[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.14447243 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

So I was looking through the old first edition AD&D rules, when I found something pretty amusing that I'm wondering why it wasn't moved over to 2e or beyond.

Basically, fighters and their sub-classes (paladins, rangers, etc.) get to attack more than once on higher levels, or if specialized in a weapon. This is true in both first and second editions. In the first edition, however, there was an additional rule: when fighting against anything with less than a full HD (1d8), the warriors can attack as many times as they have levels. So a fourth level paladin fights some goblins, he can mow down four of them in a round.

Why the hell wasn't this moved over to the later editions?

Pic related: a high-level fighter beats down some mooks.

>> No.14447252

>Why the hell wasn't this moved over to the later editions?
Because the nerds in charge of making 3e, 3.5e, and Pathfinder were bullied in high school by jocks, so any character who wasn't a spellcaster got the shaft.

>> No.14447253

Because D&D after 2e was all about wizards doing wizard shit you idiot.

>> No.14447254

Because it would be way too awesome.

>> No.14447256

Because someone might have made a useful non-magical character in 3e

>> No.14447259

Because I'm a wizard, I ain't gotta splain shit

>> No.14447292

because it makes the game to easy and unrealistic, an 10,000 orcs level 1-3, being killed by a level 15 fighter? Eventually they would gang up on him. Its fine the way it is (but pure fighters should get more attacks)
asspained fighter detected, you probably play 4.0, suck it up, fighters are a diamond dozen.

>> No.14447295

First, you don't know how many HD your enemy has. Second, what happens when you fight some enemies with less than a full HD and some enemies with a full HD at the same time? Do attacks against the less-than enemies get pro-rated or are you limited to normal as long as there are any full HD enemies nearby? In short, it was a retarded mess. It does harken to the "divide as you choose" direct damage cards in Magic though. It gives the idea that an attack is not an attack but rather an amount of damage. It was trampling. It's now called whirlwind attack. Or more generically, Close Burst. It's much less messy.

>> No.14447298

Fighters aren't allow to be good anymore. Wizards of the Coast has 'Wizard" in the name for a reason.

>> No.14447310

And you probably think it's realistic for the wizard to kill them all with save-or-lose spells and then fly away invisible

>> No.14447314

I love how oldfags now straight up admit that half the game's classes are meant to be completely useless.

>> No.14447318

well yeah, not all of them they would run out of spells before that but flying away and invisible are spells in i believe almost all editions. High level spells being more practical, weird can kill a lot of people. Sorry bro, fighters are linear wizards are quadratic, its how the game works.

>> No.14447323

And you think that makes for a fun game to play if you're not a total aspie?


>> No.14447337

>Looks at Cleave

It's there, you just had other options too.

>> No.14447379


It's not that they were made to be useless, it's just that along the lines the creators decided that shooting spells and using wands was cooler than swinging swords and wearing armor.

>> No.14447389

Which would be all well and good if they actually TOLD you this. And didn't write their rules and books as if martial classes and spellcasters of the same level were on an even footing.

Face it, 3.x was a terrible, bloated, unbalanced system, Pathfinder did nothing to fix this, having different classes that require completely different skills to play is bad game design.

>> No.14447399

Wow, that would have been so fucking awesome...
Close combat would have been about mowing down masses and tanking damage, while ranged characters would target leaders and spellcasters would do buffing/AoE/etc..

>> No.14447419

No, the fighter should sit there occasionally getting hit while the wizards stop time and kill everything instantly. It's REALISTIC!

>> No.14447427

Well, yeah, it is. These are WIZARDS, they're kinda bending time and space to their will, don't you think they're SUPPOSED to be more powerful than some punk with a sword?

>> No.14447435

Wouldn't it be more realistic to have the fighters use some kind of magic on their own, boosting their physical attributes?
If magic is strong enough to NUKE EVERYTHING it would only make sense that EVERYONE uses magic in some way.

>> No.14447436

Sorry to be irritating, but I think you mean "A dime a dozen", which refers to the fact that something is cheap and easily mass produced and therefore easily replaced.

>> No.14447451


Because EVERYONE wants to be a magic user. I see no flaws in this plan.

>> No.14447462

>because it makes the game to easy and unrealistic

Pick one.

>> No.14447474

Adding lots of attacks per round can be just as effectively imbla as having absurd amounts of utility. If rogues wer allowed to double the maximum number of skill ranks they were allowed to apply, they would waltz right over everything else too.

Making everything in the game broken doesn't fix the game, it just breaks it more, as we've seen with Exalted. This sort of situation is exactly what the Tomes were released to correct.

And for that matter, these sorts of arguments are exactly why 4th edition was created the way it was; balance issues. The new system fixes it, but in order to do so completely shifted how D&D worked under the new rules.

>> No.14447476

Ten thousand orcs would still gang up on the level 15 fighter, it'll just take a while. And there's so many of them that he can just swing his sword around a little and he'll automatically kill something.

>> No.14447488

>Implying 1-1 HD or less guys wouldn't be stupid mooks anyway, meant to be stormed at the PCs en masse and slaughtered in order to show how powerful the players are

>> No.14447499

It's fucking Magic, it is as strong or as weak as they want. They can choose them to have the ability to just assrape everything or they can make their magic serve a different role. If they want to make it incredibly powerful, the least they can do is balance it so these amazing magicians are fighting alongside superhuman fighters.

If magic is that common, even people who don't use it would get in on that action. Fighters would be getting magic steroids, armour and weapons would be magically perfect, everyone would benefit from it, not just those who use it.

>> No.14447575

Bro calm down its a doggy dog world

>> No.14447576

Well, you can fix the imbalance by overpowering the setting.
A giant wouldn't be a giant if suddenly the whole world gained twice its size.

>> No.14447607

I love the way that this argument always involves a bunch of idiots yelling that wizards should be magic-gods because wizards should be magic-gods, and never realising how stupid their argument sounds.

>> No.14447614

>Why the hell wasn't this moved over to the later editions?

in 2e, you get DOUBLE attack rates, plus one specialist maneuver such as a trip or disarm, when attacking either "less than 1 HD" foes or "enemies of HD equal to your level -10."

So for example, a level 19 char would get double attack rates against vampires -- a particularly deadly foe, especially for one capable of rapid reproduction/transmission in 2e.

A level 30 char could get it against BALORS.

>> No.14447618

I have a friend like that. It's irritating.

>> No.14447622

What? Where does it say this?

>> No.14447632

Wizards should be magic gods because that's the way I played the game when I was twelve and change is bad

It has logic to it, if no less stupid.

>> No.14447651

Combat & Tactics.

>> No.14447655


That's actually a coherent argument, though, albeit short on persuasiveness. It has a normative claim, and some reasoning to back it. No True Scotsman doesn't do anything; it just sits there.

>> No.14447663

>Cites Player's Option

There's your problem.

>> No.14447676

Ah yes, "badwrongfun," "stop having fun with 2e, 2e should only be nostalgia'd about, never played," etc

>> No.14447680


>>Implying this wouldn't just speed up the inevitable killing of all the chump orcs swinging with a +4 bonus against some guy with over 30 AC.

>> No.14447684

Nobody ever says that.

>> No.14447699

3eeaboos do

>> No.14447708


>> No.14447716

Argument for what? Wizards being generally more powerful than fighters?

>> No.14447722

I've never seen examples of it. Pretty sure it's a straw man.

What is bad is advocating a system you know well without acknowledging its flaws.

>> No.14447739

Some guy was just now playing the badwrongfun argument, actually.
The same thing that the hurtbutted always do when Unearthed Arcana or Combat & Tactics comes up: they cry.

>> No.14447757


Yes. Not a GOOD one, but a fully-formed one. That makes it better than most of the other arguments that tend to get posted for that position.

>> No.14447766

I dunno, >>14447663 didn't seem like a particularly "badwrongfun" comment, it simply pointed out that Player's Option is fucking terrible.

Because it is.

>> No.14447780

Cool circular logic bro.

>> No.14447793

Well it is.

>> No.14447800

round and round you go

>> No.14447804

I could tell you FATAL is a shitty system and you'd go all "badwrongfun" on me.

>> No.14447808

Need an explanation as to why Player's Option is terrible or what?

>> No.14447812

Orcs have 1 hd, the rule wouldn't apply vs them. the humanoids with less than 1 are the small ones...goblins, kobolds, jermlaines, shit like that.

>> No.14447822

there are probably some higher level orcs in there, and natural 20s, divide the number of orcs by 20... so about 500, subtract say 100 because the fighter is murdering his way though. 400 or so attacks would hit from natural 20 rules. fighter would take some damage and eventually die.

>> No.14447835

Assuming the fighter is doing the same thing every turn, doesn't have other special abilities or magic items, and is fighting an infinite horde of orcs in a vaccuum alone

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to do but you're sure as fuck not proving a point.

>> No.14447838


Nah. FATAL is demonstrably unplayable, even if it weren't so unpleasant.

Whereas people's sole complaint with Combat & Tactics only has something to do with an entirely different book that is not required for its use -- Skills & Powers -- which in turn has to do with tedious munchkinning that assumes zero DM supervision, and ignores that plenty other products, including the basic PHB as well as PsiHB, also has mindshatteringly broken options.

>> No.14447857

Wizards aren't as broken if you actually make the player pay attention to components. If they don't have it, it doesn't get casted. And you increase the casting times, which means no instant casting shit and you need to keep concentrated to cast shit. You want instant? Roll a sorcerer.

>> No.14447863

Spell components are not a meaningful restriction. At all.

>> No.14447868

Bag of holding.

And the idea that you have to actively police a class and use rules that are fiddly and annoying to prevent them from dominating (and they still might anyway) doesn't really help that much. It's easy enough to make a gamebreaking caster in 3.5 completely by accident.

>> No.14447876

Also have them keep a good care of their spellbooks so that they won't be stolen or destroyed.


>> No.14447877

Because money and magical ways to carry a lot of shit is hard.

>> No.14447878


They are if you do them right. What kind of vendor will sell bat-shit. You want bat-shit, you go find it in a cave. Only cave is full of feral batmen. Enjoy fighting those for batshit to casting a weak ass spell.

>> No.14447887

Gasoline? What kind of crazy fuck would sell a flammable petroleum product? Oh wait, there's demand for it.

>> No.14447892

Spell Component Pouch.

>lol at punishing wizards for pursuing blast magic

>> No.14447911


Bingo, also Wizards don't automatically learn shit in their spellbook when they reach a new level. You have to go out of your way and find someone to teach you. And you need to take good care of your spellbook or you might fuck something up and become useless. You want automatic inherent bloodpower? Roll a sorcerer. Wizards aren't inherently magical, they're imitators of those who are. They work for their shit, with so many rules and restrictions so they can cast something a sorcerer considers child's play.

>> No.14447916

Gasoline is in high demand in a medieval fantasy world? LOL

>> No.14447921


>Bingo, also Wizards don't automatically learn shit in their spellbook when they reach a new level.

Is this a new rule in Pathfinder? Otherwise you're objectively wrong.

I like how the only solution anyone has to making 3e playable is "blatantly ignore the rules and be an arbitrary dick"

>> No.14447923

So you have to go through the entire wizard spell list, plus any splatbooks you're using, and pick and choose whatever spells you think aren't gamebreaking. And then enforce the fiddly spellbook rules which pretty much need you to make a real spellbook and are rendered obsolete by a Boccob's Blessed Book.

And you claim none of the above apply to Sorcerors, so we're back to square one.

>> No.14447924

whoa, that joke went way over your head didn't it son?

>> No.14447926


I'm not talking about pathfinder. I'm talking about how wizards should be done.

>> No.14447930

>Rules lawyering roll player

>> No.14447934

Point is if you could use bat shit to shoot fireballs from your fingertips, you'd fucking bet the market in every town would sell bat shit by the pound.

>> No.14447942


Oh wow, the "roleplay not rollplay ppl, OPEN UR EYES" argument. That was old and stale even in the 90s.

>> No.14447945

So you recognise that wizards are OP, you're just offering stupid non-solutions to it. Spectacularly missing every point.


>> No.14447951

'roll-playing' has been recorded in a letter to Dragon magazine in the 80s.

And everyone who says it thinks they're being so original.

>> No.14447957


Sorcerers have their own things to worry about, like. How do I not accidentally blow up my best friend, and oh god my hands are on fire how do i put them out. Sorcerers are fonts of power but it's volatile and difficult to control. Wizards are the exact opposite, they have no inherent power, but they learn this shit and its stable and controllable, but takes a lot of schooling and requirements.

>> No.14447968


You seem to think Wizards are something that is common. Magic is hard as shit to learn.

>> No.14447972

Sorry bro, not even your girlfriend is slightly interested in your homebrew, though she pretends to be to be nice :)

>> No.14447975

Read the town generation rules. They are common.

>> No.14447977

You ever actually played D&D 3.5 or read the fluff? None of that shit is true in the setting at all.

>> No.14447982

Just wondering; has any DM actually used spell components to limit a magic user? To me, it would seem like enemies would want to make called shots on spell pouches, books, etc in order to weaken the walking cannon.
In my experience, most DM's don't want to keep track of that sort of thing.

>> No.14447987


That's your opinion. I'm offering solutions as to how wizards should be handled classically. You want to know why wizards are old as hell? They're hermits that spend nearly their entire lifetime learning how to use magic, magic is inherent hard as fuck to learn.

>> No.14447998

Stop yelling about your homebrew with no crunch to back it up as if that defends the system.

>> No.14448001


I have and I thought the problem people were having was about 3.5 caster edition. If that's the problem you can't fall back on it for support. You have to change it, which is what my suggestions are. A change.

>> No.14448002

Wizards are like those specialists in our world, doctors and theoretical physicists and whatnot. Doctors and theoretical physicists cannot purchase their important equipment from a corner store.

>> No.14448009


This guy gets it.

>> No.14448012


It was SOP for wizards IN THE FUCKING SEVENTIES to not keep their spellbook on them. It wasn't til, afaik, 4e that there was any reason to bring your spellbook with you into a battle (because $izards of the Coat$ banned roleplaying).

Spell component pouches might as well be free. If you want to allow called shots to destroy the pouches, might as well carry 10 or 20.

>> No.14448020

No but there are companies that sell biological and chemical reagents for research or medical supplies by the truckload

>> No.14448024


I'm not defending the system. The system is the problem. I'm suggesting an alternative.

>> No.14448026

>You want to know why wizards are old as hell?

They're not. You're thinking of deities and metallic dragons disguising themselves as old men to seem inobtrusive.

>You want to know why fighters are old as hell?

>> No.14448030

I didn't know bat shit took $25 million in R&D.

Last time it went over your head so I'll spell it out: You two are wicked rehtaded.

>> No.14448031

Yes, but you can't get them without paying a lot and producing a bunch of paperwork.

And while we're there, how come fighters can get their weapons right away instead of with a 24-hour waiting period?

>> No.14448034

I remember in 2nd ed having to purchase and make spellbooks for adventuring. The mu would have to select which spells from his home library he wanted to copy and carry... I could be remembering wrong, though. I'd have to dig out my rulebooks to actually source that.

>> No.14448040

Yes, but wizards still aren't all THAT common. Certainly not common enough that some peasant would bother going through bat caves to collect all the guano he can find, just in case an old bearded robed man happened to pop by his little shop.

It's just not worth it.

>> No.14448049

Depends on the magic level of the world. Of course, if robed guys are uncommon, the local poop dealer is probably going to charge out the nose for quality crap. Then you'd have to worry about the guy trying to pass off his own poop as bat guano.

>> No.14448055

The classic interpretation of a wizard is that of an old man. Hell the word wizard comes from the word wys which means wise. Connotations for wise are old men and women.

>> No.14448065


It doesn't but who the hell in their right mind would sell bat shit? It's useless to about everyone.

>> No.14448066

And then Wisdom was the Wizard's primary dump stat.

>> No.14448069

Of course.

You are likewise not recommended to keep it on you, or your spellbook WILL be destroyed in 2e. Roll save vs magical fire. Roll save vs acid.

>travelling spellbooks

Oh, that's a good point. Still, I think the idea is "don't keep easily destroyed shit on you"

>> No.14448081

you think someone would conjure up some lamination

>> No.14448088

Or just phylacterize up their spellbook.

>> No.14448090

The 3e wizard has nothing to do with the common idea of the wizard; the only thing tying him to Myrddin or Gandalf is the name.

>> No.14448094

Besides, wizards spend much of their time in underground caves and tunnels, it's not like they're gonna have trouble finding bat shit.

Or they can just visit the troll and get plenty.

>> No.14448099

I love how this thread has completely derailed over bat poop.

D&D 3.x: literally a shitty system

>> No.14448102


You can't keep falling back onto the system if the system is the problem. You want to be an all powerful magical god? Go ahead, but I say that's not how wizards should be. They're mere mortals tampering with powers they can only meagerly comprehend.

>> No.14448126


Ah, convenient. I do not want wizards to be all powerful gods, and so far, no one is interested in your shitty homebrews.

>> No.14448134

But I want to go on an autistic power trip

>> No.14448151

I think one of the biggest problems with casters is that the spell selection lets them do pretty much anything with few restrictions, and makes it easy to pick and choose all the best stuff.

One actual solution I'm proposing: make specialisation mandatory, not optional. Wizards have to pick a role and stick to it, and if they want to become generalists they have to take penalties or level up high enough that they remain on the same playing field.

>> No.14448152

His point is that the system IS a problem and you're trying to say there's no problem because of your shitty homebrew that every single shitty DM has made.

Seriously, every time this comes up someone always posts your EXACT SAME IDEA and everyone is like "that's stupid and not in the rules at all, stop being so stupid" and then the stupid person whines about how he's only talking about how things SHOULD be, and then we get to this stage where the stupid person is called stupid for not even understanding what the argument is about.

Taking 3.x seriously poisons your brain, stop doing it. Your life will be better when you realize it's a badly constructed ruleset that can still be fun to play.

>> No.14448156

You are now forced to choose one of them. Which is the lesser evil?

>> No.14448160

Uh, just to clarify, I keep saying 'wizards' meaning casters in general.

Wizard is just a fun word to say. WIZARD! I'M A WIZARD WIZARD A WIZARD WIZARD A WIZARD MAN


>> No.14448164

I choose AD&D.

And my group has been enjoying it for over a decade.

>> No.14448168


Thank you.

>> No.14448173

Calm down its just a game

>> No.14448176

Caster supremacy would be okay in a game where everyone is caster.

They even have a fucking game about it, called Mage: The Awakening.

>> No.14448183

Why should he have to choose one, support for 3.x ended years ago, and if he wants to play it he can make his own homebrew instead of using whatever shitty one someone is masturbating to on /tg/.

The only reason to play 3.x at this point is if you and your group never bought any 4th edition books, like my group didn't. But we moved on to other systems anyway, since we got bored with fantasy roleplaying.

>> No.14448194

The final retort of the defeated idiot.

This thread really makes me wanna play some 4E.

Also, I often hear martial special attacks criticised as 'anime'. I say, what's wrong with that? Fighting anime has tons of cool insane fighting stuff that'd be great in a game, and fuck realism.

>> No.14448218

I'm the one bashing 3.x in this thread but I'll defend it for once: people would want to play it because it's got tons of material available for free online (such as, well, THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, and you wonder why WotC killed the OGL), it is admittedly playable in the mid-level ranges (when you're high enough that a housecat can't kill you but not so high where the casters uber alles) and there is continuing support with Pathfinder, support of dubious quality but still support.

>> No.14448234

When I was paying attention to 4th edition the "anime" complaint was basically "fighters have abilities." The same complaint people made about the Book of Nine Swords, basically-it was different AND THAT'S BAD CHANGE=WEEABOO

>> No.14448244

Lots of free material is close enough to "didn't buy the new edition" that I didn't think it warranted mentioning as a different reason.

>> No.14448263

That's true, there's lots of material. Some of it is good enough to temporarily forget d20 is intended to be the edition between 2e and 4e

>> No.14448268

Hey, you're a newbie getting into these games, are you going to get the new stuff that you need to track down a musty games store to spend money on, or are you going to use the proven old stuff which is all available for free and has tons of material that should let you do anything you want?

Not saying it's the smart thing to do, but it's what I imagine people might do.

Really, getting attached to a game system and ignoring or dismissing its glaring flaws is just stupid, UNLESS you have a good way to avoid those flaws.

>> No.14448290

>That's how the game works.
>Let's change how the game works.
>But that's not how the game works.

>still hooreop
i'm sorry OP, you're still a whore.

>> No.14448359

As a newbie you'd either be introduced by your group or you'd start off without any knowledge.
In the former case, you'd become attached to what they chose. In the latter case, you'd look out for something easy. You can start a WoD game with one book and 4E got the red box...

>> No.14448374

>all available for free
Everything is available for free. But in pdf form. If I'm going to play a game offline, I'm going to have to buy hardbacks no matter the edition.

>> No.14448384


>> No.14448387

>proven old stuff
What's that supposed to mean?

>> No.14448393

I like to think that in a ghetto somewhere, some broke ass teenagers are getting together with pages printed from a library and dime store dice to pretend to be elves for a while.

>> No.14448395

Lots of people like it, that means it must be good!

>> No.14448401 [DELETED] 

>I'm getting my magic missiles and rob a fucking gamestore.

Magic missile = tec9 of course.

>> No.14448402

Been there, done that. It's uglier, harder to read, and the cheap binding methods I could find are unwieldy and fall apart after a while. Or you spend money for quality colored printing and quality bindings, but at that point it's no longer free, is it. I still do this for one-shot games, but not for the game I run my main campaign in.

>> No.14448419

I'm pretty sure that was a Chappele's Show skit.

>> No.14448420

>Breaking news: the owner of a hobby and game store was gunned down last night in a robbery gone bad, apparently the armed thieves demanded a copy of 'Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition' but the owner insisted on recommending 'Pathfinder'...

>> No.14448464

I can totally understand them.
Imagine going into a gaming store and asking for a PS3, only to be recommended an iPhone.
It may be good in some way, but it's not what you wanted.

>> No.14448499

Some stores will actually do that if they're desperate enough to clear stock, all but forcing you to buy special editions/Elites/whatever.

basic capitalism: sell people what they want to buy. You can reccomend additional shit on top of that, but don't try to sell them something different when they already wanna buy what you got.

>> No.14448505

If you switch PS3 and iPhone there its a pretty solid argument. iPhone is the future of gaming after all

>> No.14448537

If it really was, I'd kill myself. Or go back to P&P exclusively and never allow my future children to play anything else.
I'd put a curse on my family so that all technology would malfunction if we touched it. Just so that nobody would ever try an iPhone game.

And no, I don't have a problem with casual games - As long as they stay the fuck away from me. Assassin's Creed 2 was a good example for how it SHOULDN'T be done. The low difficulty of that game made 90% of the new options pointless and the basic system was actually less polished than in AC1.

>> No.14449228

The most correct answer in this thread.

>> No.14450941


>> No.14453575

This sounds awesome in theory, but I doubt it'd work.

>> No.14456616

To put an end to the shitty debate, shit is used as a fertizlizer. Bat shit is an especially good one. So rather than the farmer never seeing it or it being unavailable in most towns, it'd be available at any decent farm supply store along with the season's seeds. There could still be unscrupulous individuals trying to pass off lesser shit as genuine guano, but as a wizard it's pretty easy to tell the difference.

>> No.14456664

fighters aren't that bad if your party starts from lv1, which is when your wizards have about 1 spell and that's all they do. Later on you'll have to balance out spell casters with decent fighter gears, but lv1~5 is probably the most fun and challenging portion of the game.

As for OP's problem, if my team have to go against a boss fighter, he's gonna walk up to my team and completely rape a player. Not sure how that'll work out.

>> No.14458642

This. The first bit, that's to say: low-level campaigns are the most fun. Not just for the balance, but because it's more fun to play as a greenhorn than a veteran hero.

>> No.14459853


Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.