Author Topic: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.  (Read 21214 times)

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1962
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #40 on: August 20, 2015, 12:16:49 AM »
For reference, 3.5 Core options await:
(click to show/hide)

How much do I power attack for? "Str Mod"
What is my attack bonus for each point of power attack? "1:1"
What is my damage bonus for each point of power attack? "ahem, 1:1"
What if I flurry (or similar bonus attack) with power attack? "Misses happen"
How do my bonuses change when I'm enlarged? "see spell/table"
When I'm hasted? "See spell"
Do I take an AoO for moving here? What about here? Over here? "5' away" (assuming medium creatures)
Can I tumble this through square? "Can you?"
Do I have enough movement to tumble through these squares but not these squares and not take any AoOs but still get in position to flank? "Do you?"
I'm flanking, I can power attack for another 2 points now! "Ahem, str mod"
And on and on and on and on and on and . . .
"Hey dude, you should have just been a spiked chain tripper!"
There are my "you're stupid" two word answers. If I repeat two words at them enough, even dumb people learn. But yeah, I don't push n00bs towards power attack for that very reason. At least grappling is intuitive.

Quote
Some people would prepare 1-3 pages of tables with EVERY option already calculated.
This (if they are slow)
Quote
Others would have to do the calculations at the table.
This only if they are fast. For the record I'm slow as a DM, so I love tables. I'm faster as a player.

Quote
it could become a chore because of the people who needed the reminders.
tell them to shut up. If their fellow players snooze, they lose. Bards are an RP class to me anyways.

Quote
There were also the clerics who insisted on taking 4 rounds to buff up then wondered where the combat went or had to flee because the rest of the party was already dead because nobody was healing them, the clerics who refused to heal at all then wondered why nobody would back them up in melee when they were doing 1d8+3 damage per hit at PL 9, the druids who couldn't figure out their wild shape bonuses, and so on.
Uh. The class is called "cleric." If they don't want to buff allies and they don't want to heal, they have no right to wonder why the party died. If they can't afford a res then its a TPK and they have to roll up a different character. Someone more competent will do the buffing.

Druids and wizards are a fair amount of book-keeping. I suspect that's why the playtesters wussed out and didn't bother to test the classes rigorously, surprise surprise. Again, I steer noobs away from heavy book-keeping classes.

Quote
Well, and this is a sticky one:
All combat options are allowed with a -4 to hit.
If you have the feat it does what it says, typically voiding the -4 to hit.
I assume you mean feat-based ones like whirlwind attack, rather than things like disarm that I listed above. I once had a thread on "feats you could give to mundanes for free without balance problems." The real answer was "a ton," but I do recall lots of senseless arguing.

Quote
That was the operating principle for "special actions" back in AD&D - just assign a difficulty and run with it, rather than constantly saying "no".
This is a good tactic for mundanes.

Quote
Incorporate Epic skill uses into regular skill uses wholesale.
I've often thought about these too. If I haven't made it already, I've been thinking about a "how much from epic can we safely use" thread.

So, the number of options, effectively, shrinks precipitously.  But, again, this is a lot more than there was in AD&D.
So in reality for 3.5, those options I mentioned are mostly off the table: Charging is simply a variant of the usual move then attack.

Bullrush requires an ACF, overrun is redundant, disarm is niche, and Sunder requires straight up system mastery. Tripping and grapple require blatant homebrew once flight and FoM come into play. Every rogue player knows that feinting is a trap.

Basically I don't see 3.5 mundanes doing anything but "I move and hit it." Sure it might have been harder in AD&D, but I see almost equal disuse for PCs. If anything its a DM knowledge tax.

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #41 on: August 20, 2015, 12:52:45 AM »
Curious though, what metamagic, Samwise? Reversible spells? I recall no modifying written spells beyond their descriptions... Izzat from Skills&Powers/Combat&Tactics?

Lost in the PHB spell lists are Extension I, II, and III (extend).
Relatively late 2nd ed, Tome of Magic introduced Dilation (widen), Far Reaching (enlarge), and Squaring the Circle (sculpt).
There may be some later ones I'm missing from that list.
And there may be a few I'm missing.

But yes, AD&D had metamagic first!

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #42 on: August 20, 2015, 01:39:16 AM »
snipped ways to deal with players who need help playing

I agree completely.
But . . . organized play.
Haranguing the players for being clueless was discouraged, especially since I was a campaign admin/assistant most of the time. :P
That left watching sessions bog down trying to bring people up to speed, as well as struggling to deliberately cripple my own tactical abilities to avoid a massive body count.

Quote
I assume you mean feat-based ones like whirlwind attack, rather than things like disarm that I listed above. I once had a thread on "feats you could give to mundanes for free without balance problems." The real answer was "a ton," but I do recall lots of senseless arguing.

Yes.
And for my current group it would be more confusion over the sheer number of options opened up, but they are mellow when it comes to trusting me on rules issues. Other groups I'd worry about the senseless arguing.

Quote
This is a good tactic for mundanes.

It is also ridiculously fun.
Like the time one of my old groups wanted to weld wheels to the rogue modron to turn him into an impromptu chariot to cross a courtyard where bad guys were waiting for them (failed check, he got dragged), then the Halfling wanted to "climb" the ogre and attack with his twin sickles (nat 20 to climb, nat 20 for called head shot).
While there are feats that can sort of do that, you "must" have them or you're out of luck.

Quote
I've often thought about these too. If I haven't made it already, I've been thinking about a "how much from epic can we safely use" thread.

I'll review my revised write ups and comment if you do.

Quote
Basically I don't see 3.5 mundanes doing anything but "I move and hit it." Sure it might have been harder in AD&D, but I see almost equal disuse for PCs. If anything its a DM knowledge tax.

That's how it should be.
Functionally, especially with less experienced players, they get caught up in the "system traps", becoming obsessed with certain tripping or power attacks and such, and wind up bogging down the flow.

Ultimately, a lot of the flaws and perceptions of flaws with both are self-fulfilling prophecies. I found when I stopped worrying about the rules and just went with my gut, the "problems" of d20 started vanishing.

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1962
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #43 on: August 20, 2015, 11:09:45 AM »
deliberately cripple my own tactical abilities to avoid a massive body count.
If you do that, they won't learn how creatures should really play. You need a "difficulty sign" if you do that, so they know they are just noobs barely squeezing by on "super easy mode." It's only after players look around and say to each other "we suck," that they start to try harder. This goes for most any game.

I'll go through my thread history and scavange so I can thread necro/avoid double-posting. I did that for BG and giantip, but not this boards yet.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #44 on: August 20, 2015, 03:38:44 PM »
So, the number of options, effectively, shrinks precipitously.  But, again, this is a lot more than there was in AD&D.
So in reality for 3.5, those options I mentioned are mostly off the table: Charging is simply a variant of the usual move then attack.

Bullrush requires an ACF, overrun is redundant, disarm is niche, and Sunder requires straight up system mastery. Tripping and grapple require blatant homebrew once flight and FoM come into play. Every rogue player knows that feinting is a trap.

Basically I don't see 3.5 mundanes doing anything but "I move and hit it." Sure it might have been harder in AD&D, but I see almost equal disuse for PCs. If anything its a DM knowledge tax.
I feel like you are missing my point.  I feel like I'm not conveying the paucity of options in AD&D.  In 3.5E D&D you can at least build a character who trips, disarms, sunders (see Min/Max thread on these very boards), etc. if you really want to.  This is an option. 

That was not, except is extremely niche instances, even a possibility in AD&D.  Also, no Power Attack, Combat Expertise, or even Fighting Defensively (I think?  Not sure on that one).  Even disarming, etc., which is usually a suboptimal tactic is a think you can at least try to do.  There might be that one instance where you might want to at least try it (more on that later*).  In AD&D, that was at DM's whim.  Now, good DMs would of course allow such things, and set reasonable difficulties for them and so on.  But, we're comparing the systems, not how awesome our friends are. 

I'm not sure what you're disputing here.  I said 3.5E has greater mundane options, though still a disappointing few of them, than AD&D.  I feel like this is pretty obvious, even taking into account the aforementioned pitfalls of these options.  The existence of even practically a single option -- viz. some flavor of ubercharging -- is pretty much more than AD&D had.  In AD&D it boiled down to "full attack." 

*In my games, I have gotten rid of the AoOs and the penalties for combat maneuvers.  So, everybody can try them if they want, and then made the feats do extra interesting things.  Basically just getting rid of the basic "Improved X" level.  I can try and dig up my notes on it when I have more time. 

Offline Chemus

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1929
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #45 on: August 20, 2015, 08:01:44 PM »
And you appear to be missing the point in the other direction, Unbeliever; those were all options, but without codified rules... and fewer restrictions.

If you wanted to perform a funky maneuver, all you had to do was try it. Describe what you want to do, the DM determines a likelihood (DC), then you roll. No feats or anything. With Combat&Tactics/Skills&Powers, the codified rules expanded greatly, but by default rules, if you wanted to swing on a rope and stab at an opponent, you could try.

The PHB and Fighter's handbook each had (different) optional rules regarding parrying (similar to fighting defensively), for example, and there were other sources, but I forget where to look.
Apathy is ...ah screw it.
My Homebrew

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #46 on: August 20, 2015, 08:16:14 PM »
And you appear to be missing the point in the other direction, Unbeliever; those were all options, but without codified rules... and fewer restrictions.

If you wanted to perform a funky maneuver, all you had to do was try it. Describe what you want to do, the DM determines a likelihood (DC), then you roll. No feats or anything. With Combat&Tactics/Skills&Powers, the codified rules expanded greatly, but by default rules, if you wanted to swing on a rope and stab at an opponent, you could try.

...
That was not, except is extremely niche instances, even a possibility in AD&D.  Also, no Power Attack, Combat Expertise, or even Fighting Defensively (I think?  Not sure on that one).  Even disarming, etc., which is usually a suboptimal tactic is a think you can at least try to do.  There might be that one instance where you might want to at least try it (more on that later*).  In AD&D, that was at DM's whim.  Now, good DMs would of course allow such things, and set reasonable difficulties for them and so on.  But, we're comparing the systems, not how awesome our friends are. 
You may disagree with my treatment of it, and both my recollection may be off or my experiences were idiosyncratic.  But, I did spend no less than 3 sentences discussing this exact point, to wit, you could do these options without set rules depending on your DM.  It's not that I missed it. 

This implicates other meta-issues about how you compare systems, and whether you prefer something freeform to something else.  That has its own long and storied debate on this forum and in charopp in general.  And, again, it's not that I'm blind to the various optional rules that existed in AD&D.  Hell, I cited the Gladiator's Handbook rules for specific exotic weapons and specialization.  That's a deep cut from AD&D. 
« Last Edit: August 20, 2015, 08:17:45 PM by Unbeliever »

Offline Samwise

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #47 on: August 20, 2015, 11:27:06 PM »
If you do that, they won't learn how creatures should really play. You need a "difficulty sign" if you do that, so they know they are just noobs barely squeezing by on "super easy mode." It's only after players look around and say to each other "we suck," that they start to try harder. This goes for most any game.

I'll go through my thread history and scavange so I can thread necro/avoid double-posting. I did that for BG and giantip, but not this boards yet.

Yeah, I know.
And I still wound up having to fudge things at the last minute to avoid TPKs over and over.
It became easier to just play incompetently from the beginning with anyone I knew had the tactical ability of a hamster.

OTOH, with the few people who could play, and the one or two who were better than me, that was serious fun.

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1962
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #48 on: August 22, 2015, 04:23:14 PM »
:)

@Ub I'm not arguing. I believe you and all. I just thought it was funny that people still criticized the lack of options in 3e while others found them overwhelming.
I can try and dig up my notes on it when I have more time.
and I'd like that.

Offline TuggyNE

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 150
  • Pondering the nature of identity
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #49 on: August 22, 2015, 11:25:39 PM »
What is my attack bonus for each point of power attack? "1:1"
What is my damage bonus for each point of power attack? "ahem, 1:1"

So, no two-handed weapons then.
Sweet martial OotS-style avatar by Ceika over on GitP.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #50 on: August 25, 2015, 12:22:15 AM »
Here's some of my combat maneuvery house rules.  They vary slightly from campaign to campaign, but here's the basic flavor.
  • No AoOs for attempting a combat maneuver
  • No modifiers for using a light or a two-handed or whatever weapon
  • No size limitations on the maneuvers.  So, if your halfling wants to grapple the Tarrasque go ahead and try.  Good luck
  • With the exception of overrun (and feint, depending on which version I'm looking at) all maneuvers take an attack action.

Those help turn a combat maneuver into something you might just want to do from time to time.  I also often use the all iteratives from class levels are just at -5 (so, -0/-5/-5/-5), though I don't typically go back through and change the Monster Manual.

The other thing I do is beef up the Improved X feats.  First, I take away Combat Expertise and Power Attack as prereqs.  Pretty much, each of these have no prereq.  And, I usually give out a few bonus feats.  So, you can get pretty decent at them with a pretty minimal commitment. 

Each of the Improved X feats increases your size by 1 step for both initiating and resisting the maneuver, and then gives you an additional bonus on top of it.  The Greater X feats give you another +1 size and an additional goodie.  Note that this is probably imbalancing at low levels, so you should put some limit or prereq so that people don't get Greater X too early. 

So, something like this: 
  • Improved Bull Rush:  +4 to initiate or resist bull rush attempts.  If you successfully bull rush your opponent you automatically push them at least 2 squares.
  • Greater Bull Rush:  if you bull rush an opponent their movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you).   
  • Improved Disarm:  +4 to initiate or resist  disarm attempts.  If you successfully disarm an opponent you can choose to be holding the weapon or can toss it up to 10 feet away in a direction of your choice.
  • Greater Disarm:  If you succeed you can choose to take the weapon and make an immediate attack of opportunity against your opponent with the weapon you just took. 
  • Improved Overrun:  +4 to initiate and resist overruns and the target cannot avoid you (this one is actually fine as written)
  • Greater Overrun:  I you successfully overrun a target, it provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
  • Improved Sunder:  +4 to/vs. sunder checks and if you successfully sunder an item, the excess damage is transferred to the bearer. 

Honestly, I don't know how good these are. I haven't looked at them for a while or played a D&D game I ran for a while (there's been a lot of Pathfinder and Savage Worlds).  But, that's kind of the direction I'd move in in a band-aid "how can we get this to work a bit better but we are comfortable with this system so let's not make it too different" perspective.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2015, 03:35:06 PM by Unbeliever »

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1962
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #51 on: August 25, 2015, 01:06:54 PM »
The above really ties into my "feats that should be free" thread.

What is my attack bonus for each point of power attack? "1:1"
What is my damage bonus for each point of power attack? "ahem, 1:1"

So, no two-handed weapons then.
I've proudly never made a two-handed weapon wielder.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #52 on: August 28, 2015, 01:06:02 AM »
The above really ties into my "feats that should be free" thread.

link handy? I did a quick google search and found one on Paizo, but wasn't sure if that's where you had posted it.

Offline Keldar

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • What's this button do?
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #53 on: September 01, 2015, 07:57:22 AM »
Curious though, what metamagic, Samwise? Reversible spells? I recall no modifying written spells beyond their descriptions... Izzat from Skills&Powers/Combat&Tactics?

Lost in the PHB spell lists are Extension I, II, and III (extend).
Relatively late 2nd ed, Tome of Magic introduced Dilation (widen), Far Reaching (enlarge), and Squaring the Circle (sculpt).
There may be some later ones I'm missing from that list.
And there may be a few I'm missing.

But yes, AD&D had metamagic first!
It even had the Metamagic/Abjuration specialist the Incantrix first.  In the Cult of the Dragon book.  Which isn't on the shelf I thought it was.   :shakefist

I've intended that the next time I DM a 3E game to give all the sub-par mundane classes the ability to not provoke AoOs for combat maneuvers starting with level 2.  As a way of getting around the second problem blocking use of the maneuvers1 while giving Fighters one lousy advantage over Clerics.


1The first of course, is knowing the niche rule that no one who doesn't specialize in it has a reason to learn.

Offline MrWolfe

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #54 on: September 19, 2015, 09:08:53 PM »
Honestly, the thing I miss most was the old version of Meteor Swarm. None of this petty "Shoot a bunch of fireballs from your hand" B.S., you called down actual meteors that automatically hit with that spell.

Though it's possible I'm thinking of AD&D, and not 2nd ed.
A little madness goes a long way...

Offline ksbsnowowl

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4776
  • Warrior Skald, teller of tales.
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #55 on: September 20, 2015, 03:13:54 PM »
I almost wonder if just adding the spell level-as-initiative-penalty aspect of earlier editions would be the perfect amount of change to tilt the high-level balance back from casters just enough...

I don't know how others do it, but I have a magnetic initiative board, with magnets with character names, or "Bad A," etc, written on them.  When a caster starts casting a spell, ask what level it is, move their character initiative token down that many slots in the initiative order; that's when the casting will be complete, and their spell will go off.  If there are foes attacking in the interim, they may well try to attack you to interrupt your spell (normal 3.5 Concentration checks would apply each time you are hit for damage).

Smart caster play may then involve delaying your turn until there is an initiative gap long enough to get your spell off without being attacked.  Of course, the bad guys will probably start doing the same after a round or so.

I might give that a try sometime.


Offline stanprollyright

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 248
  • The Looks
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #56 on: September 20, 2015, 04:24:01 PM »
Here's some of my combat maneuvery house rules.  They vary slightly from campaign to campaign, but here's the basic flavor.
  • No AoOs for attempting a combat maneuver
  • No modifiers for using a light or a two-handed or whatever weapon
  • No size limitations on the maneuvers.  So, if your halfling wants to grapple the Tarrasque go ahead and try.  Good luck
  • With the exception of overrun (and feint, depending on which version I'm looking at) all maneuvers take an attack action.

Those help turn a combat maneuver into something you might just want to do from time to time.  I also often use the all iteratives from class levels are just at -5 (so, -0/-5/-5/-5), though I don't typically go back through and change the Monster Manual.

The other thing I do is beef up the Improved X feats.  First, I take away Combat Expertise and Power Attack as prereqs.  Pretty much, each of these have no prereq.  And, I usually give out a few bonus feats.  So, you can get pretty decent at them with a pretty minimal commitment. 

Each of the Improved X feats increases your size by 1 step for both initiating and resisting the maneuver, and then gives you an additional bonus on top of it.  The Greater X feats give you another +1 size and an additional goodie.  Note that this is probably imbalancing at low levels, so you should put some limit or prereq so that people don't get Greater X too early. 

So, something like this: 
  • Improved Bull Rush:  +4 to initiate or resist bull rush attempts.  If you successfully bull rush your opponent you automatically push them at least 2 squares.
  • Greater Bull Rush:  if you bull rush an opponent their movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you).   
  • Improved Disarm:  +4 to initiate or resist  disarm attempts.  If you successfully disarm an opponent you can choose to be holding the weapon or can toss it up to 10 feet away in a direction of your choice.
  • Greater Disarm:  If you succeed you can choose to take the weapon and make an immediate attack of opportunity against your opponent with the weapon you just took. 
  • Improved Overrun:  +4 to initiate and resist overruns and the target cannot avoid you (this one is actually fine as written)
  • Greater Overrun:  I you successfully overrun a target, it provokes an attack of opportunity from you.
  • Improved Sunder:  +4 to/vs. sunder checks and if you successfully sunder an item, the excess damage is transferred to the bearer. 

Honestly, I don't know how good these are. I haven't looked at them for a while or played a D&D game I ran for a while (there's been a lot of Pathfinder and Savage Worlds).  But, that's kind of the direction I'd move in in a band-aid "how can we get this to work a bit better but we are comfortable with this system so let's not make it too different" perspective.

I really like these. In media it always seems like a maneuver is actually a useful thing to do that's often way more beneficial than a normal attack.
Goats are like mushrooms
If you shoot a duck I'm scared of toasters

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #57 on: September 26, 2015, 09:44:18 AM »
I almost wonder if just adding the spell level-as-initiative-penalty aspect of earlier editions would be the perfect amount of change to tilt the high-level balance back from casters just enough...
...
Smart caster play may then involve delaying your turn until there is an initiative gap long enough to get your spell off without being attacked.  Of course, the bad guys will probably start doing the same after a round or so.
It has been a long, long time since I played with it, but this is mostly my recollections from how it played out in practice.  Consequently, the thing I liked about the mechanic -- where there was a meaningful distinction between making the equivalent of a jab or a haymaker -- ended up dropping out.  I also recall speed factor/casting time ending up being more trouble than it's worth.

This may be a place where there is just too much going on in the system.  D&D already has a lot of resource management, vancian casting, hit points, and per day abilities being the big examples.  Putting in resource management and speed management at the same time might just be too much.  Especially b/c the latter is kind of grafted onto the system. 

That being said, I really like the idea of disrupting spellcasting.  I just haven't found an implementation that I like.  Ideally, I think, it'd be something akin to countering (either in D&D's counterspell system or other games).  But, like I said, I haven't hit upon something that I really like for it yet. 

...
I really like these. In media it always seems like a maneuver is actually a useful thing to do that's often way more beneficial than a normal attack.
Thanks.  The next D&D game that I'm really in charge of I'll probably implement these along with a bunch of "hey martials, have some nice stuff!" that I've been slowly thinking about.  And, we'll see what happens.  I also tend to give out a bunch of bonus feats.  This is entirely a player psychology thing:  if you've got only a handful of feats, you will agonize over them and be loathe to "waste" one rather than have it fit into an awesome, powerful build.  Give out a few more, making each one less precious, and you make it easier for someone to say "fuck it, I'm good at disarming" (or basket weaving or whatever).

Offline stanprollyright

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 248
  • The Looks
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #58 on: September 26, 2015, 04:27:53 PM »
Thanks.  The next D&D game that I'm really in charge of I'll probably implement these along with a bunch of "hey martials, have some nice stuff!" that I've been slowly thinking about.  And, we'll see what happens.  I also tend to give out a bunch of bonus feats.  This is entirely a player psychology thing:  if you've got only a handful of feats, you will agonize over them and be loathe to "waste" one rather than have it fit into an awesome, powerful build.  Give out a few more, making each one less precious, and you make it easier for someone to say "fuck it, I'm good at disarming" (or basket weaving or whatever).

That's a part of why I like Pathfinder. A feat every other level instead of every 3rd gives you a little wiggle room. Plus, now any class can use a feat-heavy combat style like archery or TWF or Finesse.

I always allow flaws in 3.5 and give out free skill ranks with a condition that they must be used on a Profession or Knowledge skill, excluding Profession (sailor) or Knowledge (arcana, religion, nature) or anything that is a prereq for something you might take later. I like it when characters have interests outside of adventuring, and as a DM it gives me an excuse to occasionally give out background or fluff information.
Goats are like mushrooms
If you shoot a duck I'm scared of toasters

Offline Amechra

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4560
  • Thread Necromancy a specialty
    • View Profile
Re: Wow, Mundane classes were BADASS in 2e.
« Reply #59 on: September 26, 2015, 06:47:19 PM »
I almost wonder if just adding the spell level-as-initiative-penalty aspect of earlier editions would be the perfect amount of change to tilt the high-level balance back from casters just enough...
...
Smart caster play may then involve delaying your turn until there is an initiative gap long enough to get your spell off without being attacked.  Of course, the bad guys will probably start doing the same after a round or so.
It has been a long, long time since I played with it, but this is mostly my recollections from how it played out in practice.  Consequently, the thing I liked about the mechanic -- where there was a meaningful distinction between making the equivalent of a jab or a haymaker -- ended up dropping out.  I also recall speed factor/casting time ending up being more trouble than it's worth.

This may be a place where there is just too much going on in the system.  D&D already has a lot of resource management, vancian casting, hit points, and per day abilities being the big examples.  Putting in resource management and speed management at the same time might just be too much.  Especially b/c the latter is kind of grafted onto the system. 

That being said, I really like the idea of disrupting spellcasting.  I just haven't found an implementation that I like.  Ideally, I think, it'd be something akin to countering (either in D&D's counterspell system or other games).  But, like I said, I haven't hit upon something that I really like for it yet. 

Old School Hack divides combat into phases; most importantly, declaring a Focus Action is done at Phase 3, and the Action actually happens on Phase 7. Attacking someone is done during Phase 5. Most importantly, the system only allows one action per turn, and suffering any damage cancels any Focus Action that's being performed.

...

What if succeeding on the Concentration check due to being shanked in the kidneys just meant that you don't lose the spell slot, instead of allowing you to complete the spell?
"There is happiness for those who accept their fate, there is glory for those that defy it."

"Now that everyone's so happy, this is probably a good time to tell you I ate your parents."