D&D 2E/3.5E numbers question

[erik]

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.)

It could be a good deal better than 25% success depending upon how he is spec'd. If you have a sun domain cleric (common for healing types, which presumably such a tank would be so that he can provide some actual useful service), you may simply dust him on the spot. Failing that, you have many rounds to bust out your scrolls of Magic Weapon if you weren't ready for an incorporeal foe at level 3. Buying prep time against a potentially very nasty foe is not stupid at all.

Really if your foe is a shadow you aren't gonna bother with the tower shield. You will just drop it and start using cure wounds on it. Turning is likely less optimal unless that is your schtick, but it is better than nothing. Point is that having a cleric in that situation is fairly nice since he has options and obviously against an incorporeal stat draining touch attacker you aren't going to bother with the tanking tactic so you change to one of the cleric's other specialties. One way or another he is going to shine in that encounter.

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.

Really? You are sticking with grappling being an "oh noes!" moment?

The whole point of tanking is tying up a foe so that other people can deal the offense. Yes, the entire plan of tanking is letting other people pull the offense weight. No shit.

And an ogre in grapple loses his reach and that "lost" dexterity means sneak attacks don't require flank. So by soaking the grapple (which likely will deal less damage than being hit), you let your teammates safely walk right up and gang-bang a dangerous bruiser in 1 round maybe 2. The big danger isn't being grappled for several rounds of minimal damage while making him an incredibly easy target, it is him ignoring you and laying into your teammates for avg 16 damage (with crits likely to one-shot kill).

Having a tank draw an ogre into a grapple is about the best possible result short of knocking him out with a Sleep spell.

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.

Um, if it is actually wasting its time attacking him then he has served the exact purpose he was attempting to fill. Soak attacks. Since at least in this case it is a stupid beast, the noisy guy who gets up in its face and is taunting it with lots of tasty metal behind a wooden door is a pretty tempting target.

Complaining that tanking relies upon working with teammates is full-stop retarded since that is the entire point.

The real conundrum for each is: the enemy ignores the tank and makes him wonder what the hell he is good for (and in the first case he remembers he's a fucking cleric and dusting undead is his specialty).

[ishy]

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.

At least now you know why many people hate rolling for stats.

Because a someone who rolls 6 3s, can't compete with someone who rolls 6 18s.

[Koumei]

For what it's worth, the more splat books you allow, the easier it becomes to break the RNG. But I'm pretty sure that's not unique to "editions of 3 or higher" and was just as true before that. The more books that are released, the more likely you'll find stuff to combo together, or something will appear that's flat-out too good.

[Cynic]

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.

Yes, see there's that dynamic in 3X as well. the two henchmen count as mooks. and bbeg is usually a sufficiently significant challenge to the players.

So two full plated orcs with an Ogre barbarian is still a decent challenge for a 5th level party.

You never did specify what the bbeg in 2e was supposed to be.

[T]

So two full plated orcs with an Ogre barbarian is still a decent challenge for a 5th level party.

You never did specify what the bbeg in 2e was supposed to be.

Really? Two orcs? They'd never hit 5th level characters in the 3.5 game I'm in and would be dispatched with a single hit. Heck, they'd be taken care of by one of the spare fighters with Cleave in one attack.

But regardless, you are right, I never specified the bbeg in 2e. Something level appropriate. Whatever that might be, which is one of many problems in 2e.

However, I'm pretty satisfied with my views on the subject. Kaelik sums it up nicely in this post (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=153432#153432):

The problem is that with setting a TN, if the bonus makes up too large a portion of the RNG, you can't balance possible failure between someon really good, and someone kinda good.

The Spot checks of typical party consist of:

Druid: +40
Rogue: +25
Wizard: +15
Fighter: -1.

There is no monster that the Fighter could see that the Rogue could not see, ever. If the fighter even has a chance of seeing, then the Rogue and Druid don't have to roll at all.

Likewise, anything that the Druid even rolls on is going to be impossible for most of the party to see.

That's the "problem."

This can be design intent, or it can be a flaw, depending on your goals.

3.5 assumes that you are in different ranges of DCs at different levels. Those ranges change pretty rapidly over the levels of characters. When it works, it's a very nice thing. When you get off of the RNG, it doesn't work. That's good or bad, 'depending on your goals'. It's good that 8th level characters are playing a different game than 1st level characters. In my mind, Kaelik's example is actually bad. Not only because there is such disparity between the druid and the fighter, but because there is such a large disparity between any two of the characters.

Pretty much everyone wasted a lot of skill ranks on Spot besides the Druid, which means certain skill choices become not a question of how much, but yes/no. At which point, you might as well get rid of the skill system all together, and just call Spot and Listen druid/cleric class skills, Hide/Move in Shadows rogue class skills, etc. Actually, they aren't even really class skills, more like ability skills. So why not just have an out of conflict resolution system that is ability score based, or ability score + ECL?

I think 2e got off the RNG less. AC was more limited, bonuses were harder to come by, and well, there were no skills to speak of, so it's hard to get off of that RNG I know AD&D was heavily house ruled all the time, so what AD&D means to each of us is vastly different, but as a whole, I think the math was a bit 'flatter'.

Sure, certain bonuses stacked that don't stack in 3.5, but to use AC as an example, there was no 'collect them all' mentality. The fact that AC types *don't* stack in 3.5 enables you to build up quite a big AC bonus from the different types, pretty cheaply. +1 deflection, +1 armor, + 1 enhancement, +1 dodge, +1 enlightenment, +1 natural armor... Then you get to weapon damage - you just have a +2 sword? What's wrong with you? I have a +1 flaming wounding collision sword, or some other crazy combination. And then you get into all of the different kinds of DR and materials, which encourages players to have a sword of each type OR encourages the DM to house rule it out of existence. Just another way you can go from competing to not competing. And I'm playing in a mostly SRD game, so not too many splat books.

It's kind of a shame in my mind. 3.5 is so much more cohesive than 2e, but I think they made some dumb decisions. BAB is great. Unified XP charts are great, which enables open multiclassing, which is almost awesome, but has problems. Still, it's better than nothing - you can play it without multiclassing if you wish. Ability standardization is good, though I might have set the bonus threshold a bit higher; instead of 10-11, maybe 8-13, or 9-12. The CR system is nice, if it worked all the time, but it doesn't, so it's only semi useful and for me, is about equivalent to just reading a monster entry, looking at it's HD and XP and judging it from that. I would have made the system scale a bit slower, like the expected bonuses on the RNG. A 10th level fighter should be able to get his shit done without having all those magic items. If he has them, that's just gravy. I think that would solve most of the problems I have with 3.5. It would make differences between levels smaller, but I personally would be ok with that.

Oh well, I'm about 10 years too late with my complaints, and frankly, D&D is a poor enough system that it's kind of pointless whining over it's deficiencies. If I want a better system, doubtless there are ones out there. If I want to play old classic AD&D modules, then just go play them with AD&D, house rule the shit out of it, and get on with life.

[hogarth]

Really? Two orcs? They'd never hit 5th level characters in the 3.5 game I'm in and would be dispatched with a single hit. Heck, they'd be taken care of by one of the spare fighters with Cleave in one attack.

And two level 2 fighters in 2E would never hit a 5th level character wearing +1 full plate armor and a +1 shield and he could cut them to pieces with his +1 longsword and gauntlets of ogre power.

Seriously, it's hard to compare 3E characters to corresponding 2E characters because 3E characters have a recommended amount of equipment and 2E characters could have anything from a moldy bagel to the Mighty Servant of Leuk-O.

[T]

And two level 2 fighters in 2E would never hit a 5th level character wearing +1 full plate armor and a +1 shield and he could cut them to pieces with his +1 longsword and gauntlets of ogre power.

Seriously, it's hard to compare 3E characters to corresponding 2E characters because 3E characters have a recommended amount of equipment and 2E characters could have anything from a moldy bagel to the Mighty Servant of Leuk-O.

Word. That's why I just wrote, "I know AD&D was heavily house ruled all the time, so what AD&D means to each of us is vastly different." I could say the way I played, a 5th level character wouldn't have had gauntlets of ogre power, but I'm sure it happened in plenty of games. In 3.5, said fighter will more likely have them unless you house rule out the magic mart.

Still, a 5th level fighter with 16 STR in AD&D, ignoring the gauntlets, with the other equipment you speak of would have had a BAB of +5 (4 from level, 1 from sword). The two level fighters would have had +1 BABs, so 20% diff on the RNG. Add in AC (all characters wearing plate + shield), and the 5th level character gets another +2 from magic shit, so the total difference is 30% on the RNG. He might kill a single 2nd level fighter in a single hit with 1d8+2 damage, but they should on average (with no CON bonuses) have 11 HP, so it should take two hits per mook. It probably take him at least 2-4 rounds to kill both, particularly since he doesn't have that big of a chance of hitting someone with the low AC of plate + shield. I think 16 STR was +0/+1 - obviously exceptional STR was more, but even 18/00 was +3/+6, whereas 18 in 3.5 is +4, which with Power Attack is equivalent to +3/+5. And it's a lot easier to get an 18 in 3.5 than it is to get an 18/00 in 2e. So in my mind, STR is pretty much a wash, or more useless in 2e, because you don't get as many bonuses on the To Hit side of things for all the spots in the ability range.

Meanwhile in 3.5, a 5th level fighter would have some kind of STR increasing magic item above baseline, which is worth +1 points of damage and +1 to hit. He'd also have the extra point in STR at 4th level, so if he was lucky enough to have a 17 in STR, he'd now be at 18. He'd have power attack for sure, and possibly cleave. Assuming he's fighting with allies, if he can get a flanking bonus, that's another +2. For 16 STR, you get +3/+3, so his attack bonus total is 5 (BAB) + 1 (sword) + 3 (STR) = 8. Adjust for flanking, gauntlets of ogre power, 18 or higher strength, etc., throw in a power attack and you can easily get your damage high enough to kill a 2nd level mook (avg HP 15.5) in one hit. With the power of cleave, maybe even two mooks. And hell, what self respecting fighter would be using a shield - he'd be using a weapon two handed for that sweat 1.5x STR bonus and forget the measly 2 AC bonus from the +1 shield.

Power attack is cool. It's made for mooks. It didn't exist in 2e core. Sure, you might auto hit a mook if the power differences are large enough, but you as long as the mook has more than 1d8+STR HP (say 15 HP), he's going to last more than one round. In 3.5, if you are confident in your chances to hit, you can crank up damage enough that 15 HP isn't a big deal.

But hey, at times this is good. They're mooks, right? It's cool that the higher level warrior can wade through a bunch of them like gnats. At times it's bad though, when said enemy ISN'T a mook but just has low armor and your Power Attacking warrior is doing 1d12 + 29 damage against him.

[Kaelik]

Really? Two orcs? They'd never hit 5th level characters in the 3.5 game I'm in and would be dispatched with a single hit. Heck, they'd be taken care of by one of the spare fighters with Cleave in one attack.

Well let's see:

1) Same goes for 2e characters.
2) So? If they are wasting the combat actions of some members of your party then they are being a very important effect, and if you leave them alive, they actually will hit.
3) The synergies are different in 3e, by casting some spells on those orcs before combat, they become much more powerful at the expense of spells the BBEG never would have had the actions to cast anyway.
4) If your fighter took cleave, then even the fact that he took cleave instead of something useful makes the BBEG better than he would have been.
5) You really will take more than one turn of one characters actions. First, no reason they can't just spread out, and secondly, you still do have a chance to miss. So they do waste the party's time, and since the BBEG could end up killing a PC during that time, and any PC death is pretty much a huge loss, that makes them relatively useful, when coupled with a BBEG.

[T]

1) Same goes for 2e characters.
2) So? If they are wasting the combat actions of some members of your party then they are being a very important effect, and if you leave them alive, they actually will hit.
3) The synergies are different in 3e, by casting some spells on those orcs before combat, they become much more powerful at the expense of spells the BBEG never would have had the actions to cast anyway.
4) If your fighter took cleave, then even the fact that he took cleave instead of something useful makes the BBEG better than he would have been.
5) You really will take more than one turn of one characters actions. First, no reason they can't just spread out, and secondly, you still do have a chance to miss. So they do waste the party's time, and since the BBEG could end up killing a PC during that time, and any PC death is pretty much a huge loss, that makes them relatively useful, when coupled with a BBEG.

1 - I don't see how most 5th level fighters would dispatch a 2nd level fighter in one hit in 2e. Unless they were all cranked up on magic items. Or said 2nd level fighter had very low hit points. Of 5th level dude has a great sword. And if he does, his advantage is greater in 3.5e because he's getting a higher STR mod, twice! Once from higher mods in general in 3.5e, and 1.5 times again from using a two handed weapon. So that nice +3/+3 is now a +3/4 for 16 STR, compared to +0/+1 in 2e.

2 - Yes, if you ignore them, they will eventually hit, but they are more harmless in my mind than in 2e. Because there's less of a spread between 2nd and 5th in 2e than there is in 3.5.

3 - Agreed. The combat dynamic is indeed changed. Then again, you don't just have two orcs in plate, or 2 2nd level fighters, you've got two buffed ____, which is effectively a higher CR monster. Which goes to prove my point - plane jane 2nd level fighters aren't quite as threatening. Note, I am NOT making that point that you can't have threatening encounters in 3.5. You can, very much so.

4 - Haha, yes, true. It does happen though. Two or three of the players in my group have cleave for some reason. It's almost always used during the cleanup phase of a battle, making it essentially worthless. In my experience, the bbeg + mooks encounter in 3.5 goes like this: Strong melee PCs engage bbeg directly, ignoring mooks. Weaker melee PCs either engage BBEG from a distance or try to pick off mooks however they wish (melee, ranged attacks, spells). Sometimes a weak summoned creature is on mook patrol. Strong melee PCs dispatch bbeg with the help of any magic that was cast. One or two mooks may have been dispatched by weaker melee PCs during this time. Strong melee PCs then go around scrubbing the floor with the mooks in a cleanup action - it's not worth wasting spells on them at this point. So the mooks are occupied by weaker melee PCs yet never really threaten them, because they are mooks - you can just walk away from them if you have to and make them chase you. So they just kind of get entertained by the monk until bbeg is gone, then fighters mop them up. It's functionally the same if the mooks weren't even there, because whatever the week melee character was capable of wasn't enough to really threaten the BBEG - so the mooks are kind of there to give the monk something to do. Again this is my experience, but they just aren't as threatening. If you ramp up their abilities to the point they are threatening, they are no longer a '2nd level fighter with plate mail and a long sword'.

5 - True. It's not that any specific mook type enemy doesn't exist in 3.5. They can and do. It's just that those mook type characters have to be more threatening and fleshed out in 3.5, and closer to the PC power level, because they are just too inconsequential otherwise. To a party fighting 3 trolls, throwing in a couple of orcs doesn't really make a difference.

As you yourself said in this thread, 3.5 is setup so 5th level characters ARE playing a different game than level 1 or 2 characters. I'm merely observing that compared to 3.5e, in 2e, the disparity between 1st/2nd level and 5th level characters was smaller. Power scales a little slower in 2e. HP was less inflated (lower CON bonuses), magic related bonus were likely lower (unless your DM was out of control, which certainly happened plenty), and BAB vs. low AC couldn't be converted to huge damage totals via power attack.

Skills, again, are a separate issue. They highlight the same kind of RNG scaling in 3.5e, but since 2e didn't have shit there, it's a pointless comparison.

[Kaelik]

1 - I don't see how most 5th level fighters would dispatch a 2nd level fighter in one hit in 2e. Unless they were all cranked up on magic items. Or said 2nd level fighter had very low hit points. Of 5th level dude has a great sword. And if he does, his advantage is greater in 3.5e because he's getting a higher STR mod, twice! Once from higher mods in general in 3.5e, and 1.5 times again from using a two handed weapon. So that nice +3/+3 is now a +3/4 for 16 STR, compared to +0/+1 in 2e.

No, they don't dispatch them in one hit, they ignore them and attack the BBEG because they still can't do any meaningful damage.

And they can do that more easily because in 2e enemies can't block you off, and the 2e 2nd level fighters are even less capable of meaningfully hitting.

2 - Yes, if you ignore them, they will eventually hit, but they are more harmless in my mind than in 2e. Because there's less of a spread between 2nd and 5th in 2e than there is in 3.5.

But you are wrong. The spread is more in some areas and less in other. 5th level Wizards can just die from letting a level 2 Orc Fighter attack them twice, where the same is less true in 2e. Because 3e is inherently more lethal and faster combat.

3 - Agreed. The combat dynamic is indeed changed. Then again, you don't just have two orcs in plate, or 2 2nd level fighters, you've got two buffed ____, which is effectively a higher CR monster. Which goes to prove my point - plane jane 2nd level fighters aren't quite as threatening. Note, I am NOT making that point that you can't have threatening encounters in 3.5. You can, very much so.

No. You are wrong. They are the same CR. When a CR 5 Wizard buffs a couple CR 2 Fighters, they do not become CR 3. They stay CR 2. That's the point. They are easily made more lethal using spells that Wizard enemies in 3e have and can use, because combat is faster in 3e, and Wizards have more spells.

You are just a) generally wrong that the RNG deviates meaningfully more than 2e, b) wrong that this negates things.

I mean, your average level 5 shit party with 28 PB is:

Grey Elf Wizard 5: 6/16/12/21/8/8 AC 14 HP 19
Halfling Rogue 5: 12/19/14/14/8/8 AC 19-20 HP 30 Attack +9 1d4+1 (3d6)
Dwarven Cleric 5: 14/12/16/10/17/8 AC 21-22 HP 41 Attack +6 1d8+2
Orc Barbarian 5: 21/14/16/6/10/6 AC 17 HP 53 Attack +11 2d6+7

And an EL 6.2 encounter, well within the area that the PCs should regularly expect to win largely unscathed might be:

Greater Barghest
Two Orc Fighter 2s

Now, the stats on those Orc fighter 2s?

Well, when they first attack the party, it will be from invisibility with a charge attack with both Enlarge Person and Bull's Strength, because that's what a Greater Barghest does, in addition to being good at stuff, it also makes weak minions better.

So those Orcs will have an attack of +14/+12 for 2d6+12 each.

So even if the Barghest just buffs his minions and then leaves without participating in the combat at all, they could easily kill the Wizard guaranteed, or have a pretty good shot at killing the Rogue.

See the issue, you can't just say "Oh, they are off the RNG because their attack is only +7 alone" when the entire point is that they are supported by a BBEG. Yes, it's possible to make encounters where the two orc fighters do fuck all nothing.

Solution: don't make those encounters.

[T]

But you are wrong. The spread is more in some areas and less in other. 5th level Wizards can just die from letting a level 2 Orc Fighter attack them twice, where the same is less true in 2e. Because 3e is inherently more lethal and faster combat.

Why is that less true in 2e? A 5th level wizard would have 12.5 HP, and an orc, not even a level two orc fighter, could put him down with two good hits (1d8x2), or three on average. I don't really recall if there was Mage Armor in 2e, so it's quite possible that the wizard has sucktastic AC, even more than in 3.5e, which would change things. Technically, you are right - it's 3 hits on average in 2e for orc/wizard 5 and 2 hits on average in 3.5e. I don't really find that much of a difference (2 or 3 hits), but the 2nd level orc would last longer against a 5th level fighter and have more chances to kill said wizard in 2e. In 3.5e, a judicious application of power attack by a 5th level melee PC should be able to take out a 15.5 HP enemy in one hit. Anyway, I'll grant it to you. Because it's an unimportant example.

Because it just proves my point even more if 3.5e combat is more deadly - if you don't stay on the RNG, you are in a world of hurt! Damage is higher! HP is higher! AC is higher! If you don't have good HP, because you are a dumbass who made a wizard 5 with 9 CON going toe to toe with an orc, you DIE. The orc no longer does 1d8 (avg 4.5) per hit, no, he does 2d4+4 (avg 9) per hit. Which is fine as long as your HP is scaling the way it should - if not, watch out. Of course the response is, 'Don't EVER put anything lower than 10 in CON if you ever expect to take damage.' Sure. You need those bonuses. 2e was a bit more resilient to that because you didn't start taking negative HP mods until CON of 6, and the max bonus you could get as a non-fighter was +2. Generally, it had less effect on the game. It's debatable whether or not that's a good thing - it's probably bad (why have something that makes no difference in the game?). It does mean the RNG and game as a whole is less sensitive to it.

You are just a) generally wrong that the RNG deviates meaningfully more than 2e, b) wrong that this negates things.

How so about a)? You really don't say other than to come up with all kinds of spells and bonuses and buffs and shit to make enemies more competitive. Which is my fucking point. There's a lot of bonuses and shit to be had in 3.5 and if you don't get them, the RNG can break down easier. There weren't as many in 2e. You never saw an AC of much below -10 (a -11 or -12 here or there). Hell, here's an extreme example: AC for a bronze dragon (picked at random) went from 1 to -10, or 19 to 30 3.5 terms, for a delta of 11. In 3.5, they go from 15 to 42, delta of 27. BAB goes through a similar change. 2e: 13 to 24. In 3.5e: 6 to 46. In 2e, that's a range of 11, compared to 40 in 3.5e. You can find plenty more examples if you choose.

Another retarded example. A 5th level fighter in 2e (BAB +4, no other bonuses) has a 10% chance of hitting a fucking Tarrasque (AC -3 -> 23) if he doesn't shit his pants. A 5th level fighter in 3.5e (BAB +5, no other bonuses) has a 5% chance to hit a Tarrasque, because it's AC is 35. That would be true until the fighter was level 16, with a BAB of +16. Then he get's a 10% chance to hit (with no other bonuses). I know that's a retarded example because it's extreme, and clearly a fighter 16 would have all kinds of bonuses from strength and everything else to get his attack bonus up higher (again, my point, more bonuses are needed to stay on track). Let me remind you, in 2e:

The tarrasque is also immune to all heat and fire, and it regenerates lost hit points at a rate of 1 hit point per round. Only enchanted weapons (+1 or better) have any hope of harming the tarrasque.

For (one of) the hardest fucking monster(s) in the game. It regenerates at 1 HP/round and needs a +1 weapon to hit it. It only has 300 HP too. If you brought a big enough army to the fight with enough +1 arrows, a bunch of 7th level characters might be able to bring one down. I say 7th level, because 5th level dudes have like to flee in front of a tarrasque. Ok, back to 3.5e:

- DR 15/epic. +1 bows won't do shit here.
- regeneration 40. FORTY. Not one.
- Attack bonus of 57. Ok, in 2e, it was something ridiculously high as well. Like it can only miss if it rolls a 1.
- AC 35 (compared to 23 in 2e)
- It's pointless looking at the damage it can cause. While it's moderately more, the fact that the two systems scale so differently I don't even know what appropriate epic level ACs are, how power attack might apply, how criticals would change things, how swallow whole, improved grab, etc., affect things

I mean, your average level 5 shit party with 28 PB is:

stuff

Sure, in your example that's a lot more fair of a fight. I could come up with a counter example where said PC party surprises said group of enemies and none of those buffs happen. What then? In 2e, those unbuffed fighters/mook/whatever are pretty much the same since I don't think the RNG relied as much on buffing to occur, either through spells or items.

Maybe it took me awhile to figure out the terminology for what I was trying to say, but the RNG in 3.5e scales much faster with different levels and requires lots of buffs and bonuses to stay on track compared to 2e. Since that is true, it's also true that it's easier to fall off. Strip your 15th level fighter naked and give him a club in 2e and he's still reasonably capable. Do the same to in 3.5e and he's fucking useless, because he can't hit shit. And that's ignoring the fact that even with the items, he's useless compared to a 15th level wizard.

Lastly, I'm not saying 2e is better. I prefaced this whole discussion with saying that 2e as a system is pretty shit. While having a bit flatter math and fewer bonuses around appeals to me, it might not appeal to everyone. There's very little in the rules of 2e that make much sense. Can non-thieves hide in shadows? What happens if you fail a hide in shadows roll? Can you hide normally? etc. Even the only thing that actually makes sense (the underlying mechanic of attack roll vs. AC) was fucked up with descending AC and ThAC0. 3.5 is MUCH more consistent, coherent, and intuitive.

[T]

I kind of wanted to avoid specific examples because it's easy to turn any specific example one way or the other (pre-buff before combat? surprise? etc.). The point I've tried to make is that the RNG in both editions starts at about the same place but scales much quicker to higher numbers in 3.5 due to bonuses that are assumed to be in place. Except they aren't always in place.

Out of combat, a similar assumption contaminates the skill system where quite quickly it becomes impossible for certain characters to compete (as pointed out in the post of yours I linked to earlier). Which makes for 'trap' choices, because Cindy who's never played before thinks it would be cool for her 1st level fighter to sink a bunch of points into Spot because it sounds neat. Those are 4 points she'll never get back. (After this, I'm not going to say it anymore that since 2e didn't have a skill system in place, so 3.5e's skill system is by default better.)

[shadzar]

No, they don't dispatch them in one hit, they ignore them and attack the BBEG because they still can't do any meaningful damage.

And they can do that more easily because in 2e enemies can't block you off, and the 2e 2nd level fighters are even less capable of meaningfully hitting.

what does this even mean "cant block you off"?

[Kaelik]

1) All your examples about how the entire range, or high level monsters, are more off the RNG are wrong. 3e has a wider level range. The fact that a monster made to fight level 20 PCs has a greater spread than monsters meant to fight level 11-12 PCs. But that doesn't tell you anything about the RNG.

2) The point is that Mass invisibility is a spell the Greater Barghest gets. It is going to get a surprise round against that party every time. Please actually read the Greater Barghest entry.

3) Again, I'm not making up crazy buffs and spells, I just picked the first CR 5 monster that has spells, it just happens to have ones that greatly benefit a couple of orcs it carries with it. These are not required RNG buffs, they are an example of my point that level 2 Orc fighters can be very useful in any fight when supporting a BBEG.

4) Your claims about the limits of 2e RNG are patently wrong, you are doing that thing where you take the average of the character's you've seen played. 2e characters at level 10 basically always break AC -13.

5) The point you are trying to make is wrong. You cannot claim that the RNG scales too fast because of bonuses that are supposed to be in place, but aren't. If they aren't in place, then they aren't pushing the RNG.

You might as well compare a 2e character with 9/3/3/3/3/3 stats against someone with 18/00/18/18/18/18/18 stats. If one player is playing a fighter with 18 Str and the other is playing a fighter with 10 Str, the problem is not thath Str is comparatively worth more in 3e than 2e (which by the way, it's not). The problem is that there is a huge variation in their ability scores.

[T]

5) The point you are trying to make is wrong. You cannot claim that the RNG scales too fast because of bonuses that are supposed to be in place, but aren't. If they aren't in place, then they aren't pushing the RNG.

You aren't pushing the RNG, you are falling off the bottom. 3.5 even goes so far to prescribe how much permanent wealth you should have (invested in magic items that you can buy presumably) to stay level appropriate. The minute you don't have that... you aren't competitive.

Your argument now consists of 'you're wrong'. I point out that ACs of monsters (monsters, not characters - stuff in published material) typically don't go much lower than -10 to -12. You tell me character's AC can and that I'm doing some thing and I'm wrong. Yet what about monster AC? I say your orc example uses buffs, because in order to make the orcs useful, they need buffs. You tell me I'm wrong? So they don't need buffs? Fuck, I never even brought up orcs - my original example was about a simple 2nd level fighter. I come up with low level examples, and you bring in buffs, you tell me I'm retarded. I do some simple analysis of that and you don't even talk about it. Oh, you also agree with me, so maybe I win?

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

Remember, characters of 'vastly' different level were levels 2-3 compared to level 6-7. In your mind, so vastly different, that they can't compete at all.

I come up with high level examples and you say 3.5e scales higher (true) but don't mention that the range the RNG lives at is higher (also true), which is again... my point. A corollary to that point is that if you get out of that range, you don't compete.

Another fucking example: Monsters don't get STR bonuses to hit in 2e. So PC's AC doesn't have to account for that. Which is good if you forgot your armor at home. In 3.5, you better have your AC up where it normally is to counteract the +whatever from STR. And most people do, until the DM decides for purposes of the story that you don't. It's the same pattern - higher modifiers on the RNG, which if you don't have (rebuffed, DM fiat, poor planning) you fall off.

Look, there are plenty of examples in 3.5 where characters who are otherwise deprived of items (vow of poverty, soul bound weapon psychic warrior) gain bonuses at prescribed levels to stay competitive, e.g. stay on the RNG. There are other examples where classes DON'T receive the bonuses they should (soul knife) and they don't stay competitive.

Look at the rogue/thief damage in 2e/3.5e. A 5th level PC with whatever bullshit STR you want with a short sword. In 2e, they are doing 1d6 damage, and under a small set of circumstances, they can do 1d6 x3. Once. In 3.5e, that's 4d6 for flanking someone for every attack. More damage and MUCH easier to get.

You yourself said this, in a thread about RNGs and modifiers:

The problem is that with setting a TN, if the bonus makes up too large a portion of the RNG, you can't balance possible failure between someon really good, and someone kinda good.

I agree with you. Your specific example to demonstrate this point was about 3.5e skills. You don't even say it's hard to balance between someone who is really good and someone who is bad but 'really good' and 'kinda good'. At higher levels, it's quite common in my limited experience with 3.5 to see very large modifiers. And by higher levels, I mean above 5 or so. Shit, with skills, stuff starts separating almost at level one since some classes get so few skill points. While they are still on the RNG for low level DCs, it's readily apparent to even the newest player that they can't invest all the skill points they should to stay competitive in more than 2 skills.

But this is a pointless argument. I don't really care enough what you think to listen to you just say 'you are wrong'.

[Kaelik]

But this is a pointless argument. I don't really care enough what you think to listen to you just say 'you are wrong'.

Well then in that case, you should try reading the rest of the posts where I explain why.

3.5 even goes so far to prescribe how much permanent wealth you should have (invested in magic items that you can buy presumably) to stay level appropriate. The minute you don't have that... you aren't competitive.

In 2e, a level 10 fighter with the THAC0 of a level 1 fighter is off the RNG. But that's why you give level 10 fighters the THAC0 of level 10 fighters instead. If you don't have the magic items required to be a level 10 character, then you don't fight CR 10 enemies and you accommodate the fact that you are not a real level 10 fighter.

I point out that ACs of monsters (monsters, not characters - stuff in published material) typically don't go much lower than -10 to -12. You tell me character's AC can and that I'm doing some thing and I'm wrong. Yet what about monster AC

So? Monster AC is higher in 3e. So is Attack bonus. Those cancel out. You aren't off the RNG of the Monsters AC is you have a higher attack bonus.

Now of course, you didn't just say monster, you just said that those ACs don't come up as much, and I explained why:

a) They do as PCs.
b) They don't as monsters only because monsters do not reach higher levels.

I say your orc example uses buffs, because in order to make the orcs useful, they need buffs. You tell me I'm wrong? So they don't need buffs?

No, I tell you that of course they use buffs, because CR 5s have buffs to cast on lower level minions. If you are talking about the game as it actually exists, then you can't complain when I talk about the game as it actually is.

Fuck, I never even brought up orcs - my original example was about a simple 2nd level fighter. I come up with low level examples, and you bring in buffs, you tell me I'm retarded.

WTF? Orc is a race. I did use 2nd level fighters. Those buffs are low level examples. Again, why are you complaining that my example of a CR 5 and two second level fighters too closely matches your example of a level 5 and two level 2s?

I do some simple analysis of that and you don't even talk about it.

What analysis? You didn't do any analysis except of the Tarrasque, which is irrelevant because the 2e Tarrasque is CR 12, and the 3e one is CR 20.

Remember, characters of 'vastly' different level were levels 2-3 compared to level 6-7. In your mind, so vastly different, that they can't compete at all.

Examples involving skills are not examples involving AB or AC. Everyone who uses it invests in AB and AC, and people are on the same RNG there. Just because people are off the RNG in skills that only one person needs does not mean that they are also off the RNG on the things everyone needs.

I come up with high level examples and you say 3.5e scales higher (true) but don't mention that the range the RNG lives at is higher (also true), which is again... my point.

No, that's not your point. Your point was that it scales faster. If it scales for twice as long, and scales twice as far, then it scales at the same rate.

Another fucking example: Monsters don't get STR bonuses to hit in 2e. So PC's AC doesn't have to account for that. Which is good if you forgot your armor at home. In 3.5, you better have your AC up where it normally is to counteract the +whatever from STR. And most people do, until the DM decides for purposes of the story that you don't. It's the same pattern - higher modifiers on the RNG, which if you don't have (rebuffed, DM fiat, poor planning) you fall off.

Well this brings up two issues:

a) No, they don't get str to hit, they get an arbitrary unsourced + to hit based on whatever the people designing them felt like giving them. So... instead, in 3e, they get Str, which is a number that is whatever the designers felt like giving them

See how that's actually the same RNG.

b) Um... what? Okay, yes, it you choose to deliberately lower your AC because you are stupid, or your DM does, then you aren't on the RNG. Solution: Don't be stupid, don't have a stupid DM. If your DM takes away your armor, but makes you face a monster designed to fight you when you have armor, then the DM is fucking retarded. All your examples of "then you aren't on the RNG because" can be solved by just not becausing, and since every example you've ever given is fucking stupid, that's a good solution.

Look at the rogue/thief damage in 2e/3.5e. A 5th level PC with whatever bullshit STR you want with a short sword. In 2e, they are doing 1d6 damage, and under a small set of circumstances, they can do 1d6 x3. Once. In 3.5e, that's 4d6 for flanking someone for every attack. More damage and MUCH easier to get.

a) As regards being easier to get, of course it is. Because 2e is a shitty game, and the Thief is a good example why, because it's stupid to have a character who can't contribute equally.

b) Yes, it is more damage... against enemies with more HP. That's not a difference. If one edition has 20 HP and people doing 10 HP per shot, that's identical to the other edition having 10 HP and people doing 5 HP per shot.

I agree with you. Your specific example to demonstrate this point was about 3.5e skills. You don't even say it's hard to balance between someone who is really good and someone who is bad but 'really good' and 'kinda good'. At higher levels, it's quite common in my limited experience with 3.5 to see very large modifiers. And by higher levels, I mean above 5 or so. Shit, with skills, stuff starts separating almost at level one since some classes get so few skill points. While they are still on the RNG for low level DCs, it's readily apparent to even the newest player that they can't invest all the skill points they should to stay competitive in more than 2 skills.

Yes, that applies to skills. The problem here is that just because it applies to skills doesn't mean it applies to AC and AB. First off, no one takes an 8 Str if they intend to punch people in the face, and no one takes an 8 Dex unless they are going to be sitting on a huge armor bonus, so the ability score factor is minimized. Secondly, the actual numbers come mostly from stuff everyone has access to, and where one person has a bonus that no one else has, it's because other people have a comparable bonus that he doesn't have.

The fighter has power attack and higher Str, so he has more damage, and he has higher Str and BAB, so higher to hit. But the Rogue has an SA bonus to damage, and can therefore be small, and will always be attacking from invisibility or flanking, or whatever his method of getting SA is.

The Cleric has full plate, but the Wizard has ways of getting an armor bonus from a long duration spell, and combined with higher dex, that usually works out to comparable numbers.

Unlike skills, the AB/AC RNGs even out until about level 10ish, when they start to run past each other. It's certainly possible to make a character that breaks the RNG in either edition, but optimization has long been a part of D&D, and to pretend that the ability to do so is different between editions is silly.

[T]

Well then in that case, you should try reading the rest of the posts where I explain why.

I have read them. And they are usually filled with shit like this:

All your examples of "then you aren't on the RNG because" can be solved by just not becausing, and since every example you've ever given is fucking stupid, that's a good solution.

Real convincing.

So? Monster AC is higher in 3e. So is Attack bonus. Those cancel out. You aren't off the RNG of the Monsters AC is you have a higher attack bonus.

Until you don't. Stop saying it's a retarded example. Story telling purposes: your characters are captured. Dumb DM shit: critical fumble and your drop your sword. Dumb players who don't realize they have to optimize to stay competitive. Or just the fucking monk who has to have DM gifts and/or house rules about allowing enchanted gauntlets to work as unarmed attacks. Two weapon fighting - doesn't really make sense but players love it. The player who wants to do stupid 3/4's BAB multiclassing, murdering his BAB. Try that one in 2e.

Those buffs are low level examples. Again, why are you complaining that my example of a CR 5 and two second level fighters too closely matches your example of a level 5 and two level 2s?

Two things. First, I'll plead my own ignorance - is a 5th level NPC really considered to be a CR 5 enemy? If so, that has all kinds of stupid. So a CR 5 encounter is defined as a challenge to a party of 4 average PCs, correct? So an average level 5 character, turned into an NPC, is now supposed to give 4 equivalent powered buddies a challenge? There's no way a level 5 fighter in either edition is equivalent to a 9 HD barghest. Nor is there any way a level 5 fighter should give 4 level fighters much of a challenge. You could just round robin the dude until each of your 4 fighters lost 25% of the HP. 300 gp of healing potions or so and you are on your way. My example was a 5th level fighter and 2 2nd level fighters, but again, whatevs. Any specific example isn't all that important as I said many posts ago.

But let's look at your example: Using your example of CR 5, the barghest, just look at the 2e version of it. I don't know which one is appropriate for a 5th level character (yet another failing of AD&D), but the 9 HD version (same as the Greater in 3.5) has a BAB of 9. In 3.5 it's 13 (9 from BAB and 4 from STR). AC looks to be the same in both editions. HP is about 1.3 times higher in 3.5. Damage is harder to call - more attacks but lower damage in 3.5 (2e: 2d4+9, 3e: 1d8+5 and 1d6+2 x 2). Probably averages out to more damage. Sounds like 2e barghests have fewer spell like abilities: no invisibility sphere or mass bull str/enlarge.

So in most cases of the 9 HD barghest, the 3.5 version is better, better BAB, HP, and magic abilities. When it's not decidedly better, it's that same. If the RNGs are to be kept in balance, your characters should, on average, be dealing 1.3 times the damage and have, on average, 4 AC higher. And be able to deal with mass invisibility, and stronger mooks. Sounds to me like 3.5 scales at a faster rate than 2e. Visible even at a level 5 encounter.

What analysis? You didn't do any analysis except of the Tarrasque, which is irrelevant because the 2e Tarrasque is CR 12, and the 3e one is CR 20.

About 7 posts from the top of pg 2. Also looked at Dragons. Now looked at Barghest. You'll just say they are 'because' and retarded, or you won't read them, so who gives a fuck.

a) No, they don't get str to hit, they get an arbitrary unsourced + to hit based on whatever the people designing them felt like giving them. So... instead, in 3e, they get Str, which is a number that is whatever the designers felt like giving them

In 2e, it is usually (almost always?) based on HD. ThAC0 is 21 - HD. If your monster's HD has a bonus (9d8 + 8) and that bonus is bigger than +3, ThAC0 is calculated as HD + 1. So essentially, fighter BAB. Hardly arbitrary. There ARE a few arbitrary examples, but 99% of the monsters ThAC0, saves, and HP are determined solely by HD.

In 3e, it appears that monster BAB follows either fighter or cleric BAB schedule for the most part (there are some slower BAB monsters). So there is the potential for slower BAB scaling than in 2e. However, throw in STR bonuses too. So now you have faster than 2e scaling for fighter BAB monsters, and for cleric BAB monsters, it often is also pushed over 2e BAB levels. For example, for a 10 HD cleric BAB monster, you should have a +7 BAB. All you need is a 16 STR as a monster to push you up to base fighter BAB levels, and for the most part, past the 2e ThAC0 progression for monsters. And many monsters have more than 16 STR. Most of the ones I looked at did. The ones that didn't often have touch attacks or gaze attacks or something else that doesn't rely on BAB vs. full AC - harder to quantify.

On average, that looks like to me that attack bonuses for monsters scale faster in 3e than in 2e. Not just longer.

b) Um... what? Okay, yes, it you choose to deliberately lower your AC because you are stupid, or your DM does, then you aren't on the RNG. Solution: Don't be stupid, don't have a stupid DM. If your DM takes away your armor, but makes you face a monster designed to fight you when you have armor, then the DM is fucking retarded. All your examples of "then you aren't on the RNG because" can be solved by just not becausing, and since every example you've ever given is fucking stupid, that's a good solution.

Wow. What a great argument here. Don't be stupid.

b) Yes, it is more damage... against enemies with more HP. That's not a difference. If one edition has 20 HP and people doing 10 HP per shot, that's identical to the other edition having 10 HP and people doing 5 HP per shot.

Again, not only scaling longer, but scaling faster. Don't put anything lower than 10 in CON. Yes, the system is supposed to be balance the faster damage scaling with faster HP scaling, but don't sit there and tell me that things always keep pace. They don't and you fucking know it. And yes, THAT IS A DIFFERENCE. Because everyone is NOT doing twice the damage or does NOT have twice the HP.

The fighter has power attack and higher Str, so he has more damage, and he has higher Str and BAB, so higher to hit. But the Rogue has an SA bonus to damage, and can therefore be small, and will always be attacking from invisibility or flanking, or whatever his method of getting SA is.

Until you are fighting undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures. Fuck the rogue then. Oh I'm sorry, is that another one of my 'because' retarded examples? Fuck off. He's useless, because the rogue depends on that SA damage to stay relevant.

What happens when the fighter's sword gets sundered? Oh noes, retarded bullshit example!

The Cleric has full plate, but the Wizard has ways of getting an armor bonus from a long duration spell, and combined with higher dex, that usually works out to comparable numbers.

Until the Cleric doesn't have his armor on. Again, I know you are going to say it's just another stupid example, but it's not. It gets in the way of the game if you characters always have to have their armor on. You lose any surprise encounters at night, catching the characters off guard (like in low level games), unless you are throwing weak shit at them. Because your cleric sleeps in full plate, right? Your row boat gets attacked by a water monster throwing everyone in the water. Bye bye full plate wearing cleric.

The 3.5 RNG relies on bonuses in ways the 2e one does not. Abilities go to higher levels in 3.5. And since it's hard to get higher abilities in 2e, that makes them scale faster as well. You are pretty much required to have some +2, +4, or +6 abilities items/buffs/etc. The RNG expects it. The RNG also expects you to have other bonuses: weapons and armor. If you don't, you don't stay on the RNG. You can't bypass DR. You should have certain types of buffs available to your party. If you don't, you are screwed.

Don't sit here and tell me it's retarded to make dumb choices. People do it all the time. Billy might blow his magic weapon budget on Belt of Dwarvenkind because he thinks it's cool (be a fucking dwarf then) or a Rope of Entanglement (get a fucking druid) or an Apparatus of the Crab (seriously, 90kgp? All of your wealth at 12th level?). Then Billy is FUCKED. 3.5 let's you make such bad choices at times that whole classes are written off as totally pointless, e.g. the monk. And to slap the monk in the dick, the Amulet of Mighty Fists is way too expensive. The Soulknife, etc. There's all kinds of examples of players becoming too uncompetitive in whatever arena you want in 3.5, be it combat as a whole, HP, BAB, damage, skills, whatever. It could be done in 2e as well for sure. But a plain vanilla fighter in 2e stayed more on the RNG without being a christmas tree.

Seriously. I've wasted way too much time on this. Thanks for the comments from everyone.

[ishy]

While 3.5 chars may go off the RNG, a fighter in 2e never comes on the RNG vs the Tarrasque, because the DM is an asshole and not giving him a +1 weapon.

[Kaelik]

Until you don't. Stop saying it's a retarded example. Story telling purposes: your characters are captured. Dumb DM shit: critical fumble and your drop your sword. Dumb players who don't realize they have to optimize to stay competitive. Or just the fucking monk who has to have DM gifts and/or house rules about allowing enchanted gauntlets to work as unarmed attacks. Two weapon fighting - doesn't really make sense but players love it. The player who wants to do stupid 3/4's BAB multiclassing, murdering his BAB. Try that one in 2e.

So to be clear:

1) 3e characters are off the RNG more because the Monk is a bad class.
2) 3e characters are off the RNG more because they can bad multiclassing decisions like dual classing fighter 2/thief 2/mage 2/cleric 2/paladin 2/ranger 2/druid 2/monk 2. Oh wait, that's 2e. I mean, multiclassing.
3) 3e characters are off the RNG more because the DM might decide to make up a rule about how you drop your sword.

Do you not see how none of those have anything to do with 3e (except the Monk being a terrible class, but why don't you read the Dungenomicon where there is a rewritten Monk that doesn't suck).

You can have a bad class in any game, it has nothing to do with one game leading to more people off the RNG. You could be a Thief in 2e, then you'd be off the RNG.
You can make bad character build decisions in any game, like making Fighter with 9 Str and 18 Int, and then being off the RNG in 2e.
Your DM can make up a rule about you chopping your arm off in 2e, and then you'll be off the RNG too.

None of those are examples of how 3e leads to more people off the RNG than 2e.

Two things. First, I'll plead my own ignorance - is a 5th level NPC really considered to be a CR 5 enemy? If so, that has all kinds of stupid. So a CR 5 encounter is defined as a challenge to a party of 4 average PCs, correct? So an average level 5 character, turned into an NPC, is now supposed to give 4 equivalent powered buddies a challenge? There's no way a level 5 fighter in either edition is equivalent to a 9 HD barghest. Nor is there any way a level 5 fighter should give 4 level fighters much of a challenge. You could just round robin the dude until each of your 4 fighters lost 25% of the HP. 300 gp of healing potions or so and you are on your way. My example was a 5th level fighter and 2 2nd level fighters, but again, whatevs. Any specific example isn't all that important as I said many posts ago.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't know the rules, then why are you opening your goddam mouth?

A NPC with 5 levels in a PC class, such as Wizard or Fighter, is a CR 5. Do you know what a CR five enemy is? Of course you don't, because you are talking without knowing any of the rules. A CR 5 enemy, such as the Greater Barghest, or a level 5 Wizard, is the type of enemy that will drain 20% of the resources of a level 5 party of four members. That's what a CR 5 means. A Greater Barghest is the equivalent of a Wizard 5, or a Fighter 5. You are expected to beat it, and all survive without much of a problem, and the challenge is doing so while draining as little resources as possible.

Also, you apparently can't play 2e either, because when you tried to round robin a level 5 fighter, the correct move is for him to not allow you to, and to instead keep attacking the same person, and kill him.

But let's look at your example: Using your example of CR 5, the barghest, just look at the 2e version of it. I don't know which one is appropriate for a 5th level character (yet another failing of AD&D), but the 9 HD version (same as the Greater in 3.5) has a BAB of 9. In 3.5 it's 13 (9 from BAB and 4 from STR). AC looks to be the same in both editions. HP is about 1.3 times higher in 3.5. Damage is harder to call - more attacks but lower damage in 3.5 (2e: 2d4+9, 3e: 1d8+5 and 1d6+2 x 2). Probably averages out to more damage. Sounds like 2e barghests have fewer spell like abilities: no invisibility sphere or mass bull str/enlarge.

So once again:

1) The Greater Barghest has higher HP, AC, Damage, AB.
2) The PCs have higher HP, AC, Damage, AB.
3) Therefore... They must be off the RNG!

No. Wrong. They are on the RNG, the RNG is a higher number, but they are not off it, because they have higher numbers, and so do their enemies.

So in most cases of the 9 HD barghest, the 3.5 version is better, better BAB, HP, and magic abilities. When it's not decidedly better, it's that same. If the RNGs are to be kept in balance, your characters should, on average, be dealing 1.3 times the damage and have, on average, 4 AC higher. And be able to deal with mass invisibility, and stronger mooks. Sounds to me like 3.5 scales at a faster rate than 2e. Visible even at a level 5 encounter.

Do you know what an RNG is? Are you telling me that the numbers become higher faster in 3e, and therefore everyone must be off the RNG because you are too stupid to see that both sides scale?

Or are you saying that the RNG scales faster like I initially thought, because that would actually support your point? Do you know what an RNG is? If both sides get +1 to everything, and then later, both sides get +10 to everything, the RNG didn't scale at all. It remained the same.

About 7 posts from the top of pg 2. Also looked at Dragons. Now looked at Barghest. You'll just say they are 'because' and retarded, or you won't read them, so who gives a fuck.

So to add to everything else, you don't know what analysis is. You didn't analyze the anything about Dragons. You listed their AC. Listing is not analyzing. At a very base level, for what you did to qualify as analyzing at all, you'd have to at the very least compare those numbers against the PCs that are likely to be fighting them.

And of course, I did address your Tarrasque analysis by pointing out it's irrelevance, and I addressed your Barghest analysis above by pointing out that if all the numbers are higher, then the RNG is the same.

In 2e, it is usually (almost always?) based on HD. ThAC0 is 21 - HD. If your monster's HD has a bonus (9d8 + 8) and that bonus is bigger than +3, ThAC0 is calculated as HD + 1. So essentially, fighter BAB. Hardly arbitrary. There ARE a few arbitrary examples, but 99% of the monsters ThAC0, saves, and HP are determined solely by HD.

??? So why does a Barghest have 9 HD?

And no, their saves and HP aren't determined solely by HD. They are determined by HD indexed with a classification system which gives different monsters different defenses on the same HD.

So now you have faster than 2e scaling for fighter BAB monsters, and for cleric BAB monsters, it often is also pushed over 2e BAB levels. For example, for a 10 HD cleric BAB monster, you should have a +7 BAB. All you need is a 16 STR as a monster to push you up to base fighter BAB levels, and for the most part, past the 2e ThAC0 progression for monsters. And many monsters have more than 16 STR. Most of the ones I looked at did. The ones that didn't often have touch attacks or gaze attacks or something else that doesn't rely on BAB vs. full AC - harder to quantify.

Once again. Yes, the ABs are larger. And the ACs are also larger. Why do you think the RNG scales faster? If both the numbers are larger, it could be (and is) scaling at about the same rate.

Wow. What a great argument here. Don't be stupid.

Don't be childish as well as stupid. Learn to accept people calling you stupid when you are wrong, and keep reading without throwing up deflector shields. That aregument is fucking astoundingly good. Check ishy's post for that same argument in sarcastic form.

If your DM or player does something stupid that puts someone off the RNG, then it's not the case that the mechanics are responsible for them being off the RNG. It is the case that it's the DM or players fault for being off the RNG. And that's possible in any game.

Again, not only scaling longer, but scaling faster. Don't put anything lower than 10 in CON. Yes, the system is supposed to be balance the faster damage scaling with faster HP scaling, but don't sit there and tell me that things always keep pace. They don't and you fucking know it. And yes, THAT IS A DIFFERENCE. Because everyone is NOT doing twice the damage or does NOT have twice the HP.

They keep pace to approximately the same extent as 2e. There are deviations, as there are in any complex game. Everyone is doing twice the damage, and everyone does have twice the HP, and therefore it is not actually a difference between the editions.

Until you are fighting undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures. Fuck the rogue then. Oh I'm sorry, is that another one of my 'because' retarded examples? Fuck off. He's useless, because the rogue depends on that SA damage to stay relevant.

Clearly you do not know how to play a Rogue in 3e. Yes, he does rely on that SA to stay relevant, which is why he makes sure he gets it all the time. That's one of the reasons Rogues in 3e are good, and Thieves in 2e are a stupid shit class that exists to tax the players.

What happens when the fighter's sword gets sundered? Oh noes, retarded bullshit example!

He picks up a club off the ground, and keeps fighting at a -3 Penalty if he's level 10. Of course, what happens when a level 10 2e fighter's sword gets sundered? Oh right, he takes a -5 penalty when he picks up a club.

Do you not even realize that because of 2e's compressed level range at any given level a 2e fighter can expect a better sword than a 3e fighter?

Until the Cleric doesn't have his armor on. Again, I know you are going to say it's just another stupid example, but it's not. It gets in the way of the game if you characters always have to have their armor on. You lose any surprise encounters at night, catching the characters off guard (like in low level games), unless you are throwing weak shit at them. Because your cleric sleeps in full plate, right? Your row boat gets attacked by a water monster throwing everyone in the water. Bye bye full plate wearing cleric.

No, it really doesn't get in the way of the game. If your DM is a dick who sends night raids no matter how well you discourage them, then you just stop ever sleeping, and you cast Lesser Restoration once a day. If your DM sends night raids or has fights on the high seas and uses the exact same opponents as he would during the day on land, then your DM is being stupid. If you are on a boat with your armor off because you are worried about falling overboard, then that's a modifier to EL, and you should be facing weaker opponents because of it.

Of course, most of the time, the solution is to just not get thrown in the water, but that's a separate issue.

The 3.5 RNG relies on bonuses in ways the 2e one does not. Abilities go to higher levels in 3.5. And since it's hard to get higher abilities in 2e, that makes them scale faster as well. You are pretty much required to have some +2, +4, or +6 abilities items/buffs/etc. The RNG expects it. The RNG also expects you to have other bonuses: weapons and armor. If you don't, you don't stay on the RNG. You can't bypass DR. You should have certain types of buffs available to your party. If you don't, you are screwed.

This is patently wrong every time you say it. 2e requires the same things. It requires you to have good stats in the important places, it requires you to have items giving you bonuses. You have a fundamental disconnect where you gloss over all the requirements of 2e, because you always had them, like the +1 sword required to hit the Tarrasque for any damage at all (PS, try to learn about how 3e DR works in play before you go on and on about it. No one ever needs to spend money to beat 3e DR. You pick up a magic sword off the guy you killed, eventually you might get a specifically Astral Silver one for like 3000, and then you just attack through DR and never worry about losing 10-15 damage out of 50-100, unlike 2e where you can't hurt a monster at all without the right equipment.)

Don't sit here and tell me it's retarded to make dumb choices. People do it all the time. Billy might blow his magic weapon budget on Belt of Dwarvenkind because he thinks it's cool (be a fucking dwarf then) or a Rope of Entanglement (get a fucking druid) or an Apparatus of the Crab (seriously, 90kgp? All of your wealth at 12th level?). Then Billy is FUCKED. 3.5 let's you make such bad choices at times that whole classes are written off as totally pointless, e.g. the monk. And to slap the monk in the dick, the Amulet of Mighty Fists is way too expensive. The Soulknife, etc. There's all kinds of examples of players becoming too uncompetitive in whatever arena you want in 3.5, be it combat as a whole, HP, BAB, damage, skills, whatever. It could be done in 2e as well for sure. But a plain vanilla fighter in 2e stayed more on the RNG without being a christmas tree.

Stop reading a couple forum posts and thinking you understand everything about 3e.

A Fighter stays one RNG with a magic sword and either a magic belt or magic guantlets, which ever one he finds first, exactly like the 2e fighter, who stayed on the RNG with a magic sword and magic gauntlets or belt, depending on which he found a better one of.

The Christmas tree is completely different thing that has nothing to do with staying on the RNG. You need items to stay on the expected RNG in 3e, and you also need the same items to stay on the expected RNG in 2e.

Your entire argument boils down to "What if the player does something stupid or the DM gives you a harder encounter but ignores the rules that says that the encounter is harder?"

And the answer is "The same thing as happens in 2e."

[T]

If you don't know the rules, then why are you opening your goddam mouth?

Oh wow, is that how you treat people when they admit they were wrong or ignorant about something? Yes, I was unclear on that point - Nothing I could find in the SRD mentions that. Maybe I missed something.

1) The Greater Barghest has higher HP, AC, Damage, AB.
2) The PCs have higher HP, AC, Damage, AB.
3) Therefore... They must be off the RNG!

For the last fucking time dude, #2 is true unless it isn't. Your 5th level rogue with 10 CON has the same exact HP in 3.5e as he does in 2e. How is that scaling at the same (faster) rate? It actually scales worse for anyone with less than 10 CON. Yes, PCs with more than 11 CON do get more HP.

As far as damage scaling, all I can say is that out of the 15ish players in our group, only about two have figured out how to do more damage in 3.5e. It's kind of sad. Most of them are rolling 1d8+2. Yes, thats anecdotal, but most of the players just do not get how important STR is and why they should be using two handed weapons (in the dumb example of a fighter).

No. Wrong. They are on the RNG, the RNG is a higher number, but they are not off it, because they have higher numbers, and so do their enemies.

They just don't always have higher numbers. Again. Maybe they do on boards like this, but seriously, the highest AC in the group I play with, besides my character, is 18, from full plate. This is a level 6 party for the most part. Not one character has bothered to buy magic armor. And they sell the stuff they find. I honestly don't know why. Some are new. Some are just out of it. And they get fucking housed in level appropriate encounters. Oh I'm sorry, one other character has bought magic armor - the same one who knows enough to keep his damage high.

Do you know what an RNG is? Are you telling me that the numbers become higher faster in 3e, and therefore everyone must be off the RNG because you are too stupid to see that both sides scale?

Again, you know my answer. If one side doesn't scale at the same rate, it's problematic. I've already said both sides are supposed to scale at the same rate. I just see a whole lot of places where it's easy not to keep pace. Thanks for calling me stupid again when you are the one who isn't getting what I'm writing.

Both sides might scale at the same rate, but if they scale faster, it's still faster. Why can't you get that? 5 HP/level is slower than 10 HP/level, even if opponent damage goes at the same rate. Faster is faster. It can scale faster and still be balanced. It can scale faster and at the same rate as it's target number, but it's still faster than in 2e.

And of course, I did address your Tarrasque analysis by pointing out it's irrelevance, and I addressed your Barghest analysis above by pointing out that if all the numbers are higher, then the RNG is the same.

IF. It still scales faster. Faster faster faster.

It's really quiet comical. I say this:

If the RNGs are to be kept in balance, your characters should, on average, be dealing 1.3 times the damage and have, on average, 4 AC higher.

And you respond with:

Do you know what an RNG is? Are you telling me that the numbers become higher faster in 3e, and therefore everyone must be off the RNG because you are too stupid to see that both sides scale?

Is you reading comprehension really so poor that you can't tell that I know the PC damage should be about 1.3 times as much and have higher ACs to keep up with the 3.5 Barghest? It was stated explicitly in the sentence that you quoted and responded to. And if they do, that's great. And if they don't, that's bad. It still doesn't change the fact that target numbers/HP/damage are scaling faster in 3.5 as a function of level.

??? So why does a Barghest have 9 HD?

I'd address this but I really don't know what you're question is. The Barghest in 2e can have anywhere from 6 HD to 12 HD. Since 2e gives no guidelines for appropriate encounters, I chose the same HD as your example.

And no, their saves and HP aren't determined solely by HD. They are determined by HD indexed with a classification system which gives different monsters different defenses on the same HD.

I won't even address the your statement that 2e monster HP isn't determined by HD. From the 2e Monster Manual:

ThAC0 is the attack roll the monster needs to AC 0. This is always a function of Hit Dice, except in the case of very large, nonaggressive herbivores (such as some dinosaurs) or creatures which have certain innate combat abilities.

But I was wrong about the formula. I was calculating ThAC0 from HD by looking at MM pages. They don't actually get 1 bab/ 1 lvl, they get 2 bab/ 2 lvl (same rate, they just only get the bonus of +2 every other HD).

From the DMG

Creatures don't have character classes, so they calculate ThAC0 differently, basing it on HD.

And lastly, from the DMG

Most monsters use the Warrior group table to determine their saves

They go on to say that creatures with a lot of spell like abilities can use the better of the Wizard or Warrior table, but it's still based on HD. It's a poor vague system that encourages the DM to make a judgement call as to when is 'enough' spell like abilities, but it's still based on HD. But of course, I'm wrong and you're right.

Once again. Yes, the ABs are larger. And the ACs are also larger. Why do you think the RNG scales faster? If both the numbers are larger, it could be (and is) scaling at about the same rate.

You really just don't know what I've been talking about, do you? Yes, they are both scaling about the same rate. AND BOTH ARE FASTER THAN IN 2E.

Don't be childish as well as stupid. Learn to accept people calling you stupid when you are wrong, and keep reading without throwing up deflector shields. That aregument is fucking astoundingly good. Check ishy's post for that same argument in sarcastic form.

ishy made an excellent point. You just categorically called all of my statements 'because' arguments, and called them stupid. I'm beginning to see now that you've not actually understood what I meant about scaling faster. I won't call you stupid though But I'm stupid and can't handle being wrong.

If your DM or player does something stupid that puts someone off the RNG, then it's not the case that the mechanics are responsible for them being off the RNG. It is the case that it's the DM or players fault for being off the RNG. And that's possible in any game.

I guess you and I have different design goals for games. It is possible in any game. And one in which it is easier to do, has more 'fragile math', as I called it in my first post.

They keep pace to approximately the same extent as 2e. There are deviations, as there are in any complex game. Everyone is doing twice the damage, and everyone does have twice the HP, and therefore it is not actually a difference between the editions.

For the 80th time, 3.5 scales faster relative to 2e. As in comparing 3.5e HP to 2e HP. Once you get that, you might understand my second point: IF your 3.5 HP doesn't keep up at the right rate, you become rapidly uncompetitive. The same was true in 2e. I know. I'm just saying that since HP scales faster in general in 3.5, when you don't keep up, you fall out of sync faster. A -1 to your HP/level is a lot more problematic in 3.5e than it is in 2e. And it's easier to come by (9 CON). Replace HP with other quantities if you want.

Clearly you do not know how to play a Rogue in 3e. Yes, he does rely on that SA to stay relevant, which is why he makes sure he gets it all the time. That's one of the reasons Rogues in 3e are good, and Thieves in 2e are a stupid shit class that exists to tax the players.

So the above was in response to me talking about SA when you are fighting undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures. How exactly do you get SA against those? Please tell me how to play a Rogue in 3e, against those, WHICH WAS MY SPECIFIC EXAMPLE? Just in case you don't know, it states very specifically in the SA section of the Rogue class that you don't get SA against those creatures. Yet you resort to a childish 'clearly you do not know...'. Reading comprehension mate. Actually address the point I was making and don't just make an attack.

He picks up a club off the ground, and keeps fighting at a -3 Penalty if he's level 10. Of course, what happens when a level 10 2e fighter's sword gets sundered? Oh right, he takes a -5 penalty when he picks up a club.

Well he's more shit out of luck than in 2e since there's so much DR in 3e. Sure, some monsters needed magic or silver or something to hurt them in 2e, but DR requirements are very common in 3.5e. More common than I remember in 2e, though maybe my memory is foggy there. And by DR in 2e, I mean having to have a +1 weapon or special material to inflict damage. Most of it was just +1 at a reasonable point in the game IRC. If I'm wrong here about the occurrence of damage immunity in 2e, I'll admit it. I really don't feel like pouring through hundreds of pages in the MM to find out and I'm guessing you don't either. So forget this one.

Of course, most of the time, the solution is to just not get thrown in the water, but that's a separate issue.

No doubt. I agree with what you said about that section, but a player can't always guarantee the stuff you said. It's a game. It's easy to get into those situations, particularly at lower level. DMs do all kinds of stupid shit. If your game has problems handling a mediocre DM, then it's probably got some problems. (note - 2e had these issues as well). And half of all DMs are below average

This is patently wrong every time you say it. 2e requires the same things. It requires you to have good stats in the important places, it requires you to have items giving you bonuses.

Yes, to a certain extent. BUT THE BONUSES WERE SMALLER. It's been my point all along. The fucking target numbers scale to higher numbers at a faster rate (and twice as long, but that's a separate point). Replace target numbers with HP or damage as you wish.

I know how DR works. I'm not talking about 20th level characters for the most part. There's plenty of lower CR monsters that have DR that you can't punch through in 3.5e if you don't have your main weapon.

Your entire argument boils down to "What if the player does something stupid or the DM gives you a harder encounter but ignores the rules that says that the encounter is harder?"

So I guess the DM disarming you or sundering your weapon is stupid? Sorry I brought up the stupid crit fumble example. Yes it is dumb. And plenty of DMs do it. Don't bother answering this question, it's a distraction.

For the last fucking time, maybe you'll actually read what I'm saying this time. I know, as designed, both sides of a given roll are supposed to scale at the same rate in 3.5, just like in 2e. BOTH SIDES SCALE FASTER many times in 3.5, compared to 2e. Yes, they often keep pace. And I'm saying, there are plenty of situations where they don't. At least in a lvl 6ish game. AND THATS WHEN THERE CAN A PROBLEM WITH THE RNG.

[Kaelik]

BOTH SIDES SCALE FASTER many times in 3.5, compared to 2e. Yes, they often keep pace. And I'm saying, there are plenty of situations where they don't. At least in a lvl 6ish game. AND THATS WHEN THERE CAN A PROBLEM WITH THE RNG.

The problem with your argument is that both sides scaling faster does not mean that one side doesn't scale faster. And every time you point to an example of someone not scaling correctly, it's a something that actually affects 2e characters as much as it does 3e characters. When a 2e character get's disarmed, they lose their weapons bonus, which ranges from 1 to 5. When a 3e character gets disarmed, they lose their weapon bonus, which is 1 to 5. It's the same scale, you don't lose more from being disarmed in 3e.

All of your examples follow this same pattern.

And yes, Rogues really do SA undead. That is something that everyone who actually plays the game learns. But you know what, I do apologize, you are working from the SRD only, and have never seen a single book, so it was wrong to criticize you for not knowing the rules contained in the books. But yes, CR is only contained in the actual DMG, and it specifically states that when you disadvantage the players, IE by not letting them wear their armor, that it increases the EL of the encounter.

And you are pretty much completely wrong about 3e DR. It doesn't come up that much at all, and if it does, it's usually just taken as an opportunity to power attack for a little more, because you just deal damage through it.

[T]

All of your examples follow this same pattern.

You know the HP and ThAC0/BAB scale faster. That is my main statement. Whether or not that impacts game play does not depend on the first statement. I know it does not mean that one side might not scale faster. However, one side MIGHT not scale faster at times.

All of my examples were NOT the same. Monster HP scales faster. Character HP CAN scale as faster. 'Can' is the operative word. It can also scale slower (up to level 9-10 at least - I know in the teens it always scales faster in 3.5). ThAC0/AB were also not the same - it just scales faster in 3.5 with the expectation that AC does too. An expectation which may or may not be true.

You were wrong about what 2e HD determines and you can't admit that. You are also wrong about misinterpreting my whole fucking argument, calling me stupid when YOU couldn't bother to read what I wrote.

Hell, even when my point about skills was right, and you agreed, you still said I was wrong, because that's the way it's supposed to be.

And yes, Rogues really do SA undead. That is something that everyone who actually plays the game learns. But you know what, I do apologize, you are working from the SRD only, and have never seen a single book.

PHB says the same thing. Right in the fucking page about the Rogue. Maybe that's been errata'd or something, but when the two fucking primary sources that players at a table reach for state it explicitly, it's the way many games are going to be played... Don't be so goddamn arrogant.

You aren't ever wrong, are you? This is a seriously pointless discussion.

[RobbyPants]

And yes, Rogues really do SA undead. That is something that everyone who actually plays the game learns. But you know what, I do apologize, you are working from the SRD only, and have never seen a single book.

PHB says the same thing. Right in the fucking page about the Rogue. Maybe that's been errata'd or something, but when the two fucking primary sources that players at a table reach for state it explicitly, it's the way many games are going to be played... Don't be so goddamn arrogant.

You aren't ever wrong, are you? This is a seriously pointless discussion.

What he's saying is that existing splat books (which you haven't read) give out ways to SA undead creatures. So, in a core-only game, rogues don't SA undead, but with the right splats included, they do.

[T]

What he's saying is that existing splat books (which you haven't read) give out ways to SA undead creatures. So, in a core-only game, rogues don't SA undead, but with the right splats included, they do.

Thanks for clarifying that RP. It's good to know. But...

He didn't say that. He said I (A) don't know how a rogue in 3.5 works (1st time it was brought up, even though I correctly stated the rule) and (B) I've never read a book and only the SRD (2nd time when I responded, yes, that is how they work). In both replies he managed to be condescending to me, saying I hadn't read a book or knew how a rule worked and state that I've never actually played the game.

The core rules say no SA on undead. Core rule games are common. Regardless, he chose to pick ONE enemy type, which has apparently has optional rules to use SA on, and ignore the others, and use that as the example that I am 'patently wrong' on everything I say. He could have instead been constructive and told me to "check out _____, it's a useful rule" (which he actually did do to his credit with the home brew Tome stuff earlier).

[RobbyPants]

He didn't say that. He said I (A) don't know how a rogue in 3.5 works (1st time it was brought up, even though I correctly stated the rule) and (B) I've never read a book and only the SRD (2nd time when I responded, yes, that is how they work). In both replies he managed to be condescending to me, saying I hadn't read a book or knew how a rule worked and state that I've never actually played the game.

The core rules say no SA on undead. Core rule games are common. Regardless, he chose to pick ONE enemy type, which has apparently has optional rules to use SA on, and ignore the others, and use that as the example that I am 'patently wrong' on everything I say. He could have instead been constructive and told me to "check out _____, it's a useful rule" (which he actually did do to his credit with the home brew Tome stuff earlier).

Well, yes, which is why he specifically said in his last post:

But you know what, I do apologize, you are working from the SRD only, and have never seen a single book.

So, regardless of his original condescension, he caught the error and even apologized for it.

You should feel special. I don't know that I've ever seen him apologize before.