D&D 2E/3.5E numbers question

[T]

New here. I know I'm about 10 years late on this mostly pointless topic. I played a lot of AD&D 2E, starting in 1989 when it came out to about 1995 or 1996. Haven't really touched RPGs from then till about 6 months ago, when I joined in on a 3.5E campaign.

I know 2E is a gigantic pile of Frankenstein shit when it comes to a rules framework, I know ThAC0 is objectively worse than BAB, etc. I know that I house ruled the shit out of 2E as a DM at the tender age of 12 without even realizing, and that's the only way it was really playable. That's not what this is about.

I'm getting the feeling though that 3.5E's math is more 'fragile'. I don't know if that's what you guys call it, but there are just way too many bonuses to be had to keep everyone on the same d20 roll compared to 2E. Maybe we played low powered games back then, but typically someone had 18/xx strength and a +2 sword, for 3-5 points of to-hit bonuses. Maybe someone had an AC of -2 or -4 at 8th level. In 3.5, it's so easy to make a 1st or 2nd level character with stats that meet or dwarf that.

Example - I made a second level character, and without too much in the way of fiddling, he had an AC of 24. At 4th level, it was 27, and it's only going up. The worst bit about it is that the character doesn't wear armor - just some Wis and Dex bonuses to AC, plus Inertial Armor. Meanwhile, other characters in the party, who are higher in level, have ACs of 15-18. If the DM throws monsters that can hit me, it's an almost guaranteed hit to the rest of the party. If he keeps it reasonable for them, I'm un-hittable. So we are playing different games.

This kind of shit seems to be all over the place. For any given skill, a character who is competent with some good attribute bonuses, some synergy bonuses, and max ranks, is easily 10-15 over someone else. Another example: Our DM makes constant use of Spot when we have random encounters and sets the DC annoyingly high (20-25), so there's basically one dude who has a +15-20 in Spot, and the rest of us have jack shit in it, because there's no point in competing. Unless you sink all of your skill points into a skill, it seems pointless after level 2 or 3 to try to keep up.

I don't remember this kind of stuff in 2E. I'm not saying 2E is better - it's a mess. It's just that it seems in 3.5E, difficulties seem to scale reasonably quick relative to level, and if you don't keep pace, you can't compete. It seems to me that the slope in 2E wasn't anywhere near as large. Am I missing something here? If not, WTF? Maybe it's just personal preference, but 3.5E seems so much more like an arms race just to be useful. It strikes me as a shame, since the system is so much cleaner and coherent than 2E.

Maybe I should just look for a non-D&D system. Too bad the local group plays D&D, and my old gang wants to get back together for D&D as well.

[fectin]

The terminology you're looking for is "off the Random Number Generator (RNG)". I.e. if your attack and someone else's differ by more than 20, there is no point where your possible results overlap his.

It sounds a little like you're using psionics in 3.5 and comparing it to fighters in 2E. That's highlighting martial-caster imbalance, which is a real issue, but not unique to 3E.

[fectin]

The terminology you're looking for is "off the Random Number Generator (RNG)". I.e. if your attack and someone else's differ by more than 20, there is no point where your possible results overlap his.

It sounds a little like you're using psionics in 3.5 and comparing it to fighters in 2E. That's highlighting martial-caster imbalance, which is a real issue, but not unique to 3E.

[T]

The terminology you're looking for is "off the Random Number Generator (RNG)". I.e. if your attack and someone else's differ by more than 20, there is no point where your possible results overlap his.

Makes sense. Thanks.

It sounds a little like you're using psionics in 3.5 and comparing it to fighters in 2E. That's highlighting martial-caster imbalance, which is a real issue, but not unique to 3E.

Yes. But it seems crazy in 3.5E that a Monk 1/Psychic Warrior 1 (or 3) has that much advantage over a Fighter 6 or Rogue 6, etc., in the same game. I get that there's an imbalance between casters and non-casters once the casters get flight, polymorph, etc. But at level 2? I don't recall that level of imbalance in 2E. Or the ease of getting off the RNG.

I will say this: It's interesting to compare RPGs from a teenager's perspective (me 15 years ago) to an adult with a background in science (me now).

[CapnTthePirateG]

Oh, yes. At its core the fighter-wizard divide pretty much fractured the RPG community with the release of 4e. We can go into this more if you want.

[Dean]

Oh, yes. At its core the fighter-wizard divide pretty much fractured the RPG community with the release of 4e. We can go into this more if you want.

I would like you to go into it. Why do you say that fracture occurred at the release of 4e? I felt it was fracturing the community for a long time before that. What do you think occurred when 4e came onto the scene that caused such a rupture?

[shadzar]

3.x and 4th relies heavily on the number presented down to the broken WBL.

they didnt exist in 2e because it didnt have uniform level progression across the classes.

3.x starts with everything must have a rule so people can rules lawyer it, and to end DM v player bitching.

3.x is the accounting edition, 4th is the status effect miniature tactical wargame edition.

5E is coming out with an open playtest on May 24th.

you may was to go back after this 10 year hiatus and look at 2e again to see how it looks to you, now that you know more to see if things change from how you thought they were.

[Lokathor]

Oh, yes. At its core the fighter-wizard divide pretty much fractured the RPG community with the release of 4e. We can go into this more if you want.

I would like you to go into it. Why do you say that fracture occurred at the release of 4e? I felt it was fracturing the community for a long time before that. What do you think occurred when 4e came onto the scene that caused such a rupture?

I would say: It became more completely obvious and encoded into the system. It was shoved right in your face even if you wanted to ignore it. Some folks liked that everyone was on the same power schedule because at least now things were even(ish). The rest were upset/insulted that the fantastical had been taken out of fantasy, because now everyone was on the same very shitty power schedule.

[CapnTthePirateG]

Lokathor got it

Sure thing. If you asked me, at its core 4e was supposed to be the solution to the problem. The entire nerf everyone to boring shit was supposed to fix the fighter-wizard problem, but it divided the community into fighter fans (4e) and people who wanted their fantasy characters to do interesting things (3.5). All the defenses I have seen of 4e are that it balanced the wizard and fighter, and even then wizard gets more conceptually than fighter ever could. Who walks on water? Wizard. Who can assume the visage of their enemies? Wizard. Who flies? Wizard.

Fighter, meanwhile, gets "hit them harder" for powers.

[hogarth]

I'm getting the feeling though that 3.5E's math is more 'fragile'. I don't know if that's what you guys call it, but there are just way too many bonuses to be had to keep everyone on the same d20 roll compared to 2E. Maybe we played low powered games back then, but typically someone had 18/xx strength and a +2 sword, for 3-5 points of to-hit bonuses. Maybe someone had an AC of -2 or -4 at 8th level. In 3.5, it's so easy to make a 1st or 2nd level character with stats that meet or dwarf that.

In days of yore, fighters got a lot fewer toys to play with, as you note. Wizards and clerics has pretty much the same amount of game-breaking stuff, though.

[ishy]

Example - I made a second level character, and without too much in the way of fiddling, he had an AC of 24. (...)
The worst bit about it is that the character doesn't wear armor - just some Wis and Dex bonuses to AC, plus Inertial Armor.

For some reason I hear complaints like this often, and then whenever I ask if they play a char like this they always say no, since it always costs too much.

I mean to get AC24, you're probably a small race? And 18 wis (monk), 20 dex (18 +2 race bonus).

That would mean 10 + 1 (small) + 4 (inertial armour) + 5 dex +4 wisdom.

That would mean though, that you got the highest point buy possible and spend it all on dex and wisdom leaving your other stats at 8. Which is pretty terrible, seeing as both classes you selected rely on other stats at the lower levels as well.

Not to forget you only have 2 powerpoints at lvl 2 (0 from class and 2 from wisdom), meaning you can only put up inertial armour for 1 hour twice as a standard action.

So good chance you'll be at lower AC in some fights.

And your offense is going to blow.

[fectin]

Well, even so. Just because his example isn't the best example doesn't mean it's not a real issue. Take an armored cleric instead:

Gnome, because why not: +1 size
Full Plate, because cleric: +8 armor
12 dexterity, because full plate: +1 dex
Tower shield, because cleric: +4 Shield

oh look, it's 24 AC.

Strength needs to be around 14 to handle that, but that's not a bad thing. Cost is 1530GP, so it's not available at level 2, but at level 3 you can also afford a bunch of other stuff, so you ain't hurting. Below that, you're still a cleric.

This wasn't even an out-there build. This was literally just "pick the high AC items".

[ishy]

Except now you are a lvl higher, you've spent more than half your wealth on it, you have a -2 on all attacks, reduced movement speed, armour check penalties and you're limited to 1 handed weapons.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Eh, at level 3 there's a lot of opposition that just doesn't give a care. A Shadow will go right through you. An Ogre will grab you to death. A Rust Monster will make you wish your armor was more economical.

And it's -12 to hit. Clerics aren't proficient with Tower Shields.

[Archmage]

Eh, at level 3 there's a lot of opposition that just doesn't give a care. A Shadow will go right through you. An Ogre will grab you to death. A Rust Monster will make you wish your armor was more economical.

And it's -12 to hit. Clerics aren't proficient with Tower Shields.

Not to mention that a cleric wielding a tower shield and a weapon can't cast any spells with somatic components unless he drops one or the other or burns a feat on Somatic Weaponry. You can probably get away with dropping your weapon to cast spells in an emergency, but if you need to pick it back up again you're wasting move actions and provoking opportunity attacks. If you're always able to buff pre-fight and make the fighters feel bad by outdoing them at their own job, sure, but having full hands can occasionally be a little inconvenient.

[erik]

The biggest concern is definitely the -12 to hit. Tanks in D&D tend to just get ignored since they have little reason to make themselves a priority target. AC is hard to maintain at an effective level while being offensively notable. A 2nd level monk-psi-multiclass with an AC of 24 is not a threat ever.

Hopefully for such a spec'd cleric you are not actually trying to hit things when tanking. Probably just drawing AOOs or using spells or a CLW wand while having a spiked gauntlet so you can provide flanking. And if it is time to hit things and tanking is not called for then just drop the tower shield and you are at full attack bonuses.

vs. Shadow = Turn Undead. Also cast Magic Weapon so someone can kill that thing.

vs. Ogre = have party kill him while he is vulnerable in a grapple. Tanking actually accomplished something!

vs. Rust Monster = Tower Shield is wooden use that for full cover... and if your archer/arcane caster/druid can't seal the deal then beat the MC down in the parking lot later.

I played a campaign where there were harsh fumble penalties and my party was so awful, that we relied up an AC tank familiar for much of our combat prowess. I had an owl familiar at level 3 that I'd slap an extended Mage Armor (AC 23) on for dungeon crawls and just have him fly around drawing AOOs and causing fumble-deaths. It was Sunless Citadel so he actually was somewhat lethal to a bunch of unclassed goblins and kobolds thanks to his +6 ATK for 1 Dmg. Good times. Under normal situations, the proper response to a high AC non-threat is to simply ignore it and focus on the real characters.

[angelfromanotherpin]

vs. Shadow = Turn Undead.

An action with ~75% chance of doing nothing? Sounds like a winner! (note: the other ~25% of the time, all you accomplish is putting off the encounter for 2 minutes; turn undead is a terrible option.)

vs. Ogre = have party kill him while he is vulnerable in a grapple. Tanking actually accomplished something!

Yeah, losing that nonexistent Dex bonus and single AoO really makes him vulnerable. But don't worry, because your plan is to let other people pull your weight.

vs. Rust Monster = Tower Shield is wooden use that for full cover... and if your archer/arcane caster/druid can't seal the deal then beat the MC down in the parking lot later.

Again, you contribute what to this team effort? Oh, nothing? They'd be better off replacing you with empty air which also does nothing but at least doesn't take a share of the xp? And with the RL violence solution you enter the Games Workshop league of wonderful ideas.

I don't believe I can clap slow enough.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

"Running Interference versus the enemy" is and should be a valid combat tactic, because you're forcing an enemy to waste it's resources on targets It's ineffective against in general, or targets that can take hits more readily than softer targets. The problem is that there are no rules for how enemies establish target priority(Called 'threat' or 'aggro' in MMO circles) in D&D or any other tabletop game I know of other than common sense. Which means that a character with high AC but low damage output (Such as tank-built fighter types or mobility-built rogue builds) could easily be ignored in favor of the party Cleric or Wizard because tactically speaking those are the real priority targets. This means that unless you have a DM who is either generous or statically inept, there's nothing saying that a tank can do their job at all

[hogarth]

Well, even so. Just because his example isn't the best example doesn't mean it's not a real issue. Take an armored cleric instead:

Gnome, because why not: +1 size
Full Plate, because cleric: +8 armor
12 dexterity, because full plate: +1 dex
Tower shield, because cleric: +4 Shield

oh look, it's 24 AC.

Compare that to a 1E character.

Elf with 19 Dex, full plate armor and shield = -5 AC

That translates to 25 AC in 3E, except not really because 1E monsters don't get bonuses to attack rolls for Strength, for instance.

"We didn't make RNG-breaking characters in AD&D" is not the same as "It's hard to make RNG-breaking characters in AD&D".

[shadzar]

"Running Interference versus the enemy" is and should be a valid combat tactic, because you're forcing an enemy to waste it's resources on targets It's ineffective against in general, or targets that can take hits more readily than softer targets. The problem is that there are no rules for how enemies establish target priority(Called 'threat' or 'aggro' in MMO circles) in D&D or any other tabletop game I know of other than common sense. Which means that a character with high AC but low damage output (Such as tank-built fighter types or mobility-built rogue builds) could easily be ignored in favor of the party Cleric or Wizard because tactically speaking those are the real priority targets. This means that unless you have a DM who is either generous or statically inept, there's nothing saying that a tank can do their job at all

you wont kite in D&D because the DM isnt a retard AI. aggro is something created from MMOs because the nature of the inefficient AI. rather than fix the AI, it was used to the advantage of the company to make money

there wont be a halfling with DOTs on a cyclops running around in circles with the cyclops in tow while everyone else just whacks it as it passes by.

compared to TTRPGs, MMO mobs have equivalent to -20 INT. they only follow the script written for their AI. again why such terms as "tanks" and shit shouldnt exist in D&D and TTRPGs because they dont work. a DM can change tactics at any time, where an MMO AI cannot. the AI must follow its script down to the literals.

[T]

The monk/psychic warrior example was just that. Replace ninja or swift hunter druid for the monk if you will. The character actually IS a swift hunter druid variant. For a 2nd level character in a ~4-8th level party, he was actually quite useful. High Dex gave him a good hit bonus with ranged weapons (which was not going to be the focus of the character), and a couple castings of entangle really did a number on enemies. I used a couple of hundred gold on a handful of giant bane arrows since we were prepping for a big giant encounter, so the damage was quite high when he hit, which was most of the time. More useful than many 2nd level fighters would have been setup for power attacking with a great sword. More useful than the actual 2nd level druid who also cast entangle but then just sat there. Dex and Wis will go up as he gains levels, giving him more AC, initiative, and to hit bonuses (weapon finesse), and power points, and since he's a Psychic Warrior mostly, he can self buff strength, AC, and weapons. I think around 6th level he'll be doing pretty well with Expansion, Claws of the Beast, high AC, Dimension Hop, Vigor, etc. Maybe not as much damage as the Power Attack barbarian, but more survivable and a lot more fun for me.

The thinking behind the character wasn't particularly involved.
- Inertial armor looks cool, lasts a long time, and scales with level. It's also useful against incorporeal enemies. At 4th level, I'll really only have to cast it twice a day.
- If I depend on Inertial Armor, it doesn't stack with regular armor, so I won't be using regular armor.
- I've got high wisdom already, so why not pick a class that gives Wis to AC. Some extra skills and abilities at 1st level wouldn't hurt either.
- The Dex came with the character idea as a mobile character. High movement rates have come into play several times and I've watched the slower armor wearing characters suffer for it. As a PsyWar, pick up Speed of Though for a nice speed boost.
- Crap, my AC is really high!

I didn't set out to optimize AC. RE: rolls/point buy, we roll 4d6 drop lowest and I rolled rather well. Much better than the first monk I had made.

Though again, that wasn't really my point, which is why I brought up the skills example as well. There just seems to be a lot of bonuses in 3.5E that really push the RNG into a different range. I'm probably wrong though - as hogarth pointed out, it could be done in 2E as well; it probably just wasn't as common or easy. And since 2E didn't really have skills, well, it's hard to go off the RNG when the system doesn't exist.

Since our party is many different levels (sandbox campaign with about 20 total players), disparities between 2nd-3rd and 6th-7th level characters is really noticeable. For the most part, the 2nd levels are completely useless in the skill game - ex. the 7th level spot specialist has pumped his score way up with skill ranks. In the combat game, they are one-hit wonders, so they plink away with their bows from long distance after they use their one spell. And since none of them were designed for ranged attacks, no one has decent Dex and thus, non BAB to speak of at 2nd level.

[Kaelik]

Since our party is many different levels (sandbox campaign with about 20 total players), disparities between 2nd-3rd and 6th-7th level characters is really noticeable. For the most part, the 2nd levels are completely useless in the skill game - ex. the 7th level spot specialist has pumped his score way up with skill ranks. In the combat game, they are one-hit wonders, so they plink away with their bows from long distance after they use their one spell. And since none of them were designed for ranged attacks, no one has decent Dex and thus, non BAB to speak of at 2nd level.

I believe I have detected your problem:

You are retarded.

Of course characters of vastly different level are off the RNG of other characters, they are fucking supposed to be.

[T]

Yes, I am retarded. Glad that's off my chest.

Even if you had characters of similar levels, it's quite easy for one character to be so much better at ___, that the another character can't compete because there's a 10+ point swing.

A first level elf druid/cleric/psychic warrior (Wis class) with 18 Wis and Alertness (a dumb feat) can have a +12 in spot. Compared that to a first level Wizard or Fighter, or anything that doesn't have a high Wis or a lot of skill points. Even from character creation, those other characters are so far behind that it's pretty much pointless to put points into that skill. Even if they did and maxed out, they'd be 7 points behind. Fast forward to 5th level or so when that elf character has a +2 Wis item and one of those dumb +5 skill rank items, and he's now at +22. The fighter with 10 Int and 10 Wis has been dutifully sinking in one point per level in Spot, and he's at +8. If the GM puts in DCs for the +22 guy, the fighter has no chance. If the the DCs are set so the fighter can use his skill, the +22 guy always succeeds anyway.

The +22 guy is probably regretting wasting a feat on Alertness, so let's remove that and put him down to +20. The fighter That means his RNG range is 21-40, which is clearly completely out of the 1-20 range that the 1st level game is played at, and also, for the most part, pretty far removed from the range an equal level character (+8 guy) is effective in if he's not totally committed to Spot. In reality, I'm sure +8 guy wouldn't have put all 8 ranks into spot since he's probably got some other skills as well. So quite easily, you have a 15 point swing, and compared to the 5th level character who doesn't have any spot ranks at all, it's even larger.

I feel like you can play that same game with most parts of 3.5E. Look at damage. On one hand, you've got the power attacking great sword wielding warrior. On the other hand, you've got everyone else: their damage doesn't scale the same way normally if you aren't constantly tweaking your character for it.

Obviously, at a couple levels after about what I'm talking about, the wheels on the bus fall off completely as the druid and wizard start playing a game that no one else can keep up with even if they tried.

[Kaelik]

Even if you had characters of similar levels, it's quite easy for one character to be so much better at ___, that the another character can't compete because there's a 10+ point swing.

Yes it is. So? Why does my Wizard need to be as good as the Rogue at Open locks? Why does my Rogue need to as good as the Fighter at jump? Why does my anything need to be as good as the anything at knowledge (anything)?

I'm really confused what the problem is here. Some characters are good at some things, other characters are good at completely different things. Complaining about it makes about as much sense as the Wizard complaining about not being able to fight with a greatsword as well as the Fighter who in turn complains about not being able to cast sleep.

If you want to be good at something, you should be a character who is actually good at that thing, not complain about how by not investing in a resource, you are not as good as the people who did.

A first level elf druid/cleric/psychic warrior (Wis class) with 18 Wis and Alertness (a dumb feat) can have a +12 in spot. Compared that to a first level Wizard or Fighter, or anything that doesn't have a high Wis or a lot of skill points. Even from character creation, those other characters are so far behind that it's pretty much pointless to put points into that skill. Even if they did and maxed out, they'd be 7 points behind. Fast forward to 5th level or so when that elf character has a +2 Wis item and one of those dumb +5 skill rank items, and he's now at +22. The fighter with 10 Int and 10 Wis has been dutifully sinking in one point per level in Spot, and he's at +8. If the GM puts in DCs for the +22 guy, the fighter has no chance. If the the DCs are set so the fighter can use his skill, the +22 guy always succeeds anyway.

Yep. So that's why you don't put ranks in spot when you have other people around who can spot very well, and you will still suck at even if you do invest half of what they did. What is the problem with that? Why does it matter if the keen eyed Druid with spot as a class skill is always seeing everything coming way before the Fighter who has spot as a cross class skill?

The fighter That means his RNG range is 21-40, which is clearly completely out of the 1-20 range that the 1st level game is played at,

Yes, it is. BECAUSE IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE! Level 5 characters who are really good at X are not supposed to be competing with level one characters who are good at X. That's why they are level 5 characters. That's why their character sheets have a 5 next to them instead of a 1, that's why they are supposed to fight CR 5 enemies with higher Hide modifiers instead of CR 1 enemies with lower hide modifiers.

and also, for the most part, pretty far removed from the range an equal level character (+8 guy) is effective in if he's not totally committed to Spot. In reality, I'm sure +8 guy wouldn't have put all 8 ranks into spot since he's probably got some other skills as well. So quite easily, you have a 15 point swing, and compared to the 5th level character who doesn't have any spot ranks at all, it's even larger.

Yes, People who are good at X are better than people who are bad at X. I bet I could play 20 games of Chess in a row, and a chess grandmaster would beat me all 20 times. Because he is good at it, and I am mediocre.

I feel like you can play that same game with most parts of 3.5E. Look at damage. On one hand, you've got the power attacking great sword wielding warrior. On the other hand, you've got everyone else: their damage doesn't scale the same way normally if you aren't constantly tweaking your character for it.

Sure, because the fighter with a greatsword is supposed to be doing more damage. Unless of course they are a Rogue getting SA and multiple attacks, or a Druid Wildshaping and buffing, or a Cleric Archer, or a Wizard casting spells.

But yes, Fighters do the thing they are good at better than other people. Likewise, Wizards cast Wizard spells better than anyone, and Druid turn into Bears better than anyone. What is the point of this? Yes, people are good at the things they are good at, much better than people who are bad at those things.

How is this any different from making two Shadowrun characters one of whom has Dex 1 and no skill for shooting, and one of whom has Attribute 4 and 5 skill, and then giving them both a bunch of karma, and the first guy putting it all into Technomancy or whatever he is good at, and the other guy getting even better at shooting?

As people get better, they invest their resources in the thing they are actually good at, and get better at it, and not in the things they suck at.

[T]

Yes, it is. BECAUSE IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE! Level 5 characters who are really good at X are not supposed to be competing with level one characters who are good at X. That's why they are level 5 characters. That's why their character sheets have a 5 next to them instead of a 1, that's why they are supposed to fight CR 5 enemies with higher Hide modifiers instead of CR 1 enemies with lower hide modifiers.

I think that's ultimately what my point originally was. The power curve in 3.5e seems steeper to me than it was in 2e. Since it's steeper, it's also a lot easier to get off of it if you don't stay on track.

I could be remembering incorrectly, but a couple 2nd level fighter henchmen in full plate along with the big boss could still prose a problem to a couple of 5th level characters in 2e. Less so in 3.5e it seems to me.

As to the spot argument - yes you are right. There's no point in anyone not specializing in spot getting spot. Until the keen eyed druid doesn't make the session, or is incapacitated, or is not with you and all that stuff that you didn't see starts whooping your ass. Hell, why even have a skill system at all if only the druid is ever going to have spot, only the fighter is ever going to have jump, etc. Just make them class abilities since that's kind of what they are.