Quote from: Abyssal Maw;386948* Minion with a twist: A glider killed in the air was a minion. A glider killed within 20' of the ground dies and it's rider becomes a non-minion skirmisher as it leaps from the saddle. So the idea was to kill the Gliders in flight.

Thats...nice, actually. Hmm...I can use that in 3.5, as long as the mount has HPs under typical PC damage and the fall is enough to kill a rider.

Quote from: Windjammer;387042Here's a houserule I've been toying with lately. Let me know what you think of it!

1. All players roll stats 3d6 in order.
2. Each player can re-assign one of his racial +2 ability bonuses as he wishes at char-gen.
3. PC attack and defense values are NOT calculated based on PC stats and items but auto-generated as follows (source: 4E Player's Strategy Guide, page 112):

DEFENSE VALUES: AC = your character level +15 ; Fort/Refl/Will = level + 13

ATTACK VALUES: attack vs. AC = level +6 ; attack vs. Fort/Refl/Will = level +4

This would do wonders. For one, the game would now allow (again) the possibility to have stupid wizards beating clever fighters in arms wrestling matches - the world will be richer for this! For another, GMs could totally randomize treasure without falling into the trap of risking PCs from performing below the expected numbers.

The numbers above come literally from a 4E book section saying the game EXPECTS these values to function properly. If so, then why not have an option to cut out all the optimization bull shit and number fiddling and simply GIVE the PCs those numbers?  I totally understand WotC wants to cater to number crunchers, but the exclusivity of it all is maddening. That thing in the Player's Strategy Guide should have been in PHB 1. It's also exactly the sort of information that speeds up char gen WITHOUT access to the Character Builder. I can literally distribute non-filled in Power Cards to 5 players at my table and we can get the game running in 5 minutes.

Have seen that before e.g. here.. ("D&D party, art world type")
I normally play 3.5 of course, but I liked the way older editions had less demand on higher ability scores, so that characters were actually individualized by their scores. Maybe its just that the core mechanic in 3.5/4 demands an attribute modifier to every roll. Effectively dumping all ability modifiers seems to be an extreme solution since it turns half the character sheet into pointless busywork to generate, albeit its the simplest solution to the problem.

Vaguely related (I think) - I did see some discussion on the wotc boards at some point where they were debating V-shaped vs. S-shaped progressions or somesuch, and someone suggested that the range of modifiers between primary and other stats is passable at 1st level, but widens with level as point increases go to the two favoured stats. Dump all level-increases to stats and that'd remove half the problem, though it also necessarily means making compensatory adjustments to monster attacks/defenses.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid JohnsonI normally play 3.5 of course, but I liked the way older editions had less demand on higher ability scores, so that characters were actually individualized by their scores. Maybe its just that the core mechanic in 3.5/4 demands an attribute modifier to every roll. Effectively dumping all ability modifiers seems to be an extreme solution since it turns half the character sheet into pointless busywork to generate, albeit its the simplest solution to the problem.

Personally, I would really love to just cross attributes off the character sheet at all. The only thing they do is punish you for playing the "wrong kind of character" and create min/max opportunities. It's more blatant in 4e than in previous versions because the bonus treadmill so explicitly ties to the DCs of everything you do and the Defenses of everything you fight.

The real compatibility problem of course is Monsters. Monster Manuals are an important part of the game, and the most heartbreakingly annoying to redo by hand. High level monsters go off the reservation numbers-wise in both 3e and 4e. But without the attribute modifiers in there, the numbers wouldn't even add up at low levels where things currently work fine in both games.

At the point where I have to rewrite the monsters from scratch, I might as well rewrite the game from scratch.

-Frank

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;387044I normally play 3.5 of course, but I liked the way older editions had less demand on higher ability scores, so that characters were actually individualized by their scores. Maybe its just that the core mechanic in 3.5/4 demands an attribute modifier to every roll. Effectively dumping all ability modifiers seems to be an extreme solution since it turns half the character sheet into pointless busywork to generate, albeit its the simplest solution to the problem.

This is probably the biggest problem I have with later editions.  I can virtually guarantee your 14 Str Fighter can survive and even thrive with aplomb in OD&D, do quite well in B/X, and easily make 20th level in AD&D.  All with nary a magic item required.  I will grant, this will take a bit more skill and perhaps some additional luck over the 18 Str Fighter, but not significantly so.  It's certainly not a matter of 'win' with (at least) 18 and 'fail' with 17 or less.  

The old party back in high school consisted of my 16 Int Magic-User, the 18/40 Str Fighter, a Thief with 16 or 17 Dex, and the Cleric with 17 Wis.  None of the rest of our scores exceeded 14 or maybe 15, and only a few were above 12.  I had a 9 Str (and 11 Con), the Thief had a 9 Wis, and I recall the Cleric had a 10 or 11 Dex.  We had very few magic items, perhaps a +3 sword or mace or something and a few suits of +2 or +3 armour.  I think I had AC 5 bracers and perhaps a ring of protection +2, and a wand of frost and maybe another of lightning. Not raging powerhouses by any means, and we were not dripping with magic.  But we made it to 16th level before I blew the resurrect roll because of that bad Con.  I don't recall us needing a resurrect more than once or twice prior to that.

Through it all, I had more fun than just about anything outside of running track, and we felt like pretty Big Goddamn Heroes when all was said and done.

Quote from: Windjammer;387042Here's a houserule I've been toying with lately. Let me know what you think of it!

M'kay...

Quote from: Windjammer;3870421. All players roll stats 3d6 in order.

My problem with this is the same problem I have with all random ability score generation. I want to play what I want to play...not what the dice tell me I can play.

I understand that random scores make character gen faster and easier...but standardized arrays do the same thing AND are balanced between the players...so you don't wind up with Johnny 18's and Alister Alahand the Average.

Quote from: Windjammer;3870422. Each player can re-assign one of his racial +2 ability bonuses as he wishes at char-gen.

Sure. Incentivizes players to choose races out of flavor rather than character optimization. I can dig it.

Quote from: Windjammer;3870423. PC attack and defense values are NOT calculated based on PC stats and items but auto-generated as follows (source: 4E Player's Strategy Guide, page 112):

DEFENSE VALUES: AC = your character level +15 ; Fort/Refl/Will = level + 13

ATTACK VALUES: attack vs. AC = level +6 ; attack vs. Fort/Refl/Will = level +4

You're only painting part of the picture here...how do these numbers interact with monster stats? Do enemies follow the same guidelines?

Quote from: Windjammer;387042This would do wonders. For one, the game would now allow (again) the possibility to have stupid wizards beating clever fighters in arms wrestling matches - the world will be richer for this! For another, GMs could totally randomize treasure without falling into the trap of risking PCs from performing below the expected numbers.

"Lift with your legs Rogar, not your back!"

I find that using the inherent enhancement bonus option works just as well, though I would much rather that enhancement bonuses were gone from the equation altogether.

Quote from: Windjammer;387042The numbers above come literally from a 4E book section saying the game EXPECTS these values to function properly. If so, then why not have an option to cut out all the optimization bull shit and number fiddling and simply GIVE the PCs those numbers?  I totally understand WotC wants to cater to number crunchers, but the exclusivity of it all is maddening. That thing in the Player's Strategy Guide should have been in PHB 1. It's also exactly the sort of information that speeds up char gen WITHOUT access to the Character Builder. I can literally distribute non-filled in Power Cards to 5 players at my table and we can get the game running in 5 minutes

The thing of it is, I like making decisions for my character at each level up when I'm playing, as do many gamers. It helps me get into the character more. And yes, having a lot of player options encourages munchkinism. However, the problem comes when a game stops trying to mitigate munchkinism and actually expects it as a core assumption of the design. I like to customize my characters for flavor, not to eke out every little bonus that I can get...which is why I find it irritating that 4E's system actively punishes me for doing so.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;387045The real compatibility problem of course is Monsters. Monster Manuals are an important part of the game, and the most heartbreakingly annoying to redo by hand. High level monsters go off the reservation numbers-wise in both 3e and 4e. But without the attribute modifiers in there, the numbers wouldn't even add up at low levels where things currently work fine in both games.

At the point where I have to rewrite the monsters from scratch, I might as well rewrite the game from scratch.

-Frank

I'm assuming Windjammer's suggested system builds in the 'expected' bonuses straight into the PCs attack/defense numbers, so it should work without extensive monster rewriting. It does feel rather like cheating, design-wise however...
though from what I recall 4e monsters already have stats only for 'flavour' purposes in 4e so its only consistent.

Quote from: StormBringer;387048This is probably the biggest problem I have with later editions.  I can virtually guarantee your 14 Str Fighter can survive and even thrive with aplomb in OD&D, do quite well in B/X, and easily make 20th level in AD&D.  All with nary a magic item required.  I will grant, this will take a bit more skill and perhaps some additional luck over the 18 Str Fighter, but not significantly so.  It's certainly not a matter of 'win' with (at least) 18 and 'fail' with 17 or less.  

The old party back in high school consisted of my 16 Int Magic-User, the 18/40 Str Fighter, a Thief with 16 or 17 Dex, and the Cleric with 17 Wis.  None of the rest of our scores exceeded 14 or maybe 15, and only a few were above 12.  I had a 9 Str (and 11 Con), the Thief had a 9 Wis, and I recall the Cleric had a 10 or 11 Dex.  We had very few magic items, perhaps a +3 sword or mace or something and a few suits of +2 or +3 armour.  I think I had AC 5 bracers and perhaps a ring of protection +2, and a wand of frost and maybe another of lightning. Not raging powerhouses by any means, and we were not dripping with magic.  But we made it to 16th level before I blew the resurrect roll because of that bad Con.  I don't recall us needing a resurrect more than once or twice prior to that.

Through it all, I had more fun than just about anything outside of running track, and we felt like pretty Big Goddamn Heroes when all was said and done.

Well, I have fond memories of my first D&D (2nd Ed) character, a two weapon fighter with Str 15/Dex 8/Con 16/Int 17/Wis 8/Cha 13...not low stats exactly but its not a 'viable' array either, anymore.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;387053Well, I have fond memories of my first D&D (2nd Ed) character, a two weapon fighter with Str 15/Dex 8/Con 16/Int 17/Wis 8/Cha 13...not low stats exactly but its not a 'viable' array either, anymore.

I guess the endless chorus of 'how do we fix these numbers so they work??' ends up being almost galling, because it is the clearest and most accessible demonstration of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Quote from: Shazbot79;387050My problem with [rolling 3d6 in order] is the same problem I have with all random ability score generation. I want to play what I want to play...not what the dice tell me I can play.

I can understand that, though I'd also like to point out how the subsequent houserule really lets people play any class they wish even when they roll 3d6 in order. What 3d6 in order doesn't give you, though, is giving you the choice to play a guy with high INT and low STR rather than a guy with high STR and low INT. Insofar you're right, it's more restrictive than simply choosing one's character make up in its entirety.

Quote from: Shazbot79;387050You're only painting part of the picture here...how do these numbers interact with monster stats? Do enemies follow the same guidelines?

No, the monsters don't have the same guidelines. The claim of the Player's Strategy Guide (from which these numbers are taken) is that the reported guidelines will interact optimally with the monster stats as written. In other words, once you got PCs with the "expected values" you can run encounters out of the MMs. To quote from the book, page 112:

QuoteThe D&D combat system rests upon a framework of expected attack bonuses, defenses, damage, and hit points, both for characters and for monsters. Knowing these baseline numbers and how your characters measure up to them helps you understand what the game expects you to accomplish. [...]

the game expects character accuracy and defenses to average slightly above that of monsters, as shown in the table here. An average character facing an average monster can expect to hit on roughly 60 to 65 percent of his or her attacks, but that monster should hit only about half the time. [ed. - This means that the to-hit and defense numbers I reported earlier are each to be reduced by 1 when applied to monsters.]
[...]

if your typical attack bonus or defense score falls more than 3 points behind these expectations, you should consider options to make up that shortfall

Observe the final line. The game is written with the expectation that PC stats MUST NOT stray >3 from the expected numbers. There are, however, a lot of pitfalls in the game which push that possibility wide open - hybrid classing, playing tri-stat classes (sc. classes whose abilities and to-hit values depend on 3 stats, not just 2), simply reaching epic tier.

PS. I have no idea if the claim is actually true that PCs using these numbers will perform "as expected". I'm simply reporting what's said in the book.

Quote from: Windjammer;387066Observe the final line. The game is written with the expectation that PC stats MUST NOT stray >3 from the expected numbers.

Actually, it's talking about bonuses, right? So it's saying that PC stats ought to be within 6 points of the expected scores. That's a pretty wide range.

Edit: that's oversimplifying too, actually. Is the assumption that you're getting +2 or +3 from weapon proficiency? If it's the latter, than using a +2 proficiency weapon means you wouldn't want to be more than 4 points off the target, etc., etc. But you get the idea.

Quote from: Windjammer;387066PS. I have no idea if the claim is actually true that PCs using these numbers will perform "as expected". I'm simply reporting what's said in the book.

Okay...well now that I know what the baseline is supposed to be I'll make a suboptimal character (no + in the primary stat, +2 prof weapon, no stat boosting ED's, no weapon expertise) and see if I come close to it.

I'll post the numbers here.

Quote from: The Butcher;387041I feel your pain, Shaz.

I also liked some of the ideas of 4e. It's a fun game, but (for me, anyway) requires an investment of time, money and attention to minutiae (including the CharOp which I also generally dislike) that precludes anything other than short, limited sessions. The mechanics in general, and the Powers system in particular, does feel boardgamey, or MMO-like (again, to me). I'd never run it, but I can be persuaded to play.

On the other hand, between pevious editions of D&D and their retro-clones, Savage Worlds*, MRQ2 and Legends of Anglerre, it's not like I need another fantasy game in my life.

Well, pretty much ditto, though I suspect there are fewer ideas I personally appreciated. There are tons of things I dislike about 4e, I wouldn't run it when compared to tons of Fantasy RPGs out there, including older editions of D&D, MRQII and so on, but I could be persuaded to play it with the right people (and wouldn't bitch about the game system while playing it. That's a no-no to me. Between sessions, if asked, I'll sure share my opinion, but I won't wreck a game in progress with metagame arguments).

Quote from: StormBringer;387048This is probably the biggest problem I have with later editions.  I can virtually guarantee your 14 Str Fighter can survive and even thrive with aplomb in OD&D

This has in part to do with the shift of game play from the actual fantasy with the players deciding how to deal with their environments (i.e. pulling the lever or not, disarming the trap by using some stick they found earlier) to the "fun" of rolling dice and playing off the intricacies of the game system (i.e. rolling disarm traps). The more the game is about the system, the more you want variations in roll outcomes, the more you'll have sharp differences between ability score modifiers, magic item bonuses and the like.

In OD&D, a high Strength Fighter and a decent Strength one are separated by a +1 modifier. That's it. Sure, this single modifier does matter because of the rarity of such mods (a +1 sword is a very special item in OD&D indeed), but overall, as far as the focus of game play is concerned, it doesn't nearly matter as much as any mod would in a 3.5 game.

Quote from: Benoist;387103This has in part to do with the shift of game play from the actual fantasy with the players deciding how to deal with their environments (i.e. pulling the lever or not, disarming the trap by using some stick they found earlier) to the "fun" of rolling dice and playing off the intricacies of the game system (i.e. rolling disarm traps). The more the game is about the system, the more you want variations in roll outcomes, the more you'll have sharp differences between ability score modifiers, magic item bonuses and the like.

In OD&D, a high Strength Fighter and a decent Strength one are separated by a +1 modifier. That's it. Sure, this single modifier does matter because of the rarity of such mods (a +1 sword is a very special item in OD&D indeed), but overall, as far as the focus of game play is concerned, it doesn't nearly matter as much as any mod would in a 3.5 game.

You said, 'in part'.

Another part is the change from 'heroic fantasy' (where I know I was making fun of Monty Haul games with 20th level characters) to super-heroic, even mythical-level games where the rules are included for interacting with immortals, combatting deities, and even reaching immortality.

This shift, from a game of average/barely above average pcs becoming heroes to a game of heroes moving along to godhood has as much do do with this.



Another real casualty that was mentioned by Shaz and yourself, is also something I consider part of this shift.  Magic items were unusual, and had a much stronger affect than stats.  Even AD&D, this was pretty much the case.  Give that 14 St guy The Bright Sword of the Lake (+2hit, +2 damage), and he's got a leg up on any guy who is a little stronger.

Quote from: LordVreeg;387116You said, 'in part'.

Another part is the change from 'heroic fantasy' (where I know I was making fun of Monty Haul games with 20th level characters) to super-heroic, even mythical-level games where the rules are included for interacting with immortals, combatting deities, and even reaching immortality.

This shift, from a game of average/barely above average pcs becoming heroes to a game of heroes moving along to godhood has as much do do with this.



Another real casualty that was mentioned by Shaz and yourself, is also something I consider part of this shift.  Magic items were unusual, and had a much stronger affect than stats.  Even AD&D, this was pretty much the case.  Give that 14 St guy The Bright Sword of the Lake (+2hit, +2 damage), and he's got a leg up on any guy who is a little stronger.

Note that as a Fighting Man in OD&D, you reach "Hero" status (sic, in the rules, as an equivalent to the Hero figure in Chainmail, worth Four Men/units) at level 4, and "Superhero" (sic, worth 8 Men) status at Level 8.

That said, I basically agree that the more the game went on, the more the feel of the game changed as well (and very early on as well, mind you, even prior to publication given all the variations of the game that already existed when the game came to publication). Every supplement added more depth to the game system, more fiddliness to it, starting with polyhedral dice in Greyhawk and such. From there, it's only natural to add more fiddliness to the mods magic items give, which makes you then reconsider modifiers bestowed by ability scores, etc. More options, more detail, more fiddliness, more focus on the rules as time goes on.

Quote from: Shazbot79;387077Okay...well now that I know what the baseline is supposed to be I'll make a suboptimal character (no + in the primary stat, +2 prof weapon, no stat boosting ED's, no weapon expertise) and see if I come close to it.

I'll post the numbers here.

Thanks, that'll be helpful. In the interim, I post a little cheat sheet I created this morning for the inside of my DM screen which incorporates expected values of both PCs (useful when quick-generating them) and monsters (useful when wanting adjust a monster on the fly, e.g. make a level 10 minotaur into a level 5 minotaur). The source of the numbers are: Player's Strategy Guide p.112 + DMG 1 p. 143 for PC values; and DMG 1, p. 184 for monster values.

OK...so Windjammer you mainly wanted to omit PC attribute scores? Just giving the PCs expected values, how do you cope with magical items that increase scores (implements, etc)?? It looks like magical item bonuses are expected to be built into the final scores here as well, since they're scaling +level, rather than +1/2 level.