Quote from: Benoist;514726This isn't one of them TO YOU.

I hate it when we're talking past each other like this. There's no point in continuing. And yes, I am super frustrated by these kinds of "discussions". Like I said, it's fine, I'm going to get over it in a matter of hours. Let's just call it quits and move on, please.

Fair enough. We shall move on...

Justin, thanks for clarifying the boardgame analogy, still can't agree but can understand your position better now. The following is something I feel I can more fruitfully respond to:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514696I gave you the list of things Toughness was explicitly designed for. None of them were "20th level PCs". So, basically, you're still pursuing a strawman.

There's an excluded middle here. He's not complaining that Toughness should be a 20th level feat when it's explicitly designed for lower level PCs. He's saying it should be a feat that remains useful for your character as you advance. I think that's a pretty reasonable demand, and we've seen a reasonable way of answering it in Trollman's "Tomes of War" where feats scale with level, or even (hear hear) in 4E's version of Toughness where you get extra 5 hp per tier. There are many other scaling feats in 4th edition - the expertise and weapon focus feats e.g.

Scaling feats are much more elegant than to introduce a system where people will 'retrain' low level feat for high level feats (3.5 PH II), because that way you create feats bloat. So instead of

QuoteToughness (scaling): get 5 hp for every 5 PC levels

you get:

QuoteToughness (heroic): get 5hp.
Toughness (paragon): get 10 hp. Prerequisite: Toughness (heroic1) feat, which you retrain for Toughness (Paragon).

Or even worse? 3.5 PHB feat chains!

QuoteToughness (heroic): get 5hp.
Toughness (paragon): get 5 hp. Prerequisite: Toughness (heroic).
Toughness (wuxia): get 5 hp. Preqrequisite: Toughness (heroic) and Toughness (paragon).

I think a lot of dislike on this boards for feats is exactly that they came in bloat and chains. Get rid of that, and the game becomes manageable. Most of all, scaling feats manage a lot of character progression choices for you, which is a plus in a game that already abounds in such choices (feats, items, spells, prestige classes / feats, items, powers, paragon paths).

Quote from: CRKrueger;514764This right here is kind of the key to AD&D.  Each subsystem mechanically connects to other systems very rarely, if at all.  All of them, however, are meant to be integrated into the campaign as a whole, under the guidance and authority of the DM.  It's a different design goal even from parts of AD&D 2e, and worlds away from most games designed today.

Just wondering if you'd elaborate on this....like, how does 2E differ from 1E in this regard?
I don't quite get the "integrated into campaign as a whole" bit, either. All the rules are there to be used in the campaign, or they wouldn't be in the book at all?

Quote from: CRKrueger;514737Assassins are not so much a mechanic as a plot device.

I think this is the key to the conundrum right here.

Another reason to stick to BECMI/RC instead of bad, naughty, evil AD&D: Assassins are monsters, not a PC class.

Quote from: Windjammer;514772Justin, thanks for clarifying the boardgame analogy, still can't agree but can understand your position better now. The following is something I feel I can more fruitfully respond to:

There's an excluded middle here. He's not complaining that Toughness should be a 20th level feat when it's explicitly designed for lower level PCs. He's saying it should be a feat that remains useful for your character as you advance. I think that's a pretty reasonable demand, and we've seen a reasonable way of answering it in Trollman's "Tomes of War" where feats scale with level, or even (hear hear) in 4E's version of Toughness where you get extra 5 hp per tier. There are many other scaling feats in 4th edition - the expertise and weapon focus feats e.g.

Scaling feats are much more elegant than to introduce a system where people will 'retrain' low level feat for high level feats (3.5 PH II), because that way you create feats bloat. So instead of
you get:

Or even worse? 3.5 PHB feat chains!

I think a lot of dislike on this boards for feats is exactly that they came in bloat and chains. Get rid of that, and the game becomes manageable. Most of all, scaling feats manage a lot of character progression choices for you, which is a plus in a game that already abounds in such choices (feats, items, spells, prestige classes / feats, items, powers, paragon paths).

I see your point totally (apart from items as progression choices ...yuk )
Where does this put weapons specialisation/mastery etc .

I am asking specifically because I am working on something that uses mastery of Weapon styles as way of giving PCs additional combat options.
So there are 5 ranks to each Weapon Style from Specialist up to Grand Master and all combat options, moves additional damage etc are driven by style master rather than weapon mastery or feats or anything.

Now in effect these are feat chains by another name, yes there is a degree of association as the feat chain seems to make sense you progress through mastery of the style so your damage bonus increases or you learn to disarm or pin opponents or whatever. But its still in effect a Feat chain.

Is it too 'featy' ?

Quote from: Windjammer;514772There's an excluded middle here. He's not complaining that Toughness should be a 20th level feat when it's explicitly designed for lower level PCs.

Which, like I said several posts ago, isn't something I would necessarily disagree with.

But he wants to insist that you should never have a feat that's most useful in one-shots; or most useful for monsters; or most useful for a particular build but weak in another; or most useful for (insert whatever conditions you'd like here).

And that's nonsense.

QuoteJustin, thanks for clarifying the boardgame analogy, still can't agree

I'd be very much interested in knowing why you can't agree that RPGs require scenarios in order to be played.

Quote from: CRKrueger;514764This right here is kind of the key to AD&D.  Each subsystem mechanically connects to other systems very rarely, if at all.

This is one of those things that people say all the time, but it's not actually true.

For example, let's look at the spying rules that were discussed earlier. They're pretty independent, but they nonetheless hook into both class level and the system for henchmen loyalty (which ultimately connects them back to ability scores, too).

I think one would be hard-pressed to find a system in AD&D which doesn't actually connect to other systems.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514696I gave you the list of things Toughness was explicitly designed for. None of them were "20th level PCs". So, basically, you're still pursuing a strawman.

Woah... just having a conversation here. I am aware of what toughness is and is not useful for. But it's useful in maybe 3/10ths of a game where it will appear in every session (unlike orcs or orcus). And on top of that, no DM advice explicitly calling this out.

Vancian magic is narrow in its utility but it gets a pass because:
a)It works well in the context the game was made for (dungeons with wandering monsters).
b)The game's advice explicitly helps new players grok the above.
c)It adds something to the game (attrition, resource management) that many alternatives would not.

Toughness does not because:
a)The game does not end at level 6.
b)The game's advice does not warn you that toughness will not make your tough guy tough (it's for wizards more than tough guys).
c)Scaling versions of toughness work just as well at low levels as non-scaling versions.

QuoteI think we're basically saying the same thing.

In general, game designers agree that your useful range for difficulty is between 25% and 75%: 25% feels possible, but very difficult. 75% feels challenging, but satisfying. Get below that range and you get into "I can't possibly hit" frustration; go above it and everything feels like an automatic gimme.

At an 10 point differentiation there is a single DC you can set that lands you within that range for both ends of the differentiation. Anything beyond that and your DCs is going to land outside of the range for one or the other. (For example, at +0 and +9, you can set a DC 16 task and it will be 25% for the +0 and a 75% for the +9.)

At a 15 point differentiation, any target number you set which is within the "sweet spot" for the higher number will be unachievable by the low end. (For example, at +0 and +14 you can set a DC 21 task to give the +14 guy a 75% chance of success to hit the top end of his range. But that's unachievable for the guy at +0.)

So it's at +10 that the system starts to get very limited. At +15 it breaks for all practical purposes. At +20 it's completely broken.

I think this part of the discussion is most relevant to opposed checks and variants on opposed checks (attacks vs AC, spells vs saves). Outside of that the disparity can be chalked up to niche protection (it's the wizard and not the fighter brewing potions).

In my game I half bypass it a couple of ways. Firstly by an active defense mechanic (so you can hit things you "can't hit" by overwhelming them or surprising them). Secondly because every class has a trained attack (narrowing things a bit, so at least the category of your primary attack has only a 10 point range). Thirdly by having alternate solutions to things you save against (stances that negate status effects, plus disrupting caster concentration in a system where all duration spells are concentration spells).

I may eventually revisit the numbers though, maybe set a -3 to +3 range on ability modifiers, a +3 bonus for training, or both. Still pretty early in that project.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514804Which, like I said several posts ago, isn't something I would necessarily disagree with.

But he wants to insist that you should never have a feat that's most useful in one-shots; or most useful for monsters; or most useful for a particular build but weak in another; or most useful for (insert whatever conditions you'd like here).

And that's nonsense.

Except that is not what I'm saying. As I said above, certain rules are only useful in specific situations. That's fine. As long as they're situations the game is made for, as long as the advice helps the players understand this, and as long as other rules wouldn't serve the same purpose better or serve the broader purpose with no loss (again, toughness doesn't lose it's usefulness in a one shot by having it scale).

Options that are better for one character or another are also fine. It has little to do with toughness, except in that an inexperienced player might take it to make their fighter tough. Really, I'd be happy with a game in which no character building choices (that are available to him or her) are totally useless, on the scale that toughness becomes totally useless. I'd like to wait until play starts for my players to start shooting themselves in the foot.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;514804This is one of those things that people say all the time, but it's not actually true.

For example, let's look at the spying rules that were discussed earlier. They're pretty independent, but they nonetheless hook into both class level and the system for henchmen loyalty (which ultimately connects them back to ability scores, too).

I think one would be hard-pressed to find a system in AD&D which doesn't actually connect to other systems.

I think you are taking that statement too literally. Sure the sub systems make use of the fundamental mechanics of the game but it's a one way relationship from the base mechanics to the subsystem that adds optional complexity.

E.g if the DM decides not to bother the Spying rules it has no impact on ability scores, class levels or henchman loyalty.

There are many such subsystems presented in the DMG and elsewhere which are very easy to opt in or out of with little or no impact on the 'core' game. Examples

• NPC personality tables
• Psionics!
• Building construction/dominion management
• City encounter tables
• Training rules