Half circle
Your last argument doesn't hold Mark. A 1st level guy with a 20 isn't the best or smartest or whatever. 'Best' is defined in terms of skills. Your stats are only your potential to eventually be best. A 5th level guy with average stats can still kick the ass of a 1st level guy with END 20.(That's one thing I kind of don't like about the system, really, is that your ultimate potential is defined by your initial stat choices. Another 1E error. You seem to be hitting a lot of 1E mistakes, in my eyes.)
...
This isn't a problem to be solved by 'rolling' instead of 'choosing', Mark.
Choosing ultimately is the more fair system, because it equalizes PCs at the start, which is absolutely essential for balance. There's a good reason why the first gen RPGs used rolling, and almost all subsequent systems dropped it in favor of choosing.
Actually, it's a problem of any system where you set hard 'caps' on skills or ability scores, and where only the most extreme stats give you any bonuses.
In the current system, there's no difference between a fighter with a 9 STR and one with a 13 STR. (But there's a considerable difference between a guy with a 10 AGIL and a 12 AGIL.)
It's another thing 3E did right: whenver stats go up by 2, you get another +1 bonus, so a 13 STR is better than 11, and 15 is even better. Also, there are no caps, but starting stats are limited to the typical range.
...
At first blush, it's your bias vs. mine. You prefer rolling and I prefer choosing. But if you look at the evolution of game design, you'll see most people have switched over to choosing. (Those that still roll are either trying for 'old-school' feel, or are just poorly designed; then again, the 'old-school' was poorly designed, so it's sort of the same thing.)
We can keep arguing about Choose vs Roll all along. But rolling I think makes the problem worse, because clearly, if someone rolls exceptionally poorly, the GM won't make them keep their guy, or their guy will just die. "Okay, my 6 AGIL, 8 END 1st level fighter rushes into melee. Can I roll a new guy yet?" But if you roll great, you get that 1/200 '20', you're fuckin' magic. Maybe you don't recall Ben Gunsberg's 18/00 fighter. That was the first straw to making Justin Jaymes quit gaming- his guys were useless compared to Ben's randomly rolled tanks. I think rolling makes the problem of stats worse in the end. The problem isn't: how good are these guys relative to the world- the problem is: how good are the individual PCs relative to each other.
So if you agree that eliminating choosing doesn't solve the problem itself, there are some hard problems to be solved:
1) The low hp increase rate, and high cost of buying hp, makes END too good.
2) AGI, STR, and END aren't balanced out... AGIL is best, then END, and STR is basically useless.
3) Ability score caps are sort of silly, in a world of mindflayers, giants, and avatars. Whatever we decide will be the max starting STR, shouldn't a titan just be a ton stronger? Or an angel be more charismatic?
...
Okay, so maybe make weapon damage more a function of STR.
...
Other things:
1E D&D actually did have weapon speed, to balance out casting times. Polearms and TH swords were like 10, and a fist was 1. (In segments to use, I think.) Different weapons also had adjusted bonuses or penalties to hit depending on the armor type of the target (e.g., a fist is worse off against platemail than a bec-de-corbin). Knew I wasn't crazy to suggest it. Then again, we never played with either of those rules, and in subsequent editions, they were dropped. In 2E, the weapon-vs-armor type was simplified to blunt/edged/piercing, and in 3E it was dropped entirely (although there are optional rules).
...
So, really, this is why way back in the beginning of all this, I suggested keeping the d20 system (the core mechanics and stats of 3E) and just dropping classes, and redesigning them in terms of feats and skills (which more or less map onto your abilities and proficiencies). Because systemically, 3E is still faster and more balanced than what we've got here. The fun part, the thing I like better here, is in the specific skills, feats, and spells we're allowing. Discussion of WIS and CHA, and rules for swimming and night vision are totally boring.
You can do the 'DEX is AC' and 'low HP' thing just as well in 3E.
...
15 pts for ambidex is still worthless. 10, maybe. Actually, no. I might take it for 5 skillpts. If I was making a two-weapon fighter, I'd just take high AGIL and not worry about the -1. One extra attack is much better. Fuck, in making a fighter, I'd take high AGIL anyway.
...
Running really is the champion skill. GM a campaign. PCs and NPCs run all the time, after each other or away from each other. Recurring villains depend on running. PC survival depends on running. Mobility in combat is also extremely advantageous. A PC with a high running skill can completely thwart whatever story the GM has, just by running away from the rest of the party. (Supposed to be captured by the guards and have a prison adventure but whoops, one PC got away. Mayor Jim was supposed to escape and come back to haunt them. Etc. Only naive players get joy from GM/storyline thwarting; it's a rare PC who can thwart and then come up with something on their own, and usually means that the player has GMed a lot before. But that's a tangent.)
...
This isn't a problem to be solved by 'rolling' instead of 'choosing', Mark.
Choosing ultimately is the more fair system, because it equalizes PCs at the start, which is absolutely essential for balance. There's a good reason why the first gen RPGs used rolling, and almost all subsequent systems dropped it in favor of choosing.
Actually, it's a problem of any system where you set hard 'caps' on skills or ability scores, and where only the most extreme stats give you any bonuses.
In the current system, there's no difference between a fighter with a 9 STR and one with a 13 STR. (But there's a considerable difference between a guy with a 10 AGIL and a 12 AGIL.)
It's another thing 3E did right: whenver stats go up by 2, you get another +1 bonus, so a 13 STR is better than 11, and 15 is even better. Also, there are no caps, but starting stats are limited to the typical range.
...
At first blush, it's your bias vs. mine. You prefer rolling and I prefer choosing. But if you look at the evolution of game design, you'll see most people have switched over to choosing. (Those that still roll are either trying for 'old-school' feel, or are just poorly designed; then again, the 'old-school' was poorly designed, so it's sort of the same thing.)
We can keep arguing about Choose vs Roll all along. But rolling I think makes the problem worse, because clearly, if someone rolls exceptionally poorly, the GM won't make them keep their guy, or their guy will just die. "Okay, my 6 AGIL, 8 END 1st level fighter rushes into melee. Can I roll a new guy yet?" But if you roll great, you get that 1/200 '20', you're fuckin' magic. Maybe you don't recall Ben Gunsberg's 18/00 fighter. That was the first straw to making Justin Jaymes quit gaming- his guys were useless compared to Ben's randomly rolled tanks. I think rolling makes the problem of stats worse in the end. The problem isn't: how good are these guys relative to the world- the problem is: how good are the individual PCs relative to each other.
So if you agree that eliminating choosing doesn't solve the problem itself, there are some hard problems to be solved:
1) The low hp increase rate, and high cost of buying hp, makes END too good.
2) AGI, STR, and END aren't balanced out... AGIL is best, then END, and STR is basically useless.
3) Ability score caps are sort of silly, in a world of mindflayers, giants, and avatars. Whatever we decide will be the max starting STR, shouldn't a titan just be a ton stronger? Or an angel be more charismatic?
...
Okay, so maybe make weapon damage more a function of STR.
...
Other things:
1E D&D actually did have weapon speed, to balance out casting times. Polearms and TH swords were like 10, and a fist was 1. (In segments to use, I think.) Different weapons also had adjusted bonuses or penalties to hit depending on the armor type of the target (e.g., a fist is worse off against platemail than a bec-de-corbin). Knew I wasn't crazy to suggest it. Then again, we never played with either of those rules, and in subsequent editions, they were dropped. In 2E, the weapon-vs-armor type was simplified to blunt/edged/piercing, and in 3E it was dropped entirely (although there are optional rules).
...
So, really, this is why way back in the beginning of all this, I suggested keeping the d20 system (the core mechanics and stats of 3E) and just dropping classes, and redesigning them in terms of feats and skills (which more or less map onto your abilities and proficiencies). Because systemically, 3E is still faster and more balanced than what we've got here. The fun part, the thing I like better here, is in the specific skills, feats, and spells we're allowing. Discussion of WIS and CHA, and rules for swimming and night vision are totally boring.
You can do the 'DEX is AC' and 'low HP' thing just as well in 3E.
...
15 pts for ambidex is still worthless. 10, maybe. Actually, no. I might take it for 5 skillpts. If I was making a two-weapon fighter, I'd just take high AGIL and not worry about the -1. One extra attack is much better. Fuck, in making a fighter, I'd take high AGIL anyway.
...
Running really is the champion skill. GM a campaign. PCs and NPCs run all the time, after each other or away from each other. Recurring villains depend on running. PC survival depends on running. Mobility in combat is also extremely advantageous. A PC with a high running skill can completely thwart whatever story the GM has, just by running away from the rest of the party. (Supposed to be captured by the guards and have a prison adventure but whoops, one PC got away. Mayor Jim was supposed to escape and come back to haunt them. Etc. Only naive players get joy from GM/storyline thwarting; it's a rare PC who can thwart and then come up with something on their own, and usually means that the player has GMed a lot before. But that's a tangent.)
posted by Rob @ 2:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home