* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : A question for all DM's Started at 11-21-03 01:14 AM by Hiryu Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=135849 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Hiryu Date : 11-21-03 01:14 AM Thread Title : A question for all DM's First of all, a bit of background. I am working right now on making my own AD&D version, doing a full PDF work for an AD&D 2.5 PHB and DMG. This is going to be my own homebrewn version of AD&D, including new rules, small fixes to most rules and a great ammount of the material from the Player's and Dungeon Master's Option series. Now, I have reached a point in the work where I must ask myself a very serious question about the system, and I would love to get input from other DM's, as this applies to ALL rolls in the game, most notoriously attack rolls and saving throws. I always found it clunky the way the rules require a lower roll for certain key elements and a higher roll for other key elements. It is confusing for beginners and sometimes can cause a momentary confusion to experienced players when high-low rolls are thrown consecutively. I started trying to find a way to streamline all rolls to prevent this kind of confusion, always making it the lowest die roll a success. To do this, I deviced a new Thac0 and Saving Throws table, which is basically the same as the ones in the PHB, however, reversed. For instance, a 5th level fighter, instead of having a Thac0 of 16, has a Thac0 of 5. Then, the AC of the target is added if it is on possitive numbers (1 to 10 AC), or substracted if it's in negative numbers (-1 to -10 AC). Once the character's Thac0 is calculated, then to connect a hit, the result in 1d20 must be equal to or less than that Thac0. For example, the 5th level fighter is in combat with an oponent with an AC of 7. His Thac0 is 5, and to this, the AC of the target is added for a total Thac0 rating of 12. If the fighter rolls a 12 or less in 1d20, he strikes his oponent. This, for all intents and purpouses works exactly the same as regular Thac0 (but with the numbers reversed), and on playtesting was found to be faster, easier and more intuitive, particularily to new players. Added to the advantages while calculating numbers during combat, it also helps the bonuses to make more sense. Now they are actually added to the Thac0 instead of substracted. (like most players tend do, instead of applying their bonuses or penalties directly to the die rolls... that is why the character sheet has a Thac0 field for each weapon) Same thing applies to Saving Throws, starting with low ratings and earning points as the characters earn levels. Under this rules, all throws now are standarized to require low die rolls, of course, with the only exception of damage rolls :smirk: Now, as well as it has been working, it has one huge problem: Players are too used to the idea that, in combat, 20 is always good and 1 is always bad. I think change is good, but too much or too drastic change is bad, as it will throw the players off balance, and during this playtestings the great mayority of players had big problems adapting, mainly due to force of habit. It is not easy to re-educate players to handle combat in a way different to that which they have been using for over 10 years. If you want to argue that it can be done with 3E, well, that's nice, and it's true, it CAN be done... however, 3E is a different system... what I am talking about is bringing an important diference into the same system you've known and loved. After so many years of fearing fumballs (1) and rooting for criticals (20), it is not easy to tell your players the whole thing has been reversed. They are just too used to it. I want to know what other DM's opinions on the matter are, what are your insights on this, and hopefully this will start an intresting discussion. Thanks for your time. PS: Yes, I am making a whole new 2.5e PHB and DMG, design and images (mostly from 3E) included, however, this work is being done in spanish. Also, due to copyright reasons it has to be for personal uses only, and I cannot share with you nice folks when it's finished... unless WoTC gives me permission to *puppy eyes @ WoTC* :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : sandskimmer Date : 11-21-03 03:15 PM IMO, that's way too much work. Either use 3.5 or 2ed. Sometimes (mostly actually) change is good. Those who cannot adapt get left behind. I'd strongly encourage all who game with you to simply convert to 3.5. If they can't handle changing to a new game system, they won't get far with your 2.5 either, and I'd hate to see how they handle change in the work place... No insults intended, just an observation based on limited info. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Hiryu Date : 11-21-03 04:15 PM Well, the thing is, we do not want to change to 3.5 because we hate it. Not because it is different, but because it is simplistic and has a flavor that does not bode well with us. The whole system I am working on IS 2ed, but standarizing most of the material from player's option and including some house rules. I do not mind doing all the work, as a matter of fact, I rather do it and hand it to my players instead of having them ask me about all the house rules each and every time: like trying to figure out their Luck and Reputation subability scores, how many racial HP they get with me, cleaned up fatigue rules, above 1st level class abilities, quasi-cleaned up Spell Points system, special attacks, etc. You did not mean any offence and none was taken, however, I think I must point out again that change can, indeed, be a good thing, but before a change is introduced many things have to come into consideration. Like everything else, it is not a black and white situation. Like I said before, it is still 2ed, and about 70% of the Player's Option and/or Core Rules material will still be in effect just as they used to know them, but the other 30% will be either different or new. Most of this changes are easy and quick to introduce into an ongoing 2e Player's Option campaign, just like with most house rules. BUT, the problem with this particular ruling, is that it literaly turns upside down a well stablished part of the system. Sure, it makes combat work slightly more easily and efficiently, however, it might not be a neccesary change. What I am trying to discuss here, is the balance between pros and cons and what are other DM's insights on this issue. The intention of AD&D is having fun and socialize. The players can deal with a lot of changes in the rules, as long as they are gradual and feel familiar, but when it is a change as important as this, during the transition period of getting used to it they might hate it, and hence, they will not have fun under the new rule. This is one of the reasons some hate 3E (mind you -one- of the reasons -some- hate it, by no means the one and only reason) AD&D is not a job, is a game, and as such, it is intended to have fun. If I have to deal with a change I hate at my workplace, I will deal with with, but a change I hate in something I do for fun? I believe those are two completely different issues. We have discussed long and hard that WoTC will not update or give any further attention to 2ed, so, if any updates and a better advanced (3E is not advanced D&D) PHB and DMG are going to come out, it will have to be made by us, the fans who still love and play 2ed. I am doing this for my own. I am **** that way. As I stated before, I will not share this work (let alone translate to english) unless WoTC gives me permission to, however, I feel the need to make it as professional, balanced and detailed as possible. If I am going to do the work, even if it is only for myself and my players, I am going to do it right. Again, I am that **** and that much of a perfectionist. Edit: Funny... this board censors the word A N A L :eek: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Sarnack Matai' Date : 11-21-03 04:39 PM (chuckling softly) Well I don't know how your players are, but a goodly amount of folks I've played with in the past like to fudge dice rolls and sometimes the difference between a high number being success and failure was a good deterent to that. Granted, in a situation that a player faces often (combat for example) it didn't help much but when the DM would look up from behind the screen and say 'Everyone roll d20' without telling everyone what it was for it was a whole differant ballgame. Was he asking for a saving throw or an ability check? This was especially true when the dreaded 'roll d%' came down the pipe. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Hiryu Date : 11-21-03 04:46 PM That is VERY true, Sarnack. No fortunatelly my current players are very much lawful aligned while playing, but I have indeed seen many cheaters over the years. Maybe it is because my group is so legal that I didn't thought about it until you mentioned it, but it is a great thing to keep in mind. I am up for anything that gives a DM the upper hand :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Warhead Date : 11-29-03 07:02 PM I know exactly how you feel, I'd love the time to do the same thing myself. I too have read 3E and hated it, and can't see 3.5E being much of an improvement...the flavour's just not there. However, a lot of the mechanics makes sense...and your system seems pretty close to the d20 system espoused be 3E "high is good, low is bad". Keep us up to date as to where you get to with your rules...I for one will be interested. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Hiryu Date : 11-30-03 05:28 PM Actually, I don't have the time to do it either... I am a couple of months into the work and I am only starting to write the races chapter..... I have a LOT of notes, tho :D As for where I am getting to, this dice streamlining got scratched off the list. As a system piece, it was working really well, but some players hated it. Personally, I don't mind if it has a lil bit of 3E flavor. As much as I hate d20, the system does have some good ideas, but the problem with this dice roll streamiling to 'low is good, high is bad', is that some of our players were just not having fun with it. Another important reason that we missed, was what Sarnack mentioned before. Switching between low and high rolls keeps the players on their toes, and maybe that is not an important thing as far as game mechanics are concerned, but it is a HUGE deal when role playing is involved. It would had been so easy to make the 2ed books use the rule I mentioned to begin with, all it would have taken for Zeb Cook was to reverse the numbers. However, if you think about it, there has to be a reason it was done that way. I think Sarnack hit part of the reason ;) As for where the other rules are getting, some are hitting very good places, specially our racial HP rule. In a nutshell, every race gets a certain ammount of HP, wich range from 6 at the lowest (1d3+3 for kender) and 14 at the highest (1d6+8 for minotaurs). For all intents and purpouses, this are considered 0 level HP, and are modified by the Constitutio/Fitness score just as class HP. This raises the survival rate of low level characters, specially wizards, without having much impact on the game. Wizards and thiefs will certainly feel a difference in levels 1 through 4, but fighters and priests of level 5 or more will hardly see any substantial difference, even minotaur ones, and the low level advantage of racial hit points will only dilute more and more as characters keep earning levels. Of course, we are true believers of the cannon that says no player should ever get an advantage without a catch. To balance out this rule (and by coincidence the system as a whole), we modified the monster HD to be 1d8+4. With this new HD, you will never again be able to find, for instance, a werewolf with 7 HP (4+3 HD). Now the minimum HP this same werewolf can have it's 23. This doesn't have much effect in regular low level enemies, like kobolds, orcs, flinds, gnolls and the like, but it sure raises the bar for high level characters. I mention all of this, because this is exactly what we are trying to do with our rules: raising the survival rate of low level characters while lowering the survival rate of high level characters. Mind you, this doesn't mean we won't let a 10th level fighter kill a kobold with a slap anymore, but it does mean the DM will be able to keep the challenge going for high level parties, something really hard on 2ed and nearly impossible on 3E. Also, this fixes the eternal dragon dilema. An adult red dragon has 17 HD, which under standard 2ed rules means an average of 68 HP and a max of 136 HP. That's pretty damn impressive, but a well made and well prepared party of 5 10th level characters can take on that dragon without that much problem. With the new 1d8+4 HD, now the same dragon's average HP will be 136, with a minimum of 85 and a max of 204. Now THAT is a challenge, like an adult dragon is supposed to be. That will make players, in fact, look forward to defeat an adult dragon and see it as an acomplishment, again, like it is supposed to be. If you are curious about the Tarrasque, the HD is 70. You do the math ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : DM Zoc Date : 11-30-03 06:06 PM Our GM just used a doubling rule. Each size category above (or below) human gives twice (or half) the HP of the previous level. If the dragon would normally have 50 HP at three sizes larger than human, it now has 400 HP. This means that dragons are actually scary, rather than the scary that they're supposed to be. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Hiryu Date : 11-30-03 07:23 PM Well.... your GM's doubling rule sounds good, but I have a problem with it. Does this rule means that in the long run, a dwarven (size s) fighter would have a lot less HP than a human (size m) thief and definitely less than a minotaur (size l) enchantress? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : DM Zoc Date : 11-30-03 08:00 PM Well, Dwarves are the same size as Humans, which is why they don't require special-sized weapons. They're just broader as compared to tall. A minotaur is large, and would thus have twice as many HP as a Human of the same class. This would mean that a Minotaur enchanter (I don't think Minotaurs are allowed to be female) would have far more HP than a Human rogue (besides the doubling, a Minotaur would likely have a Con bonus to HP). Note that this is keeping in line with the rules for Half-Giants, which are stated to have twice as many HP as they otherwise would. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Hiryu Date : 12-01-03 01:14 AM Actually, only the taller mountain dwarves are considered size M (4 1/2 feet). Minotaurs are not allowed to be female?? Then how the hell do they reproduce??... mitosis? :eek: (just being a lil bit of a smartass... sorry :angel: anyways, minotaur characters CAN be females, they just are very rare characters) In any case, I just used minotaurs as an example (first size L race that came to mind). I understand the logic behind the rule, but I dunno. Something just seems to be out of whack for me, but hey, if it works for your group, more power to you. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : DM Zoc Date : 12-01-03 02:21 AM Unless your minotaurs are setting specific they would have to be male (bulls are always male). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Hiryu Date : 12-01-03 12:44 PM Yes, bulls... not minotaurs o.o As for the setting and what not, I only know of three places where minotaurs can be PC's, Dragonlance and The Complete Book of Humanoids. In the first one, minotaurs are, indeed a race, and they have both males and females. On the CBH minotaurs are all male because they are presented in that book as cursed humans. Personally, even outside of Krynn, I rather think of minotaurs as a race instead of cursed humans or the unlikely offspring of humans and cattle, so I never treat them as such. It boils down to a matter of taste, I guess. Some of us like to think of minotaurs as a race, regardless of game world, and others like the cursed creature mystique of the minotaur. I don't think either is right or wrong, they just apply to diff gaming preferences. Whatever floats your boat, I say :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : YORIDOL Date : 12-02-03 02:47 PM Thread Title : 1 DM 2 ANOTHER I THINK YOUR IDEA WILL WORK BUT THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS THAT YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR POST WOULD BE ENOUGH TO KILL THAT IDEA.I HAVE ALSO GAINED SO MUCH EXPERIENCE FROM GAMING FOR YEARS THAT I CAN'T ADHERE TO EVERY RULE IN ONE SYSTEM.THE FACT THAT YOU MAKE YOUR OWN SYSTEM SHOWS THAT YOUR EVOLVED FAR BEYOND AN "INSIDE THE BOX-SET" GAME. ALTHOUGH,THERE ARE LIMITS TO OUR RULES MANIPULATING SKILLS.IF I TRIED TO DO WHAT YOUR DOING.I WOULD HAVE TO DRAFT ALL THE CHANGES IN WRITTEN FORMAT OR I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO KEEP TRACK OF THE CHANGES THAT I HAD MADE.THEN THERES AN ISSUE ABOUT IF THE CHANGE IS BALANCED WITH THE EXISTING RULES THAT ARE STILL BEING USED.FINALLY,THE LARGEST OF PROBLEMS I FACE WITH RULES ENGINEERING IS THAT IT TAKES ME AWAY FROM ROLEPLAYING. DOESN'T GIVE THE PLAYERS ANY REFERENCE FOR THEIR OWN RESERCH.THEY HAVE TO COME TO ME EVERYTIME THERE IS QUESTION ON THE RULES.BECAUSE I AM THE ONLY SOURCE OF THE CHANGED INFORMATION. MY ADVISE AD&D AS A WHOLE WORK IS A PRETTY WELL BALANCED GROUP OF SUBSYTEMS.I INCORPORATE A WHOLE SUBSYSTEM THAT I PREFERE TO MY BULK OF RULES,LET THE PLAYERS KNOW WHICH ONE I USE AND MOVE ON TO THE ROLEPLAYING. BOTTOM LINE:I AGREE WITH MAKING YOUR OWN PERSONLIZED SET OF GAMING RULES.I THINK THAT REVAMPING SUBSYTEMS LIKE THACO AND SAVING THROWS IS DANGEROUS AT BEST. GOOD LUCK, MITCHC -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Hiryu Date : 12-02-03 05:49 PM I absolutely agree with you, Yoridol. If something is not broken, don't fix it... and in this case the Thac0 and Saving Throws systems don't require a fix. That is why I was so worried about this system change and I wanted to hear other DM's thoughts on the matter. Yes, the system I was trying was working very well, but only mechanically. The flavor wasn't there, and the fun for the players wasn't really there either. As for making my own system, I don't know about that... all I am doing is tweaking some of the standard 2ed and S&P rules, adding only a handfull of new rules of my own or from others I have seen online and through this forum. It's funny that you mention the notes and trying to keep track of all of them. We are a group that has been playing for over a decade now, and we have plenty of house rules that have worked well, and keep adding more once every few months or so. Some flop, some are broken and some are just plain stupid, but over the years there have been many that stayed. Whenever we get a new player that is already familiar with the system, we have to explain to them each and every rule, and more often than not, we cannot remember them all at the spur of the moment. This was actually the main catalyst for me to start making our own PHB and DMG (since more than half our group are also DM's). As a former editor for a mexican independent magazine, at first I thought it would all be kinda simple. Type it all up, put some pretty design on it, and print. Boy, was I wrong. As I have been typing it all up, I have noticed problems or omitions in the 2ed system I didn't see before and all of our house rules, which we thought were already good and usable, have mistakes of omision for certain situations or had fundamental system flaws. All in all I have been really enjoying this personal project of mine. It has helped me understand the subtler and less explained rules a lot better, it has given me a better grasp of game balance, and ironically, it has actually done the oposite of taking me away from role playing. I sure have a lot more respect for the 2ed designers now, as well as even less respect (if that is possible) for the 3E designers. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:19 AM.