Poll . You hate or love D&D rules ?

[chrisbeddoes]

Well ?

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

The D&D rules are acceptable for P&P, but they don't work well for CRPGs, I don't think.

For example, the whole notion of casting a few spells a day and then resting to get them back. How many CRPGs have totally fudged this? NWN did with the 30 second rest period. IWD, IIRC, made it extremely annoying because you had to travel all the way back to town to do it. I can't remember how BG or PS:T handled it.

D&D could also stand some guidelines in it's rules for noncombat oriented things, especially for consistancy in a CRPG. Things like reactions for NPCs, which go largely ignored in the D&D CRPGs, or the idea of skills that affect persausion. There are item crafting rules in D&D, but those go largely unnoticed in CRPGs as well.

 

[Section8]

D&D rules are too simplistic for a CRPG, and rely on party, which either dictates a necessity for multiplayer, or party-play which takes the focus away from RPing. D&D rules are intentionally simple, so the players don't have to deal with anything more than basic arithmetic. However most importantly, the combat in D&D isn't really fun in itself, it simply serves as a situation, a platform for RPing. If the combat requires too much thought, it gets in the way of PnP RPing.

I can't remember how BG or PS:T handled it.

BG let you sleep for 8 hours, and threw hideously overpowering random encounters at you. "Party of four Level 1s? Here's 12 ogres. Have Fun!"

 

[Ibbz]

Which ruleset are you referring to? 2nd edition? 3rd?

 

[Sheriff_Fatman]

or FIRST, dammit!

I neither love nor hate D&D of any edition. They have their merits and their problems, like anything. They have their place but are currently (and always have done, I suppose) occupying a disproportionately large part of the market.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I liked First Edition, hated Second Edition, and Third Edition is a step in the right direction but doesn't go far enough.

 

[Nagling]

Oh I remember with horror the first time I touched those rules (so Ok I have no idea what version, early 80s) and throwed them back with disgust.
Only reason I played CRPG with ad&d rules is that so many use em..

 

[VasikkA]

Well, I can't give an opinion of 1st edition, 2nd edition is OK, 3rd edition is probably the best of all three, allowing more freedom and diversity in character development but still has some stupid restrictions and limitations. If you don't mind a class-based system then D&D would be your obvious #1 choice.

I agree with S_P, D&D doesn't work quite well with CRPGs, unless heavily tweaked. Sadly, D&D sells, hence the popularity.

 

[Ibbz]

Overall the rules seem pretty good although i dislike the excessive penalties given to dual wielding.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Dual wielding should have excessive penalties, since it basically allows you to hit twice in one round at an early level.

I've never really liked the idea of dual wielding in D&D. I've always thought it was a cheap gimmick to apply to munchkin Drizzt fanboys rather than being an actual, bonafide smart decision to add to the game.

I could see dual wielding if it was your typical sword and dagger style fighting OR wielding two daggers, but wielding two two long swords is pretty cheap. If it didn't have the penalities, it would be way too powerful. Rangers, especially, would be two powerful because they get it early on.

 

[Sheriff_Fatman]

Yeah, dual wielding seems to be pointless pandering to player egos. It was basically a nasty dead-end from the word go and is well along the way to its inevitable conclusion - dual wielding becoming the norm.

I don't usually fall back on the old "but it's not realistic," argument but come on, history is conspicuously full of people using one weapon at a time. Maybe there is a reason for that?

RPG should not be lead around by action film stereotypes.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Yeah, dual wielding seems to be pointless pandering to player egos. It was basically a nasty dead-end from the word go and is well along the way to its inevitable conclusion - dual wielding becoming the norm.

I don't usually fall back on the old "but it's not realistic," argument but come on, history is conspicuously full of people using one weapon at a time. Maybe there is a reason for that?

RPG should not be lead around by action film stereotypes.

That's basically how I see it as well. You can't make a CRPG these days without someone bringing up KEEWL DOOL WEELDING SOWRDS somewhere. Often times, there'll be multiple threads on it.

The silly thing about dual wielding is that it's just so much better to do than have a shield as well, and what's worse is that in 3e D&D, everyone can dual wield.

And dual wielding should never be more powerful than using a two handed sword.. ever.

 

[Xerophyte]

Err . . . not used in history? Ever heard of Musashi Miyamoto? Arguably the most well-known swordsman of all time, founder of the Two Heavens As One School (Nitten Ichi Ryû) of kenjutsu, generally lethal with one blade per hand? Writer of that nifty Book of Five Rings (Gorin no Shô) that is now teaching japanese businessmen everywhere the values of 17th century ruthlessness?

Besides all that; if RPGs were actually realistic and not, as they aim to be, fantastic, we wouldn't play them

 

[Sheriff_Fatman]

Great, I'll take three weapons then, and wield one of them with my head.

I didn't say they weren't used in history. I said that history is full of people using single weapons, which it is. Yes, it also includes a few exceptional people using two weapons, almost invariably swords, and mainly in Japan.

 

[Temaperacl]

I enjoyed D&D, liked 1st Ed, disliked 2nd Ed, and highly dislike 3E- it just seems far too much designed for power gamers for my tastes.
I thought that the skills (With the exception of Speak Language, which they completely failed to do decently at all) were a good addition to the game. Feats, though, seemed/seem to be a step in the wrong direction- they are far too video-gamey to me..

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Great, I'll take three weapons then, and wield one of them with my head.

I didn't say they weren't used in history. I said that history is full of people using single weapons, which it is. Yes, it also includes a few exceptional people using two weapons, almost invariably swords, and mainly in Japan.

Chinese noble women were taught to fight with two long swords. However, last I checked, D&D is basically of Western, not Asian, origin. There are many cases of Western dagger fighting that uses two daggers per opponent, and even cases of Western fights involving rapiers in one hand and daggers in the other. However, the latter is often a case of parrying with one and slashing with the other. When D&D added dual wield, that's how it should have been.

However, I totally agree with your, "This is a rare thing." stance. It should be rare. However, in 3e D&D, everyone can do it. It's just silly.

 

[Xerophyte]

Point taken, I just felt that the historical figures using two swords were being somewhat overlooked.

I still think that fantasy, by virtue of being fantasy and so on, has a right to be basd on whatever sick imagination it feels like and cater to whomever it wants, including k3wl d00d doalwelders. The rest of us can choose not to use two swords - Sant, aren't you the one arguing for more choices in RPGs? (Yes, yes, unrelated issue

 

[Ibbz]

Actually, Dual wielding is the weakest of all fighting styles in 3E. {In NWN anyway.} If you open up a module, create two characters - one using Bastard sword and shield another using 2 long swords or even 1 long sword and 1 short sword and the dual wielder gets their ass kicked. They get beaten by users of 2 handed swords/axes aswell. If you visit any of the online fighting worlds, ALL people are using bastard swords and shields. The "KEWL DUEDS " go for whatever's most powerful and in this case its bastard sword and shield. Not only that, people who use the double sword/double axe beat dual wielders aswell.

Dual wielding should be hard, but it should not be made so hard that the fighting style becomes useless compared to others. Dual wielders do no get an ac bonus {from using a shield} nor the strength bonus that the 2 handed swords/axes get. All they obtain is 2 extra attacks {That using the improved two weapon fighting feat} with their off hand weapon which is usually smaller than the main hand resulting in less damage while suffering from -2 to hit on both hands. {Thats after taking Ambidexterity which requires 15 dex and and two weapon fighting feat}

Thats presuming your at least at level 9 or higher for a fighter. I dont see why rangers recieve the abilities for free - either way they would still get beaten.
Even at first level The extra attack you would gain first level from using dual wielding BARELY compensates for -2 you recieve to hit and no ac bonus {Which is especially a problem seems you have so few hit points}.

 

[Sheriff_Fatman]

I see what you're saying, but the fact is dual wielding has been entered into the ruleset as one of the typical fighting style choices (even if it is the least powerful and not as commonly chosen as some others). Dual wielding shouldn't be typical, it should be rare.

Don't even get me started on double weapons.

 

[Ibbz]

I wouldnt mind the penalties so much if they put in a feat which removed the size difference penalties present when using a sword of the same size or larger in your off hand.

As for double weapons, well, they should never have put them in. {While their at it, they should make bastard sword 1d8 when using only one hand :D}

 

[Xerophyte]

Of course, the real munchkins of D&D wield mercurial greatswords and shield, with the aid of whichever feats it now required. 2d8 usually edge out 1d10.

For system supposed to be simple, the D&D rules are surprisingly bloated, with all the feats, exceptions, classes and so on. Ah, give me the nicely classless West End Games Star Wars instead - now that was a simple and efficient ruleset.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I still think that fantasy, by virtue of being fantasy and so on, has a right to be basd on whatever sick imagination it feels like and cater to whomever it wants, including k3wl d00d doalwelders. The rest of us can choose not to use two swords - Sant, aren't you the one arguing for more choices in RPGs? (Yes, yes, unrelated issue

Choices are great, as long as they fit within the setting. Rangers are not ninjas, nor should they be. Something like that would be fine if they introduced something like Oriental Adventures for 3E, and stuck dual long sword with those new classes.

Actually, Dual wielding is the weakest of all fighting styles in 3E. {In NWN anyway.} If you open up a module, create two characters - one using Bastard sword and shield another using 2 long swords or even 1 long sword and 1 short sword and the dual wielder gets their ass kicked. They get beaten by users of 2 handed swords/axes aswell. If you visit any of the online fighting worlds, ALL people are using bastard swords and shields. The "KEWL DUEDS " go for whatever's most powerful and in this case its bastard sword and shield. Not only that, people who use the double sword/double axe beat dual wielders aswell.

You're talking low levels here. At higher levels, those disadvantages are lessened with the right feats. A higher level fighter designed with dual wielding in mind should be able to bring down an equal level fighter that's using a shield and sword just because the damage rate for the dual wielder is higher.

Dual wielding should be hard, but it should not be made so hard that the fighting style becomes useless compared to others. Dual wielders do no get an ac bonus {from using a shield} nor the strength bonus that the 2 handed swords/axes get. All they obtain is 2 extra attacks {That using the improved two weapon fighting feat} with their off hand weapon which is usually smaller than the main hand resulting in less damage while suffering from -2 to hit on both hands. {Thats after taking Ambidexterity which requires 15 dex and and two weapon fighting feat}

Shield AC bonus isn't that much.. Maybe 1-3 extra AC, but that's not going to do much when you get twice the number of attacks.

Two handed weapons wielders should get a strength bonus, though. They are using two arms, after all.

As for double weapons, well, they should never have put them in. {While their at it, they should make bastard sword 1d8 when using only one hand

I agree here. One feat, and you get the advantage of dual wielding. Very cheap and very.. Non-Western.

 

[Ibbz]

You're talking low levels here. At higher levels, those disadvantages are lessened with the right feats. A higher level fighter designed with dual wielding in mind should be able to bring down an equal level fighter that's using a shield and sword just because the damage rate for the dual wielder is higher.

I agree exactly. But the thing is they cant. Even at high levels, taking every possible feat that improves dual wielding {All three of them} you'll still end up with -2 to hit in both hands. And your increased damage is nullified because of your decreased chance to hit. Your opponent basically has +5 more ac than you {+3 from shield, +2 from your decreased likelyhood to hit} your definately not going to hit as often thus resulting in less damage inflicted. Even if you did hit everytime with a second {short} sword your still only going to do 64 damage max {using long sword in main hand and +5 str bonus {4*8+4*5+2*6} and just in case your wondering, off hand weapons dont get str bonus} if you hit everytime in that round. Someone using a bastard sword and shield does exact same damage as they can put extra points into str resulting in 6 str bonus each attack. {4*10 + 4*6} Pretty uneven heh? 2 Handed swords/axes top that also. {4*12+4*9}

At least if they allowed swords of the same size to have similar penalties as a smaller sword it would even it up somewhat.

I'm all for making dual wielding harder {and thus more rare}, hell it wouldnt worry me if it required 18 dex, Or it made it so your unable to wear full plate. Just so long as they make it EVEN compared to other fighting styles.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I agree exactly. But the thing is they cant. Even at high levels, taking every possible feat that improves dual wielding {All three of them} you'll still end up with -2 to hit in both hands. And your increased damage is nullified because of your decreased chance to hit. Your opponent basically has +5 more ac than you {+3 from shield, +2 from your decreased likelyhood to hit} your definately not going to hit as often thus resulting in less damage inflicted. Even if you did hit everytime with a second {short} sword your still only going to do 64 damage max {using long sword in main hand and +5 str bonus {4*8+4*5+2*6} and just in case your wondering, off hand weapons dont get str bonus} if you hit everytime in that round. Someone using a bastard sword and shield does exact same damage as they can put extra points into str resulting in 6 str bonus each attack. {4*10 + 4*6} Pretty uneven heh? 2 Handed swords/axes top that also. {4*12+4*9}

Let's see.. So, +5 AC basically, three for the shield and -2 for you to hit.. 5/20.. That's 25% less chance to hit. Meanwhile, they're going to do 200% more base damage.

Furthermore, you're assuming that the dual wieldy guy didn't start with a 15 Dex.

 

[Ibbz]

200% more base damage? eh? they do a maximum of 12 extra damage to hit points per round using a short sword in the off hand. {With dual wielding, all you get is 2 more attacks which are done with your off hand. Not double the amount of attacks.}

Furthermore, you're assuming that the dual wieldy guy didn't start with a 15 Dex.

I'm talking about the point buy system so they cant actually start with 15 dex. {Unless they put at least 8 or so points into dexterity to get it up to 15. And so, that ends up with them having a point less in str than a bastard sword/2 handed sword person would be able to have which is what i have assumed would happen.}

Getting back to the topic of the thread, i agree with Saint in the fact that D&D does not particularly translate well to a CRPG, much like Battletech does not translate well into a squad based RTS. {Judging from Microsoft's attempts to do so, anyhow. Seems to lose a lot of its tactical feel}