I'm Anti "Edition Warrior" Warriors

Gizmoduck5000 · February 09, 2014, 02:13:35 PM

Tell you what then - if you can name one rule - just one rule that you feel is better handled in 3E or 4E than it is in AD&D 1st edition, without irony or snark, then I will concede defeat, apologize and leave this thread for good.

Gizmoduck5000 · February 09, 2014, 02:15:03 PM

Quote from: Benoist;730277It's not easier to resolve for players, and honestly, the SIEGE engine is a bitch next to "roll d6" with 1-in-6 chance to find the secret door. You're making an argument that is not objective. It's subjective on your POV based on your own assumption that you should know all the system probabilities and have "elegant mechanics" and on and on in order to feel good at the game table. Not everyone's like this. I'm not.

Yes - my preference for C&C is entirely subjective.

I do not however believe that ascending AC's superiority of descending AC is.

Also, the issue with the SIEGE engine refers to skills, not combat resolution.

Quote from: Benoist;730277No, because some people will prefer to just roll the die and not care for the AC value. Others will actually prefer to not know the AC value, or feel like guessing the value is part of the fun. The DM looks at the table and tells them if they hit or not. From their point of view, the game play is easier, more fun, etc. Your argument is subjective and predicated on your own set of assumptions about the way you yourself enjoy your role playing games.

There's no rule in 3E that states you have to reveal the target's AC to the player. So this is a non-issue.

Bedrockbrendan · February 09, 2014, 02:25:33 PM

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730279Tell you what then - if you can name one rule - just one rule that you feel is better handled in 3E or 4E than it is in AD&D 1st edition, without irony or snark, then I will concede defeat, apologize and leave this thread for good.

I Know this wasn't addressed to me, but I genuinely think the multi classing rules are great in 3E and prefer them to the 2E multi classing rules. They do come at the cost of the potential for abuse or odd combos, but just in terms of ease of use and flexibility, I love 3E multi classing (in fact I almost never make multi class characters in AD&D because I find it aggravating).

I think the point you are missing here is people are not saying they like AD&D despite the presence of matrices or, in the case of 2E, thac0. Some of us are saying we actually like it, in part, because of these things. We genuinely prefer looking at a number on a chart with smaller modifiers than using BAB.

Gizmoduck5000 · February 09, 2014, 02:31:26 PM

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730281I Know this wasn't addressed to me, but I genuinely think the multi classing rules are great in 3E and prefer them to the 2E multi classing rules. They do come at the cost of the potential for abuse or odd combos, but just in terms of ease of use and flexibility, I love 3E multi classing (in fact I almost never make multi class characters in AD&D because I find it aggravating).

I disagree. I like AD&D's multi-class rules better. No cherry-picking, no character planning - just set your path and you're done - at least with demi-humans.

I'd still love to hear what if anything Benoist feels is done better in 3e or 4E than in 1st edition though.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730281I think the point you are missing here is people are not saying they like AD&D despite the presence of matrices or, in the case of 2E, thac0. Some of us are saying we actually like it, in part, because of these things. We genuinely prefer looking at a number on a chart with smaller modifiers than using BAB.

I'm sorry but I don't buy that it's that difficult to add two double digit numbers together. We're talking second grade math. I still think it has more to do with AD&D as a whole, than one specific rule.

Benoist · February 09, 2014, 02:32:52 PM

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730279Tell you what then - if you can name one rule - just one rule that you feel is better handled in 3E or 4E than it is in AD&D 1st edition, without irony or snark, then I will concede defeat, apologize and leave this thread for good.

Unarmed combat in 3rd ed versus 1E.

Gizmoduck5000 · February 09, 2014, 02:36:30 PM

Quote from: Benoist;730284Unarmed combat in 3rd ed versus 1E.

Thank you.

In addition to multi-classing, I like reaction adjustments in AD&D way better than than diplomacy and intimidate skill checks.

Anyway, I concede the point. Ascending AC vs. Descending AC is entirely subjective, and I've been obstinately full of shit this entire time. Enjoy the rest of your thread.

Bedrockbrendan · February 09, 2014, 02:37:17 PM

Quote from: Benoist;730284Unarmed combat in 3rd ed versus 1E.

I don't recall how it worked in 1E but if it is anything like the unarmed combat chart in 2E, I agree.

Bedrockbrendan · February 09, 2014, 02:44:00 PM

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730283I'm sorry but I don't buy that it's that difficult to add two double digit numbers together. We're talking second grade math. I still think it has more to do with AD&D as a whole, than one specific rule.

Hey man you were the one arguing subtraction is hard. I am just saying I find it easier and less time consuming to look at a number on a tracker and have an addition or subtraction that does occur be smaller. Basically, small numbers are easier to work with than big ones. Sure, adding 17 to 12 isn't hard, but it will also take a moment. And even if you happen to be good at it, it is annoying waiting for someone else to add 17 and 12 who isn't. Especially when BAB changes from attack to attack and looks like +17/+12/+7/+2. And you will still have to take the time with BAB to look at your actual BAB which is on a char (unless you write it on your sheet).

Imp · February 09, 2014, 02:44:35 PM

QuoteI don't recall how it worked in 1E but if it is anything like the unarmed combat chart in 2E, I agree.

Well, there's a couple of goofy charts in the DMG, and alternately there's the percentile-dice thing in Unearthed Arcana, which is less goofy but overcomplicated.

Opaopajr · February 09, 2014, 03:02:48 PM

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730286I don't recall how it worked in 1E but if it is anything like the unarmed combat chart in 2E, I agree.

But that chart kicks ass! It's so easy in practice and exploding with flavor (and it gives me a wild goose chase to hand off to martial art fanbois to get them out of my hair!).

Benoist · February 09, 2014, 03:06:53 PM

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730286I don't recall how it worked in 1E but if it is anything like the unarmed combat chart in 2E, I agree.

Non-lethal and weaponless combat procedures, DMG page 72+. 3rd ed has nothing on the needless bean-counting complexity of those rules in AD&D.

IMO.

Bedrockbrendan · February 09, 2014, 03:11:27 PM

Quote from: Benoist;730293Non-lethal and weaponless combat procedures, DMG page 72+. 3rd ed has nothing on the needless bean-counting complexity of those rules in AD&D.

IMO.

Reading this secition it is definitely quite involved.

Bedrockbrendan · February 09, 2014, 03:12:16 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr;730292But that chart kicks ass! It's so easy in practice and exploding with flavor (and it gives me a wild goose chase to hand off to martial art fanbois to get them out of my hair!).

I love almost everything about 2E, and i really tried to love that chart....but i can't. I just can't.

Benoist · February 09, 2014, 03:18:36 PM

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730285Thank you.

Very welcome.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730285In addition to multi-classing, I like reaction adjustments in AD&D way better than than diplomacy and intimidate skill checks.

I like reaction adjustments on d% too. Speaking of unarmed combat and percentiles, I prefer to use the resistance table of Chaosium games in conjunction with standard d20 rolls to determine hits, then grappling, overbearing, whatnot by oppositions. It works well in practice.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;730285Anyway, I concede the point. Ascending AC vs. Descending AC is entirely subjective, and I've been obstinately full of shit this entire time. Enjoy the rest of your thread.

Now it's my turn to thank you. Thank you.

The Ent · February 10, 2014, 03:20:42 AM

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730286I don't recall how it worked in 1E but if it is anything like the unarmed combat chart in 2E, I agree.

Sorta-kinda. Roughly as silly, anyhow. Maybe more complicated even. It involved percentiles.

I'd say that the one thing the Skills & Powers stuff did get 100% right was unarmed combat rules - wich was pretty much moved over unchanged to 3e (no more charts stuff, an unarmed attack does d2 dmg or d3 if trained basically, etc etc).