If you ask me the problem is less to do with the broken rules (as others have noted, there are always going to be some), and more with the way they are fixed. It’s really common for designers to say ‘these rules are broken, so look, here’s a whole new system I’ve invented for you to use instead’, rather than actually, you know, fixing the broken rules (preferably in as simple and straight-forward a way as possible).

I don’t play 3e, but it looks to me like it should be quite easy to fix the Diplomacy rule. Fixing the problems with high level play would appear harder, but it’s clearly possible to do something to improve the situation. The trick, it seems to me, is to show restraint, and to respect that a popular system is popular because it basically works.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514382So we have vague references to killing helpless opponents, even suggestion in AD&D that you use the Assasination tables (the Assasination tables by the way are something we really should discuss beause if you don't like feats then a class ability to eliminate a creature through careful planning and a %d is worthy of discussion ) or whatever.

What's your issue with the Assassination tables?

Quote from: jibbajibba;514382All very reasonable but there has been reference to specific rules that 'seem' to be broken in D&D
Of the type -
i) how do hit points stop me dying from a fall?
ii) how come I only get 2 arrow shots in 1 minutes (your own )?
iii) why would a 6th level fighter ever be scared of a man aiming a loaded crossbow at his naked chest from 3 feet away?)

HPs are an abstraction. Any abstraction will start to get wonky in very specific circumstances.

i) For instance when you drop into a 10' pit, it makes sense to lose some hit points because you might be lightly wounded, in shock, fatigued after the fall. It makes sense to survive with moderate drops because your experience as an adventurer allows you to react quickly to the situation, slow yourself and land properly once you hit the ground, and so on. It also makes sense to get killed by the fall.

What makes less sense is if you drop from a great distance and don't kill yourself. You can rationalize it in many ways (you use the wall of the shaft to slower your fall, you try to bounce from side to side of the pit as you are falling, which slows you down once you hit the ground, etc), but at some point you wonder why it is that there isn't a lasting injury, or at least the possibility of a lasting injury, between surviving and getting killed. You could maybe have a System Shock roll and a table of injury for these types of situation, or a Saving Throw of a specific type.

I'm not too worried about those, personally. I adjudicate as we play, on a case by case basis.

ii) is more problematic. There are two ways one could go about it. 1) just as the melee roll represents all your feinting and fencing and maneuvering to then see with the roll if you fatigued your opponent, wounded him in some way, and so on, you could say that firing an arrow requires aim, and that aim is taken in consideration for the roll. That really doesn't work that well in fact, realistically speaking, because you can fire a LOT of arrows with aim in one minute. 2) The other solution would be to come up with some alternate mean to account for ammunition. You just do not count arrows, place some virtual limit in a combat based on the arrows carried around, and roll a die to determine whether the archer runs out of arrows during combat (like 1 in 20 or whatnot). You could alternately assume that the hit and damage roll represents the best hit or the semi-hits you got during the minute and roll some die to account for the number of arrows actually used during the round (like 1-6, 1-12, whatever makes you feel better about the abstraction itself).

In the end I just handwave it. I don't want to bother adding more complexity than there really needs to be to AD&D's combat system.

iii) This one is easier to me. A hero is just not scared by a grunt pointing at him with a crossbow from 3 feet away. He can partially dodge, has great reaction time, can move his body "just so" that the arrow passes between his rib cage and his arm. Point is, that's not the type of scenario that's going to kill a badass of 6th level with a lot of experience trending dangerous situations, avoiding arrow traps and such in the Underworld, to me.

Quote from: Rincewind1;513799Mathematical Breakdown of Diplomacy Check:

9 ranks unnamed
9 Charisma unnamed
9 Synergy synergy
3 Skill Focus unnamed
9 Motivate Charisma unnamed
2 Racial racial
2 Sacred Vow perfection
2 Evangelist cleric unnamed
2 Mwk tool circumstance
6 Beguiling Influence enhancement?
5 Friendly Face circumstance
4 Wednesday's Left Eye unnamed
9 Item Familiar unnamed
4 Herald Domain unnamed
2 Mind Domain unnamed
2 Negotiator unnamed
8 Custom item competance
1 Polite trait unnamed
1 Honest trait unnamed
5 to 7 Cohorts aid another check

1d20+94 to 1d20+96 Total

Summary:

At a mere 6th level, Fred has a minimum of +94 on his diplomacy check. He has soothing voice, so he can stop fights as soon as they start, and he has tons of class goodies. Even with a -20 circumstance penalty on his check, he still automatically converts a creature from hostile to friendly. 7 times per day, Fred can stop fights that have already started just by talking with his Soothing Voice ability (Will DC 104 average negates). And best of all, Fred isn't specific to any campaign setting.

Stacking modifiers is grade school game design in my book.  I can live with it, what the idiots at wotc and paizo did though was moronic.  You can't have unnamed modifiers in a stacking modifier system.

Take those out and see what happens.

Quote from: Glazer;514427If you ask me the problem is less to do with the broken rules (as others have noted, there are always going to be some), and more with the way they are fixed. It's really common for designers to say 'these rules are broken, so look, here's a whole new system I've invented for you to use instead', rather than actually, you know, fixing the broken rules (preferably in as simple and straight-forward a way as possible).

+10.

A similar flaw is ignoring what players seem to want in favor of what you think they really should want when you fix problems.  A recent D&D example, before 4e came out I saw a lot of complaints about the length of time 3.x combat took, especially at higher levels. A lot of 3.x players were asking for either shorter combats or official optional rules that would shorten combat for those who thought it was too long. The 4e designers, however, seemed to decide that players did not really want shorter combats. Instead what they really wanted was combats made more interesting by giving them shorter times between their actions and more interesting things to do when they acted and even during other players actions and that if they gave them this, they would not mind if combats continued to take as long in 4e (even at low levels) as they did at high levels in 3.x.

Quote from: Benoist;514433What makes less sense is if you drop from a great distance and don't kill yourself.

[...]

You could maybe have a System Shock roll and a table of injury for these types of situation, or a Saving Throw of a specific type.

Something like that is already there in 3.0 and 3.5. Death from Massive Damage. 3.5 PHB, pg. 145.

Set the Threshold low, or rule that any fall of 40 ft. or more triggers a Massive Damage save.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;514463Something like that is already there in 3.0 and 3.5. Death from Massive Damage. 3.5 PHB, pg. 145.

Set the Threshold low, or rule that any fall of 40 ft. or more triggers a Massive Damage save.

Sure. I'm familiar with the 3rd ed rules myself.

Quote from: Benoist;514464Sure. I'm familiar with the 3rd ed rules myself.

Alright. But not everyone can be you.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;514467Alright. But not everyone can be you.

OK. I just wasn't sure if you thought I didn't know or not (oooh double negative).

Quote from: Benoist;514468OK. I just wasn't sure if you thought I didn't know or not (oooh double negative).

It never crossed my mind either way. Saw "a rule doing X might patch problem Z", the little imp in the back of my brain said "that's almost like this extant rule" and the post came out.

I like pointing out how extant rules can be adapted to cover new situations. Or, at least the little imp in the back of my mind does. That's what happens every time someone says "I'd like the system to do this..."

Didn't mean to imply you were an ignoramus. Because I don't believe that.

Pace?

Quote from: Sommerjon;514434You can't have unnamed modifiers in a stacking modifier system.

That's what happens when RPG designers try to design for a system based on CCG logic without any CCG experience.

Quote from: Benoist;514428What's your issue with the Assassination tables?

I just think that as written the assasination 'feat' is very overpowered.

Imagine your 13th level Figther walks out of his house and the DM says roll suprise you get a 1. DM makes a roll 23% yup you are dead. The assasin stalks off.....

Hold on, you say, I have magic armour on doesn't he have to hit me ... No Replies the DM. Well I have 98 hit points doesn't that matter .... no irrelevant... etc....

Wouldn't you be a tad pissed ?

In relation to the later point re the point blank range crossbow bolt. The fact that it doesn't matter and an adventurer with a year's experience (if we assume a slow D&D game with full training rules) isn't afraid of a man holding the equivalent of a .44 magnum an arm's width away from him because he knows it will only do 1d4+1 damage is why I houseruled hitpoints. He should be absolutely terrified, when the player decides their PC will leap of the jetty into the ink black water and evade the guard they should be shaking and watching the DM roll that d20 knowing that if the guy gets a hit then their PC is going to get a 10 inch long 1/2 and inch wide quarrel that can penetrate an oak door to a depth of 3 inches sticking out of their chest and they will be deader than coffin nails...

Quote from: RandallS;514403Err, there was no mention of hit points in any form in your description of your game. So I'm still wondering why you believe the game you briefly described isn't something that one could base a professional design on.

No in my game you had 12 hit points the goblins had 6 and everything did 1d6 damage + Body bonus.

My game system is far too simple to satisfy professional gamers

It's like when I did an Amber to Star Wars conversion on one side of A4

And that brief description wasn't a brief description that was the entire game.

You have to remember I am quite happy asking my players as they sit down what genre, style of game, system requirements and core mechanic they want and then ad-libbing the entire game system as we go along.

Quote from: jibbajibba;514472Imagine your 13th level Figther walks out of his house and the DM says roll suprise you get a 1. DM makes a roll 23% yup you are dead. The assasin stalks off.....

Hold on, you say, I have magic armour on doesn't he have to hit me ... No Replies the DM. Well I have 98 hit points doesn't that matter .... no irrelevant... etc....

Wouldn't you be a tad pissed ?

Depends. Just dropping an Assassin of 9th level and beyond is actually something that isn't every day fare. These NPCs are exceedingly rare.

You can check out the section of Assassin hirelings p. 17-18 of the DMG. You will see there that the Grandfather of the Assassins will always have 28 followers of 2nd through 8th level as follows: 1 8th level, 2 7th level, 3 6th level, 4 5th level, 5 4th level, 6 3rd level, and 7 2nd level, to which you add a bunch of 1st level Assassins. The Guildmaster, likewise, may not get any Assassin under his employ of greater than 8th level.

To tackle a 13th level fighter, an Assassin (careful, planning people by nature, not insane, incompetent idiots) would need to feel confident he or she can take him in a fight. Any 8th level Assassin would only have a 20% chance of success of Assassination in a confrontation, assuming NEAR OPTIMUM conditions, i.e. the potential victim isn't wary, isn't taking any precautions, isn't guarded at all by his henchmen and hirelings (note: 13th level fighters have a minimum of 61 men at their disposal at any time, see Fighters followers p. 16 of the DMG). See the bottom of the Assassination table p.75 for said caveats.

Any Assassin under 8th level would never accept a contract involving such a powerful character. Which means our Assassin is one elite Assassin (Prime Assassin if he is 13th level, a freaking legend of Assassins himself), who would be payed extremely handsomely for the deed by extremely wealthy individuals who have one hell of a grudge against our Fighter.

What did the Fighter do to trigger such an Assassination attempt performed by a ultimate expert like this? If it's "just because", then I think the DM is being a dick and/or ignoring the context I just talked about. If the Fighter did something very specific, like slap a duke in front of the King or something that he knew would have extremely dire consequences, then he must be ready for them. Or at least be weary enough that he knows something is coming (thereby lowering the chances of Assassination on the table accordingly, from a base depending on the level of the Assassin, Assassins beyond 8th level being, again, exceedingly rare to come by).

If I was the DM, I would use this as an opportunity for development in the campaign. First, such an event would be triggered by the player, not me. That means his Fighter would have done something incredibly foolish or foolhardy to have a contract of that magnitude on his head. Second, I would actually make it into a scenario or some elements of the campaign by which the Fighter might learn that such a contract exists without knowing who hired the Assassin, who the Assassin is, leaving the Player and his companions deal with the investigation and set of precautions, maybe ambushing the Assassin or trying to figure out who he is, what his usual MO is, how he would go about his plan to reach the Fighter in his Stronghold, etc etc. That's awesome!

But to answer your question: if the DM just drops an Assassin like this "because" and I just die outright like this, yeah, I'll think the DM is a dick and/or an incompetent, not knowing the context I just talked about. If the DM is not an incompetent/dick, and that my character might be wary, planning stuff and so on, or entirely suprised because of my own carelessness, in which case... that's another matter entirely! I would have had to have made some huge mistakes to get myself in this situation, probably, to then fail at preparing myself and so on, to result in an instant death like this. And if it does occur... there's always the Cleric to bring me back so we can find out what the hell just happened. Another adventure! It never ends.

I hate the assassination tables, and simply refuse to use them. It feels too much like having a combat that takes place "off-screen", with the victim having a limited say in what happens to him. It's a near-"auto-kill", and unbalanced as hell for a non-magical attack. The mechanics for it just don't feel right for me.

If my players want to assassinate someone in 1e, they have to track down their quarry, hide in shadows, move silently, and then get themselves into a position where they backstab the fucker with a poisoned blade. Roll that d20.

No assassination tables in my game. Period. :pundit: