all these arithmetic based tantrums!
Wow.
Thac0 was not some lead albatross, dragging the whole game down into the depths of inscrutible brokenness like some of you are trying to portray it.
One exceptionally simple thing I did for YEARS on the character sheets I designed was to simply list the weapons with all their non-situational bonuses added in on a Thac0 matrix.
My Example.
One moment of calculation on paper saved everyone from innumerable moments of bad math.
I can't believe all these arithmetic based tantrums!
Frankly, I can't believe your albatross hyperbole here. Or that you'd portray this little side-debate as "arithmetic based tantrums".
Sorry, just reacting to the breathless hyperbole I'm reading.
While All Positive AC modifiers was an improvement in terms of ease of play, Thac0 was never actually a game killer IME. Basically it was something you just needed to explain to novice players and if your explanation was simple enough and you ran them through a couple of combat scenarios then they generally grokked it.
Or you could do what many 1e DMs did and do the computation for the player and just tell them a target number.
The core problem with Thac0 is that adding and subtracting negative numbers can confuse people (I see people struggle with basic arithmetic all the time) and while 1e-2e had less situational modifiers and buffs than 3.x it could get cumbersome to track all the situational modifiers for many players. By flipping the AC chart and setting the baseline at 10 it's much easier to compute to hit numbers and increased ease of play (a major 3.x design goal is accomplished.
While 3.x CharGen is undeniably more complicated and gameplay is generally more tactical there was also a trend towards simpler combat resolution mechanics in 3.x. Systems like weapon speed, varying to hit vs Armor types, interrupt mechanics, etc were all largely purged from the game or transformed into new constructs (AoOs). In comparison to a 1e game using weapon speed and variable to hit vs armor or a 2e game using Player Option: Combat & Tactics as the combat resolution mechanics 3.x is definitely streamlined.
One exceptionally simple thing I did for YEARS on the character sheets I designed was to simply list the weapons with all their non-situational bonuses added in on a Thac0 matrix.
Frankly, that making a chart like that could even seem like a good idea is proof that 3E's version of to-hit rolls is better than THAC0, and probably also that you have THAC0 Stockholm Syndrome. I'm sure it only beats you and forces you to create charts because it loves you.**
Equally, THAC0 is a much more elegant system than 1E's arcane and bizarre hit charts.* It's an evolutionary process. There's no breathless hyperbole there. No one's pitching a fit about it, but it was what it was, and what THAC0 was was a crappy mechanic that was a bridge between a crappier mechanic and a less crappy mechanic.
*One of my 2E DMs loooooved those weapon-based hit charts and insisted on carrying them over into 2E in some kind of devil's crossbreed with THAC0. In one particular meat-grinder of a dungeon crawl campaign, I had finally broken down and stopped giving my PCs names and had taken to numbering them instead. This game was beyond low-magic -- it was so into player poverty that over the course of the campaign, the party had encountered only two (nonmagical) two-handed swords, for sale or otherwise. Because hitting anything below AC 0 bordered on the impossible with any other weapon, the two-handed swords were more carefully safeguarded than any magic item in any game I've seen, with players making suicide runs to recover them from fallen comrades to pass on to the next generation. One such sword became known as "the blade wielded by such famous odd heroes as Seven and Thirteen."
**Okay, now that's a bit of breathless hyperbole.
I never found the THAC0 charts too hard to navigate, but back then I practically had them memorized. However, when 3E came out, I was impressed with the new mechanic, which is much cleaner and more intuitive. Kind of made me say, "Wow, why didn't I think of that?"
It fits in the large category of things I consider improvements from 2E to 3E.
Back on topic, the increased reliance on magic items, the general power inflation and the oft-abused WBL chart fall in my category of stuff I could have lived without.
Equally, THAC0 is a much more elegant system than 1E's arcane and bizarre hit charts.* It's an evolutionary process. There's no breathless hyperbole there. No one's pitching a fit about it, but it was what it was, and what THAC0 was was a crappy mechanic that was a bridge between a crappier mechanic and a less crappy mechanic.** spoiler omitted **
I confess that I have a warm regard for those weapon vs armor type tables. They were too cumbersome to regularly use, I thought, but they really did make some weapons good at punching through armor that I found appealing. Weapons like maces and picks used to be pretty formidable on the battlefield because the armor designed to protect from slashes and arrows didn't stop the force from inflicting trauma. And if you really look at the modifiers against armor, you really do find that good all-around armor penetrators fall in with what you'd historically expect.
I've debated with the idea of classifying some weapons as armor piercing and giving them a bonus against any target with armor or natural armor.
**Okay, now that's a bit of breathless hyperbole.
Which is fine, since I'm sensing a bit of good humor from you.
--
Yeah, not saying Thac0 was perfect, but it wasn't terrible either.
In 2e the game system started to break on the high extremes (ultra high level modules, when every bad guy had -8, -10 AC, etc). However, low to middle adventures never seemed to be a problem for me. Personally I don't think the system was ever really capable of doing those high level adventures very well.
With 3.x's removal of the artificial cap (due to the upwardly trending mechanics) the theory was that now those high level adventures can be played out more effortlessly or smoothly. I personally had too many reservations about the system overall to assume those style of adventures did, in fact, play out that way (nor do I have direct experience with those high power adventures, not being my taste).
|
|
In 2e the game system started to break on the high extremes (ultra high level modules, when every bad guy had -8, -10 AC, etc). However, low to middle adventures never seemed to be a problem for me. Personally I don't think the system was ever really capable of doing those high level adventures very well.
Ah yes, and the Epic Level Handbook is universally beloved. :-|
Yes, prior to 3.X, there were some logical kinks in the system. However, it only took me a couple-three games to figure things out pretty well, and I figure most other people were the same.
3.X added MUCH more complexity, and basically turned the game into a hybrid RPG / tactical wargame...a direction that the game had evolved AWAY from previously (well, seeing as how D&D began as an outshoot of Chainmail, it didn't really have anywhere else to go).
Frankly, just the distinctions between move actions, standard actions, and full actions plus the fact that every time someone does something you have to think about whether it provokes an AoO makes 3.X more complicated for a new player than THAC0 and having some bonuses be negative ever could.
I am astonished at the number of people who want to play Pathfinder "low magic". I. e. giving out way less magic items than intended by the designers, nerfing spellcasters etc.
This is HIGH FANTASY. Over the top, flashy, omnipresent magic is part of the game. Its not just flavour, its worked right into the mechanics. You cannot take it out without seriously reworking the rules (for a good example of a "low-magic fantasy" rework of d20 see Mongooses Conan d20), or killing all balance between classes and between characters and monsters.
Why bother? If you do not like over-the-top, flashy, omnipresent magic, I think Pathfinder is just not your game. There are many other good ones you can play that cater to your needs more.
I must say I am likewise astounded about the number of people who tell me that the way I have been running my game is wrong or cannot work well in spite of the fact that I have had great fun doing so and my players like it too. I like D&D 3.X E and Pathfinder RPG and see no reason to abandon it just because some people feel it does not support the playstyle I have been using for years.
Yes, I do modify game rules and do so extensively. In fact, I do it so much that ignoring WBL guidelines and changing magic item creation rules is a relatively small change compared with the other modifications I have made. And why not? I enjoy tinkering with the rules. The game still works, we are still having fun, players still want to play and indeed continue to play fighters/barbarians/rogies/etc., casters do not dominate the game and so on and so on. The system is much more resilient than most people give it credit for and can support a wide variety of playstyles and modifications - at least if the two jibe together.
Funny, most of the things you mention are examples I would give as to why I don't find 2e --> d20 such an obvious leap! :)Weird charts? They didn't and still don't seem that weird to me. It seemed a lot of 'it ain't broke, but we'll still fix it' to me. Still it was the game people played so I played it. I play PF now and enjoy it, perhaps PF will step closer to my ideal in PF2, perhaps not?
THAC0 --> BAB, why bother
Saving throws --> FORT/REF/WILL, I think more harm than good
unlimited level hp's --> huge mistake, thanks Monte
same XP table for all classes --> simple tool for addressing balance issues removed
multi-classing --> move towards a 'skill' rather than 'class' based system in a system designed to be class based... hmmmmm.
I did like 2E, but overall I like 3E and its derivatives better.
THAC0 --> BAB: Sure, in principle the two are the same, but the presentation of BAB is cleaner and less confusing for new players, as beautifully depicted in ProfessorCirno's post. Besides, addition takes less time than subtraction, so it speeds up the game. It's not that THAC0 was so terrible, but BAB presents the same concept in a cleaner fashion, while not really having any disadvantages. (I am ignoring new concepts attached to BAB, such as multiple attacks at certain BAB levels and such.)
Saving thows --> Another positive simplification and I say this as somebody who places a great deal of value on simulationism. The new concept is simpler, cleaner and actually makes more sense than the old system even on a simulationist level. I see this as an excellent change overall, though I acknowledge that having more saving throws might be a good idea.
XP tables --> I agree with you on this one. A unitary XP table takes away a useful balancing tool, though it does allow for the 3E concept of multiclassing which is superior to the 2E one. I think the solution would be to have a unitary table, plus an additional XP premium that would differ by class/level (some classes might not need a premium). That would provide the best of both worlds, though the cost would be a little bit more complexity (I wouldn't mind, but some players might).
Multiclassing --> I do think the multiclassing system in 3E is much better than what existed in 2E (with both multiclassing and dualclassing), though I also think it could be even better with the suggestion I made under the 'XP tables' heading.
|
|
(1) THAC0 --> BAB: Sure, in principle the two are the same. It's not that THAC0 was so terrible, but BAB presents the same concept in a cleaner fashion, while not really having any disadvantages. (I am ignoring new concepts attached to BAB, such as multiple attacks at certain BAB levels and such.)
(2) Saving thows --> Another positive simplification. I see this as an excellent change overall, though I acknowledge that having more saving throws might be a good idea.
(3) XP tables --> I agree with you on this one. A unitary XP table takes away a useful balancing tool, though it does allow for the 3E concept of multiclassing which is superior to the 2E one.
Nice post, thanks for your comments.
(1) I think you have highlighted why BAB fails in my opinion. It is not actually the BAB but rather the overly complicated iterative attacks and some feats such as Power Attack. One of my 'optimisers' was forced to basically make up an 'attack matrix' with all the calculated bonuses according to number attacks, weapons, power attack, buffs and whatever else. I asked him to do this as he slowed the game down heaps by sitting there counting on his fingers for 20-30 seconds before being able to tell what AC he had hit. Less bonuses in 2e was a good thing. But, as stated in a post above, 3e really was the start of the move back to a tactical board game (for combat). In Monte's defense he points his finger at the developers of 3.5e for this, and if you hunt around there is an article with Monte disagreeing with many of the changes 3e --> 3.5e.
So in short to the BAB crowd - had it been a simple translation THAC0 --> BAB I would be smiling an nodding as well. But they added in a whole mess of trouble...
(2) Agreed, more save classes would equal better. The 'big three' become dull, and are while functional, are unimaginative. Couldn't they have kept the old classes of saves but d20-ized them into d20 + mod? If we take this one step further 4e's approach is the best yet, completely intuitive (roll vs def [AC, Fort, Ref, or Will]). 3e+ has roll against AC but save against Fort, Ref, or Will, when all are 'attacks' against the PC. So 4e's system is what you get if you take things to their logical intuitive end.
(3) I must be one of perhaps four people on the planet who think that the new multiclassing system is the ultimate in cherry-picking. Also one of perhaps three who still think race/class/levels restrictions while not politically correct added flavor - 2e DMG states quite clearly not to muck about with these, I don't think Monte read Zeb's words. D&D was NEVER a generic roleplaying game, D&D was D&D. Of course now we have Pathfinder, and it is what Paizo want it to be.
Bringing this back to magic items. The 3e+ era has for me as a DM failed to provide such a satisfying experience. Replacing counter-intuitive (1e/2e) with needless complexity built on the unified system (3e+) wasn't to huge leap forward in gaming it was marketed to me as being. This added complexity in 3e+ games meant that bonuses became far more important and getting as many as possible. Stacking rules were then required, again another layer of complexity. Bonuses come from magic items - so they became, rather than as the OP suggested a reward, a necessity.
I have difficulty writing adventures/campaigns under the 3e+ system as I know I'm required to either insert what I previously would have called a ridiculous amount of magic items or have a magic item shop in every village. Failure of either of these means the players get the feeling I'm somehow short-changing them. They are of the opinion that if you have the money then you CAN buy it. DM's not doing this are now DMing wrong?!
Guess I just need a mindset change to magic items are as common as,er, common items.
4e Essentials seem to have a cunning plan of having rarities, can you guess WotC does Magic the Gathering, to help the DM with magic item bloat. I would love to see this in Pathfinder one day.
S.
PS: 2e Thieves; problem? The way you assigned points to thieving abilities was a great system. Far better than the current skill system. Sure they weren't combat monsters, guess that is why they got renamed to Rogues in later editions? Sure spell casters could do many things, but not all, and not all day. Same as 2e fighters can do more damage than a 2e wizard without question...
The problem with saves isn't that there's three, the problem is that there's too big of a gap between "good" saves and "bad" saves.
As for 2e thieves, until higher levels, you can't do your job accurately - but level 2 wizard and cleric spells can, which means they are always better at being a thief then you are. The thief skill system from 2e was a complete mess.
I must say I am likewise astounded about the number of people who tell me that the way I have been running my game is wrong or cannot work well in spite of the fact that I have had great fun doing so and my players like it too.
I did not mean to say that. I just wanted to say that if you want to have good "low magic Pathfinder", it would be a lot of work and would take careful consideration of game-balance. It can be done, as several quite good reworks of 3.x have shown (I quoted Conan d20).
I personally would not have the time or patience to do this "by hand" however.