Quote from: Sacrosanct;647684When 3e came out, there were lots of people who never bought any D&D stuff for a decade who bought it?  I'll take your word since I didn't pay a lot of attention in 2000.

I remember that the local Media Play (the now defunct bigbox book/music store) had a midnight release party for 3e.  It blew my mind! Was it successful?  Don't know, but 3e sure was.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Play

Quote from: Mistwell;647908True, unless you force yourself to argue the other side.  Which is what they teach you in college debate - to always be able to argue both sides.

And thus, that explains how "Mistwelling" actually became a verb.

Quote from: Mistwell;647908True, unless you force yourself to argue the other side.  Which is what they teach you in college debate - to always be able to argue both sides.

As commendable this may be in principle, in practice I've found that many people are unwilling to do this.  Largely due to ego and other nonintellectual reasons.

Such individuals see arguing the other side (or for that matter different sides) as a sign of personal weakness.  In contrast, sticking to one's own guns is seen as a sign of strength.  It is largely an exercise in futility in arguing with many people, especially when they are not swayed at all by anything different than what they believe (or want to believe).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647717I'm afraid this argument is based on a disingenuous premise because on one side (AD&D) you're assuming that there aren't any modifiers in a scenario, but then are comparing it to a scenario in d20 where there are many modifiers.  We both know that the players in AD&D don't just roll, don't do any modifiers, and the DM looks at a table like you're positioning.  A 7th level AD&D character is probably going to have a magical weapon where you have to add a modifier.  Probably also a strength or dexterity score that gives another modifier.  Then another modifier based on situation (are you sneaking?  Is the opponent flanked?  What weapon are you using vs what type of armor does it have?)  There are plenty of modifiers in AD&D.  The difference is that when you're done doing all of those modifiers, then someone has to look at a table.  That's an extra step dude.

Remember in most cases, a modifier in AD&D does not affect the "to-hit" roll. Instead, it adjust the AC of the target. This is all done by the DM so the player only need roll and call out the die value really. Even if the weapon vs armor type modifiers are in play, the DM incorporates them into the roll.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;648069Remember in most cases, a modifier in AD&D does not affect the "to-hit" roll. Instead, it adjust the AC of the target. This is all done by the DM so the player only need roll and call out the die value really. Even if the weapon vs armor type modifiers are in play, the DM incorporates them into the roll.

Attributes:  affects the to hit roll
positions (flanking): affects the to hit roll
magic items: affects the to hit roll
skills (specialization): affects the to hit roll
weapon vs armor table:  affects the to hit roll

That's just off the top of my head.  I'm sure there are others.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;648032And thus, that explains how "Mistwelling" actually became a verb.

Indeed.  It's why I wrote the wiki entry to begin with

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647707It uses the d20 base mechanics, but it plays nothing like 3.x (which has a million modifiers and a dozen attacks each round to keep track of).

Translation from angry-geek to English: Sacrosanct has never played 3E.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;648069Remember in most cases, a modifier in AD&D does not affect the "to-hit" roll.

Translation from angry-geek to English: Exploderwizard has never played AD&D.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;648182Translation from angry-geek to English: Sacrosanct has never played 3E.

So 3e doesn't have characters that look like this on their sheets re: attacks:


+11/+11/+10/+9/+8


Because I'm pretty sure it does.  I may have used hyperbole, but my point that Next doesn't play just like another d20 clone is accurate because it in fact doesn't have that mess like 3e does.

Quote from: ggroy;648038Such individuals see arguing the other side (or for that matter different sides) as a sign of personal weakness.  In contrast, sticking to one's own guns is seen as a sign of strength.  It is largely an exercise in futility in arguing with many people, especially when they are not swayed at all by anything different than what they believe (or want to believe).

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

But yeah the internet has opened up inspiring new vistas of stupidity for the acute observer. I'm not sure whether I'm getting crankier, more reactionary, smarter, or everyone else really is getting stupider as I grow older, which let's face it is a viable possibility, but one thing is certain: I will figure out how to make money from it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;648069Remember in most cases, a modifier in AD&D does not affect the "to-hit" roll. Instead, it adjust the AC of the target. This is all done by the DM so the player only need roll and call out the die value really. Even if the weapon vs armor type modifiers are in play, the DM incorporates them into the roll.

I get what you're saying. It's essentially GM operations so as to keep AC discreet (as in secret). It's not offered as PC information to bother with calculations (regardless whether they can reverse calculate AC through 'guesstimations').

In that respect, yes, you are correct. Such modifiers can be seen that way. They are often referred as "to-hit" nowadays out of categorizing convenience. To argue between this is merely splitting hairs and an opportunity to insult each other, which I see has already started.

Carry on!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;648184So 3e doesn't have characters that look like this on their sheets re: attacks:


+11/+11/+10/+9/+8


Because I'm pretty sure it does.  I may have used hyperbole, but my point that Next doesn't play just like another d20 clone is accurate because it in fact doesn't have that mess like 3e does.

That's for full attack actions, and only at higher levels (and that specific breakdown would be from a character with two weapon fighting and a strength penalty or something because there is no way that I'm aware of to get 5 attacks single-wielding and especially at such a low bonus).  IIRC you can take 2-3 or 3-4 attacks per round in 2e starting at 7th with weapon specialization (ie every Fighter and at most tables probably every warrior subtype), so this was nothing new.  I was pretty sure the multiple attack break down was the same in 1e though.  A 3.x character won't get 3 attacks single-wielding until level 11 (you level faster in 3e but I still think an AD&D character will reach 7th before a 3e will reach 11th), and he will take them less frequently than his AD&D counterpart.

I personally dislike iterative attacks or the two-weapon fighter that gets alternating 3 or 4 attacks every round in 2e as well, but I'm going to have to wait and see if there is any similar mechanic in Next, because I don't have a full game yet.  

It's been a while since I looked at a Next playtest but I thought that you got more attacks as you leveled, or at least one of the iterations of the playtest had that mechanic built in.  I would be very, very surprised if Next isn't going to feature multiple attacks per round per character.

Quote from: Chairman Meow;647984If Next allows everyone to make characters in 10 minutes and prep or make an adventure in an hour or less, that's a huge improvement over anything else sold in game stores outside of retroclones.

I agree with you, but this is not the 5e I have seen in the playtests.

Is the potential there? Perhaps, but right now I see the 2e+3e design leaning much more to 3e than 2e.

Quote from: Chairman Meow;647984If Next allows everyone to make characters in 10 minutes and prep or make an adventure in an hour or less, that's a huge improvement over anything else sold in game stores outside of retroclones.

Or Dr. Who.
Or Savage Worlds.
Or Dragon Warriors.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;648267That's for full attack actions, and only at higher levels (and that specific breakdown would be from a character with two weapon fighting and a strength penalty or something because there is no way that I'm aware of to get 5 attacks single-wielding and especially at such a low bonus).  IIRC you can take 2-3 or 3-4 attacks per round in 2e starting at 7th with weapon specialization (ie every Fighter and at most tables probably every warrior subtype), so this was nothing new.

Incorrect.  At 7th level, including specialization, you get 2 attacks per round.  At 13+ level, it's 5 every 2 rounds.  A 20th level fighter who isn't specialized in 3e still has a BAB of +20/+15/+10/+5.

A 20th level fighter in Next?  +5.  That's it.  Yes, they do get multiple attacks against targets as long as they are all in front of the fighter, unless you chose volley instead of whirlwind.  You cannot have both, and you cannot use Deadly Strike expertise while doing so.  But most importantly, you only get those extra attacks if there are extra opponents.  No multiple attacks against the same target.

QuoteI was pretty sure the multiple attack break down was the same in 1e though.  A 3.x character won't get 3 attacks single-wielding until level 11 (you level faster in 3e but I still think an AD&D character will reach 7th before a 3e will reach 11th), and he will take them less frequently than his AD&D counterpart.

Again, an AD&D character will never gain 3 attacks every round unless they are specialized in the dart or something.

So let's recap.  In 3e, you had BAB of up to +20, and had several attacks each round.  In Next, the same class has a BAB maxing out at +5 and does not get extra attacks unless you choose either volley or whirlwind, and then there are limits as to what you can attack.  For example, you don't get 5 attacks per round unless there are 5 opponents, and even then you can only attack each target once.  In 3e you can attack the same target over and over.

In 3e, it is not uncommon to have a 20th level "build" that has ability ratings into the 30s and even 40s, translating into HUGE ability bonuses.  Just look the D&D wiki for 3e builds.  Next caps out at 20 IIRC for any ability.

So, to get back to my response of Benoit's, NEXT is most assuredly NOT another d20 clone.  Using a d20 and having a progressive to hit system does not mean it's just like the D20 OGL system.

Quote from: Spinachcat;648272I agree with you, but this is not the 5e I have seen in the playtests.

.

Which 5e playtest are you using?  I gotta ask, because it's very easy to create a character in Next in 10 minutes.

Again, just because it has what it calls FEATS does not mean it's a 3e clone.  The feats are in packages.  You don't scour the book looking for the best feat combination.  You choose the package that fits your archetype you want.

I imagine there would be a whole lot less vitriol from all sides if people would actually see how the game plays rather than make assumptions because it shares a keyword with a previous edition.