[OSSR] Y2K edition: D&D, Player's Handbook.

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

[OSSR] Y2K edition: D&D, Player's Handbook.

Post by tussock »

Let me take you back to a quieter time, more genteel. When war is a thing fought in the Balkans, in support of radical Islamic separatists. When a funky new search engine called “google” is starting to let you actually find things on the internet again. When the € is still just a new banker currency that probably won't catch on. When the millennials get their celebration on a year early (just like last time, in 1000 AD, and yet again the world steadfastly refuses to end). When a pack-a-day smoker and heavy drinking Australian wins the final gold medal at the Sydney Olympics, in the men's long jump. As Al Gore is nominated to run for President of the United States of America, certain to win the popular vote.
Also Florida. But only if you count the votes from the bugged machines they put in democrat-heavy districts that failed to stamp a proper vote most of the time, but made it look very much like they had done by folding the near-cut piece under. Republican judges and Republican vote counters under the brother of the Republican candidate said it wouldn't be fair to count them, and now here we are with no privacy, massive spy complexes, the end of habeas corpus, and endless wars on abstract concepts.

The red colour may represent hindsight, or just my inane ramblings. Whichever.



Wizards of the Coast, freshly sold out (Sep '99) to Hasbro LLC, having bought the properties back from the brink of bankruptcy from the failed TSR, after a year-long genius of a marketing campaign powered by leaks from the playtesters to a mild-mannered Eric Noah (and a bunch of free press in Dragon and other places), built on a three year engineering project, enormous surveys of interest and desires, working with hundreds of playtest groups, release to you, in August 2000 CE, the

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS

Player's Handbook.

Image
CORE RULEBOOK I.

Image
With that CD-ROM in the back, for Windows(R) 95/98, on IBM(R) compatible PCs of 133 MHz. It's a demonstration of a free character generator, pretty simple stuff, which obviously shouldn't take them long to finish.
It took them nine years and another edition to finish it, whereapon they charged you $10 a month to be able to create characters for D&D at all. In 2000, no one could figure out how to make real money from the internet. By 2009, no one could figure out how to make real money anywhere but the internet. In between there was World of Warcraft and the subscribe to play model.

Newsfroup rec.games.frp.dnd is the place to talk about the new rules. Thousands of totally unmoderated trolls SCREAMING at each other about how the new rules make no sense, or that people are idiots for failing to understand them, or how that must be quite confusing because there's already three different answers for how it works and there's only two posts. Seriously, mounted combat: what the fuck?
rgfd is dead, barely 100 posts a month, usenet is dead, all the ISPs dropped it. It's also gotten really polite and supportive on the few remaining indy servers. It's like traffic is some sort of curse, people in a crowd becoming some sort of crazed mob at the drop of a hat. Over the next few years there was people posting thousands of messages a month, and it was all ugly as fuck. Fond memories of that are why I'm here. :viking:

The cheeky sods didn't even put an edition number on the cover. Fortunately, all the preview material has “3e” stamped all over it, so we can just use that until something better comes along.
Nothing better came along. The 3.5 books just plain gave up and put 3.5 on the cover, retroactively making this edition 3.0 (and the previous revision 2.5, etc).

The credits page shows original design work by Cook, Tweet, and Williams.
Skip Williams later claimed to have fought his best to keep some of the restrictions on spellcasters, but got constantly outvoted by Monte and Jonathan in their rush to unburden the game of all it's restrictions, making this the “say yes” edition. To some extent it's really just Monte Cook's and Jonathan Tweet's edition in terms of player empowerment primacy over challenge and structure.

Player's Handbook design: Jonathan Tweet. Wrote this book. Famous for Over the Edge, then full time at Wizards before the TSR purchase designing a new Ars Magica and Everway.

Direction: Peter Adkinson, the boss at WotC, famous for letting some dude try making collectable baseball cards out of RPG characters, like TSR did, but then making a fancy card game out of it, with special rules on each card, which turned out to be a huge thing.

Additional Design: Richard Baker. He's to blame for Alternity and Birthright in the dying days of TSR. By blame I mean the dodgy game mechanics, the dodgy finincials were not his doing.

Four editors: Kim Mohan with David Noonan, Jeff Quick, and Penny Williams.

Core Creative Director: Ed Stark. A couple Children of the Night books in his manifesto.

Director of RPG R&D: Bill Slavicsek. Ordering polls, surveys, finding out what people want. Got that well sorted.

Brand Manager: Ryan Dancey. Give that man a cigar. Genius. Branding? BEST EVAR. Not to mention the OGL. It was a cool idea by the time of release, but the market support for it turned out to be gigantic, even though Hasbro lawyers did their best to kill it over the following years, and 3.5 was a huge kick in the pants to brick and mortar places holding stock in any of it. But it saved RPGs in 2009 when the death of D&D spawned a professional and legal D&D clone by the name of Pathfinder.

Also, there's a whole bunch of managers and tech people, Todd Lockwood and Sam Wood are the main artists, and some bastard decided to write everything in this book on top of fucking background art (no one's ever taken credit). The lines under the text are supposed to mess up the OCR and induce jpeg artefacts on scanners to stop piracy.
It did not stop piracy, at all. Not even a little bit. It did annoy a lot of paying customers though. See also every anti-piracy measure ever, or anti-terrorist measure, or that big angry dog your neighbour has to keep burglars away. But I digress.

About two years later a very long argument on rgfd ended when someone pointed out there was rules on page 87. Half of everyone playing the game had never seen them. Millions of people could not or simply did not read the text over faded line-art. That was improved for later products.

They also wrap a huge amount of text very tightly around complex-edged images. Like it was a new tool and they couldn't help themselves from over-indulging. Which it was, and they did.
PHB p2 wrote:Printed in the U.S.A.
Them were the days.

There's a 1-page table of contents, which is mostly a listing of tables. Then they take you to a 2-page spread of Character Creation Basics. Before Chapter 1, or even the Introduction. Which is weird, but here we are.

Rule 0: Check with your Dungeon Master. They might change stuff.
This is, was, in hindsight, somewhat overused in conversation about how the rules have problems. Compared to 2nd edition, where something like that was written on nearly every page, it's a miracle of player empowerment. But it is there. As Rule Zero. I recall at one point no one I knew could find rule zero, like we'd all imagined it as a terrible shared hallucination. If only.

Next roll stats (3 of 4d6, must net +1 with at least one 14+), choose class and race at the same time, assign adjusted stats, see if you like the default class options, record race and class features, select skills, select a feat, review descriptions (maybe select some, as you will), roll gold and buy gear, calculate and record combat and skill numbers.

I don't understand the random shuffle they ask you do. At all. It seems like you should only be rolling stats after you have your race (which adjusts them), and then you should immediately place them and do all the associated sums. Which means pick class, pick race, roll-place-adjust stats, pick-adjust skills, pick feat, buy gear.

Then go nuts and add name and alignment and weight and height and bla de bla bla bla.
There's no need to develop the character completely. With your DM's permission, you can always add, or even change details as you play and as you get a better feel for your character.

The Introduction explains how Wizards can do woderous things and Fighters can stab something and then die a lot of different horrible deaths. What you need to play that sort of game is
PHB p6 wrote:[*]The Player's Handbook, which tells you how to create and play your character.
[*]A copy of the character sheet.
[*]A pencil and scratch paper (graph paper is nice to have, too).
[*]One or two four-sided dice (d4), four or more six-sided dice (d6), an eight-sided die (d8), two ten-sided dice (d10), a twelve-sided die (d12), and a twenty-sided die (d20).
[*]A miniature figure, or at least something to represent your character in the game (even if it's just a mark on paper).
Starter sets clearly do not have enough dice to this day. You also need at least four d20's, and N+1 d6's, where N is the current number of d6's you have.
Note the pencil and paper: it's like people didn't own iPads or iPhones yet, like apple is a failing company, like google hangouts weren't even in popular science-fantasy yet … oh, right, August 2000.

See also (to be linked as completed) ...
Last edited by tussock on Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:44 am, edited 4 times in total.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
Eikre
Knight-Baron
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:41 am

Re: [OSSR] Y2K edition: D&D, Player's Handbook.

Post by Eikre »

tussock wrote:About two years later a very long argument on rgfd ended when someone pointed out there was rules on page 87.
Do tell?
User avatar
nockermensch
Duke
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
Location: Rio: the Janeiro

Re: [OSSR] Y2K edition: D&D, Player's Handbook.

Post by nockermensch »

tussock wrote:Newsfroup rec.games.frp.dnd is the place to talk about the new rules. Thousands of totally unmoderated trolls SCREAMING at each other about how the new rules make no sense, or that people are idiots for failing to understand them, or how that must be quite confusing because there's already three different answers for how it works and there's only two posts. Seriously, mounted combat: what the fuck?
I shed a nostalgia tear here. Best years of my life, I tell you. Everybody back then used these funky "handles" to post on rgfd: "Sea Wasp", "Tussock", "Nockermensch", "Hong Ooi", etc. Remember those endless discussions about how fighters were totally underpowered compared with wizards? How I miss them.

Those were the times.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Re: [OSSR] Y2K edition: D&D, Player's Handbook.

Post by tussock »

@Eikre. Chapter 6, when it's ready (it's a boring bit otherwise). Wish I could dig through the deja archives well enough to find the particular point in time, but it was all rather Chaotic and google keeps not caring to fix them.

@nockermensch. You forgot werebat, Ardy R. Devarque, and MSB. Or remember Terry Austin? Oh, shit, I hope that doesn't still summon him. Surely not.

For those unfamiliar
[*] MSB <= Frank Trollman without the creativity and much less patience.
[*] Terry <= like Kaelik, only super creepy and probably killed people.
[*] Nockermensch <= Nockermensch, with more @_@'
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

ABILITIES
CHAPTER 1.

Had this all written and then it was crap so I restarted. It's like I rolled my stats and they were 14/10/10/10/10/08 and the DM said that was legit and so I flipped the fucking table and got a reroll. I wonder what the real minimum roll is?
PHB wrote:Just about every roll you make is going to be modified based on your character's abilities.
And how. This is Y2K, and this isn't your daddy's AD&D any more. Character stats in Basic/RC throw out a lot of mods, but then you don't really use them for anything that you'd care about, and they make you roll on 3d6 in order anyway. Stats in AD&D are almost always giving you +0 to your non-class rolls, though more modifiers exist for the less common stuff like encumbrance. Given typical rolling systems and reroll allowances (IME, dragonsfoot says, etc) your mods have changed as follows.

RC: +1/+1 … -1. From 15/13/11/9/7 (after special pleading, randomly placed).
AD&D: +3/+1 …. From 17/15/13/12/11/9 (after 2 at 15+).
3e: +3/+2/+1/+1 … -1. From 16/15/13/12/11/9 (official median).

So those middling importance stats (Con, Dex, Wis for most) get a boost at creation. This is instantly and wildly popular. Until the "good" characters start turning up in so many reports, and soon enough your own games.

RC: +2/+1/+1 … -1. From 16/14/13/12/10/08.
AD&D: +4/+2/+1 …. From 18/16/15/14/13/12.
3e: +4/+3/+2/+2/+1/+1. From 18/16/15/14/13/12.

That's all spreadsheet data I couldn't have possibly calculated in Y2K, but it was possible to do so.
Which goes from a +3 advantage over the average to a +7 advantage. Pretty huge character advantages that almost never happened with any sort of reasonable dice rolling will turn up one in fourty characters. Characters with +1 or more to everything they care about have gone from that rare to one in four. The relatively poor characters (now -5 for a 3!) are likewise much further behind. In-party disparity is bigger than ever.
Rolling for stats never really recovered, large point buy totals became dominant to share the love for those sorts of characters. The ridiculous ones weren't some bullshit story any more, you knew someone playing one, and you wanted in on that too. At that point you were just buying the same mods on certain rolls as everyone else, and the old love for rolling up some stats (or even having stats at all) simply died out for all but a rare few grognards.

The unified stat table, however, is much more popular than the pages of tables that fill your suddenly-useless AD&D DM screens, especially with spellcasters who now get save DC boosts and MOAR SPELLS of all levels. Unlike 4e's unified class table, which shat in a lot of people's beds, and didn't give anyone much of anything they wanted.

The stats themselves, for characters, can run up a long, long way at high levels compared to the old unreachable 25 maximum (often with a measly +6 or +7 bonus), at least for your primary stat. Quick enough to count the max of 18, +2 race, +5 levels, +5 wishes, +6 magic, = 36! That's a +13 bonus to killing shit, which stacks with a good few other things.

Most non-prime stats can reach 20 or 22 and +5 or +6 with basic magic, and that's both miles off the primary start bonus, and also miles above your weaker unaided stats. More in-party disparity in the late game, making for strongly divergent character development before we even get to the classes.
[color]AD&D development systems drove characters closer together in their stats. Fast early gain and very slow late gain. Overwriting magic items.

Examples (they replaced the AD&D rules tables with shorter example tables) of the nastiest monsters show that 20th level characters become greater than everything in the game, in all but Strength. Until you read the Polymorph Other spell and take that for yourself and then some.

The biggest change for stats sits in skills, which used to be entirely stat-based (roll equal or under Dex-3 to avoid a hazard, for example) become almost entirely level-based. The effects on relative power of Fighters and Clerics took a while to shake out, but eventually it showed that stealing the Fighter's exclusive access to big Str and Con mods they held in AD&D was another crushing blow to the class, with Clerics (and even Wizards) buffing themselves up with much bigger mods than the mundane characters could manage in each and every field of combat as they wished. My earliest builds were all conversions of AD&D characters, and it looked alright through that lens, and if they'd kept using the same spells and combat tricks it would have, but optimising for 3e was a very different process and the conversions weren't an accurate gauge.
If the tables were +1 per 3, the character disparity would be much reduced, only +4 or +5 and mostly on the lower stats. At +1 per 4, +1@ 13, +2@17, they'd be very similar to AD&D and RC at +3 for the best character, and +1 prime modifier (while still giving people the prised new bonuses and consistency fetish). For combat and spells that would work, high level play only diverging out to +9 or +7 respectively, safely on the RNG. To match the old melee damage, thief skills, and breaking stuff chances they made it higher. Rather than use two columns on the fucking stat table, when they already make you multiply and divide the modifier in places.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
User avatar
Longes
Prince
Posts: 2867
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 4:02 pm

Post by Longes »

tussock wrote:Rolling for stats never really recovered, large point buy totals became dominant to share the love for those sorts of characters. The ridiculous ones weren't some bullshit story any more, you knew someone playing one, and you wanted in on that too. At that point you were just buying the same mods on certain rolls as everyone else, and the old love for rolling up some stats (or even having stats at all) simply died out for all but a rare few grognards.
This is very untrue. Roll20 is full of people who still roll for stats, even in Pathfinder.
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

My experience may be biased. How can you see in Roll20 who rolls and who buys (or anywhere)? My digging couldn't find it, and google mostly finds people talking about point-buy on their forums, and other forums. 32 point D&D, 25 point PF.

Edit: Buy stats, 3:1 in favour.
http://www.googlebattle.com/?domain=rol ... &submit=Go!

I know people who roll, but they play oldschool small mods or use 27-25-23. Which is where you roll once and subtract the total from 27 for two stats, then roll and subtract from 25 for another two, and from 23 for the last two (always capped at 18). Everyone's mods are at or near +6.
Rolling an example party:
Roll 11, get 16, roll 14, get 11, roll 15, get 08. 16/15/14/11/11/08.
Roll 15, get 12, roll 11, get 14, roll 07, get 16. 16/15/14/12/11/07.
Roll 14, get 13, roll 16, get 09, roll 17, get 06. 17/16/14/13/09/06.
Roll 17, get 10, roll 14, get 11, roll 08, get 15. 17/15/14/11/10/08.

Notice the last six rolls? Yeh, that would be an imposing character. It's common for rolls to produce a mechanical disparity of a level of power in a small 3e party.
Note, can still mess up the thread /quote function by not having an opening quote.
Last edited by tussock on Sun Oct 19, 2014 4:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
User avatar
Longes
Prince
Posts: 2867
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 4:02 pm

Post by Longes »

tussock wrote:My experience may be biased. How can you see in Roll20 who rolls and who buys (or anywhere)? My digging couldn't find it, and google mostly finds people talking about point-buy on their forums, and other forums. 32 point D&D, 25 point PF.

Edit: Buy stats, 3:1 in favour.
http://www.googlebattle.com/?domain=rol ... &submit=Go!

I know people who roll, but they play oldschool small mods or use 27-25-23. Which is where you roll once and subtract the total from 27 for two stats, then roll and subtract from 25 for another two, and from 23 for the last two (always capped at 18). Everyone's mods are at or near +6.
Rolling an example party:
Roll 11, get 16, roll 14, get 11, roll 15, get 08. 16/15/14/11/11/08.
Roll 15, get 12, roll 11, get 14, roll 07, get 16. 16/15/14/12/11/07.
Roll 14, get 13, roll 16, get 09, roll 17, get 06. 17/16/14/13/09/06.
Roll 17, get 10, roll 14, get 11, roll 08, get 15. 17/15/14/11/10/08.

Notice the last six rolls? Yeh, that would be an imposing character. It's common for rolls to produce a mechanical disparity of a level of power in a small 3e party.
Note, can still mess up the thread /quote function by not having an opening quote.
That's probably because there isn't anything to discuss with rolling. You can't influence it, so what's there to talk about?

I've just joined a Roll20 3.5 game where we rolled, and got 16, 15, 15, 14, 11, 11. Sadly, I'm a wizard, and would prefer a single 18 :)
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

So put your racial +2 in Int, speaking of which.

RACES
CHAPTER TWO.

Image
Speaking of your daddy's D&D, the base races are all here from 1st edition (return of the Half-Orc, but not quite Drow or Svirfneblin or all the rest), but almost all the weirdly delightful little gimics are gone from them, stripped to small mechanical bonuses that often aren't as good and don't … like, how do you apply a +2 to save vs Enchantments, when you don't know what spell type is hitting you? Bonus on the player side of the table, information on the DM side. Problem.

OK, so no one likes AD&D level limits, various options for ignoring them are heavily used, and are the default in RC Basic. A Dwarf or Halfling Wizard, or a Half-Orc Fighter/Mage/Thief is not that big of a deal in terms of game balance or anything. Dwarf Wizards are instantly popular, Dwarf Paladins even make a more sense that banning them. Even if it does basically rewrite their entire campaign setting history and take various plot points out of play.

Wemics need help? Why, when they have high level Wizards now too?

I look at it this way now: when your race doesn't restrict your choices further down the character generation path, it's not an interesting choice. It's just a bunch of bonuses to throw at those later ones. It's the choices that are most restrictive which become the driving force in your character building process. Race in AD&D is one of those, from how you arrange your stats to which classes you can take. But not in 3e, outside a handful of Prestigue Classes among the thousands. Making races more important to your choices again was something various 3rd party publishers did pretty early on, and WotC tried later in 3.5 by various means, such as free racial weapons and other gear, level substitutions, and race-restricted feats. I don't think it helps.


The new multiclassing turns up here, with each racial Favoured Class. Dual class and old multiclasses are dead. You now have to “dip” into a side class (or classes), sticking to your main one to get any high level class abilities. Some classes are pretty clearly “dip only” on those grounds, lacking any high level stuff at all. Each race can either “dip” their Favoured Class and no others, or stick to their Favoured Class as primary and dip as many as they like (humans only have the second option). Going outside that sucks, a 20% XP penalty leaves you a level behind everyone, 40% if you hit, say, level 5/3/1 at some point, rather than 3/3/3 for no favoured class, or 6/2/1 or 4/4/1 with one, which clearly doesn't mean anything at all in game.
Dissociated mechanics, in more modern terminology. I dumped that rule immediately and saw most do the same online, with the odd straggler noting some popular build or another suffered multiclassing penalties and no one even cared.

Officially it's supposed to make you split your classes evenly. But a Dwarf Cleric/Fighter in AD&D was 6/6 in a ~7th level party, and now they're 4/3 split, or 6/1 dipped. The dip strategy is just plain better and more representative of AD&D characters anyway. The conversion document actually gives them 8 levels for some reason? No one used the conversion document.


But it's a big win for the fans again, because Humans get a feat and a skill point, and everyone else drops the limits they weren't using anyway. Still, comparison ahoy, at least one. The green lines are better.
AD&D Dwarf
Req: 8+ Str, 11+ Con, Max 17 Dex and Cha.
+1 Con, -1 Cha (=> 12-19 Con, 2-16 Cha).
6/12 speed.
60' Infravision.
3/6 to 5/6 for various bullshit “underground” things.
+4 vs Magic and Poison (rarely +3 or +5, by Con).
+1 to hit vs Orcs, Half-Orcs, Goblins, and Hobgoblins.
-4 to hit for opposing Ogres, Trolls, Ogre-Magi, Giants, or Titans.

No Wizards, may be Fighter/Cleric, Fighter/Thief, and Fighter/Psion.

Personality: Suspicious and avaristic in general, but courageous and tenacious as allies. Don't appreciate most humour. Rude drunks.

You have to have a high Con to get advantage of that +1, so you do. The Cha penalty likewise means you don't ever put a high stat there, but it otherwise doesn't hurt you. Matching a 14 with that +1, (or 13 with the +1 for adult age in 1st edition), was a way to turn common rolls to extra bonuses too. AD&D races are a mini-game that you can always make work for you. The bonuses are good, the penalties negligable. The stat requirements are almost entirely flavour.

3e Dwarf
Req: Nothing.
+2 Con, -2 Cha.
20/30 speed.
60' Darkvision.
+2 to various bullshit “stone” things, including appraisal and crafting.
+2 saves vs spells, spell-likes, and poison.
+1 to hit vs Orcs and Goblinoids.
+4 AC vs Gaints.

Favoured Class: Fighter.

Personality: Suspicious, vindictive, insular, and greedy. Not friends with the other PCs. Don't understand humour. With Scandanavian names and pirate costumes. Durkon in OOTS fits that to a D, for Dwarf. The other characters follow their race descriptions pretty well too. It's not a good look, really, is it.

You can lower your Con a bit and still gain advantage, and the penalty hurts if you ever make the mistake of talking to anyone, or trying to be a Cleric.
All the stat penalties hurt now, it's not just flavour and discouraging high stats any more, some stuff a tiny bit better, other bits a lot worse or gone. Humans replace exclusive access to all the best classes with a free Feat, making them slightly better at every class. Halflings are completely new in their abilities and culture, much like Kender. Half-Elves may as well not exist, they're like Humans if you don't want the Feat (you always want the Feat). Various rules suggest Half-Orcs are borderline broken with their +2 Str, though that Human feat puts you ahead with most options via early access to other goodies, not to mention the state of the fighting classes that it would work for.

[*] Dwarf: slow fighters, so no.
[*] Elf: fragile wizards with a bow.
[*] Gnome: completely dysfunctional.
[*] Half-Elf: no.
[*] Half-Orc: hope you really like Strength.
[*] Halfling: no, but people do anyway to troll you.
[*] Human: yes, at least in daylight.

There's much better races in the monster manual, and various other books as time goes on, Gray Elves, Kobolds and Goblins, Gray Orcs, Whisper Gnomes, Ghostwise or Strongheart Halflings, on it goes. Why they didn't just start with good PHB default races bemuses me looking back. Human dominance? Sure is, and every new Feat makes them better. There's also a few months where you can play monster races at a very small cost, which makes Ogres and a couple other things options too, longer if you ignore the 3e FRCS.

The race art is … a bit different.
Image

The alien elves? Very big Orcs? Sprite-sized Halflings? That elf having more hair than body? It is consistent throughout too for the entire edition, like it or not you're stuck with it for eight years.


In general, Humans good, everyone else bad, but people had fun trying to make them work for a few years. The only other consideration is getting that +2 on your prime stat, or +4 stat and +3 AC for digging through the monster manual. Trying to remember all the small, fiddly bonuses of the PHB races is not much fun. Can't say their open choice agenda really worked out for them here, though the customers love it and it's not going away.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
infected slut princess
Knight-Baron
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:44 am
Location: 3rd Avenue

Post by infected slut princess »

:roll:
Oh, then you are an idiot. Because infected slut princess has never posted anything worth reading at any time.
Neeeek
Knight-Baron
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:45 am

Post by Neeeek »

tussock wrote:So put your racial +2 in Int, speaking of which.

RACES
CHAPTER TWO.

Image
Speaking of your daddy's D&D, the base races are all here from 1st edition
Huh. I recognize that drawing. Is that from the Blue book?
Blicero
Duke
Posts: 1131
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 12:07 am

Post by Blicero »

tussock wrote: Going outside that sucks, a 20% XP penalty leaves you a level behind everyone, 40% if you hit, say, level 5/3/1 at some point, rather than 3/3/3 for no favoured class, or 6/2/1 or 4/4/1 with one, which clearly doesn't mean anything at all in game.
Dissociated mechanics, in more modern terminology.
Fuck it tussock, we were just talking about how people can't correctly dissociated mechanics in the other thread, and here you go. Let's look at what the PHB sez about XP penalties for multiclassing, shall we?
PHB wrote: If any two of your multiclass character’s classes
are two or more levels apart, the strain of developing and
maintaining different skills at different levels takes its toll
I don't know about you, but, to me, that totally sounds like an associated explanation for why XP penalties exist. The specific implementation of XP in which you gain cosmic power by stabbing things in the face is obviously dissociated, outside of Highlander d20 or whatever. But saying "if you spread yourself out too much, you lose focus and can't advance as quickly" is something that can make total sense to your PC. And the XP penalty mechanic support that fluff interpretation.
Out beyond the hull, mucoid strings of non-baryonic matter streamed past like Christ's blood in the firmament.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Tussock wrote:I look at it this way now: when your race doesn't restrict your choices further down the character generation path, it's not an interesting choice. It's just a bunch of bonuses to throw at those later ones. It's the choices that are most restrictive which become the driving force in your character building process.
Tussock, why do you have to be such a creep all the time? Imagine for the moment that you said exactly the same thing, only with "sex" instead of "race." Actually, fuck it, it's creepy enough just with race. Tussock, stop being a creep.

-Username17
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

Heh, thanks Frank. Should I be offended about the Charisma penalty for Dwarves too? Fucking irritable Northerners and all that. Hard to keep up sometimes, this self-improvement thing. Perhaps if we want to play Centaurs the only game effect it should have is nothing at all, you can even get by on two shoes just like everyone else.


@Neeeek, I know it from the Mentzer Basic box. Player's Manual p49. The red ones.


@Blicero, that's lampshading their system of punishing you for having different levels because the playtesters thought that was more like "D&D" (ignoring your top class if human so you can dual-class, and various others to get the dipping amounts right for the old multiclass matchups). "Strain" doesn't cut it.

Like, what the hell "skills" is a Gnome Fighter-slash-Rogue practising at "different levels"? Is it the feats and skills that have nothing to do with your class levels? Is it the BAB and BSB that stack? Fighters don't have anything else, being a high level Fighter doesn't do anything. How can a Rog 8 / Ftr 1 be crazy-making when a Rog 5 / Ftr 4 is just exchanging +1d6 sneak attack for two random feats? Whut?

Why is 3rd level Cleric spells and 3rd level Wizard spells coming on line at similar times easy (so easy you get it cheap in a PClass to make it suck less) when 3th level Bard and 3rd level Wizard is crazy-making? Whut? Bards are already getting low level stuff at high level. Your whole character concept has become a 10th level "Character" learning 5th level "class" abilities, but that's not stressful, because the "levels" are the same. Lampshade, not in-universe, not attached to any mechanics.

Really, in 3e someone with 6 Fighter levels and 6 Sorcerer levels is a 12th level Fighter (and about as much use). If you want to be a balanced Gish you take 2/10, Caster is 0/12. "Balance" is where you dip the non-caster, like you'd be 10/10 in AD&D at the same XP. Gah, it's late and I just get stupider without sleep. G'night. Hope some of that made something like sense.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
ishy
Duke
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:59 pm

Post by ishy »

Tussock wrote:Can't say their open choice agenda really worked out for them here, though the customers love it and it's not going away.
If the customers love it, doesn't that mean it did work out for them?
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
User avatar
Mistborn
Duke
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:55 pm
Location: Elendel, Scadrial

Post by Mistborn »

Is it just me or did Tussock's last post make no sense. Not just in the "wow that's stupid and wrong" way but in the "I can't even parse what you're saying" way. It's like complete word salad and he didn't even serve it with thousand island dressing.
Last edited by Mistborn on Tue Oct 21, 2014 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Josh_Kablack
King
Posts: 5318
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Online. duh

Post by Josh_Kablack »

Lord Mistborn wrote:Is it just me or did Tussock's last post make no sense.
I wouldn't go that far, but many parts of this thread are reminding me of how fundamentally parts of my worldview differ from Tussock's worldview.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
User avatar
ACOS
Knight
Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:15 pm

Post by ACOS »

Lord Mistborn wrote:Is it just me or did Tussock's last post make no sense. Not just in the "wow that's stupid and wrong" way but in the "I can't even parse what you're saying" way. It's like complete word salad and he didn't even serve it with thousand island dressing.
The structure (or lack thereof) was a bit jarring. To be fair, he did give a disclaimer there at the end:
tussock wrote:Gah, it's late and I just get stupider without sleep. G'night. Hope some of that made something like sense.
User avatar
Mistborn
Duke
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:55 pm
Location: Elendel, Scadrial

Post by Mistborn »

On second reading it looks like he was saying that 3e multiclassing is borked. To which I can only reply, um... yeah it is. Welcome to 2003 or so.

Seriously this is old news, or at least news old enough to star in a magical girl anime.
fectin
Prince
Posts: 3760
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:54 am

Post by fectin »

But when writing a review of 3e, it's still appropriate news.
Last edited by fectin on Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Vebyast wrote:Here's a fun target for Major Creation: hydrazine. One casting every six seconds at CL9 gives you a bit more than 40 liters per second, which is comparable to the flow rates of some small, but serious, rocket engines. Six items running at full blast through a well-engineered engine will put you, and something like 50 tons of cargo, into space. Alternatively, if you thrust sideways, you will briefly be a fireball screaming across the sky at mach 14 before you melt from atmospheric friction.
TiaC
Knight-Baron
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:09 am

Post by TiaC »

Lord Mistborn wrote:On second reading it looks like he was saying that 3e multiclassing is borked. To which I can only reply, um... yeah it is. Welcome to 2003 or so.

Seriously this is old news, or at least news old enough to star in a magical girl anime.
So Tussock said that multiclassing XP penalties were disassociated. Blicero says no, there is an in-game explanation of them. Tussock replies with a bunch of claims about why that explanation is bad fluff. The rogue/fighter example really just shows that fighter is a flat, flavorless, class. Then he goes onto general problems with 3e multiclassing which I've seen expanded elsewhere.
Neeeek
Knight-Baron
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:45 am

Post by Neeeek »

tussock wrote:@Neeeek, I know it from the Mentzer Basic box. Player's Manual p49. The red ones.
The red one. That was the basic PHB. The blue one was the basic DMG. I'm blanking on the color of the "Expert Rules" or whatever it was. Or maybe the blue one was the expert rules. It's been a long time.

I somehow obtained these books when I was three or four. I, in retrospect, have no idea how that happened.
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

@Ishy. There's the thread here somewhere about how what people like and what they stick with and end up enjoying is different. How people "want" a huge array of choices but also feel better afterward if they only get a few would be the relevant bit here.

@Neeeek. https://www.acaeum.com/

Anyhoo, one would hope more sleep improves my clarity. Maybe it will. Maybe that's asking too much. Speaking of 3rd edition multiclassing, and how the full BAB classes all suck, I figure that is a bit unfair to how the game appeared in 2000.

Fighter and friends obviously weren't self-powered all the way, so were always alive on some other character's coat-tails to some extent. But it was assumed that other characters would in turn live off the back of the Fighter, that grunts would at least still be highly useful for monster-killing as they had been since the days of UA in '85 (ignoring the tiny patch of 2nd edition before the Fighter splat came out, and horrible DMs who didn't use those rules).

With the long-duration buffs in 3.0, people kept that dream alive a long time, casters stacking up huge bonuses on the backs of whoever had closest to full BAB in the party. A little dumpster diving and your standard old Two-Weapon quisinart or mounted Charger could kill any level-appropriate beasty and then some. If the DM was nice enough to have them run up into range and get killed, and not ready to dismount the rider or something. Why wouldn't you play along? It's not like the Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger can do much of anything else.

Then mid-level casters started moaning a bit, all their low-level spells spent on all-day buffs for other characters, just to keep them alive, not many spells left so the grunts had to do most of the work. And what happened with 3.5 but those buffs getting nerfed all to shit, to give the casters more screen time, and there, slowly but surely, went the illusion of competency. Fighters had to pick up their own magic to live, and then why not just keep taking Wizard levels, eh? Or at least a prestige multiclass patch.

Eh. Work in progress. Needs more positivism. Class chapter tomorrow.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5863
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by erik »

Josh_Kablack wrote:
Lord Mistborn wrote:Is it just me or did Tussock's last post make no sense.
I wouldn't go that far, but many parts of this thread are reminding me of how fundamentally parts of my worldview differ from Tussock's worldview.
That's the kindest way to put that this review is like a senior citizen with dementia explaining the internet.
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

The internet? It's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

CLASSES
CHAPTER THREE.


Not to be a classist, but some of these classes got a leg up for 3e, while others more got ... some gentle tire kicking, with just a little air taken out for "balance". The previews have been full of stories about how Clerics don't have to prepare Cure spells, Magic-Users Wizards got more spells, Clerics got more spells and also better spells, Thieves Rogues can backstab all over the place, Clerics got more attacks, the monsters are all very much stronger, and Clerics are much stronger too.

PRIESTS.
Image

The Cleric
I'm not kidding about the previews. In 2nd edition, whoever was late for Character generation had to play the Cleric. That was almost a rule. People would usually play a Fighter/Cleric or Cleric/Mage so they didn't completely suck, but it was not a fantastic class even playing to it's strengths, and when people made you take Cure spells instead, … at least there was no 2nd level Cure spells.

The preview articles stated that Cleric would often be players first choice in 3e.
As they are, though that took a while to really sink in. Once you see a Cleric player start to dictate the entire game while massively sandbagging, it becomes more obvious.

But the class itself looks pretty bland, at least against the old specialty priests from 2nd edition FR. No feats to really flavour up to your God, very few domain-only spells (and most not any good anyway), no obvious one-stop game-breaker spells. You get a bunch of stuff at first level (with choices hidden away with your Domains in Chapter 11), and then you get spells that go all the way up. Lots of Y2K people even use it for dipping. Turn Undead seems barely relevant with how few undead there are in the game, especially when you can just Greatsword them to death anyway, plus, it tends to not work.

The Druid
Basically the same as the Cleric, only doesn't look nearly as boring. You exchange a few spells for a lot more spell-like abilities, which only advance by sticking in the class. At low levels, it feels a bit like you're playing the Wolf (your in-built pet). A lot of the classic AD&D Druid goodies are simply not as good, Entangle just isn't the same for instance. Still, no matter what's going on, you can always lend a helping hand as a Druid. You're pretty good at everything without even really trying.
Like I say: three Druids and a Cleric, all the variety and balance you could ever want for your 3rd edition D&D games.


WARRIORS.
Image

The Fighter.
Has feats. Lots of feats. Most characters get 7 feats, you get 18. At 18th level when the casters get more 9th level spells and a feat, you get 2 feats. With your 2 feats, you can buy the same things you've been able to buy since level 8 at the latest, but you probably already got those if you wanted them, and now you have to fill in something you didn't want 10 levels earlier, or maybe even skipped over at level 1.

As a result, it's mostly a 2 level dip for the first 2 feats and you complete your primary feat chain by 6th level anyway. Compared to a late 2nd edition Fighter, you're behind in attacks, damage, AC, movement, hit chances, and you have much less "magical" high level options like staring down whole armies. Also, all the monsters are much, much tougher in every way.

Fighter level 3 dumb. Thog not take. Thog take 2 levels for bonus feats.

The Barbarian.
Can't help but notice that the feat everyone gets every 3rd character level on the “character level” table matches blanks in the Barbarian's “class level” chart even better than the Fighter's. It's like they designed a game where the Barbarian had a feat every 3 levels, the Wizard every even level, the Fighter nearly every level, and then stripped out the common factor for no particular reason. Maybe it was before the new multiclassing?

Anyway, the Barbarian gets Fast Movement, and Rage for +4 Str/Con, and skills, all at first level, and the rest of it is filler junk, like 1 more Rage per day every four levels. So you dip it. 1 level. Non-lawful so no Monks or Paladins. It's like a feat only much, much better.
They got more "stuff" in 3.5, but also a feat that gives you 2 extra Rage per day, so you still just dip for the +10 speed, or Pounce if you prefer. People play them anyway, see also Monk.

The Paladin.
AD&D Paladins are awesome, and you kind of wish you'd ever rolled well enough to play one. Well, 3e lets anyone be a Paladin, it's just that now you'll never want to. Those other warrior classes might be rubbish, but at least they're better than this. Hey, you get +Cha to all saves, so there's a bunch of Lawful Good Sorcerers running around with 1 Paladin level right away. I mean, the horse is sort of cool, at 5th level, but you're not taking 5 Paladin levels.

Lance charge. Smite Evil. 1/day. Hope you pick an Evil enemy to hit with it. Zzzz. If you can wait 9 years, Pathfinder makes them a significantly less awful option.

The Ranger.
Well, at least it's a better 1 level dip than the Paladin. Especially good for Rogues. The high level abilities are terrible, getting slightly better at murdering Goblins when you hit 20th level is a cruel joke. It's a pale comparison to the 1st edition Ranger, but 2nd edition Rangers were pretty bad too, so people take the dip and don't otherwise notice. I like to call it “Ranger Training”.

Such a popular 1-level dip that they broke the class for the 3.5 revision to stop people doing that, which just stopped people using it at all IME.


MAGIC-USERS
Image

The Wizard.
You get bonus spells for Int, though mostly at high level when you don't need them. Instead of taking many hours or days to recover your spells after sleep (~3 days at very high level in AD&D), it takes 1 hour, always. You no longer have to dice each round to get a spell off, opponents have to specifically try to target you for interruption now, often wasting their actions.

Being able to write scrolls at 1st level is sort of like unlimited spellcasting. Only you have to pay up front so a lot of people don't use it to the full potential.

People, IME, gave up all that multiclassing junk pretty quick as new 3e games started to hit the mid levels. At about 7th level when you realise you could have been playing a Wizard with 4th level spells already. Plus a toad for +2 Con, and who wouldn't want +2 Con?

The Sorcerer.
This is an alternate casting system for Wizards. It's easier to use, more flavourful, and as a result quite a bit more fun to play at the table. To compensate, it is worse in almost every way. They even make you use Charisma and then give you no Charisma skills. Did I mention the Lawful Good ex-Paladin Sorcerers? They're not any good either.

At least they give you the toad: everyone likes +2 Con. Toads nerfed in 3.5, naturally. Not Wizards, just the toad. Like that was the problem.


ROGUES
The “Jama'atu Ahlis Sunnah Lidda'awati Wal Jihad” complicates searches for Lidda. Not to mention all the people called Lidda. Less common than Mia Lee at least.
Image

The Rogue.

Instead of a weak-ass backstab that varied from very hard to strictly impossible to use depending on the secret errata cycles of AD&D, the 3e Thief Rogue gets Sneak Attack. Every odd level the damage on all your attacks goes up by +1d6. Obviously you want more attacks, so dipping Ranger along with the Rapid Shot feat by 2nd level you've got three attacks and can kill things dead. Having at least one level of Rogue is pretty much compulsory on every non-caster build (othr than those chasing early access to full BAB Prestige Classes) for the cheap damage spam.

Then, why stop there? The class keeps getting flavour stuff, and more importantly keeps getting more damage. Hit points and AC struggle a little, but so does every other class. Rather than being a Stength-based Barbarian who takes Barbarain levels, just add Rogue levels from 2+ and be much better at killing things before the can kill you, and also get a bunch of skills and stuff.

What more can be said? The Rogue has the key class feature that every other fighting class in 3e is missing: a source of damage. This basic fact stays for another fourteen years of game development. Even if it is technically situational and inapplicable vs a few low-hp critters like the 3.0 undead, constructs, and oozes, though eventually they give you that too. Strong throwing Rogues are the 3e Fighting class. You even get to use your full attacks every round. Moving to touch attacks for high level play is just gravy.

The Bard.
In 2nd edition, the Bard was a better magic user than the Magic-User at the levels you could actually reach, while also having all the useful Thief skills. Like an improved Mage/Thief for Humans. In 1st edition they were a way for Human Fighter/Thief dual-class characters to also become a Druid at high level, total munchkinism, like being a Ranger only better. The 3e Bard is another new thing.

A pretty terrible thing, really. A glance says where a Druid does everything quite well and also has a Wolf, the Bard does everything quite poorly and also sings. But you only need 1 level for the Perform tricks, so that's all you should take.

By 2003 the joke character in OOTS is not the Monks or Paladins, but a fifth-wheel Bard, even with all the boosts they got in the revision. Various patches, like the Sublime Chord and some big damage feats help further over time. But you're still a second-rate caster at best. 3.5, like with most classes, makes dipping one worse.

The Monk.
It's back. The AD&D Monk was pretty terrible, though its system of one new power every level made it look kind of interesting. In theory at high levels it got good, but there was no realistic way to level them up, so only in theory. The 3e Monk replicates that look pretty well, 5+ attacks for 1d20 base damage, with 90' movement, high AC, and all good saves.

Looks a lot like a 1-level dip for +2 to all saves, Evasion, Wis-to-AC, and an extra attack. Which it is, if you have the stats for it.

Another class that tries not to step on anyone's toes, and succeeds wildly. Not even the design theory of ducking through the enemy lines and locking down an enemy caster stands up to a cursory examination of the 3e combat and casting rules, despite the Pathfinder designers still saying that's their raison d'être. People, of course, play them, and DMs the world over take endless pity on the fools.

11 Classes. 5 of them you might care about after level 6. Cleric, Druid, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard. The Sorcerer's only there because it's easy to play to its limits, aside from getting stuck with the odd spell with a low HD cap, like Sleep.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
Post Reply