TheRPGSite

Inspired by one of Pundits new vid threads.

For those of you that did change over from an older edition of D&D to 3e. How smoothly or not did it go for you?

I never got to play it much as the players disbabded after a few sessions due to moving away or just far away enough gathering was not really viable anymore. But for me 3e felt alot like 2e and even used large chunks of text from A and 2e D&D books. The only thing I had any hassles with was figuring out the feat tree and how the BABs factored in. Once got all that more or less sorted out it was not too bad really once you got to actual gameplay. Just a bit more moving parts than I tend to like. The DM though loved 3e and still does. His transition to 3e was boom! we there! lets go!

And I guess the same applies to other RPGs.

Shadowrun comes to mind. I tend to prefer 1st ed. But have played alot more 2e. Transitioning to 2e was for me fairly smooth once got used to some of the changes. 3e was meh and 4e was just blah.

I tired to transition when 3rd ed came out. I liked the concept of a framework that covered everything, and where you only had to learn one set of "rules" - that would cover all classes, spells and abilities. But it didn't quite work for me - for 3 main reasons.
1) There were too many edge cases that RAW, didn't make any sense. Like how your bard was (and always would be) way better than your barbarian at intimidating people.
2) The Feats broke the game in ways that did not make sense in my world. Like the quick reload xbow feat - perfectly fine in game rules terms, game breaker for me in verisimilitude terms. There were far too many feats to try to come up with a set that made sense for my game.
3) There were far, far too many splat books that added "semi-official" classes and so forth. As a GM you couldn't keep up, and players would be unhappy if you refused to allow their latest favourite class because you didn't have access to the book.  

So. I tried to like 3rd ed, but it just wasn't for me in the end. Put me in the "Not Smoothly" category!

My groups have played pretty much all of the editions along the way. Transition from OD&D to AD&D was easy. Transition from AD&D to 2E was easy. Transition from 2E to 3E was hard. I feel like OD&D through 2E was a gradual evolution of ideas, but 3E was a total redesign and reboot.

In other words if you take OD&D (plus supplements and Strategic Review) and re-arrange the contents, you get something very similar to AD&D. Sure, AD&D was expanded over OD&D, but OD&D had most of the classes (Fighter, Cleric, Magic-user, Assassin, Druid, Thief, Monk, Bard, Illusionist, etc) and a high percent of the monsters and the magical items. AD&D felt like the same game as OD&D, but organized better. Same with 2E, which felt like you could have taken 1E and Dragon Magazine and Unearthed Arcana and whatnot, then recast it into the second edition. Then 2E had all those other add-on books that evolved into ...

... well, not 3E. 3E doesn't have the 2E feel. It doesn't look or feel like someone took 2E and supplements and just re-organized. 3E feels like a whole new game.

I see the editions like this:
Type-I: OD&D, AD&D, 2E
Type-II: 3E, 3.5, Pathfinder, PF2?
Type-III: 4E
Type-IV: 5E (blend of all of the above)

I bought a lot of stuff in the Type-II category, but I just never could mix it well with Type-I. For example, a Type-I monster statblock takes a line and the info is a small paragraph, but a Type-II monster statblock has all these extras (monster stats, special powers, etc.) and fills a page. I always figured that in theory I could just ignore the parts I didn't need, but the scale of stats and hit points and AC are all different so the monsters don't seem to translate well.

Dunno if that helps or not. :)

I've never DM'd 3e so that is one part I cant speak on for transitioning from old to new on the DM side. As a player it was a little confusing but not bad. I've never really looked too deeply at the monsters in 3e. Probably should some day.

Makes me curious if I'd have as easy a time learning to DM 3e as did playing it.

Quote from: spon;1136651I tired to transition when 3rd ed came out. I liked the concept of a framework that covered everything, and where you only had to learn one set of "rules" - that would cover all classes, spells and abilities. But it didn't quite work for me - for 3 main reasons.
1) There were too many edge cases that RAW, didn't make any sense. Like how your bard was (and always would be) way better than your barbarian at intimidating people.
2) The Feats broke the game in ways that did not make sense in my world. Like the quick reload xbow feat - perfectly fine in game rules terms, game breaker for me in verisimilitude terms. There were far too many feats to try to come up with a set that made sense for my game.
3) There were far, far too many splat books that added "semi-official" classes and so forth. As a GM you couldn't keep up, and players would be unhappy if you refused to allow their latest favourite class because you didn't have access to the book.  

So. I tried to like 3rd ed, but it just wasn't for me in the end. Put me in the "Not Smoothly" category!

It is a lot simpler to roll a d20 add in your attack Bonus and see whether that equals or exceeds your opponents Armor class to determine whether you hit or miss, than to subtract your d20 roll plus your attack Bonus from 10 to determine whether you matched or went below your opponent's Armor class for hit determination the way AD&D did it. Why would you want to do that?

3e changed A LOT of things mechanically relative to 2e and almost all of those changes were things that upped the complexity quite a bit (all monsters being built exactly like PCs for example made it a lot more work for GMs to homebrew their own) and unbalanced spellcasters relative to everything else by taking away most of 1/2e's restrictions, but adding nothing to replace them. Conversion CAN be done, but you'd almost be better served just building from scratch "in the spirit of" the previous version than any sort of hard and fast "this = this" conversion.

One piece of advice I will give because it is absolutely critical; the 3.5e core books are actually where the MOST broken (good and bad) classes and spells are found (there's a reason the term CoDzilla is a thing and why Godwizard is also tossed around. Doing the quite typical "core only" setup is more likely to cause problems than fix things. Later non-core books actually had far better designed and thematic classes (in fact, I've seen far more successful 3.5e campaigns where everything, but the bard*, barbarian, ranger and rogue in the the PHB is banned, but classes from any other WotC supplement are allowed... than campaigns where 'core only' is the rule).

A good discussion of the relative strengths of the many 3.5e classes can be found HERE (https://web.archive.org/web/20160307203725/http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293).

My personal recommendation after years of play is that limiting class choices to those listed in tiers 3 and 4 will lead to the strongest campaigns. The classes in those tiers have the tools needed to shine in their area of focus, but lack the game-breaking abilities that the tier 1 and 2 classes can acquire (sometimes completely by accident).

Until you get a better feel for it, let your players know that because there are some really game-breaking (and character gimping) options throughout 3e, you'll be making adjustments to what is and isn't allowed in your game. Once you're more aware of the problem points you'll just be able to do that from the start... but until you do, being frank that 3e has a learning curve for DMs as well as players and fixing problems will be better in the long run than just living with them, is a good thing.

Quote from: finarvyn;1136653My groups have played pretty much all of the editions along the way. Transition from OD&D to AD&D was easy. Transition from AD&D to 2E was easy. Transition from 2E to 3E was hard. I feel like OD&D through 2E was a gradual evolution of ideas, but 3E was a total redesign and reboot.

In other words if you take OD&D (plus supplements and Strategic Review) and re-arrange the contents, you get something very similar to AD&D. Sure, AD&D was expanded over OD&D, but OD&D had most of the classes (Fighter, Cleric, Magic-user, Assassin, Druid, Thief, Monk, Bard, Illusionist, etc) and a high percent of the monsters and the magical items. AD&D felt like the same game as OD&D, but organized better. Same with 2E, which felt like you could have taken 1E and Dragon Magazine and Unearthed Arcana and whatnot, then recast it into the second edition. Then 2E had all those other add-on books that evolved into …

… well, not 3E. 3E doesn't have the 2E feel. It doesn't look or feel like someone took 2E and supplements and just re-organized. 3E feels like a whole new game.

I see the editions like this:
Type-I: OD&D, AD&D, 2E
Type-II: 3E, 3.5, Pathfinder, PF2?
Type-III: 4E
Type-IV: 5E (blend of all of the above)

I bought a lot of stuff in the Type-II category, but I just never could mix it well with Type-I. For example, a Type-I monster statblock takes a line and the info is a small paragraph, but a Type-II monster statblock has all these extras (monster stats, special powers, etc.) and fills a page. I always figured that in theory I could just ignore the parts I didn't need, but the scale of stats and hit points and AC are all different so the monsters don't seem to translate well.

Dunno if that helps or not. :)

It's the skills than make the stat block entries so long, every character has them, as does every monster entry in the Monster Manual, under AD&D the longest statblocks where those of spellcasters because you had to write a list of their spells, the ones that weren't spellcasters were very short, and skills weren't emphasized very much in AD&D. Each character class had a set of built in abilities, thieves could pick pockets, backstab, find traps and secret doors and pick locks, those were turned into skills and Feats.

Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 characters are more customizable than AD&D characters, because of that, the stat sheets were longer than those for AD&D. If you wanted to know what your AD&D thief could do, you just had to look it up in the Player's Handbook and cross reference it with you character's level, all thieves had the same abilities having to do with their character's level and ability scores, in 3.5, you have to write that information on your character Sheet, because the abilities he has depend on the player's choice for those characters and he has to write those down on the character Sheet, this produces long stat blocks.

I like 3.5 because it is part of the d20 system, rpg companies have moved on and produced their own proprietary game systems because they like to keep their game designers busy. I like d20 because it is universal, can be adapted to a modern or futuristic setting, you can create your own character classes, with the propriatary rpg systems a lot more work is involved. If you want to make D20 Modern using 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons, you have to make up for the lack of skills that system has as Modern characters are going to need more skills than is supplied by 5th Edition D&D, but 3.5 is good for that.

It was an easy transition for our group, but I don't think we are a good case study.  Because what we actually did was go from 1E/BEMCI to Fantasy Hero to 3E.  Plus, I rather like learning new systems when they are pointed at a genre and space that I like to run.  Plus, in the FH interval, there was of course some changes in the players that make up the group.  Since 3E was in part deliberately designed to edge into Hero/GURPS territory, we were already primed.   For those reason, I have no regrets at giving 3E a solid run, but I do wish I had stopped after campaign #2 instead of trying campaign #3.

Also, 3E is so much easier at low levels than it is at mid to high levels, and the difficulties can sneak up on you.  So for us, it was this thing that was easier than FH at first but later was more complicated.  Which is why now rather than run 3E, I'd just provide some appropriate limits and maybe prebuilt packages in FH and go with that.  A little more work up front, but run a lot smoother.

AFAICR 3e seemed simple enough at low level. It took a while to get a game to 3rd level where the problems with caster/martial imbalance really appeared - a level 3 Cleric could easily buff to be better than a level 3 Fighter. Of course it only got far worse from there!

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1136666It was an easy transition for our group, but I don't think we are a good case study.  Because what we actually did was go from 1E/BEMCI to Fantasy Hero to 3E.  Plus, I rather like learning new systems when they are pointed at a genre and space that I like to run.  Plus, in the FH interval, there was of course some changes in the players that make up the group.  Since 3E was in part deliberately designed to edge into Hero/GURPS territory, we were already primed.   For those reason, I have no regrets at giving 3E a solid run, but I do wish I had stopped after campaign #2 instead of trying campaign #3.

Also, 3E is so much easier at low levels than it is at mid to high levels, and the difficulties can sneak up on you.  So for us, it was this thing that was easier than FH at first but later was more complicated.  Which is why now rather than run 3E, I'd just provide some appropriate limits and maybe prebuilt packages in FH and go with that.  A little more work up front, but run a lot smoother.

That is the fault of the character classes. If you design a character class right, they don't get too powerful. One suggestion I have is you can use D20 Modern in fantasy gaming. Use the Modern core character classes in a fantasy setting, swap out the modern stuff for medeaval equipment.

Others have addressed mechanical specifics, I'll speak anecdotally. We had a pretty large gaming group going when 3e came out, and it divided us -- half of us went on to adopt 3e, and the other half stuck with 2e. The 3e group disintegrated before 5th level, while the 2e group is still playing today.

For me, it was the introduction of Feats that completely changed the timber of the game, and syphoned creativity from our sessions like a nerd with a straw sucking from bottle of Mt. Dew.

Note, we didn't attempt to "transition" anything except ourselves -- 3e  was too different to try to wedge our previous campaign into it, so we started fresh.

Okay, a follow-up now that I laid out the 2e - 3e that the OP asked for is that I think they'd probably have an easier time converting from 2e to 5e.

Don't use feats or multi-classing. There's guidelines for removing skills and just using ability checks. My hunch is that will play more like a 2e campaign than 3.5e will.

Quote from: Omega;1136650Inspired by one of Pundits new vid threads.

For those of you that did change over from an older edition of D&D to 3e. How smoothly or not did it go for you?

I never got to play it much as the players disbabded after a few sessions due to moving away or just far away enough gathering was not really viable anymore. But for me 3e felt alot like 2e and even used large chunks of text from A and 2e D&D books. The only thing I had any hassles with was figuring out the feat tree and how the BABs factored in. Once got all that more or less sorted out it was not too bad really once you got to actual gameplay. Just a bit more moving parts than I tend to like. The DM though loved 3e and still does. His transition to 3e was boom! we there! lets go!

And I guess the same applies to other RPGs.

Shadowrun comes to mind. I tend to prefer 1st ed. But have played alot more 2e. Transitioning to 2e was for me fairly smooth once got used to some of the changes. 3e was meh and 4e was just blah.

For me with D&D, the shift from 1E to 2E was pretty easy. Keep in mind I was only a player during the 1E years, but I started GMing after the second edition PHB came out. We still used a lot of the old books and classes from AD&D in our games and it wasn't an issue (for instance we had a player in our group who liked to use the 1E monk). Mechanically it wasn't hard. Flavor-wise, there were clearly differences. The transition to 3E for me, was grueling. I ran Ravenloft and the flavor of that setting never felt like my old games using 3E. I think it was a lot of things: slow combat, social skills, skills that tended to undermine the players immersing directly in the setting with their actions, character builds and optimization, etc. I do know when I experimented by running a 2E session in 2007 in Ravenloft, the difference was night and day. But by far the hardest transition for me was 4E. That pretty much killed my interest in playing the existing edition of D&D. Fifth edition came out, it looked like more of a return to form, but by then, I just wasn't interested in what WOTC had to offer (I think I just never really liked D&D under WOTC). If I do play D&D I will do 1E, or BECMI or something along those lines (or I will happily play a retro-clone). At some point I would like to try some more 5E just to see how it runs. But I bought the Ravenloft book for the current edition and it simply didn't connect with me the way the old Ravenloft books did.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1136666Since 3E was in part deliberately designed to edge into Hero/GURPS territory, we were already primed.   For those reason, I have no regrets at giving 3E a solid run, but I do wish I had stopped after campaign #2 instead of trying campaign #3.

This is something I noticed. Several people I know who are really into Gurps and/or Hero are also really into 3e. The aforementioned DM sure is.

Quote from: spon;1136651I tired to transition when 3rd ed came out. I liked the concept of a framework that covered everything, and where you only had to learn one set of "rules" - that would cover all classes, spells and abilities. But it didn't quite work for me - for 3 main reasons.
1) There were too many edge cases that RAW, didn't make any sense. Like how your bard was (and always would be) way better than your barbarian at intimidating people.
2) The Feats broke the game in ways that did not make sense in my world. Like the quick reload xbow feat - perfectly fine in game rules terms, game breaker for me in verisimilitude terms. There were far too many feats to try to come up with a set that made sense for my game.
3) There were far, far too many splat books that added "semi-official" classes and so forth. As a GM you couldn't keep up, and players would be unhappy if you refused to allow their latest favourite class because you didn't have access to the book.  

So. I tried to like 3rd ed, but it just wasn't for me in the end. Put me in the "Not Smoothly" category!

1) Is basically an issue with almost every system there is. If you base Intimidation on Cha (which makes sense sometimes), then give warrior classes (other than Paladin) zero reason to pump Cha, Intimidation becomes useless to them. One "fix" is to base Intimidate on Str instead (or higher of the two). Another, far harder fix is to make Cha more generally useful for warriors, but difficulties aside, that still runs into the issue of having to split your focus between Str & Cha, plus all the other attributes that are also potentially useful for warriors (like Con or Dex).

2) Is partly a matter of taste and DM being able to tell anyone who even inquires about joining their group that they (as DM) may use some house that contradict the game rules, including the prohibition of certain (or all) feats.

3) Is mostly a real issue. But its hard to blame a system for players being babies that just want to have their way, when its someone else who has to deal with the burden of running the game.

PS: I find that a lot of issues with certain game systems (particularly those with actual options) stem from people in general not understanding who gets to wear the Viking Hat in any given campaign (hint: its not the players, the game books, or the people who designed the game).

I know BABs are at the heart of 3E / 3.5E / PF; but the math starts to look crazy fast, as you climb in level.  You're rolling a d20, you have a +4, and your BAB is +10; so you're rolling from 15 to 34 automatically......

That seems weird to me?  I guess it lacks the feel that early D&D had.  I do love the books in the 3E heritage though.  So much good material is there.

Quote from: Razor 007;1136714I know BABs are at the heart of 3E / 3.5E / PF; but the math starts to look crazy fast, as you climb in level.  You're rolling a d20, you have a +4, and your BAB is +10; so you're rolling from 15 to 34 automatically......

That seems weird to me?  I guess it lacks the feel that early D&D had.  I do love the books in the 3E heritage though.  So much good material is there.

Technically its more or less the same math as AD&D (specially for fighters--other classes don't line up as well), except that AD&D had most of those modifiers hidden behind THAC0 values. Though, I do think that characters in 3e can eventually get to ridiculous modifiers through certain feats, magic items and spells. Usually for skills, but even Combat Modifier can get ridiculous.

But some of that still existed in AD&D to a certain extend. There were high level fighters in my group who could routinely decapitate enemies using called shot rules, which imposed a -8 penalty to called shots to the head. One in particular got to like level 23 (at least) and had like 5+ attacks per round, between multiple attacks for warriors and two-weapon fighting and scimitars of speed. He was a beast!

Quote from: Razor 007;1136714I know BABs are at the heart of 3E / 3.5E / PF; but the math starts to look crazy fast, as you climb in level.  You're rolling a d20, you have a +4, and your BAB is +10; so you're rolling from 15 to 34 automatically......

That seems weird to me?  I guess it lacks the feel that early D&D had.  I do love the books in the 3E heritage though.  So much good material is there.

BABs line up pretty closely with THAC0.

Fighter THAC0 improved by 2 every other level... so +1/level (a 3e fighter's BAB).
Wizard THAC0 improved by 1 every other level so +1/2 levels (a 3e wizard's BAB).

I don't remember the actual numbers, but Clerics and Rogues had slightly different THAC0 improvement rates (I wanna say cleric was 3/4 and rogue was 2/3), but they got merged together into the "medium" BAB that was +3/4 levels.

The major point of change was actually that they removed the limit on AC values. -10 used to be the absolute best AC possible... corresponding to about an AC of 20 in 3e. If they'd kept that (and capped save DCs similarly) then perhaps the Fighter could have been the same sort of powerhouse it was in past editions (it's fourth attack being +15 or more vs. an AC of 20 would have made full attacks much more worthwhile and capped saves would have kept save or die spells as something a fighter could easily overcome and with enough hit points to soak the save for half damage spells).

But 3e removed the caps on both... a high level monster might have an AC of 35 and the save DC's of its effects might be 27+ and those fighter numbers just couldn't keep up (instead of needing a 5+ to hit with that fourth attack it now only hits on a natural 20 and only it's best attack hits on a 5+).

Similarly with saves. A poor save is +6 at max level, plus 3e's expected magic items giving a +5 resistance bonus and a +3 from bumping the relevant stat and you're looking at a minimum of +14. If the save DC capped at 20 you'd succeed on a 6+ (or even more easily with better ststs) and a good save would only fail on a natural 1. Save or dies are now risky moves just like they were in all prior editions... a fireball for half damage will at least do something.

But when the save DC is 27+ (10 + 1/2 monster HD + stat being default for many supernatural abilities; for spells its 10+spell level+casting modifer... which at high level will be around a +8 modifier easily; score of 16 base, +5 from level, +6 from item; throw in something like spell focus and school specialist for another 3 on top of that) then you're looking at needing a 13+ or worse odds to avoid that save or die spell.

Spellcaster God-Mode with fighters relegated to caddies can be laid almost entirely at the feet of the decision to remove the caps that the old THAC0 and save tables established. If you wanna test that, just run 3.5e with all ACs and save DCs capped at 20 and see how the classes compare then.

Note that this is essentially what house rules like E6 try to do in the form of capping character levels at 6, but that never lets you get the absolute zaniness that high level AD&D could achieve. Capping AC and save DCs gives you the full range of zany, but which is still reined in by the equivalent of THAC0 and save tables.

3e is / was great if you approached it with a mindset born from od&d + ad&d, that being that all material presented was optional and just monty cooks take on how it should be done, and that here is a new toolkit with a unified roll-high mechanic to be fleshed out and tailored to your world and table. Players who had roots in earlier editions never seemed to have a problem with this or give you grief, it was the new kids who had not really played earlier editions that seemed to conceptualize the whole thing as a glitchy video game rather than a ttrpg. If i said "yes they poorly worded the astral projection spell but the gist of their intent is clear, to think that you can cast it on the prime and use it to adventure on the prime in a clone astral body w/o fear of death is absurd and i will not allow it" older players would be like "yeah duh no shit", newer players would have an autistic spasm of fit and accuse you of railroading or not playing by the rules.

These new players were I think the origin of the "build" concept and the break the game / i win gimmick stuff, the stacking of bonuses to diplomancy their way to absurd outcomes or try summoning loops or what have you. As a DM if i thought the barbarian should intimidate easier than the bard i'd give the barbarian a cake DC and do the opposite for the bard. Old school players would say "yeah, thats the ticket, makes sense" and the newbs would screech and wail such was unfair. If you gave in to demonstrate to the youngins that they didn't really want what they claimed they wanted, and let them "glitch" (and bear in mind no ruleset is immune to this if you approach things as a computer would rather than retaining agency) they would then cry the system was broken.

It was akin to giving them a tool box, with which you could build a table or destroy an entertainment center, and when it was said and done and they'd sawed everything into chunks and nailed a chair to their foreheads they look at you and go "it wasn't real D&D".

There are all sorts of barbarians, not all of them are the Conan type.

Quote from: Chris24601;1136720BABs line up pretty closely with THAC0.

Fighter THAC0 improved by 2 every other level... so +1/level (a 3e fighter's BAB).
Wizard THAC0 improved by 1 every other level so +1/2 levels (a 3e wizard's BAB).

I don't remember the actual numbers, but Clerics and Rogues had slightly different THAC0 improvement rates (I wanna say cleric was 3/4 and rogue was 2/3), but they got merged together into the "medium" BAB that was +3/4 levels.

The major point of change was actually that they removed the limit on AC values. -10 used to be the absolute best AC possible... corresponding to about an AC of 20 in 3e. If they'd kept that (and capped save DCs similarly) then perhaps the Fighter could have been the same sort of powerhouse it was in past editions (it's fourth attack being +15 or more vs. an AC of 20 would have made full attacks much more worthwhile and capped saves would have kept save or die spells as something a fighter could easily overcome and with enough hit points to soak the save for half damage spells).

But 3e removed the caps on both... a high level monster might have an AC of 35 and the save DC's of its effects might be 27+ and those fighter numbers just couldn't keep up (instead of needing a 5+ to hit with that fourth attack it now only hits on a natural 20 and only it's best attack hits on a 5+).

Similarly with saves. A poor save is +6 at max level, plus 3e's expected magic items giving a +5 resistance bonus and a +3 from bumping the relevant stat and you're looking at a minimum of +14. If the save DC capped at 20 you'd succeed on a 6+ (or even more easily with better ststs) and a good save would only fail on a natural 1. Save or dies are now risky moves just like they were in all prior editions... a fireball for half damage will at least do something.

But when the save DC is 27+ (10 + 1/2 monster HD + stat being default for many supernatural abilities; for spells its 10+spell level+casting modifer... which at high level will be around a +8 modifier easily; score of 16 base, +5 from level, +6 from item; throw in something like spell focus and school specialist for another 3 on top of that) then you're looking at needing a 13+ or worse odds to avoid that save or die spell.

Spellcaster God-Mode with fighters relegated to caddies can be laid almost entirely at the feet of the decision to remove the caps that the old THAC0 and save tables established. If you wanna test that, just run 3.5e with all ACs and save DCs capped at 20 and see how the classes compare then.

Note that this is essentially what house rules like E6 try to do in the form of capping character levels at 6, but that never lets you get the absolute zaniness that high level AD&D could achieve. Capping AC and save DCs gives you the full range of zany, but which is still reined in by the equivalent of THAC0 and save tables.

THAC0 progression for AD&D 2e classes was:

Priest = 2/3 Levels*
Rogue = 1/2 Levels*
Warrior = 1/1 Level*
Wizard = 1/3 Levels*
*above 1

This progression continued after level 20 using optional epic level rules, IIRC. Also, AC -10 is equivalent to AC 30 in 3e, not 20. AC 0 (10 points lower than a base of 10) is what would be AC 20 in 3e's ascending AC.

So basically THAC0 progression for warriors was almost identical, save one single point, since 3e warriors got +1 since level 1, but 2e warriors didn't get anything till level 2. 3e priests got a slight 3 point increase by level 20 (+15 vs THAC0 8, or +12 in 2e). Rogues got bumped to the same level as priests combat-wise from being formerly as bad as 3e wizards. And wizards used to be screwed completely, but got bumped to the exact level as 2e rogues (+1/2 levels).

Don't necessarily disagree with the lack of caps in 3e being a problem, but I don't really think that old THAC0 and Save tables were exactly a panacea of game balance. And I used to hate how high level characters became practically immune (or at least highly resistant) to everything, regardless of opponent level, cuz saves where unrelated to actual difficulty or effect strength.

It is interesting to compare one edition of DnD to another and the first thing that I notice is that, although it is very tempting to do so,  you can not compare each individual core rule book with another in a very meaningful way.

You can see the development of ideas from each edition to the next.  The designers were not developing in a vacuum, there were assorted articles and splat books (or even whole half editions) on the way from one to another that showed the road map to where the game was moving.  Even 4e, arguably the most different version of DnD to date, can be traced back to the books that proceeded it.

For me the transition from 2e to 3e was pretty smooth, I had long since abandoned THACO for my own version of BAB and the new 3e leveling sytem was a god send compared to the relatively static ADnD version that essentially froze your character in its class progression from level 1.  Skills were long over due to replace the cludgy non-weapon proficiencies.  There were some simplifications like the three saves that seem so obvious in retrospect.

So all things considered the shift from 2e to 3e was a huge improvement and brought DnD kicking and screaming into the century of the Fruit Bat.

Quote from: Slipshot762;11367273e is / was great if you approached it with a mindset born from od&d + ad&d, that being that all material presented was optional and just monty cooks take on how it should be done,

Where does this meme come from that Monte Cook deserves the credit for 3E (Good or bad)?  He was just one of the designers.  Jonathan Tweet was lead.

Quote from: Shasarak;1136737It is interesting to compare one edition of DnD to another and the first thing that I notice is that, although it is very tempting to do so,  you can not compare each individual core rule book with another in a very meaningful way.

You can see the development of ideas from each edition to the next.  The designers were not developing in a vacuum, there were assorted articles and splat books (or even whole half editions) on the way from one to another that showed the road map to where the game was moving.  Even 4e, arguably the most different version of DnD to date, can be traced back to the books that proceeded it.

For me the transition from 2e to 3e was pretty smooth, I had long since abandoned THACO for my own version of BAB and the new 3e leveling sytem was a god send compared to the relatively static ADnD version that essentially froze your character in its class progression from level 1.  Skills were long over due to replace the cludgy non-weapon proficiencies.  There were some simplifications like the three saves that seem so obvious in retrospect.

So all things considered the shift from 2e to 3e was a huge improvement and brought DnD kicking and screaming into the century of the Fruit Bat.

Firstly you can convert basic D&D character to an AD&D,  you can convert an AD&D character into a second edition character, and you can convert second edition into third edition, but there it stops you can't really convert third edition to fourth edition, and you can't convert fourth edition to 5th edition, but maybe it's a bit easier to convert 3rd to 5th. 3rd edition is the most inclusive edition of D&D, you can go from 5th edition to 3rd edition without losing anything, going the other way means you lose some flexibility when converting to 5th edition, and with 4th edition, forget about it!

I like 3rd edition particularly 3.5, it is the apex of the D&D arc, further editions are completely different games. I think creating 5th edition was WotC's face-saving way to admit it made a mistake by going to 4th edition.

Quote from: TJS;1136746Where does this meme come from that Monte Cook deserves the credit for 3E (Good or bad)?  He was just one of the designers.  Jonathan Tweet was lead.

cook is just the name i recall seeing the most on books is all, so its the one i pulled out my but.

There is a "conversion guide" that WotC made available for free in print (booklet) form in 2000, I guess, and that should be floating around in pdf form or available on eBay, etc. I converted a 2e character back in the day to 3e with it.  It also goes into details about the renaming of things, etc.

I went from 2e to 3e kicking and screaming.  Played with a great DM through the original 3.0 starter box set and enjoyed it.  In fact, WotC basically "finished" that edition, printing the three core books and the class and other soft back books along with the obligatory Psionics Handbook and other hardbacks.  The soft backs were relatively thin in page count, but had reasonable expansion material (and a good price point).

Then comes 3.5...  The soft backs become hardbacks and increase in price.  Then book after book is published...  Feats galore (feats could start another thread), so much so that the eye-bleeding class/character build-guides begin to flood the inter-web forums so that one can maximize their "buildz"!!1!  :o

Anyway, I enjoyed the innocence of the first days of 3.0, but even in those early levels, feats became a problem. They were intended to be a list of kewl things to aspire to, but in effect they were a list of things you couldn't do - without the correct feat. Monte Cook later admitted they made some feats better than others so that players who noticed could play a meta-game of sorts ("system mastery"; roots in Magic: The Gathering).  1.) Only the dead couldn't tell that some feats outright sucked - and were usually prerequisites for others, and 2.) the audacity of making a game system I've paid for have chicken crap plugged in on purpose is maddening to me.

I was playing in a fairly high-level, gonzo, homebrew 2e campaign at the time... the GM had purchased and was using almost every supplement going around.  And to make it all work, he had developed more than 30 pages of house rules and his own personal errata (yes, he used maintain his own errata to "correct" official TSR books where he disagreed with them).  Half the characters had been built using official kits, a couple were built from Skills and Powers, and another was using a completely custom-built kit.

It was a nightmare.

When 3e came along, I was so glad the group unanimously agreed to convert because compared to the mish-mash we were working with, the rules seemed streamlined and logical.  A few characters were more powerful under 3e, and a few were a little less powerful but they were fundamentally the same.  My own build, IIRC, got pretty badly nerfed but I really didn't mind.

But after a couple of months, things started going south again... the DM started buying more supplements, many of which were published by 3rd parties and were really variable in quality (and balance).  Gonzo feats started showing up, along with overpowered magic items and spells, and unbalanced prestige classes.  Characters started getting "tweaked" with whatever was published in the latest supplements.  Combat, which was already pretty slow, started to grind to a halt because players regularly had to cross-reference powers and abilities on their character sheet with details from a rule book.  One particular session lasted 6 hours and consisted entirely of 'paperwork' as we prepared for the next adventure.

In short, things kinda went back to the way they were.  Long-term, changing the system didn't really change the feel of the game.  I figured it might be because the party was high level.  But I was able to convince everyone, once they hit level 20, that we should reboot the campaign... and it didn't really help.  Starting at level 1 made things a streamlined temporarily, but it wasn't long before the rot started to set in again.

By contrast, I DMed a couple of sessions of 3e with my old group from high-school, and it felt pretty much like the D&D we played back then.  

I'm not suggesting the rules aren't significant part of the game and how.  But I think the DM and the players make a much bigger difference.

Quote from: Chris24601;1136720BABs line up pretty closely with THAC0.

Fighter THAC0 improved by 2 every other level... so +1/level (a 3e fighter's BAB).
Wizard THAC0 improved by 1 every other level so +1/2 levels (a 3e wizard's BAB).

I don't remember the actual numbers, but Clerics and Rogues had slightly different THAC0 improvement rates (I wanna say cleric was 3/4 and rogue was 2/3), but they got merged together into the "medium" BAB that was +3/4 levels.

The major point of change was actually that they removed the limit on AC values. -10 used to be the absolute best AC possible... corresponding to about an AC of 20 in 3e.

THAC0 advancement was 2/3 for Cleric 1/2 for Thief and 2/5 for Magic-User.

AC -10 corresponds to AC 30 in ascending AC. For my 5e game I cap AC at 30 and to-hit at +20, which corresponds to THAC0 0.

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1136747Firstly you can convert basic D&D character to an AD&D,  you can convert an AD&D character into a second edition character, and you can convert second edition into third edition, but there it stops you can't really convert third edition to fourth edition, and you can't convert fourth edition to 5th edition, but maybe it's a bit easier to convert 3rd to 5th. 3rd edition is the most inclusive edition of D&D, you can go from 5th edition to 3rd edition without losing anything, going the other way means you lose some flexibility when converting to 5th edition, and with 4th edition, forget about it!

I like 3rd edition particularly 3.5, it is the apex of the D&D arc, further editions are completely different games. I think creating 5th edition was WotC's face-saving way to admit it made a mistake by going to 4th edition.

Some things are easier then others to convert.  A 2e Half Elven Cleric/Mage/Thief is going to be a difficult to port exactly to a new edition for sure and 4e multiclassing was pretty meh in my estimation.

Its probably best just to take your character concept and try to rebuild using the new rules rather then trying for an exact copy.

If you already know how to play 3e, it is a pretty good system. The learning curve is completely unacceptable and WotC only got away with it because it was a new edition of D&D and all they were competing with was similar impenetrable games.

No man. Grab a good OSR game or even a really complicated OSR game. You could learn a hundred OSR games and house rule then together before you get half way done truly understanding D&D 3.5.

Quote from: Shasarak;1136763Some things are easier then others to convert.  A 2e Half Elven Cleric/Mage/Thief is going to be a difficult to port exactly to a new edition for sure and 4e multiclassing was pretty meh in my estimation.

Its probably best just to take your character concept and try to rebuild using the new rules rather then trying for an exact copy.

You could have a half-elven Cleric/Mage/Thief in 3rd edition, you could also have a human Cleric/Mage/Thief in 3rd edition, they would be third level characters at minimum, but you could have them. The 2nd edition however doesn't allow a human to multi class. For D20 Modern, you start with the six basic character classes that you can only advance to 10th level in and then you multiclass out of those to achieve higher level characters. The only major thing I don't like about D20 modern is how they abstract out money, you roll dice to determine whether or not you can afford to buy something, each item on the equipment list has a purchase DC instead of a price, you roll a d20 and add your wealth modifier to see if you can successfully make the purchase. Other than that D20 Modern is a great game, I've even run some Modern characters through some D&D dungeons.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1136764If you already know how to play 3e, it is a pretty good system. The learning curve is completely unacceptable and WotC only got away with it because it was a new edition of D&D and all they were competing with was similar impenetrable games.

No man. Grab a good OSR game or even a really complicated OSR game. You could learn a hundred OSR games and house rule then together before you get half way done truly understanding D&D 3.5.

I have to admit that 3.5 was an improvement over the editions that came before. By the way, how would you make a monster that wasn't on the monster manuals or monstrous compediums of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons? You look at the monster stats and all you see is adjustments, you don't see the original ability scores that created them, you have to work backwards from an existing monster to figure out what the ability scores that created those adjustments would be in order to design a similar monster. Only 3rd edition has the same stat blocks for both monsters and characters, editions 1 and 2 treat monsters and characters differently, and so does 5th edition. (which is moving back towards those earlier editions.)

Quote from: FASAfan;1136754There is a "conversion guide" that WotC made available for free in print (booklet) form in 2000, I guess, and that should be floating around in pdf form or available on eBay, etc. I converted a 2e character back in the day to 3e with it.  It also goes into details about the renaming of things, etc.

I went from 2e to 3e kicking and screaming.  Played with a great DM through the original 3.0 starter box set and enjoyed it.  In fact, WotC basically "finished" that edition, printing the three core books and the class and other soft back books along with the obligatory Psionics Handbook and other hardbacks.  The soft backs were relatively thin in page count, but had reasonable expansion material (and a good price point).

Then comes 3.5...  The soft backs become hardbacks and increase in price.  Then book after book is published...  Feats galore (feats could start another thread), so much so that the eye-bleeding class/character build-guides begin to flood the inter-web forums so that one can maximize their "buildz"!!1!  :o

Anyway, I enjoyed the innocence of the first days of 3.0, but even in those early levels, feats became a problem. They were intended to be a list of kewl things to aspire to, but in effect they were a list of things you couldn't do - without the correct feat. Monte Cook later admitted they made some feats better than others so that players who noticed could play a meta-game of sorts ("system mastery"; roots in Magic: The Gathering).  1.) Only the dead couldn't tell that some feats outright sucked - and were usually prerequisites for others, and 2.) the audacity of making a game system I've paid for have chicken crap plugged in on purpose is maddening to me.

You know Feats could be a substitute for character classes themselves. You could have a 3.5e game with just one character class called "Character". You start with a first level "Character" that rolls 1d8 plus constitution adjustment for hit points, if you want to be able to cast arcane spells, there is a feat for that, if you want to cast clerical spells, there is a feat for that too. If you want to increase you hit dice from d8s to d10s or d12s, there are feats for that too, if you want to purchase an extra feat you could reduce your hit dice to d6s or d4s. I think you could do a version of Star Frontiers with a one class system like the one I described. Star Frontiers in it's original edition had no character classes. Some rpgs only have skills, feats, and hit points and Armor class or whatever substitutes for those. A character class is basically a container for skills and Feats when you think about it, certain skills and feats are automatic or favored over others.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1136666Also, 3E is so much easier at low levels than it is at mid to high levels, and the difficulties can sneak up on you.  So for us, it was this thing that was easier than FH at first but later was more complicated.  Which is why now rather than run 3E, I'd just provide some appropriate limits and maybe prebuilt packages in FH and go with that.  A little more work up front, but run a lot smoother.

I think that most players will agree that the 3.x/PF sweet-spot is somewhere around levels 3 or 4-10ish. Casters start getting crazy with 5th or 6th level spells, and the third attack for martials starts to really slow down gameplay.

Quote from: Shasarak;1136763Some things are easier then others to convert.  A 2e Half Elven Cleric/Mage/Thief is going to be a difficult to port exactly to a new edition for sure and 4e multiclassing was pretty meh in my estimation.

Its probably best just to take your character concept and try to rebuild using the new rules rather then trying for an exact copy.

Yeah, single classed characters are actually easy to convert across any edition--just swap your class for the newer edition's equivalent and roll with it. But multi-class characters can become a mess, specially 2e characters converted to later editions. 3e to 5e multi-class characters might be more straightforward, but even then some combinations might not make sense, since 5e no longer has variable BAB between classes, so stuff like Cleric 16/Fighter 4 (to get 4 attacks by 20) are no longer useful (and you would need to go up to Fighter 5 to get a bonus attack).

I have a 3e skald-themed Bard/Barbarian (a Bardbarian!), and if I were to convert her to 5e I'd probably go straight Valor Bard now, which pretty much covers that concept already in just one class, including one bonus attack at level 5 without dipping into 5 levels warrior.

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1136772You could have a half-elven Cleric/Mage/Thief in 3rd edition, you could also have a human Cleric/Mage/Thief in 3rd edition, they would be third level characters at minimum, but you could have them. The 2nd edition however doesn't allow a human to multi class.

Yes, you could technically have a Cleric/Mage/Thief in 3e, but the character would suck major donkey balls, since you'd have to split your level between all those classes, and casters are useless if you don't dedicate the majority of levels to those classes. In 2e, however, you pretty much have unlimited advancement between multiple classes--you just have to split your XP between them. So you eventually can become competent in all three classes: Cleric, Mage and Thief. That will never happen in 3e.

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1136773I have to admit that 3.5 was an improvement over the editions that came before. By the way, how would you make a monster that wasn't on the monster manuals or monstrous compediums of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons?

Simple. Just pick a HD, add any abilities you want, then look up the 2e DMG guidelines for determining XP for creatures, which involves comparing the creature's HD to a table and modifying their effective HD based on any abilities they have, which is orders of magnitude more simple and straightforward than any edition since. CR is the biggest, most useless and convoluted mess in the history of D&D. And creature stats are of questionable use, since they add bloat to their entries, you don't always need them, and can sometimes produce exaggerated results if you take anything above 10 as a direct ability score modifier when building custom monsters. I wouldn't dismiss them entirely, but I don't think that taking the sometimes exaggerated stats in a monster's entry being the creature's "average" (like the "average" Orc isn't normally a warrior who is bound to have above average Strength to begin with) is necessary a good idea.

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1136775You know Feats could be a substitute for character classes themselves. You could have a 3.5e game with just one character class called "Character". You start with a first level "Character" that rolls 1d8 plus constitution adjustment for hit points, if you want to be able to cast arcane spells, there is a feat for that, if you want to cast clerical spells, there is a feat for that too. If you want to increase you hit dice from d8s to d10s or d12s, there are feats for that too, if you want to purchase an extra feat you could reduce your hit dice to d6s or d4s. I think you could do a version of Star Frontiers with a one class system like the one I described. Star Frontiers in it's original edition had no character classes. Some rpgs only have skills, feats, and hit points and Armor class or whatever substitutes for those. A character class is basically a container for skills and Feats when you think about it, certain skills and feats are automatic or favored over others.

I've pretty much been toying with this idea lately to build my own Feat-based d20 system (mostly 5e-based, but modified). Though, I'm currently using d6 HD as a base (have considered d8 as well, but figured that's higher than baseline, since mages only have 1d6 in 5e or 1d4 in older editions), and using a flat bonus to HP per HD per selection of the Toughness feat. So only one universal HD type would be used. I might post something once I have something more complete.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1136798Yeah, single classed characters are actually easy to convert across any edition--just swap your class for the newer edition's equivalent and roll with it. But multi-class characters can become a mess, specially 2e characters converted to later editions. 3e to 5e multi-class characters might be more straightforward, but even then some combinations might not make sense, since 5e no longer has variable BAB between classes, so stuff like Cleric 16/Fighter 4 (to get 4 attacks by 20) are no longer useful (and you would need to go up to Fighter 5 to get a bonus attack).

I have a 3e skald-themed Bard/Barbarian (a Bardbarian!), and if I were to convert her to 5e I'd probably go straight Valor Bard now, which pretty much covers that concept already in just one class, including one bonus attack at level 5 without dipping into 5 levels warrior.



Yes, you could technically have a Cleric/Mage/Thief in 3e, but the character would suck major donkey balls, since you'd have to split your level between all those classes, and casters are useless if you don't dedicate the majority of levels to those classes. In 2e, however, you pretty much have unlimited advancement between multiple classes--you just have to split your XP between them. So you eventually can become competent in all three classes: Cleric, Mage and Thief. That will never happen in 3e.



Simple. Just pick a HD, add any abilities you want, then look up the 2e DMG guidelines for determining XP for creatures, which involves comparing the creature's HD to a table and modifying their effective HD based on any abilities they have, which is orders of magnitude more simple and straightforward than any edition since. CR is the biggest, most useless and convoluted mess in the history of D&D. And creature stats are of questionable use, since they add bloat to their entries, you don't always need them, and can sometimes produce exaggerated results if you take anything above 10 as a direct ability score modifier when building custom monsters. I wouldn't dismiss them entirely, but I don't think that taking the sometimes exaggerated stats in a monster's entry being the creature's "average" (like the "average" Orc isn't normally a warrior who is bound to have above average Strength to begin with) is necessary a good idea.



I've pretty much been toying with this idea lately to build my own Feat-based d20 system (mostly 5e-based, but modified). Though, I'm currently using d6 HD as a base (have considered d8 as well, but figured that's higher than baseline, since mages only have 1d6 in 5e or 1d4 in older editions), and using a flat bonus to HP per HD per selection of the Toughness feat. So only one universal HD type would be used. I might post something once I have something more complete.

D8s are in the middle of the pack, so if you go down to d6s, you get 1 extra feat, go down to d4s and you get another extra feat. If you spend a feat, you can increase HD to d10s, spend another you go up to d12s.

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1136801D8s are in the middle of the pack, so if you go down to d6s, you get 1 extra feat, go down to d4s and you get another extra feat. If you spend a feat, you can increase HD to d10s, spend another you go up to d12s.

I was thinking more in terms of having just one universal HD die type to simplify and unify things. Then having to worry only about characters or creatures that are above that baseline by simply handling any extra HP through feat selection, and ignoring the possibility of lower HD (since base is kinda low anyway, assuming I stay with 1d6), which streamlines the process since that's one less thing you have to specify.

But your approach could work as well, specially if I wanna retain traditional D&D HD ranges--which I wouldn't (necessarily) for my own games, but I'd at the very least consider adding as an alternative to handling HD progression. Though, even then, I'd be tempted to still use 1d6 HD as a base (pretend that 1d4 was only a terrible nightmare and never existed) and make everyone pay for 1d8 HD or higher.

EDIT: In fact, I think this is precisely what I’m going to do as default and drop my +1 HP per HD conceit when talking Toughness. I’ll just make 1d6 base, +1 HD type per feat (max 1d12 at 3 feat), and simply use average HP in my own games. Then I don’t have to build the entire system around my own conceits, but still have exactly the same HP end result anyways, since average HP is already +1 HP per HD. I might even consider including 1d4 as a +1 feat limitation in that case.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1136807I was thinking more in terms of having just one universal HD die type to simplify and unify things. Then having to worry only about characters or creatures that are above that baseline by simply handling any extra HP through feat selection, and ignoring the possibility of lower HD (since base is kinda low anyway, assuming I stay with 1d6), which streamlines the process since that's one less thing you have to specify.

But your approach could work as well, specially if I wanna retain traditional D&D HD ranges--which I wouldn't (necessarily) for my own games, but I'd at the very least consider adding as an alternative to handling HD progression. Though, even then, I'd be tempted to still use 1d6 HD as a base (pretend that 1d4 was only a terrible nightmare and never existed) and make everyone pay for 1d8 HD or higher.

Maybe, but I like using all the dice instead of having to figure what the probability of getting a 9 or better on a 2d6 roll. Of course if your hit Dice are starting with a 1d6, your character is going to get killed more often. I like to learn one game system very well rather than having to go back to square one and have to figure out how to represent damage, on what scale, and then go through a list of weapons and figure out how they inflict damage, and what armor does to reduce injuries. Whether by blocking damage itself or by reducing the chance to hit. I'd rather think of the setting then the mechanics of die Rolls all over again. One thing I don't understand is why they changed the Modifiers for ability scores for OD&D, the formula for 3.5 is a simple mathematical formula modifier =INT((ability_score-10)/2). The INT function drops the fractional component of the division after subtracting 10.

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1136812Maybe, but I like using all the dice instead of having to figure what the probability of getting a 9 or better on a 2d6 roll. Of course if your hit Dice are starting with a 1d6, your character is going to get killed more often. I like to learn one game system very well rather than having to go back to square one and have to figure out how to represent damage, on what scale, and then go through a list of weapons and figure out how they inflict damage, and what armor does to reduce injuries. Whether by blocking damage itself or by reducing the chance to hit. I'd rather think of the setting then the mechanics of die Rolls all over again. One thing I don't understand is why they changed the Modifiers for ability scores for OD&D, the formula for 3.5 is a simple mathematical formula modifier =INT((ability_score-10)/2). The INT function drops the fractional component of the division after subtracting 10.

Yeah, but that's an issue with D&D in general, since having only 1 HD grants you a very limited amount of HP even if you have a higher HD type. I always thought that characters in D&D started with too little HP at level 1, then eventually got way too many at higher levels, when you consider that the average peasant only has 1 HD. One thing I decided to do to get around that is to make level 2 the baseline for the adult population (unskilled peasants) and level 3 the base level for "professionals" (experienced merchants and guards, etc.). Level 1 is just for children and young prospective adventurers still in training. So it's not till level 3 that characters are considered full blown professional adventurers, and levels 1 to 2 are just "training" levels, equivalent to level "0" rules in old D&D.

Characters only start at level 1 if we're starting since their younger years, or level 3 if they're supposed to be full blown adventurers already. And normal town guards are level 3, or level 2 if they're still green. With captains being around 5 or 6. So if lower level characters want to mess with them they'll have a tougher time, and higher level characters won't be able to just bulldoze through a small town all by themselves like standard D&D, unless they're REALLY high level.

I also chose 1d6 as the base HD because 1d8 is supposed to be above average, representing somewhere between a full blown warrior (1d10) and someone with limited or no combat training (1d6). 1d8 is the HD used by clerics, who are traditionally supposed to come from militant orders, and while many (myself included) tend to treat them as "priests", they are actually supposed to have some combat training, which is where that HD comes from.

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1136772You could have a half-elven Cleric/Mage/Thief in 3rd edition, you could also have a human Cleric/Mage/Thief in 3rd edition, they would be third level characters at minimum, but you could have them. The 2nd edition however doesn't allow a human to multi class. For D20 Modern, you start with the six basic character classes that you can only advance to 10th level in and then you multiclass out of those to achieve higher level characters. The only major thing I don't like about D20 modern is how they abstract out money, you roll dice to determine whether or not you can afford to buy something, each item on the equipment list has a purchase DC instead of a price, you roll a d20 and add your wealth modifier to see if you can successfully make the purchase. Other than that D20 Modern is a great game, I've even run some Modern characters through some D&D dungeons.

You could have a triple class character in 3e but the effectiveness of that character would be terrible.

For example I could easily have a 5th level Cleric/Mage/Thief in 2e and probably be just 1 or 2 levels behind the rest of the party.

If I wanted to convert that same character to 3e suddenly I am looking at a 15th level character (5 Cleric/5 Wizard/5 Rouge) which would be ridiculously under powered compared to even a 15th level single class Fighter.

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1136775You know Feats could be a substitute for character classes themselves. You could have a 3.5e game with just one character class called "Character". You start with a first level "Character" that rolls 1d8 plus constitution adjustment for hit points, if you want to be able to cast arcane spells, there is a feat for that, if you want to cast clerical spells, there is a feat for that too. If you want to increase you hit dice from d8s to d10s or d12s, there are feats for that too, if you want to purchase an extra feat you could reduce your hit dice to d6s or d4s. I think you could do a version of Star Frontiers with a one class system like the one I described. Star Frontiers in it's original edition had no character classes. Some rpgs only have skills, feats, and hit points and Armor class or whatever substitutes for those. A character class is basically a container for skills and Feats when you think about it, certain skills and feats are automatic or favored over others.

Broadly speaking, this is how True20 works, although they have three classes instead of only one.

Warriors get the best combat bonuses, experts get the best skills, and adepts can cast spells, but everything else is sorted out through Feats.  I suspect the only reason they didn't dispense with classes altogether is because that would be too much of a deviation from d20.

Human Dual Classing for 2e allows for more than 2 classes, you just have to have the stats for it and the time to level up in all those classes.

If you had straight 18s you could 'Dual Class' in all the 4 core classes and the other optional classes, like Ranger or Bard. The 'PC start needs 15 stat, next classes need 17+ or per req.' requirement can be pretty restrictive dependent upon your stat generation method. But once passed it remains opened up unless stats change downward in play, and you don't have demi-human Multi-Class halved, thirded, or whatever divided HP issues (seriously, your HP can be really low as Multi-Class vs. Dual Class).

The other big cost is wherever you stop in a class it is then done forever: e.g. Start as Fighter, stop at 9th to switch to Thief, stop at Theif's 4th to switch to Wizard... and now you can never go back to Fighter or Thief. So you can end up with some Fighter 9th, Thief 4th, Wizard Nth human Dual Class. Yeah, best to start Fighter, get the "before name lvl" HP benefits, then go into your next class or classes.

But yeah, you can have it all as human if you have the stats and time... and kind of explains human motivation to switch to magic in later life and pursue Lichdom.

Just FYI. :)

Quote from: Shasarak;1136828You could have a triple class character in 3e but the effectiveness of that character would be terrible.

For example I could easily have a 5th level Cleric/Mage/Thief in 2e and probably be just 1 or 2 levels behind the rest of the party.

If I wanted to convert that same character to 3e suddenly I am looking at a 15th level character (5 Cleric/5 Wizard/5 Rouge) which would be ridiculously under powered compared to even a 15th level single class Fighter.

Yet still somewhat more powerful (at least on the surface and for the time being) than the 7th level or so single class characters from the rest of their group, who would still be level 7 if directly converted from 2e to an equal level character of the same class in 3e. Which only underlines the weirdness and lack of equivalence between 2e and 3e characters when multiple classes are figured into the equation.

And what even happens if your original character was already like 12+ levels in all three classes in 2e? Are you level 36+ now in 3e? What about the rest of your group who're probably around 16, 17, maybe 18th level in single class? That's like a 20 level gap!

To figure the "correct" level of a 2e multi-class character in 3e you probably need to add up their XP in all classes, compare it to the level table of one of the higher XP classes in 2e (wizards or warriors) and use that as a benchmark for a proper 3e "character level". Then split that level across all your classes.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1136838To figure the "correct" level of a 2e multi-class character in 3e you probably need to add up their XP in all classes, compare it to the level table of one of the higher XP classes in 2e (wizards or warriors) and use that as a benchmark for a proper 3e "character level". Then split that level across all your classes.

Sounds about right to me. Personally, I would also allow an asymmetrical split across the classes during conversion, because a symmetrical split of XP might be far from optimal in 3e.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1136838Yet still somewhat more powerful (at least on the surface and for the time being) than the 7th level or so single class characters from the rest of their group, who would still be level 7 if directly converted from 2e to an equal level character of the same class in 3e. Which only underlines the weirdness and lack of equivalence between 2e and 3e characters when multiple classes are figured into the equation.

And what even happens if your original character was already like 12+ levels in all three classes in 2e? Are you level 36+ now in 3e? What about the rest of your group who're probably around 16, 17, maybe 18th level in single class? That's like a 20 level gap!

To figure the "correct" level of a 2e multi-class character in 3e you probably need to add up their XP in all classes, compare it to the level table of one of the higher XP classes in 2e (wizards or warriors) and use that as a benchmark for a proper 3e "character level". Then split that level across all your classes.

I bet that some one has made a prestige class that probably solves 95% of the multi-class leveling problem.

Prestige classes do not get enough credit, probably because they were locked up in the DMG as "optional" material.

For a couple of years after it was released, we all played D&D3 like 2e with a unified system (BAB was much better than THAC0!), a skill system that was easier to understand, and so on. Even the designers did that when they created and playtested the game.

Then people finally understood how the system really worked, and eveything changed. But even if I can't play it anymore, it's still my favorite D&D edition.

Quote from: Shasarak;1136828You could have a triple class character in 3e but the effectiveness of that character would be terrible.

For example I could easily have a 5th level Cleric/Mage/Thief in 2e and probably be just 1 or 2 levels behind the rest of the party.

If I wanted to convert that same character to 3e suddenly I am looking at a 15th level character (5 Cleric/5 Wizard/5 Rouge) which would be ridiculously under powered compared to even a 15th level single class Fighter.

I'd actually argue that the most powerful martials in 3.5 had at LEAST 3 classes. But they were all classes which fit together.

I know that the last 3.5 game I played in (I have played Pathfinder since) was a character who was Fighter/Paladin/Pious Templar, and I THINK that there was another class in the mix before I took the Pious Templar prestige, as I remember going 2 levels in both Fighter (for feats to qualify for Pious Templar, along with Tower Shield prof) and Paladin (for CHA to saves), which leaves 1 level for something else (this was over a decade ago). I remember that between the CHA to saves, having True Grit from Pious Templar, and all the classes, my saves were great - which is an unintended boost for multi-classing in 3.5; you get more classes which give +2 to saves.

But multiclass in the 2e sense of very different things doesn't work well in 3.5. The closest would be some of the prestige classes which were designed to keep that feel, but they were generally still a bit sub-par. Arcane Trickster and Eldrich Knight were fun, but a bit sub-par.

I'm just going to throw this out there, but I feel like Cypher System captures what D&D 3.5 actually feels like once it's balanced.

You get "cool" abilities and use them based on resource management decisions.

All the tactical rules in 3.5 are basically irrelevant.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1136880I'd actually argue that the most powerful martials in 3.5 had at LEAST 3 classes. But they were all classes which fit together.

I know that the last 3.5 game I played in (I have played Pathfinder since) was a character who was Fighter/Paladin/Pious Templar, and I THINK that there was another class in the mix before I took the Pious Templar prestige, as I remember going 2 levels in both Fighter (for feats to qualify for Pious Templar, along with Tower Shield prof) and Paladin (for CHA to saves), which leaves 1 level for something else (this was over a decade ago). I remember that between the CHA to saves, having True Grit from Pious Templar, and all the classes, my saves were great - which is an unintended boost for multi-classing in 3.5; you get more classes which give +2 to saves.

But multiclass in the 2e sense of very different things doesn't work well in 3.5. The closest would be some of the prestige classes which were designed to keep that feel, but they were generally still a bit sub-par. Arcane Trickster and Eldrich Knight were fun, but a bit sub-par.

I am guessing that you never played a Fighter/Paladin/Pious Templar in 2e - although some of those 2e specialty Priests could get pretty funky.

But to your point, yes I would agree that full BAB classes did not lose much by taking a level or 2 dip.  And because the classes were pretty front loaded you could pick up quite a bit for a small investment.

Which brings up another thought, a 2e Elven Mage could have a back up longbow that was useful throughout the characters life which when converted to 3e that longbow attack quickly became ineffective as monster AC quickly out stripped a Wizards BAB.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1136880I'd actually argue that the most powerful martials in 3.5 had at LEAST 3 classes. But they were all classes which fit together.

I know that the last 3.5 game I played in (I have played Pathfinder since) was a character who was Fighter/Paladin/Pious Templar, and I THINK that there was another class in the mix before I took the Pious Templar prestige, as I remember going 2 levels in both Fighter (for feats to qualify for Pious Templar, along with Tower Shield prof) and Paladin (for CHA to saves), which leaves 1 level for something else (this was over a decade ago). I remember that between the CHA to saves, having True Grit from Pious Templar, and all the classes, my saves were great - which is an unintended boost for multi-classing in 3.5; you get more classes which give +2 to saves.

But multiclass in the 2e sense of very different things doesn't work well in 3.5. The closest would be some of the prestige classes which were designed to keep that feel, but they were generally still a bit sub-par. Arcane Trickster and Eldrich Knight were fun, but a bit sub-par.

You could create a custom class that has parts of wizard, fighter, and thief which starts at 1st level. A wizard rolls d4s a Rogue Rolls d6s and a fighter rolls d10s. So 4+6+10=20, 20/3 = 6.666. Here is what I'd do for hit points. For every odd level of the character class roll a 1d8 and add the constitution modifier, and for every even level roll a 1d6, so the sequence is at first level, roll 1d8 and for player characters start with the maximum die roll of 8 and add the constitution adjustment, then at second level its 1d8+1d6+level×constitution adjustment, at third its 2d8+1d6+level×con mod, at 4th its 2d8+2d6+con mod, and so on, or if you are using a computer, just roll d6s. This character class increases its spell list on 1st, 4th, 7th, and 10th.

Quote from: Shasarak;1136828You could have a triple class character in 3e but the effectiveness of that character would be terrible.

For example I could easily have a 5th level Cleric/Mage/Thief in 2e and probably be just 1 or 2 levels behind the rest of the party.

If I wanted to convert that same character to 3e suddenly I am looking at a 15th level character (5 Cleric/5 Wizard/5 Rouge) which would be ridiculously under powered compared to even a 15th level single class Fighter.

This is why 3e had a base and prestige class explosion over time. Base classes like the Hexblade, Spellthief were added specifically so you gain the benefits of the prior multi-class without all the loss of effectiveness that 3e's multiclassing often resulted in.

It's also why 4E basically abandoned 3e's multi-class approach with multi-class feats, paragon paths and hybrid classes (not to mention a much broader range of base classes) along with a lot of the basic math being class independent (i.e. +1/2 level) to avoid those problems. 5e similarly made its proficiency bonus character level instead of class level based to make multi-classing less punitive.

Quote from: Chris24601;1136932This is why 3e had a base and prestige class explosion over time. Base classes like the Hexblade, Spellthief were added specifically so you gain the benefits of the prior multi-class without all the loss of effectiveness that 3e's multiclassing often resulted in.

It's also why 4E basically abandoned 3e's multi-class approach with multi-class feats, paragon paths and hybrid classes (not to mention a much broader range of base classes) along with a lot of the basic math being class independent (i.e. +1/2 level) to avoid those problems. 5e similarly made its proficiency bonus character level instead of class level based to make multi-classing less punitive.

Pathfinders Hybrid classes were, in my opinion, a much better solution to playing two classes at once from level 1.

I like what I have seen of the multiclass rules from Pathfinder 2e.  They allow you to still improve in your main class while getting as much from another class as you want to invest.

Quote from: finarvyn;1136653snippy snip

Late to the party, but I played 3.0 when it first came out for about four years. This is after growing up with Mentzer and AD&D 1st and 2nd. I'd say this is a very accurate assessment. 3.0, and to an even greater extent 3.5/PF, are D&D in name only. And that's okay, I think 3.0 is a very good tactical minis game, performs okay as an RPG. After all "exploits" of the design were uncovered and 3.5 "fixed" them, I really stopped playing as I didn't think anything was improved, and in fact some of the things I liked were removed. Pathfinder made those problems worse.

Anyway, I'd say there is no easy transition between AD&D and 3.0...you basically have to start over for the most part; it's a different style of gaming.

I understand the premise of the thread, is about transitioning from AD&D to D&D 3.0; but what if instead one were to let go of any preconceived notions from AD&D, and run D&D 3.0 without feats?  Just take an ASI instead, and play the game without feats?  Would it be a good experience?

(I bet good fun could be had.)

Quote from: Razor 007;1137503I understand the premise of the thread, is about transitioning from AD&D to D&D 3.0; but what if instead one were to let go of any preconceived notions from AD&D, and run D&D 3.0 without feats?  Just take an ASI instead, and play the game without feats?  Would it be a good experience?

(I bet good fun could be had.)

3e feats hardly measure up to an ASI, though. And what would Fighters get? Cuz one ASI at level 1, plus one more every 2nd level from their class, on top of the one everyone gets every 3rd level just sounds broken.

Quote from: VisionStorm;11375063e feats hardly measure up to an ASI, though. And what would Fighters get? Cuz one ASI at level 1, plus one more every 2nd level from their class, on top of the one everyone gets every 3rd level just sounds broken.

3e Fighters are laughably pathetic. At least in 3.5 they had 2-handed weapon power attack. They certainly wouldn't become overpowered through getting another +11 to stats over 20 levels.  They might outshine the 3e barbarian I suppose; I find the 3e barb already unplayable since their main class feature Rage is basically the "kill me now" feature, lowering their already mediocre AC and causing insta-death if ever reduced to negative hp - rage ends & they get hit by all the extra damage.

Replacing feats with ASIs would make caster saves even more ridiculous, but 'more of something where there's already too much' is not such a big issue. And it would get rid of stuff like druids casting in wildshape. Overall I think featless 3e would be a better balanced and more fun game. But it would probably make better sense to stick with no-feats 5e and just add whatever 3e elements you might like, such as NPCs built like PCs, 3e's negative hit points system, magimart etc. I like how 5e is built to be modular and can accommodate those kind of bolt-ons easily.

Quote from: VisionStorm;11375063e feats hardly measure up to an ASI, though. And what would Fighters get?

Class features

Really pretty much anythin you do with Fighters in 3.5 should probably begin by replacing all those feats with things that are actually worth having.

Quote from: VisionStorm;11375063e feats hardly measure up to an ASI, though. And what would Fighters get? Cuz one ASI at level 1, plus one more every 2nd level from their class, on top of the one everyone gets every 3rd level just sounds broken.

What would Fighters get?  Why, a magic sword of course!!!

Quote from: TJS;1137514Really pretty much anythin you do with Fighters in 3.5 should probably begin by replacing all those feats with things that are actually worth having.

3.5e already did that with a book called Tome of Battle.

It added the Warblade (to replace the fighter), Crusader (to replace the Paladin) and the Swordsage (to replace the Monk).
Each was a "tier 3" (on the player created class tier system) replacement for classes previously regarded at "tier 5" (i.e. just above garbage tier... for comparison the NPC adept class was tier 4). This made them about as useful as a 3.5e Bard.

Naturally, the "Core Only" crowd complained it was power creep, so only a few tables in my area ever allowed it.

But frankly, not all power creep is bad. If something in the game was well below the baseline then buffing it doesn't change the top end at all (though I'd personally like the tier 1-2 classes to be nerfed considerably).

Do the "Tome of Battle" class replacements for the trash core classes though and you could probably drop feats entirely (just make rangers' and wizards very narrow bonus feats into class features... I'd require the wizards' bonus feats to all be spell mastery because it adds the least raw power to an already overpowered class, but is still useful).

Probably easier to convert from 1e/2e to 5e rather than 3e, honestly.

The secondary element of the question was indeed about transitioning in other ways,

Say BX to BECMI or 5e?

I honestly just never got into BECMI. Something about it feels really off kilter. The Mass combat rules are good though and I've ported those to BX.

BECMI is solid, I played it a lot as a kid. The differences between it and B/X are minuscule for the first 14 levels, after that obviously BECMI goes its own way since B/X never got that far.

Quote from: S'mon;11375113e Fighters are laughably pathetic. At least in 3.5 they had 2-handed weapon power attack. They certainly wouldn't become overpowered through getting another +11 to stats over 20 levels.  They might outshine the 3e barbarian I suppose; I find the 3e barb already unplayable since their main class feature Rage is basically the "kill me now" feature, lowering their already mediocre AC and causing insta-death if ever reduced to negative hp - rage ends & they get hit by all the extra damage.

I tend to find the Barbarian ability to rage underwhelming in general, even in 5e (though, that one gets resistance to blunt, piercing and slashing damage, which is its real benefit IMO), particularly given the extremely limited number of times per day you can use it, unless you're level 20, then you go from too little to too much.

Quote from: S'mon;1137511Replacing feats with ASIs would make caster saves even more ridiculous, but 'more of something where there's already too much' is not such a big issue. And it would get rid of stuff like druids casting in wildshape.

Casters getting even higher spell DC would screw over characters who might otherwise have saves high enough to resist their spells. And is druids casting from wildshape really that game breaking? I always found wildshape to be kinda pointless (outside of using it to spy or disguise yourself as an unassuming critter) unless you can cast from it. Though, I've rarely dealt with it, since most druids in my games tend to stick to their base form.

Quote from: S'mon;1137511Overall I think featless 3e would be a better balanced and more fun game.

This seems kinda contradictory to me, given that people tend to think so little about the usefulness of 3e feats. I suppose that removing them might make the game less tedious for some, though.

Quote from: TJS;1137514Class features

Really pretty much anythin you do with Fighters in 3.5 should probably begin by replacing all those feats with things that are actually worth having.

I agree, in the sense that I would like to replace feats in general with feats worth having. Stuff like "Dodge: You get a whooping +1 to AC against ONE enemy per round" is just more tedious than useful. I just gave them +1 AC in general in my games.

Quote from: Rhiannon;1137550Probably easier to convert from 1e/2e to 5e rather than 3e, honestly.

Yeah, 5e is probably the easiest edition to play in general other than Basic. The only thing I find tedious is keeping track of so many classes + subclasses with many minor class features. But the core mechanics are the most simple, streamlined and unified of any edition.

Quote from: Omega;1137555The secondary element of the question was indeed about transitioning in other ways,

Say BX to BECMI or 5e?

I honestly just never got into BECMI. Something about it feels really off kilter. The Mass combat rules are good though and I've ported those to BX.

BECMI to 5E is ridiculously easy for me now, since somewhere about halfway in between sits close to my ideal D&D game.  I'd spent a lot of time ages ago trying to tweak BECMI into something else that would have moved it in the direction of 5E, and I've house ruled 5E to move back towards BECMI.   There are of course a lot of surface differences that sometimes have subtle implications (e.g. race as class versus having them separate).  

Don't know if it is the same thing that is off kilter for you but where BECMI seems off to me is when it has details and when it doesn't.  The proficiency lists and the weapon mastery rules seem a little tacked on instead of integrated into the rules.  (Given their origin as options, one can hardly blame it for that.)  BECMI works really hard to be faithful to its source material, which is laudable.  I think it might have been an even better product had it been slightly unfaithful in a few places to streamline it even more.

Since it's germane to the Feats thread. I humbly suggest if you're a veteran GM of 1e, or 2e and are serious about giving 3e a try. SKIP 3e and Pathfinder and go to Fantasy Craft.

It's what 3e should have been.

Quote from: tenbones;1137660Since it's germane to the Feats thread. I humbly suggest if you're a veteran GM of 1e, or 2e and are serious about giving 3e a try. SKIP 3e and Pathfinder and go to Fantasy Craft.

It's what 3e should have been.

You keep saying this, but Fantasycraft is impossible for me to understand...I've tried a lot. Teach me, sensei.

Quote from: Brad;1138123You keep saying this, but Fantasycraft is impossible for me to understand...I've tried a lot. Teach me, sensei.

Tell you what...

for kicks and giggles I'm going to make a Fantasy Craft thread and I'm going to walk through the whole thing and compare it to Pathfinder and 3.5 (and maybe 5e) directly. I'll go section by relevant section so we can all discuss the pro's and cons.


Sound like a plan?

Quote from: tenbones;1138130Tell you what...

for kicks and giggles I'm going to make a Fantasy Craft thread and I'm going to walk through the whole thing and compare it to Pathfinder and 3.5 (and maybe 5e) directly. I'll go section by relevant section so we can all discuss the pro's and cons.


Sound like a plan?

Not Brad, but YES! :D

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1138185Not Brad, but YES! :D

I concur.

Quote from: Brad;1138187I concur.

You agree you aren't Brad? ...


Sorry.  Not sorry.  If I hadn't someone else would have.  :D

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1138192You agree you aren't Brad? ...


Sorry.  Not sorry.  If I hadn't someone else would have.  :D

If I say yes do I disappear in a puff of logic..? Scared!

Quote from: Brad;1138195If I say yes do I disappear in a puff of logic..? Scared!

Yes! Now we must get all the children to clap their hands and say they believe in Brads or Brad will DIE! :eek:

Please children. Think of the Brads.

Back on topic.

One thing I think helps with transitioning into another edition is how well or not the company presents any conversion notes. If any. TSR and WOTC were pretty good for that. Though the 5e conversion notes felt a little lacking.

Quote from: tenbones;1138130Tell you what...

for kicks and giggles I'm going to make a Fantasy Craft thread and I'm going to walk through the whole thing and compare it to Pathfinder and 3.5 (and maybe 5e) directly. I'll go section by relevant section so we can all discuss the pro's and cons.


Sound like a plan?

I would greatly appreciate this.  My table is moving on from 5e (we've exhausted our interest) and trying other systems.  So this would be very helpful, and timely.

Did it work?

Is Brad still here, or do we need to clap again?

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1136657It is a lot simpler to roll a d20 add in your attack Bonus and see whether that equals or exceeds your opponents Armor class to determine whether you hit or miss, than to subtract your d20 roll plus your attack Bonus from 10 to determine whether you matched or went below your opponent's Armor class for hit determination the way AD&D did it. Why would you want to do that?

I HATE this F-ING argument. I hate ascending AC when playing D&D.

I tried playing 3.PF and could never EVER get BAB. Ever. Coming from BECMI as a teen and into 2E D&D AC worked and made sense, even if -for some- it seemed upside down and back to front. It felt more concrete.

(probably said elsewhere on the forum) I have walked out of 3.PF games because of it. I have stared at the character sheet, rolled a d20 and handed it to someone else so they could add all the bonuses and fiddly bits on because it came across as a monstrous mess. Because, you know "intuitive".

Quote from: tenbones;1138130Tell you what...

for kicks and giggles I'm going to make a Fantasy Craft thread and I'm going to walk through the whole thing and compare it to Pathfinder and 3.5 (and maybe 5e) directly. I'll go section by relevant section so we can all discuss the pro's and cons.


Sound like a plan?

I look forward to it and will be happy to read along. Fantasy Craft reminds me of a d20 version of Rolemaster 2nd Edition and other 'Old School Baroque' works, and while I think it might be too much for me, I think there's a lot to be mined from it.

I haven't forgotten.

I got sidelined by work-stuff, writing stuff, which I've nicely tucked to bed with my editor and day-job boss.

I'm literally working on the post now... stay tuned.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;1138348I HATE this F-ING argument. I hate ascending AC when playing D&D.

I tried playing 3.PF and could never EVER get BAB. Ever. Coming from BECMI as a teen and into 2E D&D AC worked and made sense, even if -for some- it seemed upside down and back to front. It felt more concrete.

(probably said elsewhere on the forum) I have walked out of 3.PF games because of it. I have stared at the character sheet, rolled a d20 and handed it to someone else so they could add all the bonuses and fiddly bits on because it came across as a monstrous mess. Because, you know "intuitive".

Sounds like you have cognitive issues if you can't do basic addition and comparing the total result to the actual number you need to roll to hit your target.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1138350I look forward to it and will be happy to read along. Fantasy Craft reminds me of a d20 version of Rolemaster 2nd Edition and other 'Old School Baroque' works, and while I think it might be too much for me, I think there's a lot to be mined from it.

Pretty much agree with that last point (never got to check out Rolemaster). From what I've seen so far there's a lot of stuff I wouldn't use in my game, but also a lot of ideas I think work better than baseline 3e.

If you have a +5 to hit and you roll a 15, it seems pretty straightforward to calculate what AC you hit.

I guess you could make your own To Hit Matrix.

I used to do that. Jot down the current to hit numbers for the ACs for quick reference.

At first I thought I wouldnt like 5e's system. But oddly enough rather like it alot. I think I initially went in thinking it would be a mess like 3e. 3e's system works but the ever growing BABs just felt oddly off kilter.

Quote from: Shasarak;1138369If you have a +5 to hit and you roll a 15, it seems pretty straightforward to calculate what AC you hit.

I find that calculate-after-roll increases my cognitive load (& thus brain stress), so I like to work out the target number on the d20 pre-roll. This is equally easy with ascending as descending AC IME. With ascending I deduct the to-hit bonus from the AC to work out the target number. With descending I deduct the AC from the THAC0 to work out the target number. Then roll.

I like D6 System where you just add up all the D6s to see if you reach the Target Number.

Quote from: S'mon;1138422I like D6 System where you just add up all the D6s to see if you reach the Target Number.

I like my d6's where they belong.  

With my Shadowrun set.

Quote from: Shasarak;1138430I like my d6's where they belong.  

With my Shadowrun set.

If you only knew the POWER of the dark side...

Quote from: Shasarak;1138430I like my d6's where they belong.  

With my Shadowrun set.

Counting successes > Adding up a bunch of variable numbers from 1 to 6 each, then maybe adding an extra +1 or +2 at the end ;)

PS: d6 is still a fine system, but just saying :D

Quote from: VisionStorm;1138576Counting successes > Adding up a bunch of variable numbers from 1 to 6 each, then maybe adding an extra +1 or +2 at the end ;)

PS: d6 is still a fine system, but just saying :D

I love playing it on Roll20, dice roller counts it up for us! Some of my tech savvier players even got the automated Wild Die function working. :p

I'm currently running The Halls of Tizun Thane on Roll20 with Mini Six - https://simonsprimevalthule.blogspot.com/2020/07/sp15-1212215-ar-tizun-thane.html - definitely feels like a match made in heaven! We lost our first PC Saya the Sword Sister when she chased a Night Thing into the forest; but it was cool when Ulfdin the Nimothan actually managed to hit one, spent three Hero Points on damage roll, and killed the unkillable. :cool:

Probably why Neverwinter Nights PC games were so popular. It did all the math for you and kept track of all the little quirks.

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1136657It is a lot simpler to roll a d20 add in your attack Bonus and see whether that equals or exceeds your opponents Armor class to determine whether you hit or miss, than to subtract your d20 roll plus your attack Bonus from 10 to determine whether you matched or went below your opponent's Armor class for hit determination the way AD&D did it. Why would you want to do that?

I always found it easier to subtract your d20 roll from your modified THAC0 to see what AC I hit. I'm still not sure it isn't faster.

Quote from: Omega;1138388I used to do that. Jot down the current to hit numbers for the ACs for quick reference.

At first I thought I wouldnt like 5e's system. But oddly enough rather like it alot. I think I initially went in thinking it would be a mess like 3e. 3e's system works but the ever growing BABs just felt oddly off kilter.

I really liked 5e a lot.  I was the first DM in our group to run it; I've never been a player.

What sunk it for me were the unlimited, damaging cantrips.  I *get* it, but it changed the idiom for me, if you will, of the fantasy rpg experience I was used to for 30+ years.  I like the "one and done" spellcasters at first level: strategic or desperate use of your one spell, then pull out your dagger and hide behind a rock.  

Instead, my first level spellcasters in 5e could repeatedly do 1d8 or whatever damage ad nauseum on a successful To Hit roll.  In a small thorp, they could be holy terrors on the populace.  I didn't like it.

Quote from: FASAfan;1140192Instead, my first level spellcasters in 5e could repeatedly do 1d8 or whatever damage ad nauseum on a successful To Hit roll.  In a small thorp, they could be holy terrors on the populace.  I didn't like it.

Versus the 3e paradigm of pulling out a crossbow (or longbow if you were an elf) and plinking away all day for... 1d8 or whatever damage?

At level 1 the difference between a wizard's +0 BAB and a fighter's +1 was negligible and wizards had every reason to make Dex their second highest ability score (because even an 18 Con wouldn't give you enough hit points to survive a max damage hit from a 1d8+0 attack) so they'd actually be reasonably good at firing that crossbow until they got enough spell slots.

This would be even further compounded in 5e's by its proficiency system and ranged weapons adding your Dex to the damage dealt... making the wizard easily as dangerous with their crossbow (now adding +Dex to damage with each hit) as the fighter. Hell, if your 5e wizard has proficiency in a bow they're better served using it than one of the attack cantrips until the increased damage (which lines up with when fighters get extra attacks) kicks in.

All the 5e cantrips do is create a more thematically cohesive class... the wizard shoots magic bolts from his staff instead of crossbow bolts from his crossbow at about the same rate of speed and for about the same damage (less generally since the cantrips don't get ability score and magic item bonuses to their damage rolls).

Also worth pointing out is how the media base of the players has changed since the 1980s. Everything from Harry Potter (the minor attack spells are no more tiring than swinging a sword to use... at-will for D&D purposes) to Dragon Age to World of Warcraft to name just a few use magic systems where being able to fire off a single target spell that hits about as hard an arrow or bullet does every few seconds is normal.

Indeed, one of my main complaints about pre-4E D&D (and why I migrated to Palladium from AD&D early on) was its utter inability to model any magic system as I'd read in novels, see on tv or in movies. The only magic system it could emulate was D&D magic.

4E's unlimited use of detect magic, ghost sound, light, mage hand, prestidigitation and magic missile (which wasn't autohit and did about as much as a crossbow bolt to a single target) was an infinitely better base for building the sort of spellcasters you'd see in literature.

I mean, how often does Harry Dresdan worry about if he's got enough magic juice/spell slots to light the candles on a table with a snap of his fingers? Does Harry worry about blowing his last slot on pulling a lever on the wall five paces from him with a quick word and a gesture or whether to conserve his last stunner spell for a later tougher opponent?

That's the experience new players coming into the game have with magic... and late 3e, 4E and 5e dealt with that via reserve feats/at-will spells/cantrips scaled to be balanced with the at-will abilities of other at-will abilities (like shooting a bow).

Quote from: Chris24601;1140204Versus the 3e paradigm of pulling out a crossbow (or longbow if you were an elf) and plinking away all day for... 1d8 or whatever damage?

Inded. IIRC, it was d10 with a heavy crossbow!

Quote from: Chris24601;1140204wizards had every reason to make Dex their second highest ability score (because even an 18 Con wouldn't give you enough hit points to survive a max damage hit from a 1d8+0 attack)

Slight tangent here -- I've heard this argument before, but I don't like that it seems to assume hit point damage is only sustained from melee attacks. I like damage to come from a variety of sources, some of which might not require an attack roll at all (and some which might be avoided by a constitution-based saving throw to boot).

Crossbows require ammo.  Acid Splash does not.

You DO keep up with ammo, right? :p

Edit to change “Bolt” to “Splash”.

Quote from: FASAfan;1140192I really liked 5e a lot.  I was the first DM in our group to run it; I've never been a player.

What sunk it for me were the unlimited, damaging cantrips.  I *get* it, but it changed the idiom for me, if you will, of the fantasy rpg experience I was used to for 30+ years.  I like the "one and done" spellcasters at first level: strategic or desperate use of your one spell, then pull out your dagger and hide behind a rock.  

Instead, my first level spellcasters in 5e could repeatedly do 1d8 or whatever damage ad nauseum on a successful To Hit roll.  In a small thorp, they could be holy terrors on the populace.  I didn't like it.

Cantrips is a hitch for 5e to be sure. But they could have been worse and we actually got WOTC to tone them down. Not enough to my liking. But at least isnt overshadowing the fighter.

The easiest way to parse cantrips is that they function pretty much like a melee or ranged combatants sword or arrow. If you step down all cantrips one die type in damage respectively it works fairly well. Its what I did for one group.

Quote from: FASAfan;1140236Crossbows require ammo.  Acid Splash does not.

You DO keep up with ammo, right? :p

Edit to change "Bolt" to "Splash".

You can through recover bolts and arrows if stop and take the time. Thats in the rules. 1/2 end up broken or otherwise not re-useable I believe each time so it is dwindling. So go in with 20 arrows shot. then have 10 can recover. Then 5, then 2, then 1. 38 shots total recycling.

I assume shooting cantrips or shooting arrows, anyone will be fatigued (level of exhaustion) if they do it too long without a break, say 50 combat rounds.

I tried 3e when it came out. I didn't transition an existing campaign, I started a new campaign. The transition to the new set of rules was easy. At first, I thought 3e and the whole 3e approach to the game was pretty nifty and seemed like an improvement. After running it for a while I changed my mind about that and ultimately returned to TSR D&D (original D&D and 1e AD&D -- where I've stayed, and I don't see that changing). But the transition itself was smooth enough. (FWIW, I wasn't going from 2e to 3e, I was returning to D&D from other game systems that I started playing more because I didn't find 2e to my taste and wanted to explore different systems.)

My group went from the BECM to AD&D to Ad&d 2E to Shadowrun then Earthdawn then a Shadowrun/Earthdawn dual campaign one set in the past that can change the future which was a lot of fun, from there we shifted back to AD&D 2E then Jumped over to Pathfinder 1E and now to Pathfinder 2E.   Skipped D&D 3E 4E & 5E which sounds like we didn't miss much :p   Dabbled in one shots in a few different other rule sets like Call of Cthulhu, Dangerous Journeys, Talislanta, Torg etc

Point is jumping from system to system isn't hard if you are willing to try even if you have been at it for 37 almost 38 years like we have.

As far as never ending cantrips go for spellcasters it didn't bother us much at all.   After playing Shadowrun & Earthdawn and jumping back into AD&D 2E it was a bit of a jolt for our caster players so we altered cantrips to be more like what you see in 5E or PF2e but had a chance to cause damage to themselves.   d4 cantrip had a 1 in 20 chance, d6 had a 5 in 20, d8 had a 10 in 20 chance and a d10 had a 15 in 20 chance.   If you failed the "drain" roll you took the same amount of damage you hit someone with but the drain the wizard took was considered non lethal damage .   Needless to say at lower levels a Wizard would only use the d4 cantrip at the lower levels and would slowly go up as they gained HP with only a few using the d10 cantrip at the upper levels.

Quote from: S'mon;1140322I assume shooting cantrips or shooting arrows, anyone will be fatigued (level of exhaustion) if they do it too long without a break, say 50 combat rounds.

Combat in general can be exhausting, even if all you're doing is dodging attacks.

On the topic of 5e's unlimited cantrips, I actually like them. One of my (many) issues with magic in D&D is how spellcasters (esp. mages) become useless the moment they run out of spells, and how few they have at lower levels. The exclusively D&D trope of the low level wizard using up their single 1d4+1 damage spell that does less damage than a sword, then having to draw their dagger and hope they don't get attacked by enemies capable of one-shoting them is not just boring, but absurd. Low level mages in old D&D are less than useless, they're are a liability capable of contributing absolutely nothing even when they do use their useless level 1 spells. It's not till level 5 that mages get access to a decent combat spell, and even then that can also kill the party and it's just once a day.

5e's unlimited combat cantrips solve that, albeit in a somewhat hamfisted way. I can see some people's issue with how much damage they do compared to normal weapons that need ammo, though. My preference would probably be that they caused significantly less base damage (like maybe 1d4), but allowed casting ability modifiers to damage, like most weapons. That way they would basically be like a "natural" weapon that mages develop as an extension of their magical power. Maybe magic wands could increase the damage type, like in Harry Potter, so that mages would still need some sort of implement to cause decent damage, but wands could be disarmed or destroyed. There could even be special wands that work like magic weapons, with a +1 or higher bonuses, and maybe extra elemental damage.

Quote from: Krugus;1140324As far as never ending cantrips go for spellcasters it didn't bother us much at all.   After playing Shadowrun & Earthdawn and jumping back into AD&D 2E it was a bit of a jolt for our caster players so we altered cantrips to be more like what you see in 5E or PF2e but had a chance to cause damage to themselves.   d4 cantrip had a 1 in 20 chance, d6 had a 5 in 20, d8 had a 10 in 20 chance and a d10 had a 15 in 20 chance.   If you failed the "drain" roll you took the same amount of damage you hit someone with but the drain the wizard took was considered non lethal damage .   Needless to say at lower levels a Wizard would only use the d4 cantrip at the lower levels and would slowly go up as they gained HP with only a few using the d10 cantrip at the upper levels.

Did you apply the same "might damage themselves with every shot" to fighters firing bows or even if the wizard using a crossbow (that in 5e does more damage than most cantrips because you can add your Dex bonus to it)?

Because 40 arrows cost less and weigh about the same as the focuses spellcasters need to cast their cantrips.

If cantrips actually did significantly more average damage than a fighter could just striking with a dagger (c. 1d4+3 at level 1 vs. 1d10 for a really good attack cantrip) I could see a point to restricting them.

But they don't. They're crap damage spells useful in the same way the crossbow used to be only without the thematic mismatch of the guy in the robes and a point hat also carrying a crossbow.

Also, for those asking... no we don't really track shots because arrows/bolts are so light and inexpensive that even a first level PC can carry enough to carry themselves through a week's worth of combats (10-15 rounds of combat a day with every 20 arrows actually being useful for about 40 rounds of combat if you recover them; 40 arrows for 4gp and 4 lb. will cover 5-8 days of fighting).

Generally we just say everyone spends 10gp a week on restocking supplies and getting armor and weapon maintenance done and we call it a day. If we know we're headed out for longer, we spend more beforehand (i.e. a for a month long trip we'd spend 45 gp each to represent stocking up for the trip).

If someone actually wants to count each arrow, more power to them, but we play to escape real life not be fantasy bean counters/accountants so we only count what's actually important to the game we're playing and the above is "good enough" for our purposes.

Quote from: Chris24601;1140342Did you apply the same "might damage themselves with every shot" to fighters firing bows or even if the wizard using a crossbow (that in 5e does more damage than most cantrips because you can add your Dex bonus to it)?

Because 40 arrows cost less and weigh about the same as the focuses spellcasters need to cast their cantrips.

If cantrips actually did significantly more average damage than a fighter could just striking with a dagger (c. 1d4+3 at level 1 vs. 1d10 for a really good attack cantrip) I could see a point to restricting them.

But they don't. They're crap damage spells useful in the same way the crossbow used to be only without the thematic mismatch of the guy in the robes and a point hat also carrying a crossbow.

Also, for those asking... no we don't really track shots because arrows/bolts are so light and inexpensive that even a first level PC can carry enough to carry themselves through a week's worth of combats (10-15 rounds of combat a day with every 20 arrows actually being useful for about 40 rounds of combat if you recover them; 40 arrows for 4gp and 4 lb. will cover 5-8 days of fighting).

Generally we just say everyone spends 10gp a week on restocking supplies and getting armor and weapon maintenance done and we call it a day. If we know we're headed out for longer, we spend more beforehand (i.e. a for a month long trip we'd spend 45 gp each to represent stocking up for the trip).

If someone actually wants to count each arrow, more power to them, but we play to escape real life not be fantasy bean counters/accountants so we only count what's actually important to the game we're playing and the above is "good enough" for our purposes.

Greetings!

Yeah, I'm not seeing the teeth-gnashing over Mages using at-will cantrips that do whatever damage. It isn't likely to be augmented by an ability modifier, and it is a spell and not otherwise improved by magic items or resources, so it is just a flat D12 damage or whatever. Straight up. That means the Mage at range doesn't have to be fiddling with a stupid crossbow.:D At close range, a Mage can fight with their quarterstaff, or a dagger. Sounds good to me. I haven't seen any problems with Mages and their at-will cantrips during play. It means that Mages are never pathetically useless or helpless, even at lower levels--and especially at lower levels.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1140353Yeah, I'm not seeing the teeth-gnashing over Mages using at-will cantrips that do whatever damage. It isn't likely to be augmented by an ability modifier, and it is a spell and not otherwise improved by magic items or resources, so it is just a flat D12 damage or whatever. Straight up. That means the Mage at range doesn't have to be fiddling with a stupid crossbow.:D At close range, a Mage can fight with their quarterstaff, or a dagger. Sounds good to me. I haven't seen any problems with Mages and their at-will cantrips during play. It means that Mages are never pathetically useless or helpless, even at lower levels--and especially at lower levels.

Another point worth addressing is the bolded. If you're trying to restrict the at-will cantrips because you see it as balancing out the phenomenal cosmic power they will gain at high levels... DON'T.

Both 5e and 4E before it (the two editions where at-will cantrips/at-will spells became a thing) severely curtailed the upper end casting abilities for all spellcasters through a combination of concentration, no auto-scaling spell damage (i.e. if you want fireball do more damage you have to cast it using a 4th, 5th, etc. level slot) and severely limited the number of spell slots they have.

How limited? A level 20 spellcaster in 5e has 4 first, 3 second, 3 third, 3 fourth, 3 fifth, 2 sixth, 2 seventh, 1 eighth and 1 ninth level slot. In 4E they don't have any more spells than a fighter has special combat maneuvers.

If you want to limit the number of uses a wizard can get out of their cantrips in 5e, you need to also look at taking off some of the other restrictions at the top end to compensate for the cut in power you're giving them on the low end.

Quote from: Chris24601;1140342Did you apply the same "might damage themselves with every shot" to fighters firing bows or even if the wizard using a crossbow (that in 5e does more damage than most cantrips because you can add your Dex bonus to it)?

Because 40 arrows cost less and weigh about the same as the focuses spellcasters need to cast their cantrips.

If cantrips actually did significantly more average damage than a fighter could just striking with a dagger (c. 1d4+3 at level 1 vs. 1d10 for a really good attack cantrip) I could see a point to restricting them.

But they don't. They're crap damage spells useful in the same way the crossbow used to be only without the thematic mismatch of the guy in the robes and a point hat also carrying a crossbow.

Also, for those asking... no we don't really track shots because arrows/bolts are so light and inexpensive that even a first level PC can carry enough to carry themselves through a week's worth of combats (10-15 rounds of combat a day with every 20 arrows actually being useful for about 40 rounds of combat if you recover them; 40 arrows for 4gp and 4 lb. will cover 5-8 days of fighting).

Generally we just say everyone spends 10gp a week on restocking supplies and getting armor and weapon maintenance done and we call it a day. If we know we're headed out for longer, we spend more beforehand (i.e. a for a month long trip we'd spend 45 gp each to represent stocking up for the trip).

If someone actually wants to count each arrow, more power to them, but we play to escape real life not be fantasy bean counters/accountants so we only count what's actually important to the game we're playing and the above is "good enough" for our purposes.

We just came back to AD&D 2E from playing Shadowrun & Earthdawn systems (that casters can cast spells all day long) so we just added what we felt was ok at the time for AD&D 2e system.   It was my players that came up with the system and I ok'd it.  We tested it and it worked out quite well vs I cast magic missile and then use my staff or dagger and hope nothing gets close.

Yes our group tracks how much ammo they use and we did have some of those "this is my last arrow" moments that took down the BBEG.   At the end of the day, its your game, play it the way you want it to be played but our group will still have fun being "fantasy bean counters and accountants" :)

Quote from: Chris24601;1140342Did you apply the same "might damage themselves with every shot" to fighters firing bows or even if the wizard using a crossbow (that in 5e does more damage than most cantrips because you can add your Dex bonus to it)?

Because 40 arrows cost less and weigh about the same as the focuses spellcasters need to cast their cantrips.

I wouldn't, because a mage can take the Eschew Materials feat.  There's no Eschew Projectiles for fighters, so, eh?

Quote from: kythri;1140409I wouldn't, because a mage can take the Eschew Materials feat.  There's no Eschew Projectiles for fighters, so, eh?

Eschew Materials is 3.5e where there were no at-will spells, not even cantrips. There are also magic quivers and bows that provide unlimited ammunition in 3.5e.

There is no Eschew Materials in 5e. You need to either carry a component pouch or an appropriate focus to cast spells in 5e. Which, yes, means a spellcaster in 5e can be disarmed just like a weapon-wielder can... all the more reason for their basic attack spells to be no more tiring than swinging a sword (especially when the "limitless" spells almost always do less damage than the sword would).

One thing can do to put cantrips on the same footing as ammo is both remove focuses and make every cantrip consume some material that costs around the same as a arrow or bolt.

Quote from: Omega;1140453One thing can do to put cantrips on the same footing as ammo is both remove focuses and make every cantrip consume some material that costs around the same as a arrow or bolt.

I'd say much less than an arrow or bolt as the cantrips do much less damage and at shorter range.

A single longbow arrow can typically do 1d8+3 at first level with a range of 150/600. A quiver of 20 arrows is 1 gp and weighs 1 pound. You can recover half your expended ammo after a battle with a one minute search so it's actually 20+10+5+2+1=38 shots per gp/lb. Improving your Dex increases the damage per arrow as does using a magic weapon (which also increases accuracy).

The Fire Bolt cantrip can do 1d10 damage with a range of 120/--. Your ability score doesn't increase the damage and there are no magic items that improve it (or it's accuracy).

That actually puts it down at the performance of a sling (1d4+3; average 5.5) which has no cost for the weapon and it's ammunition costs just 4 COPPER pieces for 20 bullets (with the same recovery rules as arrows).

So for a fair price based on performance (i.e. 1st level sling damage/range) you're probably looking at something on the order of 1cp per 10 fire bolts (or 1000 fire bolts per gold piece) -OR- at that point you can just chalk it up to being included in the cost of a wizard's focus... the cheapest of which is 5 gp (or the cost 5000 sling bullet attacks) and the fact that even a 1-20 campaign will probably end well before they've used fire bolt a 1000 times, much less 5000.

Seriously, the at-will cantrips aren't remotely unbalanced; it's only previous edition baggage that doesn't even apply to the 5e spellcasters (i.e. they don't turn into virtual gods at high level in 5e) that makes people THINK they need to be nerfed. Hell, the DART has comparable performance to attack cantrips and is 100% recoverable.

The thing a lot of people really want with cantrips is the sense that they are not unlimited.  Whether that translates to "but effectively unlimited" in mathematical terms in the campaign is besides the point.  So use the fabled "ammo die" for cantrips, either tied to the focus or just as a separate reserve of energy for the cantrips themselves:  

Start with 1d12 or 1d10 or 1d8 whatever gives you the feel you want.  Every time you use a cantrip out of of a fight, roll the die.  If it comes up a 1, it drops to the next size.   When it gets down to 1d4, a 1 means you have 1 cantrip left.  When using in a fight, check at the end of the fight, with 1 die roll if you used a cantrip once and 2 die rolls if you use it more than that.  Or any variation on that which fits your feel better.  Ammo die typically only recharges when you can rest in a civilized area (either replenishing your focus or whatever else you want to associate with it.)

This will cause all but the mathematical players to curb the unlimited and frivolous use of cantrips to the times when they really need it. Even the mathematical players will hesitate after they get that first 1 on the ammo roll.  Once that feel is in place, it doesn't matter how you got there.

Or you could just say they're as tiring as swinging as sword.

We don't have complex systems for figuring out how many times you can swing a sword before you get tired, but it's also assumed that you'll be more tired coming out of a long combat than you were going in.

I think that's the part I have a hard time wrapping my head around. The cantrips are mechanically weaker than swinging a sword or even throwing darts at opponents, but the idea that they must be more tiring than swinging a sword, flinging a dart or using a sling even with metric tons of fictional examples of basic magic being no more tiring than melee combat.

Basically, you want all this effort to limit the weaker magic, but don't apply the same to weapon use where we know from real world study that fatigue will limit how long you can swing that sword or fire that bow.

That's where it gets me... swinging an axe to split logs for eight hours doesn't require any special fatigue mechanics, but God forbid a wizard be able to strike the log with a spell that is less effective than an axe more than a handful of times because THAT would be unrealistic.

The thing is... if cantrips are objectively worse in every aspect; less damage, less range, hurts you to use them too much;
then no one would have ever developed them. They would have instead put work into using crossbows or even slings because they're less limited and expensive than the effort of using subpar spells. It literally breaks my verisimilitude that such spells would even exist given the limits some people want to put on them (but not on weapon attacks).

You want a system with fatigue for both? Great. You want a system with "unlimited" (in the sense you can use both until you get tired)? Also great. Applying it to one but not the other though is just playing favorites and calls for perhaps examining WHY you actually think it needs more stringent limits than they already have (i.e. less damage, less range, those without attack rolls can't even critically hit).

Quote from: Chris24601;1140490I think that's the part I have a hard time wrapping my head around. The cantrips are mechanically weaker than swinging a sword or even throwing darts at opponents, but the idea that they must be more tiring than swinging a sword, flinging a dart or using a sling even with metric tons of fictional examples of basic magic being no more tiring than melee combat.

That's because we also want magic to be special ... you know, magical. It's supposed to be something wondrous beyond mere sword-swinging. So when people try to add cantrip mechanics it creates a quandary -- we want cantrip mechanics to emulate mundane mechanics for the sake of class-balance, but it never feels quite right to reduce magic to that mundane level of usage.

It gets worse for me when the mechanics try to emulate damage from missile fire (for example), and starts to smell of 4e's "everyone does the same thing just with different flavor text" thing, real fast.

In sum, for my taste magic has to be (1) more powerful and (2) more difficult/rare than swinging a sword. Not just sometimes, but every time. It's precisely this difference that separates the wizard from the warrior for me.

Quote from: Zalman;1140497That's because we also want magic to be special ... you know, magical. It's supposed to be something wondrous beyond mere sword-swinging. So when people try to add cantrip mechanics it creates a quandary -- we want cantrip mechanics to emulate mundane mechanics for the sake of class-balance, but it never feels quite right to reduce magic to that mundane level of usage.

It gets worse for me when the mechanics try to emulate damage from missile fire (for example), and starts to smell of 4e's "everyone does the same thing just with different flavor text" thing, real fast.

In sum, for my taste magic has to be (1) more powerful and (2) more difficult/rare than swinging a sword. Not just sometimes, but every time. It's precisely this difference that separates the wizard from the warrior for me.

The problem then is that more limits are being placed without a corresponding increase in capability. If a wizard can only use, say, six cantrips per day then each use needs to worth several sword-swings worth of effect.

Side-bar: I actually think 4E's "does the same things with different flavor" actually feels more realistic. There's a joke about politics being Hollywood for ugly people, but the truism behind that is that people will play to their strengths to achieve basically the same ends (in that case money and influence).

If magic is real, people who are good at it would reasonably research and create solutions to the same problems smiths create swords to deal with. Being able to always pop off a club-level hit is more valuable for personal defense the same way that, until the advent of repeating firearms, a blade was considered better protection than a single-shot pistol. Being able to repeatedly pop someone hard enough to make them go "nope" and back off is infinitely more valuable personal protection than being known to only have one bullet that will kill IF it hits.

That's why I find the existence of the attack cantrips MORE believable than the higher level attack spells, or, more accurately, the existence of the cantrips feels like a natural predicate for the development of the higher level spells. Fireballs have precious little day to day utility; the fire bolt cantrip by contrast can handle personal defense in a wide variety of situations.

The logical thing to me is that those with the smarts to be a wizard would first focus on using magic to close the performance gap with the people who have exceptional physical prowess (i.e. the people who were generally in charge until relatively recently in out history). Magic that allows them to protect themselves to the same degree as the muscle-bound oafs of the world seems way more believable than the sort of limited use spells many wizards end up saddled with in D&D (and almost no other fantasy setting).

So, yeah, "unlimited-use" (again in the same sense that swinging a sword is unlimited) cantrips make way sense to me than the other magic casting paradigms D&D has used. It's probably why I gravitate towards the mechanics of the 5e warlock far more than any of the other spellcasters... that's my plausible magic set-up; lots of minor spells/cantrips, the energy expended on bigger spells tiring you out quickly (i.e. you only get a couple of slots), but you need only a short rest to recharge those few slots too.

I never liked the way that D&D handles magic and I think that a lot of this comes from looking at magic from the point of view of D&D conceits. Interestingly enough, even old D&D failed to handle making magic more impressive than a sword swing, since you could always do more damage with a sword than with a level 1 spell, like Magic Missile. Even at higher levels, when you got more missiles a warrior could still do more damage (consistently, unlimited times a day) with a sword once they got multiple attacks. It's only once you get access to spells like Fireball that you can do real damage. But the levels at which you get access to real damage spells was inconsistent and the levels themselves arbitrary.

Sphere of Power came up in a thread the other day and it offers some interesting alternatives to the way standard D&D handles magic. You basically get access to different talents that can be purchased similar to feats, and grant you access to the basic magic functions covered by the talent, which are powered by your caster level without having to track spell levels. In the case of Destruction magic, you simply do 1d6 damage every odd caster level by default (1, 3, 5, etc.), but can increase this damage to 1d6 per caster level (no limit) by spending a spell point. You may also add different Blast Shapes that determine the area of effects or number of targets affected, which may also cost you spell points. Characters get a number of spell points equal to their caster level + casting ability modifier.

More details can be found in the thread, which also links to the Spheres of Power site:
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42338-Spheres-of-Power-A-third-party-magic-system-for-PF-1e-amp-D-amp-D-5e

Last time I played a caster in a game was 2e I think, and we had to track components, I learned a spell (lightning bolt I think) but couldn't use it for like 5 sessions until I could get the copper rod/tube needed for the spell. Worth noting that in 3e this would have been considered a spell focus rather than a component because, unless I remember incorrectly, the piece of copper is not consumed with the casting.

The math of the game is objective.  The feel is not only subjective, but also fragile, at least at times.  Which is why I specifically pointed out that you could make the ammo die mathematically not all the different compared to unlimited in practical terms, but some people would still prefer it.  Nor is it all that complicated of a change the way I proposed it.  If you don't care about the change in feel, then it is busy work and useless.  If you do care about the feel, then it is a way to get it that is not that heavy and thus now worth it.

Note also that some objections to "unlimited" are not about the number of times that it gets used but about the certainty that it will always be there.   No matter what I do now, it will be there later.  Whether that is bug or feature is very much back to the sensibility of the group at the table.  People really in to resource consumption, such as with by the book AD&D 1E, are probably not going to like the ammo die for other reasons.

But mainly, the ammo die is an example of why feel matters.  Determine the feel you want, you can come up with a mechanic that will produce it.

Quote from: Omega;1140291You can through recover bolts and arrows if stop and take the time. Thats in the rules. 1/2 end up broken or otherwise not re-useable I believe each time so it is dwindling. So go in with 20 arrows shot. then have 10 can recover. Then 5, then 2, then 1. 38 shots total recycling.

You have to reload your crossbow.

Rust monster ate your bolts.

Ogre ate your crossbow.

Thief stole your crossbow.

Thief stole your bolts.

You lost your crossbow.

You lost your bolts.

You are disarmed of your crossbow.

You failed your save against X and your bolts/crossbow takes damage and are unusable.

You roll a "1" and your crossbow is damaged.

Meanwhile, 5e Wizard: 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6...

:(

2nd edition had an optional rule in one of the Dragon Magazines that made Cantrips a NWP.  Loved it.  They were limited in number until you got on up in levels, all character classes could learn some if they took the NWP, and, remember, back then they were "useful", "non-damaging" (for the most part) minor magicks.  I loved them.  Loved them, I tell you.

I think a lot of the hand wringing about Wizards having "infinite" cantrips is nonsensical white rooming.  What kind of enemies is this wizard shooting at that dont do anything back to the party.  Is there a reason that DMs can not give their monsters a ranged attack?  Are they just sitting there doing nothing while the wizard plinks away?  And then after the party beats the monsters, does the wizard just sit there continuing to plink away at nothing just because theoretically they can just plink away at an empty room?

Quote from: Shasarak;1140704I think a lot of the hand wringing about Wizards having "infinite" cantrips is nonsensical white rooming.  What kind of enemies is this wizard shooting at that dont do anything back to the party.  Is there a reason that DMs can not give their monsters a ranged attack?  Are they just sitting there doing nothing while the wizard plinks away?  And then after the party beats the monsters, does the wizard just sit there continuing to plink away at nothing just because theoretically they can just plink away at an empty room?

Ya, but what about that old D&D magical feeling of just standing there frantically waving your dagger at enemies, hoping not to get killed, after you let off your single 1d4+1 magic missile that never measures up to a fighter swinging their sword all day long, even at higher levels (when you get more missiles 5/day tops, but fighters get more attacks unlimited times a day)?

How do we get that back? :p

Quote from: FASAfan;1140698You have to reload your crossbow.

Meanwhile, 5e Wizard: 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6, 1d6...

1: With the crossbow expert feat you can bypass the loading problem. (Or if the DM allows. Get an Artificer to enchant your crossbow so its self loading or has unlimited ammo.) Probably one or two other tricks forgot. Or even port over the repeating crossbow from OA.

x:all that stuff listed is not a given and may never happen.

2: Actually its more like a d10, d10, d10 ad nausium.

acid splash is indeed 1d6 or nothing on a dex save, r60
fire bolt on the other hand is 1d10, r120
chill touch is 1d8, r120
poison spray is 1d12 or nothing on a con save, r10
ray of frost is 1d8, r60
shocking grasp is 1d8, but range of touch.
Detect a few problems here? I sure did. And remember, it was worse during playtest. Theres a few old threads on cantrips here.

Keep in mind that all this is, or should be, balanced by fighters getting progressively better gear or just more attacks as well as being able to add stat bonuses and get bonuses from + gear as well which casters can only get under certain circumstances and builds.

But interestingly enough the progression is about even now between a fighter and a wizard. With unsurprisingly the fighter potentially coming out again well ahead of the wizard in damage output. Very YMMV as usual of course as a DM stingy with magic weapons but generous with scrolls and other means to bolster casters can tip the scales the other way.

Quote from: Omega;1136650For those of you that did change over from an older edition of D&D to 3e. How smoothly or not did it go for you?

The only reason to go beyond 2.0 for any RPG system is if you like playing video games by hand.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1140725The only reason to go beyond 2.0 for any RPG system is if you like playing video games by hand.

um... not really... at all.

Except for 4e.

3e is pretty much still D&D. Just with the 2e proficiency and powers elements reworked into feats, and alot more number crunching. Nothing video-gamy about it. If that were the case then Gurps is the most video-gamy RPG ever!
5e is a return to D&D. Its got its issues. But some of these are carryovers from prior designers either unintentionally, or deliberately carrying over mistakes from earlier editions. And the rest is extensions of things players complain about. Just done in ways that seem ass backwards. But thats WOTC in a nutshell. Also nothing video-gamy about it.

And even 4e could work as a not-video-game as 4e D&D Gamma World showed. (though there they tried to glue on a CCG and failed miserably.)