Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 02:53:29 PM
Where is that? I can't for the life of me find it in the old 1e scans.

Page 67 'Further Actions'. At any rate that's my best interpretation of the text.

Quote from: KingCheops on April 29, 2021, 03:04:51 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 01:42:52 PM

Quote from: Slambo on April 29, 2021, 12:11:11 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 12:06:50 PM
discussion I had with a friend about how 3E nerfed combat classes.

This is something im interested in, i for the most part skipped 3e, i did play a little pathfinder but it sounds kinda bonkers how powerful casters got.

If you look at the warrior classes* from 1E/2E -- fighter, ranger, paladin -- they all get multiple melee attacks as they advance in levels. More to the point, taking those multiple attacks didn't require them to stand still.  The extra attacks might come at the end of the round (1E and 2E seem to differ on this) but you could move up to half your movement rate and still attack (2E). Fighters could specialize and bump their multiple attacks up as well.

(* 1E monks got multiple open-hand strikes as well when they advanced high enough.)

So a 7th level fighter specializing in longsword would get 2 swings a round (fighter 7 gets 3 swings every 2 rounds, bumped up to 2/1 by specialization). And he could advance up to half his full movement rate doing so.

What 3E did was completely gimp this by requiring almost all multi-attack rolls to be part of a full attack. This only hammers the martial combat classes; rogues can still sneak attack even if they take one swing, and most spellcasters can't cast more than one spell a round anyways without using Quicken Spell.

Ironically, 5E fixes this by giving the Extra Attack ability at a certain level to fighters, monks, etc, letting them take an extra swing as part of an attack action.

Even more so in 2e and 5e those extra attacks aren't penalized whereas in 3e they are.

In 2e warriors only got 2 attacks per round (5/2 rounds if specialized) for most weapons (6/round for darts, though). While in 3e they got up to 4 with ANY weapon. But yeah, the cumulative penalties per extra attack screwed them over and complicated things when figuring out what bonus to get for each attack, specially since the penalties varied per attack.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 03:56:43 PM

Quote from: KingCheops on April 29, 2021, 03:04:51 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 01:42:52 PM

Quote from: Slambo on April 29, 2021, 12:11:11 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 12:06:50 PM
discussion I had with a friend about how 3E nerfed combat classes.

This is something im interested in, i for the most part skipped 3e, i did play a little pathfinder but it sounds kinda bonkers how powerful casters got.

If you look at the warrior classes* from 1E/2E -- fighter, ranger, paladin -- they all get multiple melee attacks as they advance in levels. More to the point, taking those multiple attacks didn't require them to stand still.  The extra attacks might come at the end of the round (1E and 2E seem to differ on this) but you could move up to half your movement rate and still attack (2E). Fighters could specialize and bump their multiple attacks up as well.

(* 1E monks got multiple open-hand strikes as well when they advanced high enough.)

So a 7th level fighter specializing in longsword would get 2 swings a round (fighter 7 gets 3 swings every 2 rounds, bumped up to 2/1 by specialization). And he could advance up to half his full movement rate doing so.

What 3E did was completely gimp this by requiring almost all multi-attack rolls to be part of a full attack. This only hammers the martial combat classes; rogues can still sneak attack even if they take one swing, and most spellcasters can't cast more than one spell a round anyways without using Quicken Spell.

Ironically, 5E fixes this by giving the Extra Attack ability at a certain level to fighters, monks, etc, letting them take an extra swing as part of an attack action.

Even more so in 2e and 5e those extra attacks aren't penalized whereas in 3e they are.

In 2e warriors only got 2 attacks per round (5/2 rounds if specialized) for most weapons (6/round for darts, though). While in 3e they got up to 4 with ANY weapon. But yeah, the cumulative penalties per extra attack screwed them over and complicated things when figuring out what bonus to get for each attack, specially since the penalties varied per attack.

Breaking this down, 3E introduced the base attack bonus mechanic to replace THAC0, which... wasn't a terrible idea. But what happened was that (a) you couldn't take multiple attacks with a move action, which was a pain for fighters and crippled the poor monk, and (b) as noted, your attacks were made with a progressive -5 penalty.

So let's take Joe the Fighter, level 13. I grant levels aren't really on a 1-to-1 basis between 2E and 3E. 2E Joe specialized in the two handed sword. He swings 5/2, at normal THAC0, and can move up to half his speed to engage baddies. He's probably one hell of a wrecking ball of a PC.

But 3E Joe... well, he swings +13/+8/+3, plus any bonuses. Sure, he gets three swings a round to 2E Joe's 5/2, but his second and especially his third swings are at a disadvantage. This crap also haunted monks and any poor schmuck using two-weapon fighting rules. Worse, 3E Joe can't take any extra swings if he moves more than 5'.

Quote from: S'mon on April 29, 2021, 02:17:58 AM
I think the answer is that pre-3e D&D was concerned with outcome, not process. So it used whatever looked to work best to get the desired outcome. Group morale checks using a bell curve roll (2d6 or 2d10) in BX-BECMI and 2e AD&D is a good example. Evasion checks on d%. Encounter tables using whatever dice look handy; maybe d8+d12 (MM2) for a flat-topped bell curve.

Pre-3e DnD was just a mish mash of systems thrown together with no pretense of rhyme or reason.  Gary Gygax himself said that he rolls dice because he likes to hear the sound that they make.

Concerned with outcome indeed.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 29, 2021, 06:16:35 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 29, 2021, 01:07:46 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2021, 09:38:52 PM
I'm really looking for an argument why unified mechanics are better. Because a lot of people seem to think it's obvious they're better, but I almost never see anyone express why.

Unified mechanics are better because they make it easier to learn the game and make playing the game faster as well.

That argument sound compelling in a theoretical sense, but I've learned a lot of games and I really don't recall the ones with unified mechanics being any easier to learn.  Actually, in unified mechanics games, all the different types of checks are so similar that they kind of blur together and are harder to keep straight.  Different mechanics makes the details easier to remember for me.

And I have played games with different mechanics where you constantly have to tell the players which dice they have to roll which is super not fun.

Actually that could be the reason why you remember those games - I always remember the game where you can roll triangle.

Quote from: Shasarak on April 29, 2021, 04:56:42 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 29, 2021, 06:16:35 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 29, 2021, 01:07:46 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2021, 09:38:52 PM
I'm really looking for an argument why unified mechanics are better. Because a lot of people seem to think it's obvious they're better, but I almost never see anyone express why.

Unified mechanics are better because they make it easier to learn the game and make playing the game faster as well.

That argument sound compelling in a theoretical sense, but I've learned a lot of games and I really don't recall the ones with unified mechanics being any easier to learn.  Actually, in unified mechanics games, all the different types of checks are so similar that they kind of blur together and are harder to keep straight.  Different mechanics makes the details easier to remember for me.

And I have played games with different mechanics where you constantly have to tell the players which dice they have to roll which is super not fun.

Actually that could be the reason why you remember those games - I always remember the game where you can roll triangle.

When learning 1E AD&D, without a copy of the PHB ( Out of print and not available locally.  Pre Amazon, 2E AD&D era...); it took me a while to figure out what to roll, and when.  It was totally confusing.  I was constantly asking the DM, "which die, and do I need to roll high or low this time?"  D20 roll high is much simpler, for new players.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 04:07:59 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 03:56:43 PM

Quote from: KingCheops on April 29, 2021, 03:04:51 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 01:42:52 PM

Quote from: Slambo on April 29, 2021, 12:11:11 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 12:06:50 PM
discussion I had with a friend about how 3E nerfed combat classes.

This is something im interested in, i for the most part skipped 3e, i did play a little pathfinder but it sounds kinda bonkers how powerful casters got.

If you look at the warrior classes* from 1E/2E -- fighter, ranger, paladin -- they all get multiple melee attacks as they advance in levels. More to the point, taking those multiple attacks didn't require them to stand still.  The extra attacks might come at the end of the round (1E and 2E seem to differ on this) but you could move up to half your movement rate and still attack (2E). Fighters could specialize and bump their multiple attacks up as well.

(* 1E monks got multiple open-hand strikes as well when they advanced high enough.)

So a 7th level fighter specializing in longsword would get 2 swings a round (fighter 7 gets 3 swings every 2 rounds, bumped up to 2/1 by specialization). And he could advance up to half his full movement rate doing so.

What 3E did was completely gimp this by requiring almost all multi-attack rolls to be part of a full attack. This only hammers the martial combat classes; rogues can still sneak attack even if they take one swing, and most spellcasters can't cast more than one spell a round anyways without using Quicken Spell.

Ironically, 5E fixes this by giving the Extra Attack ability at a certain level to fighters, monks, etc, letting them take an extra swing as part of an attack action.

Even more so in 2e and 5e those extra attacks aren't penalized whereas in 3e they are.

In 2e warriors only got 2 attacks per round (5/2 rounds if specialized) for most weapons (6/round for darts, though). While in 3e they got up to 4 with ANY weapon. But yeah, the cumulative penalties per extra attack screwed them over and complicated things when figuring out what bonus to get for each attack, specially since the penalties varied per attack.

Breaking this down, 3E introduced the base attack bonus mechanic to replace THAC0, which... wasn't a terrible idea. But what happened was that (a) you couldn't take multiple attacks with a move action, which was a pain for fighters and crippled the poor monk, and (b) as noted, your attacks were made with a progressive -5 penalty.

So let's take Joe the Fighter, level 13. I grant levels aren't really on a 1-to-1 basis between 2E and 3E. 2E Joe specialized in the two handed sword. He swings 5/2, at normal THAC0, and can move up to half his speed to engage baddies. He's probably one hell of a wrecking ball of a PC.

But 3E Joe... well, he swings +13/+8/+3, plus any bonuses. Sure, he gets three swings a round to 2E Joe's 5/2, but his second and especially his third swings are at a disadvantage. This crap also haunted monks and any poor schmuck using two-weapon fighting rules. Worse, 3E Joe can't take any extra swings if he moves more than 5'.

Yeah, 3e added an extra layer of complexity to the combat rules that used to sound good to me on paper, but over time I've come to realize that it just needlessly complicated and restricted combat, and reduced the badassery of warriors.

Granted, I personally have some reservations about the idea of multiple actions per round as permanent abilities in RPGs, since it can lead to a lot of balancing issues depending on how they're handled and how much damage you can ditch per attack. But when that is the ONLY real "power" (so to speak) warriors get in D&D, while wizards can blow the shit out of everything then port away to safety, limiting so much how they work only screws warriors over on the long run. Specially adding the full-attack requirement for multiple attacks on top of a whooping -5 incremental penalty per extra attack.

Quote from: Shasarak on April 29, 2021, 04:56:42 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 29, 2021, 06:16:35 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 29, 2021, 01:07:46 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2021, 09:38:52 PM
I'm really looking for an argument why unified mechanics are better. Because a lot of people seem to think it's obvious they're better, but I almost never see anyone express why.

Unified mechanics are better because they make it easier to learn the game and make playing the game faster as well.

That argument sound compelling in a theoretical sense, but I've learned a lot of games and I really don't recall the ones with unified mechanics being any easier to learn.  Actually, in unified mechanics games, all the different types of checks are so similar that they kind of blur together and are harder to keep straight.  Different mechanics makes the details easier to remember for me.

And I have played games with different mechanics where you constantly have to tell the players which dice they have to roll which is super not fun.

Actually that could be the reason why you remember those games - I always remember the game where you can roll triangle.

That's one of the problems with that line of argument against unified mechanics. It's highly subjective and anecdotal, kinda hard for me to believe given my different perceptions and experiences, and even to the degree I might be able to accept it given how different people have different tastes and learning styles, it pretty much falls into the category of "That's just like...you're opinion. Man."

Quote from: Jam The MF on April 29, 2021, 05:57:51 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 29, 2021, 04:56:42 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 29, 2021, 06:16:35 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 29, 2021, 01:07:46 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2021, 09:38:52 PM
I'm really looking for an argument why unified mechanics are better. Because a lot of people seem to think it's obvious they're better, but I almost never see anyone express why.

Unified mechanics are better because they make it easier to learn the game and make playing the game faster as well.

That argument sound compelling in a theoretical sense, but I've learned a lot of games and I really don't recall the ones with unified mechanics being any easier to learn.  Actually, in unified mechanics games, all the different types of checks are so similar that they kind of blur together and are harder to keep straight.  Different mechanics makes the details easier to remember for me.

And I have played games with different mechanics where you constantly have to tell the players which dice they have to roll which is super not fun.

Actually that could be the reason why you remember those games - I always remember the game where you can roll triangle.

When learning 1E AD&D, without a copy of the PHB ( Out of print and not available locally.  Pre Amazon, 2E AD&D era...); it took me a while to figure out what to roll, and when.  It was totally confusing.  I was constantly asking the DM, "which die, and do I need to roll high or low this time?"  D20 roll high is much simpler, for new players.

That's true, settling on one, either roll over or roll under does simplify things. I like better roll over since it's more intuitive that a bigger number is better.

I still do think I failed or aced a roll when it's the opposite from time to time.

Quote from: S'mon on April 29, 2021, 02:43:06 PM
In 1e you can't move more than 10' and attack, unless you are Charging into melee.

That's correct (although technically it's 1", so 10 feet indoors and 10 yards outdoors). If you want to enter melee you have two options: "charge" or "close to striking range." (I usually call the latter "close to engage.") Charging is full-tilt aggressive entry into melee, and the combatant with the longer reach/weapon strikes first. Closing to engage is a more cautious approach, and (unless trumped by a charge from the other side), *neither* side gets to make a melee attack roll in the current round. However, that doesn't mean that melee hasn't started, it just means that the combatants are squaring off, circling, feinting and "feeling out" their opponent. That is, "close to engage" doesn't mean "I walk up and stand there like a dork," it means "I move into engagement range and begin fighting (without a chance for a significant blow this round, but also denying my enemy the chance for a significant blow this round)." After a close to engagement, both sides get their chance for significant blows (i.e., attack rolls) starting on the next round.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 06:15:01 PM
That's one of the problems with that line of argument against unified mechanics. It's highly subjective and anecdotal, kinda hard for me to believe given my different perceptions and experiences, and even to the degree I might be able to accept it given how different people have different tastes and learning styles, it pretty much falls into the category of "That's just like...you're opinion. Man."

Of course it's an opinion.  Your point of view is also just an opinion, and that's all it is.  Did you think we were arguing over some objective truth here?  I've got mine and you've got yours, each shaped by our own experiences.  All either of us can say is "I like this approach because of these reasons: ..."  And other folks can agree or not depending on whether the reasons we give are important things to them and they think they're relevant.  The discussion is useful for helping one clarify his own point of view, but nothing either side says is going to change an opinion already formed from personal experience, because personal experience >>> opinion of some guy on the internet.

Quote from: Shasarak on April 29, 2021, 04:56:42 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 29, 2021, 06:16:35 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 29, 2021, 01:07:46 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2021, 09:38:52 PM
I'm really looking for an argument why unified mechanics are better. Because a lot of people seem to think it's obvious they're better, but I almost never see anyone express why.

Unified mechanics are better because they make it easier to learn the game and make playing the game faster as well.

That argument sound compelling in a theoretical sense, but I've learned a lot of games and I really don't recall the ones with unified mechanics being any easier to learn.  Actually, in unified mechanics games, all the different types of checks are so similar that they kind of blur together and are harder to keep straight.  Different mechanics makes the details easier to remember for me.

And I have played games with different mechanics where you constantly have to tell the players which dice they have to roll which is super not fun.

Actually that could be the reason why you remember those games - I always remember the game where you can roll triangle.

Earthdawn is the poster boy for this lol.  The math was really quite elegant and was purpose built but man was it hard for new players to get their heads wrapped around the Steps and which dice to roll.  And that was a Unified Mechanic system 

Quote from: Mishihari on April 29, 2021, 08:36:19 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 06:15:01 PM
That's one of the problems with that line of argument against unified mechanics. It's highly subjective and anecdotal, kinda hard for me to believe given my different perceptions and experiences, and even to the degree I might be able to accept it given how different people have different tastes and learning styles, it pretty much falls into the category of "That's just like...you're opinion. Man."

Of course it's an opinion.  Your point of view is also just an opinion, and that's all it is.  Did you think we were arguing over some objective truth here?  I've got mine and you've got yours, each shaped by our own experiences.  All either of us can say is "I like this approach because of these reasons: ..."  And other folks can agree or not depending on whether the reasons we give are important things to them and they think they're relevant.  The discussion is useful for helping one clarify his own point of view, but nothing either side says is going to change an opinion already formed from personal experience, because personal experience >>> opinion of some guy on the internet.

The argument between Pat and me, at least, was more about the objective merits of unified mechanics, which falls closer to "objective truth" (or at least some approximation of it) than opinion. But preference is a different issue that's inherently subjective, so obviously that's a matter of opinion.

However, Pat also replied to your post earlier saying that's the argument he was trying to make...

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 07:05:37 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 29, 2021, 06:16:35 AM
That argument sound compelling in a theoretical sense, but I've learned a lot of games and I really don't recall the ones with unified mechanics being any easier to learn.  Actually, in unified mechanics games, all the different types of checks are so similar that they kind of blur together and are harder to keep straight.  Different mechanics makes the details easier to remember for me.

That's the argument I've been trying to make, but you did it very succinctly.

And your post made a claim I've seen come up before in these discussions about the idea that disunified mechanics are easier to remember, which is an objective claim, since you're saying that something IS a certain way (Different Mechanics = Easier to Remember). And memory isn't just an opinion but a mechanism for recalling information. But that claim goes against my personal experience, so it can't be right. Then it occurred to me that different people have different learning styles so it might be possible that some people use different mnemonics to remember unified vs disunified mechanics in RPGs. Which would explain differences in perception when judging either style of handling mechanics, at least as far as remembering them is concerned.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 30, 2021, 11:05:19 AM
And your post made a claim I've seen come up before in these discussions about the idea that disunified mechanics are easier to remember, which is an objective claim, since you're saying that something IS a certain way (Different Mechanics = Easier to Remember). And memory isn't just an opinion but a mechanism for recalling information. But that claim goes against my personal experience, so it can't be right. Then it occurred to me that different people have different learning styles so it might be possible that some people use different mnemonics to remember unified vs disunified mechanics in RPGs. Which would explain differences in perception when judging either style of handling mechanics, at least as far as remembering them is concerned.

I'd be interested in an actual psychology experiment done on this issue.  It doesn't seem like it wold be too hard to do.  My expectation is that memory of rules would be boosted by using a different physical mechanism for most but not all people, but I wouldn't be shocked if I were wrong either.

If we have any psych grad students on the boards:  here's a great idea for your thesis.  Do it, because I want to know.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 30, 2021, 04:50:23 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 30, 2021, 11:05:19 AM
And your post made a claim I've seen come up before in these discussions about the idea that disunified mechanics are easier to remember, which is an objective claim, since you're saying that something IS a certain way (Different Mechanics = Easier to Remember). And memory isn't just an opinion but a mechanism for recalling information. But that claim goes against my personal experience, so it can't be right. Then it occurred to me that different people have different learning styles so it might be possible that some people use different mnemonics to remember unified vs disunified mechanics in RPGs. Which would explain differences in perception when judging either style of handling mechanics, at least as far as remembering them is concerned.

I'd be interested in an actual psychology experiment done on this issue.  It doesn't seem like it wold be too hard to do.  My expectation is that memory of rules would be boosted by using a different physical mechanism for most but not all people, but I wouldn't be shocked if I were wrong either.

If we have any psych grad students on the boards:  here's a great idea for your thesis.  Do it, because I want to know.

You might ask someone who specializes in learning styles.  I could see people who learn more visually or else by doing having an easier time with mechanics using a variety of dice.

Quote from: KingCheops on April 30, 2021, 10:41:58 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 29, 2021, 04:56:42 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on April 29, 2021, 06:16:35 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on April 29, 2021, 01:07:46 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2021, 09:38:52 PM
I'm really looking for an argument why unified mechanics are better. Because a lot of people seem to think it's obvious they're better, but I almost never see anyone express why.

Unified mechanics are better because they make it easier to learn the game and make playing the game faster as well.

That argument sound compelling in a theoretical sense, but I've learned a lot of games and I really don't recall the ones with unified mechanics being any easier to learn.  Actually, in unified mechanics games, all the different types of checks are so similar that they kind of blur together and are harder to keep straight.  Different mechanics makes the details easier to remember for me.

And I have played games with different mechanics where you constantly have to tell the players which dice they have to roll which is super not fun.

Actually that could be the reason why you remember those games - I always remember the game where you can roll triangle.

Earthdawn is the poster boy for this lol.  The math was really quite elegant and was purpose built but man was it hard for new players to get their heads wrapped around the Steps and which dice to roll.  And that was a Unified Mechanic system 

If you thought Earthdawn is difficult now, imagine if it introduced another two different systems to learn.