Poll . You hate or love D&D rules ?

[mondblut]

1. Armour Class/To hit system. That was always absurd to me - your skill with a weapon has no (or little in 3.xx) influence, whether your opponent is able to land a blow on your body.

It has its influence. In form of hitpoints increasing every level.

4. Gaining hitpoints per level. Same as with combat. Why can`t I decide, whether I want to be a tank or not? If I do not do anything to streghten my constitution, why should I be more and more tough?

Because your skill with a weapon grows and affects how long can you survive against enemy attacks. Hitpoints are not "health".

 

[Cassidy]

It would be a programmer's hell, but I always thought that Rolemaster rules would be better suited for Computer RPGs than for PnPs, while D&D rules are obviously made for PnP rather than for computer RPGs, and specially not for real-time CRPGs. Of course, having your PC to become a cripple with amputated limbs wouldn't be very amusing, and a CRPG like such would have to be creative regarding what happens to the PC in the afterlife or become another "Save, Load again if you fail, rinse, repeat".

As for 3.x rules and add-ons, if there is one Munchkin's dream, it's called Prestige Classes, most of which were probably made only for powergamers, except for the Harper Scout. I don't think it's even necessary to comment about epic levels.

I also agree on the lack of specific combat skills. Although it would obviously require extra skill points to use in fighter classes, if you had to invest in something like "Medium Weapons" to increase your chances of hitting something with a longsword, specially if such skill development was done to replace the bonuses of raising stats in an unrealistic pace during character progression, then it would offer more in character specialization. Only thing is that perhaps Weapon proficiency feats wouldn't matter much, because for a rogue lacking Large Weapons as a class skill, the ability to wield large weapons would be irrelevant.

 

[Elric]

2. Bows, or why the hell do I need dexterity to be proficient with the bow?? Using a military bow is first and foremost dependent on your strenght and requires much more physicall fitness, than swinging an axe. Sure, it`s nice to be accurate, but accuracy won`t help at all if you are not able to stretch it and keep your hands stable.

At the same time however, if you can hold the bow steady, having more strength isn't as helpful as being accurate. So long as you meet a minimum strength requirement to hold the bow, your accuracy matters more, which is how its implemented. You get a penalty for low strength, but no bonus for high strength (unless you have a bow made for higher strength).

3. In 3.xx There are skills for various occupations, be it diplomacy, thievery or acrobatics. You can invest in them, or leave them be on a starting level. What matters - you have a choice to be good in this or good in that. Yet, why is there no skill for combat? Only BAB, which you receive for free, whether you want it or not.

This is called class choice. A fighter who is spending his time learning to pick locks instead of hitting things isn't training in a fighter level. He's training in a rogue level.

My biggest issue has been the concept of "favored class." Its silly, and doesn't accomplish what its supposed to do. How does it make ANY ounce of sense for a Fighter 1/Wizard 1/Bard 1/Druid 1/Monk 1 to have no multiclassing penalty, while a Fighter 3/Barbarian 5 gets one?

 

[BearBomber]

Because your skill with a weapon grows and affects how long can you survive against enemy attacks. Hitpoints are not "health".

>>>Because you're a sword master you can take 10 arrrows to the chest (ar maybe you can better dodge them, and still take damage?), and survive dragon breath, or being hit by the fireball, or survive fall from the top of the building, or survive being backstabbed. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Cassidy]

Because your skill with a weapon grows and affects how long can you survive against enemy attacks. Hitpoints are not "health".

>>>Because you're a sword master you can take 10 arrrows to the chest (ar maybe you can better dodge them, and still take damage?), and survive dragon breath, or being hit by the fireball, or survive fall from the top of the building, or survive being backstabbed. Makes perfect sense.

That is why Rolemaster exists. It's the only RPG ruleset where your PC can become handicapped from a butter knife thrust against the spinal cord or die by failing an agility check while climbing a ladder and hitting the head over the ground.

 

[Woreczko]

It has its influence. In form of hitpoints increasing every level (...)
Because your skill with a weapon grows and affects how long can you survive against enemy attacks. Hitpoints are not "health".

It is only your rationalization of an absurd system. Hitpoints ARE health - that`s how they work. If get hit, you lose hitpoints and if you lose enough you are dead. You can`t say "during the fight my parry skill diminishes and so after a while i drop dead, because I parried too much attacks", can`t you? As I said - it`s good enough for a simple PnP, where DM storytelling is what matters and system can`t involve too much counting, as it would spoil the fun. But we are talking about cRPGs here.

At the same time however, if you can hold the bow steady, having more strength isn't

as helpful as being accurate. So long as you meet a minimum strength requirement to hold the bow, your accuracy matters more, which is how its implemented. You get a penalty for low strength, but no bonus for high strength (unless you have a bow made for higher strength).

It`s all nice and dandy until you realise, that your character in order to be a proficient bowman needs no more than 10 str and 18 dex for good to hit modifier. Now, take into account, that a bow designed to kill humans needs at least 20 newtons to stretch it. Ever praised longbows AFAIK needed about 40. That`s 40 kg, which you need to pull and pull again. A good bowman is going to be a strongman. Yet in RPGs it`s weak but dextrous elves, who are best with the bows.

This is called class choice. A fighter who is spending his time learning to pick locks instead of hitting things isn't training in a fighter level. He's training in a rogue level.

Yes, but what about the wizard? He also gets better in combat, even if he has never used a weapon in his entire adventure. He does not get better in lockipicking or diplomatics, if does not put points into these skills, so why is combat exempt from this sensible rule?

 

[mondblut]

>>>Because you're a sword master you can take 10 arrrows to the chest (ar maybe you can better dodge them, and still take damage?)

Just like "hitpoints" are not health, "damage" is not a taken wound, and "attack" is not a blow. It's a statistical model. Hitpoints simulate health, stamina, reflexes and defense skill, and pure luck all at once. Having 100 hitpoints means only being able to passively survive the attacks of the same force 10 times as longer than someone with 10 hitpints. Not being "10 times healthier", being able to shrug off 9 normally mortal wounds or something. It's only a model.

and survive dragon breath, or being hit by the fireball, or survive fall from the top of the building, or survive being backstabbed. Makes perfect sense.

Actual damage from all of these events can be minimized with sufficient reflexes, perception and a bit of luck. That's why somebody with enough luck and better training has more "hitpoints" to survive statistical "damage" caused by such events ingame.

 

[Cassidy]

What's is the point of discussing realism when you can "roleplay" a Paladin/Rogue/Sorcerer/Shadowdancer/Red Dragon Disciple?

 

[mondblut]

It is only your rationalization of an absurd system.

Not mine, and not absurd. Statistical.

Hitpoints ARE health - that`s how they work.

Hit points--a number representing: 1. how much damage a character can suffer before being killed.
Damage--the effect of a successful attack or other harmful situation, measured in hit points.

If get hit, you lose hitpoints and if you lose enough you are dead. You can`t say "during the fight my parry skill diminishes and so after a while i drop dead, because I parried too much attacks", can`t you?

There is such thing as exhaustion, first. And second, I can say "A swordsman of skill X can typically keep parrying attacks for X times as long as a completely unskilled one". And that's what hitpoints are about.

As I said - it`s good enough for a simple PnP, where DM storytelling is what matters and system can`t involve too much counting, as it would spoil the fun.

Correct. That's why it sticks to statistical model instead of complex simulation.

But we are talking about cRPGs here.

ORLY? There wasn't a word on that.

It`s all nice and dandy until you realise, that your character in order to be a proficient bowman needs no more than 10 str and 18 dex for good to hit modifier. Now, take into account, that a bow designed to kill humans needs at least 20 newtons to stretch it. Ever praised longbows AFAIK needed about 40. That`s 40 kg, which you need to pull and pull again. A good bowman is going to be a strongman.

Average human strength is at 9. Str 10 already means above average. I don't think the thousands of bowmen levied in middle ages were all athletes. Being strong enough to work on land should be enough.

Yet in RPGs it`s weak but dextrous elves, who are best with the bows.

Elves aren't weak. They have a constitution penalty (meaning, an *average* elf is somewhat less sturdy than an *average* human... still can have con 17, which is above like 95% of humans), their strength is as fine as human.

 

[mondblut]

What's is the point of discussing realism when you can "roleplay" a Paladin/Rogue/Sorcerer/Shadowdancer/Red Dragon Disciple?

"roleplay"? What's that?

 

[BearBomber]

mondblut>>>So what do the saving throws represent? How can your luck, or skill save you from being poisoned by poisonous cloud in a small room? Why does the dragon have tons of HP? Is he skilled, or lucky?

 

[Elric]

It is only your rationalization of an absurd system. Hitpoints ARE health - that`s how they work. If get hit, you lose hitpoints and if you lose enough you are dead.

Not really, its WotC's official stance on the way HP works. Quoting the d20 SRD:

What Hit Points Represent
Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.

Nowhere in there does it say that hit points represent actual health. Parried attacks still do "damage", but they are serious blows made less serious.

You can`t say "during the fight my parry skill diminishes and so after a while i drop dead, because I parried too much attacks", can`t you?

You don't die at 0 hit points. You drop unconscious. Furthermore, yes as a fight goes on, you DO get less capable of parrying attacks, because you become tired and your fighting form becomes sloppy. Either you'll screw up and get hit, or you'll collapse from the physical strain eventuallly. Both fit into the model just fine.

Yes, but what about the wizard? He also gets better in combat, even if he has never used a weapon in his entire adventure. He does not get better in lockipicking or diplomatics, if does not put points into these skills, so why is combat exempt from this sensible rule?

This comes from the adventures D&D intends DMs to build for it. They are by nature combat-heavy (anyone who's tried another system like Cthulhu will tell you that D&D involves much more combat). As such, its expected that characters will see combat. While it may be up to the wizard whether or not he finds locks to pick or people to negotiate with, its not up to him whether or not he sees combat, because its the assumption of D&D that he WILL see combat, and therefore receive combat practice.

 

[Cassidy]

A wizard who fights enemies at melee combat or who tries too hard being a crossbowman wouldn't have enough intelligence to cast spells in the first place

 

[Elric]

A wizard who fights enemies at melee combat or who tries too hard being a crossbowman wouldn't have enough intelligence to cast spells in the first place

So a wizard is never going to block an attack made against him? That factors into HP in the D&D model. If he has to parry blows, even if he's bad at it, he's getting practice. He gets less than the fighter, which is why he has slow BAB and a small hit dice, but he still sees melee combat, whether by choice or by necessity.

In all honesty, BAB progression and hit points are probably the least illogical thing to pick on about D&D. The rules are combat focused. Its WEAKNESS is the non-combat aspect. For example: how is a Rogue allowed to get 10+ ranks in "Use Magical Device" without ever using a magical device?

 

[Cassidy]

Skill systems based on skill use rather than point allocation rarely work in cRPGs *cough* Oblivion *cough*, and I doubt they would be practical or work in PnP. And anyway, a DM can make small modifications to rules, or lead the RP to something interesting enough to avoid suspension of disbelief. House rules however may lead to PnP games that fit more into the comedy rather than fantasy genre.

A wizard whose times he engaged in melee combat can't be counted on the fingers should better find a party that is more worried and better skilled to ensure the safety of its members who aren't tanks, and learn how to rely more on the familiar to distract threats.

 

[mondblut]

mondblut>>>So what do the saving throws represent? How can your luck, or skill save you from being poisoned by poisonous cloud in a small room?

Much like HP, depends on context. But more on the luck side, hence the roll. Rolling off and covering for half-damage from fireball, concentration of will against enchantment, etc. Poisonous cloud - holding breath, covering mouth, moving to a less affected place (gases are typically lighter or heavier than the air, so they do not spread evenly), good health, anything.

Why does the dragon have tons of HP? Is he skilled, or lucky?

He is deadly.

 

[Elric]

Skill systems based on skill use rather than point allocation rarely work in cRPGs *cough* Oblivion *cough*, and I doubt they would be practical or work in PnP. And anyway, a DM can make small modifications to rules, or lead the RP to something interesting enough to avoid suspension of disbelief. House rules however may lead to PnP games that fit more into the comedy rather than fantasy genre.

The practicality argument works for skill systems. Why doesn't the practicality argument work for combat? You make combat more complex, you end up with Rolemaster. Not saying that's bad (I love Rolemaster myself), but it has far more of a learning curve, and is much more to keep track of in PnP (though could be suitable for a cRPG).

A wizard whose times he engaged in melee combat can't be counted on the fingers should better find a party that is more worried and better skilled to ensure the safety of its members who aren't tanks, and learn how to rely more on the familiar to distract threats.

Ranged attackers, surprise attacks, enemies with an intelligence higher than 8 that know to go for the fleshy wizard instead of the armored knight...all of these force the wizard into combat, particularly before he gets avoidance spells like Fly. To suggest that a wizard being forced into melee is the fault of the party is ludicrous, because there are plenty of common circumstances in which intelligent enemies will ignore the fighter and go for the wizard.

Also, use the familiar? You lose experience points for its death (constitution if you have none to lose). The familiar is supposed to be VALUABLE to the wizard, and he shouldn't be throwing it around unless he's clearly outmatched (and I'd say he's not clearly outmatched if he's up against goblins or kobolds).

Why does the dragon have tons of HP? Is he skilled, or lucky?

He is deadly.

Or rather, you stick a spear into him, and instead of dying, he says "fuck off."

HP isn't health. But having more health implies having more HP. Ultimately, HP is the ability to make lethal blows nonlethal, and if you have a ton of HP, it means you can shrug off otherwise lethal blows without trying. It doesn't matter if thats by skill or inherent hardiness.

 

[BearBomber]

Much like HP, depends on context. But more on the luck side, hence the roll. Rolling off and covering for half-damage from fireball, concentration of will against enchantment, etc. Poisonous cloud - holding breath, covering mouth, moving to a less affected place (gases are typically lighter or heavier than the air, so they do not spread evenly), good health, anything.

>>>But you can cast spell, or swing sword while being poisoned and it doesn't effect damage from poison. You can be even paralysed and you won't take any additional damage. Being paralised doesn't effect even damage taken from fireball. More than that. You HP is determined by constitution, not agility, so how can you rise your skill, luck, and perception (that you use to parry blows, avoid fireball, save yourself from deadly fall etc.) by rising your constitution? Dwalf is luckier than an elf? WTF?

 

[Elric]

Being paralised doesn't effect even damage taken from fireball. More than that.

Actually, it does. You automatically fail the reflex save.

You HP is determined by constitution, not agility, so how can you rise your skill, luck, and perception (that you use to parry blows, avoid fireball, save yourself from deadly fall etc.) by rising your constitution? Dwalf is luckier than an elf? WTF?

HP is not ONLY skill. Its health AND skill. HP isn't equal to health, but health DOES contribute to HP. Constitution represents how hard you are in the face of injury, and while your skill from parrying makes you harder to kill, so does your ability to take a spear to the gut and survive.

 

[kingcomrade]

Nope, don't really like the rules.
I do like how wizards were crowd control and buff placers instead of artillery, that's more along with what I would like wizards to be.

 

[deuxhero]

I'm playing Icewind Dale 2 at the moment and everytime I level up it's a crisis. I get asked to pick a bunch of useless 'skills' that aren't really appropriate, unless you're a wizard, ranger or diplomat or something. I have no idea what to pick..

With the full skill list, the fighter has access to crafting, swim/jump/climb/ride. The fighters skill list could use some improvments though, balance, heal, use rope and spot would all be useful to fighters without really expanding their role, bluff, sense motives and escape artist would be nice for their combat uses, but that is pushing things a bit far

Regardless of everything that has been said, we can all agree (as much as the Codex can agree) ToEE had vastly better mechanics combat wise then any other cRPG to date .