|
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.
+1/2 with the first statement, the gap is a shocker. 'Generic 3' still I think removes some of the interesting that came with the original classes of saves.
-1 for the thief comment. Yes you could fail, but yes you could try again. Spell casters unless they stacked there daily allotment with such spells were one shot wonders - or usually zero shot. Not many clerics carried around 'find traps' just because they could. Theives abilities were like a fighters 'to hit' not really a sure thing unless you leveled. But that is why you leveled...
Why do you feel it was a mess? The choice of making various different types of thieves appealed to me. I can see if all that mattered was combat abilities - as it seems in the current editions then indeed 2e thieves would suck. Notice in the 2e PHB the example of backstabbing is a 15th thief against and Ogre (what 4+1 HD if I remember correctly). See the difference in the feel of the game? I can almost hear 3e+ers all screaming that the Ogre is the wrong CR or EL for a 15th leveler - what an awful DM!
S.
1e-2e Thievery was generally predicated on a ton of uses for the thief skills every day vs the limited use mechanics of spells from the cleric and wizard
Yes if the party absolutely had to find traps the cleric could do that and if they needed a door open (that was too hard for a % strength open doors check) he could use a knock spell, or more specifically a knock scroll or chime of opening because while utility spells were nice you generally had to reserve your spell slots for other uses.
That meant that in the average Gygaxian dungeon with loads of traps, loads of locked doors, and the need to climb, hide in shadows, listen at doors, etc. the rogue had plenty of chances to use his skills in any given adventure.
You generally fought far more encounters per day than in 3.x and probably interacted with several skill challenges every session. There was plenty of room for the thief and the casters to cooperate.
Yes 1st level skill use was pretty sucktacular unless you went halfling rogue, high dex, no armor but 1st level was pretty much about being a slight improvement from the o-level pig farmer in 1e.
If you could avoid the poison needles and spiked pit traps until about 4th level (not easy but not impossible given the rapid XP advancement of thieves) you started getting pretty decent at your skills.
The problem was that it was a flat percentile instead of scaling DC like modern D&D. As such you generally sucked at low level and were automatic at high level. 1e/2e thief skills are definitely a product of their times.
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.)
I agree it is better to balance classes, but it is hard to do so and maintain(suspension of belief). When certain people control reality, and others just have metal weapons I don't realistically expect for them to be equal, but at the same time I want everyone to be able to contribute. I was not advocating the XP difference, even though it sounded like it, but I understand the reasoning. I was just comparing it to Thac0 which I can't defend at all.
|
I let people buy items, if they can afford them, and can role play out the purchase with the local shop keeper or fence. Towns have gold piece limits on what people can buy or sell an item for. Also I add in the chance the item is not available; I roll d6 if a 1 comes up then the item the PCs want is in town. I do the same for NPCs to decide if a local wizard will make the item. A PC or Parties reputation modifies the NPCs decision but never lower than 1 on a d6 = yes.
I also encourage players to enchant their own gear.
One fun thing I also do is that a divine caster can sometimes draw magic back into a "found" mundane but master work item. I give a base d100 chance of 10% plus primary ability (wisdom) modifier and 1% per level. If the PC can hit that number or lower with a roll the item awakens and become magical. This doesn't happen much but some of my game get real hairy for the PCs and once in a while this has helped the players with a quest or goal.
-1 for the thief comment. Yes you could fail, but yes you could try again.
No, you couldn't. Not until you leveled up. Which means that no, you could not realistically try again.
Why do you feel it was a mess? The choice of making various different types of thieves appealed to me. I can see if all that mattered was combat abilities - as it seems in the current editions then indeed 2e thieves would suck. Notice in the 2e PHB the example of backstabbing is a 15th thief against and Ogre (what 4+1 HD if I remember correctly). See the difference in the feel of the game? I can almost hear 3e+ers all screaming that the Ogre is the wrong CR or EL for a 15th leveler - what an awful DM!
Uh, no.
The problem is that, until high levels, the chance of failure is too high unless you become extremely specialized in one or two things - and most campaigns involve more then just those one or two things.
The thief skills were too static. It's not about combat, it's about doing thievery, but you can't. Ironically, the problem is then reversed at higher levels, where it becomes almost impossible to fail due to how high skills went.
That's the big issue with static skills - either your skill is too low to succeed, or it's so high that it no longer matters. To say nothing of how counterintuitive it is to try and roll beneath a percentage die.
1e-2e Thievery was generally predicated on a ton of uses for the thief skills every day vs the limited use mechanics of spells from the cleric and wizard
Except the more often you used those skills, the more likely you were to fail at them, and in 2e, traps were often just "You die."
Yes if the party absolutely had to find traps the cleric could do that and if they needed a door open (that was too hard for a % strength open doors check) he could use a knock spell, or more specifically a knock scroll or chime of opening because while utility spells were nice you generally had to reserve your spell slots for other uses.
He'd need to use that anyways. Failed your pick locks check? Well, there are no retries, so the wizard has to do it now.
That meant that in the average Gygaxian dungeon with loads of traps, loads of locked doors, and the need to climb, hide in shadows, listen at doors, etc. the rogue had plenty of chances to use his skills in any given adventure.
And plenty of chances to fail, then die.
Yes 1st level skill use was pretty sucktacular unless you went halfling rogue, high dex, no armor but 1st level was pretty much about being a slight improvement from the o-level pig farmer in 1e.
If you could avoid the poison needles and spiked pit traps until about 4th level (not easy but not impossible given the rapid XP advancement of thieves) you started getting pretty decent at your skills.
You do realize you are admitting that, until level 4, there is no point in having a thief. Even at level 4 you still had a big chance to fail unless you really specialized in a few things. And again, there was no retrying. Fail at lock picking? Wizard has to open it anyways. Fail at either detecting OR disarming the trap (Awesome, two chances to fail there)? Thief dies. Fail at move silently or hide in shadows? Thief is caught, dies.
The problem was that it was a flat percentile instead of scaling DC like modern D&D. As such you generally sucked at low level and were automatic at high level. 1e/2e thief skills are definitely a product of their times.
This I agree with.
I'll answer the OP to how I handle things in my campaign.
Rule 1) If the creature is intelligent it will use any magic items it has. For monsters I generally roll randomly, but fudge the dice towards items that would be useful to it/the party.
Rule 2ish) Magic items are pretty plentiful in my game. Generally first I take a look at what the item they want is and what sort of city they are looking for it in. Trying to buy a good item in a predominantly evil area isn't that good. Tryin to buy an expensive item in a very cheap area also not good.
Then I have them roll gather information (diplomacy as of PF) to see if they get any good leads etc.
Now it comes down to a roll off. I roll a d20 and so do they. If they rolled well on the gather information they get a bonus to their roll (of course if they blow it horribly they might get a penalty instead). Then I assign a bonus or penalty based on how likely that item is in that area. If after rolling they have highter than I do it is available. If they roll a nat 1 or I roll a nat 20 then it is not avialable no matter what it is, the reverse is also true.
If their roll was highter than mine by a bit, then the asking price will probably be over book cost. If they made it by a LOT then it might be at or under market value. Of course then the negotiation begins.
If they roll extactly what I did or a bit lower, then they find a similar item. Made something with a similar name, or a curse, or an extra power that jacks up the price.
Rule 3) I gave the item creation feats as bonus feats to all casters. I started this in 3.5 because the cost of making items I thought made the feats unnecessary. I've continued it in PF mainly because I feel like it. The player have never complained or tried to break the game because of it.
|
|
stuff
I would appear your experiences under 2e were very different to mine.
Slight aside question: how many DM's actually tell their players the DC's of anything? I personally don't.
You are completely right about the fact that some abilities couldn't be tried until a level was gained - but as XP could be tied to the success it was sort of fair enough. That and the keep rolling until you succeed thing means it would be easier to have a random dice roll for length of time to succeed not for IF you will succeed. Faster I would think. So perhaps rewrite the rules for skills you can retry to be just time to succeed?
The thing that people like about d20 is the thing that bores me. With the exception of the 'saving throw' (until 4e) everything is d20 + mod vs target number. Sure simple for any chimps wanting to learn, but it all feels the same, because it is. Fighter 'attacks' the monster (AC), Rogue 'attacks' the trap (DC), etc. Again, achieves what the designers wanted. Just it doesn't 'feel' like D&D - this gets back to the magic items for the under 12's to make your character worth playing.
I think that the OP has had their question answered: yes low magic is possible but it will be work for you too sort out relative power for encounters. Nature of the beast.
S.
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?"
This was what i was trying to say.
/threadjack
Slight aside question: how many DM's actually tell their players the DC's of anything? I personally don't.
It doesn't matter what the DC is. What matters is that it's built into the item and into the world, not a strange floating static number that's only attached to you.
You are completely right about the fact that some abilities couldn't be tried until a level was gained - but as XP could be tied to the success it was sort of fair enough. That and the keep rolling until you succeed thing means it would be easier to have a random dice roll for length of time to succeed not for IF you will succeed. Faster I would think. So perhaps rewrite the rules for skills you can retry to be just time to succeed?
If you're rewriting the rules, it means the rules don't work/
The thing that people like about d20 is the thing that bores me. With the exception of the 'saving throw' (until 4e) everything is d20 + mod vs target number. Sure simple for any chimps wanting to learn, but it all feels the same, because it is. Fighter 'attacks' the monster (AC), Rogue 'attacks' the trap (DC), etc. Again, achieves what the designers wanted. Just it doesn't 'feel' like D&D - this gets back to the magic items for the under 12's to make your character worth playing.
See, for me, that's utter nonsense. Why do you need a seperate system for each action, most of which don't even make sense? It in no way adds to the game that a player needs to learn thirty different types of actions just to play one character.
And cut the garbage about bluh bluh chimps. It doesn't make you sound cool or intellectual, it just makes you sound smug. Oh no, people get to have fun while playing the game and don't spend a long time needlessly learning needlessly obtuse systems. How will our hobby survive?
Oh wait, it not only survived, it thrived, because most normal human beings don't want to spend a long time needlessly learning needlessly obtuse systems.
|
|
Slight aside question: how many DM's actually tell their players the DC's of anything? I personally don't.It doesn't matter what the DC is. What matters is that it's built into the item and into the world, not a strange floating static number that's only attached to you.
Wrong. DC can and will be set by the DM
Some checks are made against a Difficulty Class (DC). The DC is a number set by a DM (skill rules as a guideline) that you must score as a result on your skill check in order to succeed.
See, for me, that's utter nonsense. Why do you need a seperate system for each action, most of which don't even make sense? It in no way adds to the game that a player needs to learn thirty different types of actions just to play one character.
No, the D20 system is NOT GOD, nor is the best system.
Systems which use percentiles are actually superior -straight up. At least 1st/2nd used percentile for thieves, should have used it for other things also.Using a D20 as a core mechanic is lazy design, Once you get out into the range of +20 the system starts to fall apart abysmally. Try running high level games with the D20 and see how at one point the dice doesn't even matter -failure. Good for some things and they tried to turn a legacy feature into something nuanced - but it falls apart.
And cut the garbage about bluh bluh chimps. It doesn't make you sound cool or intellectual, it just makes you sound smug. Oh no, people get to have fun while playing the game and don't spend a long time needlessly learning needlessly obtuse systems. How will our hobby survive?
Well the game was dumbed down -that was a selling point, also made it easier to survive - as is the case with everything Wotc touches in the realm of RP gaming.
You act as if the game was unplayable prior to 3.0 - it survived for 25 years prior to 3.0, without mass marketing, with MtG dollars and without the internet. Stop playing this repeated dismissive game when the facts don't support your argument. You didn't like 2nd (which 3.0 was derived from) then good, your choice - I have severe doubts that you actually played it when it was current and you should state that to other posters when you feign knowledge and experience with the system.
Oh wait, it not only survived, it thrived, because most normal human beings don't want to spend a long time needlessly learning needlessly obtuse systems.
It thrived and survived long before Wotc got their hands on it. Actually, again it survived by word of mouth when the game was socially unacceptable and TSR (in the apex) made bank. That was with THAC0, %skills for thieves, no DC system, etc.
4th edition on the other hand seems to be the most unpopular and divisive edition yet, already with a rewrite to relaunch the game backed by large amounts of mainstream promotion. So I think from a back room production which launched OD&D, AD&D and 2nd ed they did much better then what you seem to presenting.
Well the game was dumbed down -
What, 3E compared to 2nd Edition? Do you really believe that? It was streamlined yes, but also expanded in lots of ways. I would certainly not call that "dumbed down".
Wrong. DC can and will be set by the DM
How does that in any way relate to what I said?
No, the D20 system is NOT GOD, nor is the best system.
Never said it was!
Systems which use percentiles are actually superior -straight up. At least 1st/2nd used percentile for thieves, should have used it for other things also.
Prove it.
Using a D20 as a core mechanic is lazy design, Once you get out into the range of +20 the system starts to fall apart abysmally. Try running high level games with the D20 and see how at one point the dice doesn't even matter -failure. Good for some things and they tried to turn a legacy feature into something nuanced - but it falls apart.
This isn't a flaw with the D20 system, it's a flaw with the difference between static and non-static DCs as well as the absurd number of ways to increase your skills through items or spells (One bard spell literally makes it impossible to lose at bluff checks - that ain't the D20's fault)
Well the game was dumbed down -that was a selling point, also made it easier to survive - as is the case with everything Wotc touches in the realm of RP gaming.
Streamlined, yes. The fat was cut, certainly. Needlessly obtuse systems were removed, definitely.
Dumbed down? Prove it.
You act as if the game was unplayable prior to 3.0 - it survived for 25 years prior to 3.0, without mass marketing, with MtG dollars and without the internet. Stop playing this repeated dismissive game when the facts don't support your argument. You didn't like 2nd (which 3.0 was derived from) then good, your choice - I have severe doubts that you actually played it when it was current and you should state that to other posters when you feign knowledge and experience with the system.
Uhhhh, I'm in a 2e game right now. Doubt all you want. But so far you haven't given any facts to back up your arguments.
It thrived and survived long before Wotc got their hands on it. Actually, again it survived by word of mouth when the game was socially unacceptable and TSR (in the apex) made bank. That was with THAC0, %skills for thieves, no DC system, etc.
TSR was bankrupt when WotC came in to save them. It wasn't thriving. It wasn't even surviving. The game made bank because it was "socially unacceptable;" nothing increases sales like a moral outrage, Gygax admitted as much himself.
Were it not for 3e, D&D would be dead, dead, dead. 2e drove itself into the ground.
4th edition on the other hand seems to be the most unpopular and divisive edition yet, already with a rewrite to relaunch the game backed by large amounts of mainstream promotion. So I think from a back room production which launched OD&D, AD&D and 2nd ed they did much better then what you seem to presenting.
Prove it, for the third time.
4e is selling fantastically from all reports. It's consistently on best sellers lists. It's cleared 3e sale numbers. And it's done all that without a d%.
I have seen many games ruined by treated the section on magic items like an isle in Wal-Mart.
Minor items in my games tend to be common in the sense that nearly everywhere has them, but they don't all have the same stuff. You can't just go to any old town and expect to find a figurine of wonderous power for the specific animal you want. Even things that most take for granted ( like potions of cure light wounds) I like to make the PC's work for it a little. Not so much that they have to jump through hoops everytime they want something, but enough to make them realize that these things are not universally availiable. (that feels a bit more like a video game rpg to me).
In terms of major items and powerful medium items, there should always be a bit of a story or quest involved. That way,everything they have, or have created, means something.
In terms of magic items they get from conquered foes and monsters, I try to have a little story for some items, and make sure any excess gets dealt with (either by PCs selling the items for funds for their own items or estates, using them in diplomacy or for tithes, etc). That way they still have a use even if they plan to never use the item themselves.
This is not the favoured approach for many, but I love crafting the stories in this game. It is the part of the DM role that is the best in my opinion.
|
Obviously a contentious topic! And I will admit to having skimmed a large portion, but... Well, here's my opinion anyway.
As a player I have had a lot of good and bad experiences with DMs. While I would certainly join a game touted as low wealth, or low magic, I would do so far more reluctantly than the same game without said restrictions. I've played in some ten to fifteen of these type of games, and while a few have been great fun I've generally come to regard it as a warning sign for a bad game - anecdotal in the extreme I realize, but good enough for me.
As a DM I never give less than wealth by level, I think its a fun sapper on the whole. And while I would not characterize it as Magic Mart if you are in a major city you will be able to purchase virtually anything - albeit having to wait for some unusual higher spec items. I try to differentiate some items as special by offering little touches of flavor, for example the +1 Longsword from Burnt Offerings has an engraved wolf hound upon the hilt and the spirit of its former Shoanti owners faithful hound bound into the blade, the player occasionally senses the blades emotions and is slowly beginning to realize its nature. Its a small thing with no mechanical benefit, but I find touches like that make items far more likely to become treasured than a plain old +1 sword.
I have seen many games ruined by treated the section on magic items like an isle in Wal-Mart.
Minor items in my games tend to be common in the sense that nearly everywhere has them, but they don't all have the same stuff. You can't just go to any old town and expect to find a figurine of wonderous power for the specific animal you want. Even things that most take for granted ( like potions of cure light wounds) I like to make the PC's work for it a little. Not so much that they have to jump through hoops everytime they want something, but enough to make them realize that these things are not universally availiable. (that feels a bit more like a video game rpg to me).
In terms of major items and powerful medium items, there should always be a bit of a story or quest involved. That way,everything they have, or have created, means something.
In terms of magic items they get from conquered foes and monsters, I try to have a little story for some items, and make sure any excess gets dealt with (either by PCs selling the items for funds for their own items or estates, using them in diplomacy or for tithes, etc). That way they still have a use even if they plan to never use the item themselves.
This is not the favoured approach for many, but I love crafting the stories in this game. It is the part of the DM role that is the best in my opinion.
That's exactly how I play with my players !
You want a magic potion ? Go ask for it at the temple, but don't expect them to give 10 potions of greater healing just like that, they HAVE to know you, they will ask question and if the players reputation is bad they won't sell them the potions.
I think that players need to know that there IS interaction between their actions and how people will react at them.
If you go to the Mage Guild and ask for material, depending on how you are with them they can : refuse to sell you anything, sell you mundane item only, sell you everything they can, sell you everything they can with less than the market price, borrow you some items or even give you some for free.
If Genghis Kahn the chaotic evil happy barbarian has for a habit to put towns on fire everywhere he goes he don't have to expect people from a good god temple to sell him potions.
Magic object are NOT mundane... What kind of government will agree at selling mass destruction weapons to everyone who wants some ?!?!
How can a ruler let someone sell a wand of fireball without a control on who it is sold to ?
What, 3E compared to 2nd Edition? Do you really believe that? It was streamlined yes, but also expanded in lots of ways. I would certainly not call that "dumbed down".
Well the game was dumbed down -
I don't think "dumbed down" is the right term. As the Prof pointed out, 3E and certainly PF are actually more complex in many ways.
However, I think what Stefan and Aux are trying to get at is the many, many ways in which the game has been made "easier", resulting in more powerful characters with far less chance of dying. This, in my opinion, is deliberate design choice in response to many players looking for a different type of game experience, many of them looking for something resembling their MMO experience. A few examples:
-- Fireballs no longer fill a three dimensional space, so don't expand in tight settings - no chance of roasting your own party
-- some spells changed so that they only target enemies, so easier to lob them into melee
-- No chance of hitting your own party members when firing into melee. In fact, precise shot, available at low levels, gives archers the ridiculous (IMHO) ability to fire into combat without any penalty at all
-- Much easier to fight with two weapons, which combined with much more attractive sneak attack rules, make the thief the equal of the fighter in many melee situations
-- Removal of consequences or costs for many spells, such as haste, teleport, identify, stoneskin, etc.
-- Nerfing of poisons, so that few actually have any chance to kill a character
-- Deemphasis and nerfing of traps, making few actually deadly
-- General restriction on number and power of save or die spells
-- Different initiative system, five foot step rule and decreased spell casting times resulting in much more difficulty disrupting spells, even in melee.
-- General increase in character hit points, meaning that things like fireballs and falls, which did not scale up to match, are no longer significant threats
-- Very rapid character advancement and no need for "training", making it possible for characters to reach high-level in a few months of game time, as opposed to many years.
I could list many more, but I think you get my point that many of the changes made in 3.X/PF have made things "easier" if not "dumber" (particularly for spellcasters). That leaves some grognards with the impression that 3.X/PF is kind of like D&D on training wheels, with a lot of the danger taken out. Some of the danger was reinserted with much more powerful monsters, but the result of that is a game where much more of the challenge is found in combat, at least as the default.
I still enjoy it immensely, but it definitely has a different feel to it, and occasionally I get nostalgic.
Actually the primary reason for the failure of TSR was not related to falling sales of 2e D&D. Insiders have indicated that D&D was profitable throughout all of Lorraine Williams tenure as owner and publisher.
The core problems were as follows:
Novel sales- TSR published 12 novels in 1996 alone including a couple of hardcovers. Novels especially hardcover novels are pretty damn expensive and require a massive outlay of cash.
Dragon Dice- Second issue was that TSR looking to cash in on the gravy train that was collectable card games developed Dragon Dice. The merits or lack thereof for Dragon Dice isn't the core issue but the failure to generate sales commiserate to production costs was a massive issue. I believe that it sold well initially, they ramped up production, and then it sat on shelves.
When Random House returned a ton of unsold dragon dice merchandise and novels at the end of the year that created a massive cash crisis in the company.
So in effect a company with $40 million dollars worth of sales in 1996 suddenly couldn't operate as a company anymore. No cash flow means no books which means no distribution which means no sales which means bankruptcy.
Of course the property was worth money and money was one thing WotC had in spades back in 1996. WotC steps up and purchases TSR, they squeeze the last drops of creative juices out of 2e (Diablo D&D :|)and begin to work on 3e.
Viola the last days of TSR as a company.
Also too many box sets for worlds that in a sense were re-writes of the core rules for that world that splintered the fan base.
I think that might of been an issue, but boxed sets seemed to sell really well back in the day. I think there was some fracturing of the market but some people really want focused campaign settings.
When you start getting the 3rd or 4th box set for a marginal setting (Al Qadim or maybe Birthright) I wonder if sales were enough to justify the relatively high production costs of box sets but honestly lines like FR and Planescape seemed to consistently sell boxed sets throughout the late TSR period.
I think modern boxed sets fail for a variety of reasons not really related to market fragmentation. Production costs and more importantly display space are major factor especially when you get to the retail book trade (which WotC and some other companies really like). If you Barnes & Noble or Borders can stock 2-3 hardcovers in the space profile of 1 boxed set and each are the same cost as the boxed set why not produce a hardback.
Those factors also come into play with things like shipping and warehousing costs so it's hard not to see why the industry has largely moved away from boxed sets (essentials redbox is a noticeable exception but it fills a very unique purpose in the industry).
Setting bloat and infinite fluff is good in some ways and bad in another. Crunch heavy lines like 4e are good for playing but aren't great for reading and I'd say that a substantial percentage of RPG sales center around people who read RPGs much more than they play RPGs.
|
|
Wrong. DC can and will be set by the DMHow does that in any way relate to what I said?
It relates in this way
It doesn't matter what the DC is. What matters is that it's built into the item and into the world, not a strange floating static number that's only attached to you.
See?
Systems which use percentiles are actually superior -straight up. At least 1st/2nd used percentile for thieves, should have used it for other things also.Prove it.
Easy - everything in gaming is equated in probability - the percentile system is the best one to reflect that probability - since its range is 0%-100% that covers everything. There is no 110% or such nonsense, and you can have absolute failures/success and you can break it down into subdivision of success based on % ranges vs. a target number.
The D20 + modifiers - no.
The D20 used to represent 5% for each pip when it was a closed system, a modified percentile system - once it became an open/upward scaling system that was thrown out the window. In 3.0 the d20 became a diminishing variable, so % = superior to d20.
This isn't a flaw with the D20 system, it's a flaw with the difference between static and non-static DCs as well as the absurd number of ways to increase your skills through items or spells (One bard spell literally makes it impossible to lose at bluff checks - that ain't the D20's fault)
No, it is a flaw of the d20 system, the d20 in question loses it's relevance. So instead of Mother May I, it becomes a game of Modifier May I -and some of those modifiers are subjective.
Streamlined, yes. The fat was cut, certainly. Needlessly obtuse systems were removed, definitely.
Dumbed down? Prove it.
Streamlined -consolidated saves, universal resolution system - I'll give you those.
Fixed initiative (even of you get knocked out), fixed spell results, eliminated options, every magic item is a "spell", etc, etc. It was dumbed down due to the fact that the system loss tremendous detail in trade-offs for simplicity and accessibility. This was a stated design goal and is a fact.Uhhhh, I'm in a 2e game right now. Doubt all you want. But so far you haven't given any facts to back up your arguments.
And prior to that you stated in other posts that you never really played 2nd ed before until recently. Your experience with the game is limited at best.
TSR was bankrupt when WotC came in to save them. It wasn't thriving. It wasn't even surviving. The game made bank because it was "socially unacceptable;" nothing increases sales like a moral outrage, Gygax admitted as much himself.
Were it not for 3e, D&D would be dead, dead, dead. 2e drove itself into the ground.
Fantasy for you, but no - this has already been addressed by other posters adequately so I don't need to hit this one besides saying that, no - you're wrong. Your theory about a word of mouth game being popular and played by geeks on collage campuses across the US was solely played because it was "socially unacceptable" is beyond absurd and asinine. It was a good game and it didn't need mass market of the internet to catch fire. The reasons why TSR started to flag were not because of 2nd ed - try to do some research into the subject of the history of TSR and their management before spreading such nonsense.
They couldn't even GAME or PLAYTEST in the OFFICE, let that one sink in.
Prove it, for the third time.
4e is selling fantastically from all reports. It's consistently on best sellers lists. It's cleared 3e sale numbers. And it's done all that without a d%.
Why don't you produce those reports? LoL
LOL - ok what was the first run of 1st ed -11 years? 2nd ed, 11 years? 3.0 - 3 years and 3.5, 5 years? And 4th ed ran around 2 years before a new revision came out?Is it making money, sure it is.
Is it making as much money as they like or expected it to, no. And that is evidence by D&D essentials; a relaunch to re-pitch a game that is reviled by many gamers. That or one that just failed to "connect". And Wotc is using every little bit of nostalgia to sell their products - the card version of Gamma World – Famine and Fargo and Legion of Gold, the essentials box using old art, Tomb of Horrors over and over again. You don't do a relaunch unless you feel you missed the mark in some way.
Looks like target failure to me.
Easy - everything in gaming is equated in probability - the percentile system is the best one to reflect that probability - since its range is 0%-100% that covers everything. There is no 110% or such nonsense, and you can have absolute failures/success and you can break it down into subdivision of success based on % ranges vs. a target number.
The D20 + modifiers - no.
The D20 used to represent 5% for each pip when it was a closed system, a modified percentile system - once it became an open/upward scaling system that was thrown out the window. In 3.0 the d20 became a diminishing variable, so % = superior to d20.
Your proof really doesn't say much at all. What a percentile system excels at is telling the user (the player) what the chance of success is. If you have to roll 73 or under, you have a 73% chance of doing so. Generating that information is quite intuitive.
The D20+modifiers going after a target DC really does much the same thing as far as end result. You still have a measureable probability of achieving the goal. But the chances of successfully doing so are a bit more obscure, calculating the chance of success is less intuitive.
That said, a percentile skill system goes really well with a percentile combat system (like in BRP) and the D20 skill check system goes well with the D20 combat system. Both systems behave in the same basic way for both skills and combat (which is arguably just the application of a subset of skills--combat skills). So while determining the chance of success in a percentile system is highly intuitive, mixing a percentile skill system with the D20 combat system would lead to a somewhat less intuitive mechanical system overall. So I really wouldn't say that a percentile system is provably better than the D20+modifiers skill check system. I'd even say that there are aspects of the 3e rogue skills that are superior to the 1e thief skill system - like those decimals on climb skills. What's the point of those?!?
|
|
Getting back to the issue of magic items and their distribution -
I usually pick a level range - using the MIC, I roll maybe 4-5 times and cross check the number on 1 table up, the level table I picked and 1 table down. If I want multiple items I will go a few levels lower.
From that I get a list of items and decide on what stays and what goes
If it fits thematically with the creature - it stays
If it fits thematically with the dungeon - it stays
If it is something the party can use as a group, pc or npc then it stays.
I don't let them buy items per se - usually they start a trade going with a local lord +wizard or cleric and they buy items, while also trading in magic items. So if the PCs get a few minor magical weapons they don't want they can then turn those around for an item which may suit their group or one of the team members.
I allow the purchase of minor potions, scrolls an minor customized magic items (an acorn which when dropped triggers a Bless spell, 1/use). Most of these need to be picked up by the appropriate npc selling the item - alchemist/hedge wizard for the minor potions and scroll, local temple for a limited range of potions. I am not as concerned about level of the potions as I am the effect - healing over flight, etc.
So the most logical group is sought out for the best chances to establish trade - elves for the strange or classic "high magic" (not power) stuff, dwarves for armor and weapons, etc. That isn't a fixed rule just a guideline. An aging ranger may trade away a decent magical sword for magic that might make it easier to tend the area he is charged to protect. Something PCs may not be as interested due to their careers.
|
|
1st and 2nd edition were not 'closed' systems. They just didn't extend the charts in an open ended manner.
Here you go Roy -
On saves they were closed - 1 is always a failure (1st ed), even if you can normally make the save on a 2 or better. Out of a D20 - that's closed
NWP -AKA skill checks were rolled under a target number on a d20 - closed.
The closest thing coming to open was the actual to hit tables/THAC0, and even then they were closed.
Warrior - level 20 THAC0 1, vs. -10 he needed a 11 or better.
Armor Class is measured on a scale from 10, the worst (no armor), to -10, the best (very powerful magical armors). The lower the number, the more effective the armor. Shields can also improve the AC of a character (see page 75)
Did they have creatures with AC higher than -10, I think there was one that had AC -12 in one of the creature books. But as the core rules were written - it was closed.
The D20+modifiers going after a target DC really does much the same thing as far as end result. You still have a measurable probability of achieving the goal. But the chances of successfully doing so are a bit more obscure, calculating the chance of success is less intuitive.
Agree on the calculating part disagree that the generation of results are the same.
At lower levels you can easily calculate probabilities due to the lower modifiers imposed on the D20, once those modifiers start getting higher (8th level up) the d20 starts to lose it's importance. As you get even greater mods the D20 starts to become a fraction of the total output. In a low scale/range this isn't a big deal - in a game with higher level (+14th) characters + tons of mods it does make a huge difference unless every DC check is kept at consistent level with the scaling power of the PCs modifiers, and that isn't the case. At higher levels you get some absurd results, a broken/useless skill system and some wild swings in check requirements for different classes - good or bad.
To me that’s bad game design – at least from the perspective that you are supposed to roll dice in the game and not just check numbers. If anything it isn't the pinnacle of game design and is really a forced effort to take the old attack/save die and use it for everything.
It relates in this way
See?
Uh, no.
That the DM can choose the DC reinforces my point. Do you even know how the 2e percentile system works? You have x chance to do any action. Have 74% in picking locks? YOu have a roughly 74% chance to pick any lock anywhere.
The DC method uses different DCs, which means different skill levels are needed for different types of locks. A crappy old lock could be DC ten, a high security system of locks and chains could be DC 80. Your chance to pick the various locks changes depending on what the DC is. It also means that a low level thief can handle low level locks, but not really high level ones, whereas in 2e you could have a levell 7 thief who fails at picking the barn lock in Farmer Joebob's farm.
Easy - everything in gaming is equated in probability - the percentile system is the best one to reflect that probability - since its range is 0%-100% that covers everything. There is no 110% or such nonsense, and you can have absolute failures/success and you can break it down into subdivision of success based on % ranges vs. a target number.
True, but it doesn't allow for variations of difficulty. All locks are the same difficulty. All traps are the same difficulty. I see two traps! I have a 65% chance of detecting or disarming it! It doesn't matter that trap 1 is made by a novice hunter and is in plain sight and disarmable by pulling out the pin, and that trap two is concealed in the walls themselves and can only be disarmed by three people simultaniously cutting three distinct wires. 65% chance for both!
The D20 + modifiers - no.
The D20 used to represent 5% for each pip when it was a closed system, a modified percentile system - once it became an open/upward scaling system that was thrown out the window. In 3.0 the d20 became a diminishing variable, so % = superior to d20.
Again, the problem there is not with d20, the problem is with the modifier explosion.
No, it is a flaw of the d20 system, the d20 in question loses it's relevance. So instead of Mother May I, it becomes a game of Modifier May I -and some of those modifiers are subjective.
This doesn't have any meaning. Literally, what you just typed out doesn't mean anything.
Streamlined -consolidated saves, universal resolution system - I'll give you those.
Fixed initiative (even of you get knocked out), fixed spell results, eliminated options, every magic item is a "spell", etc, etc. It was dumbed down due to the fact that the system loss tremendous detail in trade-offs for simplicity and accessibility. This was a stated design goal and is a fact.
So the difference between "streamlined" and "dumbed down" is "I didn't like these changes." Got it. In other words, no, it was not dumbed down.
And prior to that you stated in other posts that you never really played 2nd ed before until recently. Your experience with the game is limited at best.
And yet I seem to still know more about the subject then you :D
Fantasy for you, but no - this has already been addressed by other posters adequately so I don't need to hit this one besides saying that, no - you're wrong. Your theory about a word of mouth game being popular and played by geeks on collage campuses across the US was solely played because it was "socially unacceptable" is beyond absurd and asinine. It was a good game and it didn't need mass market of the internet to catch fire. The reasons why TSR started to flag were not because of 2nd ed - try to do some research into the subject of the history of TSR and their management before spreading such nonsense.
They couldn't even GAME or PLAYTEST in the OFFICE, let that one sink in.
Blah blah, hey, answer the question: did TSR go bankrupt with 2e? That's a yes or no question, so please just give a one word response.
Incidentally, seriously? D&D had a g~!!@#n Saturday Morning Cartoon. You're going to tell me it was socially unacceptable and unpoopular?
Why don't you produce those reports? LoL
LOL - ok what was the first run of 1st ed -11 years? 2nd ed, 11 years? 3.0 - 3 years and 3.5, 5 years? And 4th ed ran around 2 years before a new revision came out?Is it making money, sure it is.
Is it making as much money as they like or expected it to, no. And that is evidence by D&D essentials; a relaunch to re-pitch a game that is reviled by many gamers. That or one that just failed to "connect". And Wotc is using every little bit of nostalgia to sell their products - the card version of Gamma World – Famine and Fargo and Legion of Gold, the essentials box using old art, Tomb of Horrors over and over again. You don't do a relaunch unless you feel you missed the mark in some way.
Looks like target failure to me.
These claims have been coming out for the, what, two years? Three years? That 4e is still around.
Hey look at that, it's still here.
I won't bother looking up your numbers, you would brush them off anyways. It's a practice in futility. You thought 4e was going to fail ANY DAY NOW two years ago, you aren't going to change your tune now.
Essentials isn't a sign of "target failure," it's a sign that WotC already has one audience, and, like every business that has ever existed, they're going for grabbing more customers.
Oh wait, oh god, Paizo is releasing a Basic Set. LOOKS LIKE THEY FAILED TOO! OH NO! D8
|
|
Did they have creatures with AC higher than -10, I think there was one that had AC -12 in one of the creature books. But as the core rules were written - it was closed.PCs could hit AC -14 quite easily. Monsters went at least to AC -20. So much for being contained in a 10 to -10 range.
And if you have such a problem with this den why don't you go take it up with them instead of deciding to harass random people about your personal vendettas?
Hypocrisy much? You came here to troll Roy, I don't bother the denners over there. I am not focused on 3.5 mechanics as much as the people over there are, I just don't think that's the reason to play the game. That being said I'm not going to go over there and insult and harass people (like you are over here) if we don't have a similar views on gaming and game design philosophy. It would be pointless and needlessly intrusive on my part.
And I said (in the modded post) that I don't hate the den, we have some cross posters here who don't troll or try to incite fights while they are active over here - even if they don't agree with the game design/direction, they are still amicable people.
As far as the -10, that’s from the 2nd ed DMG. If you have a source you want to cite listing your -20 AC that comes out of a rulebook and not your imagination, by all means post it.
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.
No worries. My response actually came out more strident than I wanted it to be too. I understand you are not sending me off to play some other game. ;)
|
|
It relates in this way
See?Uh, no.
That the DM can choose the DC reinforces my point. Do you even know how the 2e percentile system works? You have x chance to do any action. Have 74% in picking locks? YOu have a roughly 74% chance to pick any lock anywhere.
The DC method uses different DCs, which means different skill levels are needed for different types of locks. A crappy old lock could be DC ten, a high security system of locks and chains could be DC 80. Your chance to pick the various locks changes depending on what the DC is. It also means that a low level thief can handle low level locks, but not really high level ones, whereas in 2e you could have a levell 7 thief who fails at picking the barn lock in Farmer Joebob's farm.
Wow, I guess you really have never read through all the books.
Lock quality
Wretched +30%
Poor +15%
Good +0%
Excellent -20%
etc, etc, etc
True, but it doesn't allow for variations of difficulty. All locks are the same difficulty. All traps are the same difficulty. I see two traps! I have a 65% chance of detecting or disarming it! It doesn't matter that trap 1 is made by a novice hunter and is in plain sight and disarmable by pulling out the pin, and that trap two is concealed in the walls themselves and can only be disarmed by three people simultaniously cutting three distinct wires. 65% chance for both!
Have you played anything besides 3.5 and 4e? I'm not trying to insult you Cirno, this is a legit question.
You can have a scaling % result factor (not including variances in master columns) with variations of difficulty using your 65% lockpick chance of some kind of success:
Here's a half-backed example quick example
Over 65% fail, roll a 95 or higher and you make some noise (drop tools, etc, if no one is around no harm no foul)
Under 65%
55-65 - Barely passing
40-54 - Passing
20-39 - Easily pass
05-19 - 1/2 time
01-04 - Critical success (1 round or less)
On a poor or worse quality lock a Barely Passing will still succeed, otherwise treat it as a fail
Passing - on a good or lower quality lock the lock is opened, other wise the tasks is failed
and so on......
Again, the problem there is not with d20, the problem is with the modifier explosion.
That is what I posted - more or less - exploding bonuses will tack onto any die roll and that’s why they shouldn't be tacked on.
Using the D20 is just clunky and wastes space - a range of 1-20 is crap as a basis for generating success - especially in a system which can easily have +20 or more in mods. Just not very good.No, it is a flaw of the d20 system, the d20 in question loses it's relevance. So instead of Mother May I, it becomes a game of Modifier May I -and some of those modifiers are subjective.This doesn't have any meaning. Literally, what you just typed out doesn't mean anything.
Because you don’t understand it? Not my fault Cirno. People have argued that 2nd ed is "ask the DM edition" where the DM dictates everything, aka "Mother May I"
Modifier edition (3rd) uses hard coded rules where you make checks – against subjective DCs – so now the Modifiers of the DC (aka the DM) still decide if you reach success or not. But its all still hard coded - LOL.TSR was approaching bankruptcy, to the best of my knowledge they never filed for it. It wasn’t because of 2nd edition; it was because of corporate mismanagement. This started in the days of Gygax – good game designers and module writer's - horrible management.
As far as 4es numbers you can't give them to me because you don't have them. I don't doubt that they are making money (re-read my post), they just are not making their target numbers.
Paizo is putting out an edition to reach a new demographic, Essentials is a re-launch to reach the original lapsed gamer which 4e was supposed to hit – which apparently from the existence of Essentials seems like the game failed their expectations.
I don't know what kind of forum drama is being conjured up here, but please let it go.
Wow, I guess you really have never read through all the books.
Have you played anything besides 3.5 and 4e? I'm not trying to insult you Cirno, this is a legit question.
One that I answered. I am literally playing 2e at this very moment (I'm a wild mage :D)
And no, I hadn't read that part...because I am playing 2e and, in order to live through the full "2e experience," I haven't opened the DMG. Fancy that!
As far as 4es numbers you can't give them to me because you don't have them. I don't doubt that they are making money (re-read my post), they just are not making their target numbers.
Paizo is putting out an edition to reach a new demographic, Essentials is a re-launch to reach the original lapsed gamer which 4e was supposed to hit – which apparently from the existence of Essentials seems like the game failed their expectations.
So again, Paizo and 4e are literally both releasing a basic set box to bring in new players, but for no given reason, one means the company is doing fantastic, and the other means the company is doing poorly.
As far as I'm concerned, the conversation is done. My apologies, Ross.
|
|
So again, Paizo and 4e are literally both releasing a basic set box to bring in new players, but for no given reason, one means the company is doing fantastic, and the other means the company is doing poorly.
Haven't seen the Paizo set, but the assumption is that it will rules light. Essentials on the other hand is a replacement system.
The starter box set is a segue to their new core introduction books/box sets, the Rules Compendium, Monster Vault and DM Kit, with no hardcover books slated for further release. You can read into it what you want, I see them just trying out a whole new approach for the core line and not a side game.All for new players yet with circa 77-85 art. Yeah, I'm done.
Stuff about 2E's thief skills system being better.
I'm sorry, but I respectfully really really really disagree with this.
Exhibit A: Find/remove traps, which tops out at 95%, with magical traps always being disarmed at half skill. The find roll may also have been made at half skill, I can't remember offhand.
In other words, the greatest thief in the entire world will usually fail to disarm a magical trap that he already knows is there, no matter how simple of a magical trap it is.
I just don't know how you could get excited about playing the prototypical dungeon-crawling thief with that being the case. Pretty much everyone I played 2E with loved the idea and tried to make that character -- once.
As far as 4es numbers you can't give them to me because you don't have them. I don't doubt that they are making money (re-read my post), they just are not making their target numbers.
Paizo is putting out an edition to reach a new demographic, Essentials is a re-launch to reach the original lapsed gamer which 4e was supposed to hit – which apparently from the existence of Essentials seems like the game failed their expectations.
Supposedly, the initial sales of the core 4E books at its release far, far exceeded expectations . . . but I don't necessarily get the feeling that that's been true for the subsequent flood of 4E books.
It feels to me like they did a great job of drawing some lapsed people back and drawing new people in, but at the same time alienated a lot of their previous customers. Still, what's good for 4E really is good for the hobby in general and I wish them the best.
Why don't we save the discussion about the relative financial success or failure of 4e for a different thread or drop it entirely.
It's entirely clear from the comments posted thus far that nobody here actually has access to internal 4e sales data and sales targets. We honestly don't know if 4e is doing great or struggling or somewhere in between. Anything beyond that is pure conjecture and divination akin to reading the future in tea leaves.
The public statements concerning the role of essentials are basically geared around making the game more accessible to novice gamers and possibly bringing lapsed gamers back into the fold (the Elmore cover of the Red Box is basically an appeal to nostalgia). It's also clear that with the exit of the initial design team Mearls in particular wants to cover different creative territory. Essential style builds are going to be used from now on for example.
Personally I wasn't a big fan of 4e but I'm really liking what I've seen thus far of the essentials product line. Low barriers to initial entry in the game and simplified and retro themed builds really help in terms of satisfying some of the aspects I felt 4e was deficient on. I've even come to grips with the shift towards gamist/ narrativist play and the abandonment of world simulation.
But if bashing 4e is really what you guys want to do with your time please go back to drinking the haterade ;)
|
|
I'm done -
I would like to hear how other DMs hand out gear and if they don't follow WBL how they deal with possible issues - challenges, DR/special weapon requirements, etc.
Also I would like to hear more about unconventional treasure - would you consider Info or a treasure map to have a certain GP value (replacement).
How about spells and spellbooks? Security of enemy books, do they get access to all the bad guys spells once he is defeated, etc.
Also I would like to hear more about unconventional treasure - would you consider Info or a treasure map to have a certain GP value (replacement).
How about spells and spellbooks? Security of enemy books, do they get access to all the bad guys spells once he is defeated, etc.
I have never given info or treasure maps as a specific value of treasure, but I do sometimes let the players find unconventional treasure.
Usually it takes the form of materials that can be used in item creation, mainly potions. Recently the party found a vine that can be used to make very powerful potions, but it can be highly addictive.
I've also recently become fond of giving out a few items that can increase power significantly, for a price. The wearer must sacrifice HP or sometimes take ability damage to access the more impressive powers.
As for spellbooks I usually give then a chance to find them. Spellcasters do hide them, but not in a place they themselves cannot access quickly. Also if there is a wizard in the party I'll usually add a few extra scrolls here and there to the loot. After all the fun of playing a wizard is getting lots of spells.
Typing on an iPad with long nails ftl.
I give my players the WBL and let them magic mart whatever they want. I don't like the magic mart system too much but every solution I have ever read for it has been worse than e disease (and mostly boil down to spend a lot of GM time and attention to ameliorate the immersion busting Aspects of it). Frankly I would rather not have any interaction with the accounting part of the game at all, and I would give my players their WBL automatically every level if I didn't think that would be even worse for immersion.
I don't hand out loot randomly in the game. I generally try to encourage whatever, money making schemes the players come up with during the game. If they're not into that then they just run across a lot of well geared hostile npcs, but I never resort to the random loot tables.
As for the low magic discussion, does anyone even use the CR system? I have never found it to be remotely useful as what any party is capable of handling changes drastically depending on class makeup, how well they rolled at chargen (no one likes point buy ;( ), optimization proficiency, etc. I've always eyeballed how many hits a character can take and how much damage the party can dish out when setting up encounters; I've never ran a campaign with restricted loot, but I can't imagine it would be any different on the GM side.
|
|
When I run I don't have magic-marts as such (except for potion, scroll, and wand shops in the largest of cities) but is simple enough to contact guilds, temples, or wizards colleges to have custom magic items created. As long as the PC's haven't burned their bridges with those organizations they should be able to get items for about market price.
==
AKA 8one6
I give my players the WBL and let them magic mart whatever they want. I don't like the magic mart system too much but every solution I have ever read for it has been worse than e disease (and mostly boil down to spend a lot of GM time and attention to ameliorate the immersion busting Aspects of it).
I pretty much agree with this, but it depends on the group.
There's one group I play with sometimes where, when WBL isn't used, fighting over treasure pretty much consumes the game because a few of the players are pathologically greedy -- like on the level where, you're the party's only wizard and they want to sell the ring of wizardry to buy more stuff for them rather than letting you have it, to say nothing of treasure you both might be able to use.
I'm an experienced and crafty enough gamer to go up against the super greedasauruses and come out on top, but frankly... that's not fun for me. That's not what I want to spend half my gaming time doing. With those groups I push pretty hard for WBL. With other groups it isn't a big deal whether we use it or not.
As for the low magic discussion, does anyone even use the CR system?
I do. I generally find it useful, though that being said, depending on your characters and how optimized or not they are you have to mentally adjust a bit appropriately. With a group of grizzled living game veterans, if I'm not throwing at least CR = APL+3 I know they're going to roll the encounter without even breaking a sweat, but at least that gives me a ballpark of what to target for them. With a different group, CR = APL is about that difficult.
Quick questions: What is WBL?
It's not an acronim I've come across before and nothing is springing to mind.