D&D 2E/3.5E numbers question

[T]

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

Haha. I figured as much

[Kaelik]

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.

An expectation that is true. The ability to be retarded exists in any game.

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.

No, I wasn't. I didn't say HP, I was talking about saves, which are different depending on the classification of the monster.

Your whole fucking argument is that because everything in 3e scales faster, it goes off the RNG if things don't scale faster. It is a contradiction.

If the PCs AC isn't scaling, then the monsters AB could just as easily not scale. The thing where you say "If the DM breaks the rules in one area, but not another, then the rules have created an imbalance." is really dumb. The rules did not create that imbalance. And you certainly saw that in 2e, since you aren't complaining about how the DM can kill your party with a Gold Dragon you couldn't hope to hit at level 1.

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.

Skills do go off the RNG. I never said you were wrong about skills going off the RNG. Skills are supposed to go off the RNG. I said it was wrong of you to extrapolate from the fact that skills go off the RNG to the fact that AC/AB go off the RNG, because that is unrelated.

I demonstrated how the normal course of events drives skills off the RNG, note that at no point did I start talking about the DM taking away peoples items, or the players making bad decisions to justify the RNG departures existence. That's because those are not valid sources for a complaint.

Since you apparently prefer forum conversations to playing the game, in parlance you would understand, this is a reverse Oberoni fallacy. The DM can screw up any game, so if you require the DM to break the rules to create a problem, you don't have a problem.

[T]

No, I wasn't. I didn't say HP, I was talking about saves, which are different depending on the classification of the monster.

You actually did say HP. Go back and read what you wrote. Here, I'll save you the effort:

And no, their saves and HP aren't determined solely by HD.

Your whole fucking argument is that because everything in 3e scales faster, it goes off the RNG if things don't scale faster. It is a contradiction.

It's not really a contradiction, but I'm tired of trying to explain it to you. The expectation is that character BAB, damage, AC, HP, and other stuff scales with the predetermined counterparts for monsters. That expectation is often met. It does not have to be, and you don't have to break the rules to not meet that expectation. For example, you still haven't quite explained how a level 5 character with a CON of 9 (not a far fetched example) has 'twice' the HP (or whatever the factor is) to match up with higher monster damage. I agree, 9 CON is not optimal and no player who knows what he's doing should stick anything less than a 10 in there, but it still happens.

If the PCs AC isn't scaling, then the monsters AB could just as easily not scale. The thing where you say "If the DM breaks the rules in one area, but not another, then the rules have created an imbalance." is really dumb. The rules did not create that imbalance. And you certainly saw that in 2e, since you aren't complaining about how the DM can kill your party with a Gold Dragon you couldn't hope to hit at level 1.

If the PCs AC isn't scaling appropriately through poor decisions on the player's or DM's part, it doesn't change the AB of the monsters. Yes, the monster's AB could be changed through a house rule, but the rules as printed give the monsters a specific AB. And to finish off this statement, a PC making a poor choice in armor, or the DM doing something that takes away an item, isn't a house rule nor is it breaking a rule. If a CR 4 enemy with DR can disarm you or sunder your weapon (totally within the rules), how is that the DM breaking the rules? If you are on a castle wall when that happens and the disarmed weapon goes over the edge, preventing immediate recover, is that breaking a rule? Does the CR of the enemy change mid battle because the DM used the same tactics against you that you can use against him?

Here's an example. I'd like to see how you'd rate the CR of this. 4 lvl 4 PCs in a boat, far away from shore. Three of the four have decided to remove their armor so they don't sink and die. One keeps his plate on. A sea hag (planned encounter because the lake is infested by sea hags) attacks the party. The first thing the hag does, being a moderately smart creature with an INT of 10, is to punch a hole in the bottom of the boat. Three PCs do not have the expected AC for their level. The fourth does, but will quite possibly die from drowning. The CR for a night hag is 4. As you've kindly pointed out to me, that is appropriate for a lvl 4 party. Should the CR of this encounter be adjusted, even though the DM isn't being mean, nor is the DM doing anything out of character for the monster? The hag lives in water and is attacking in it's natural habitat, and using it to it's advantage as an intelligent creature. Doesn't the CR for this monster take into account that you'll be encountering it in lake settings? If not, how much do adjust it by? It's all good and fine to say it should arbitrarily be adjusted up, but I'm willing to bet the DMG gives no real rules about when to adjust CRs and by how much, other than just acknowledging that sometimes they should be adjusted.

I don't see how that example is preposterous, misrated in terms of CR, or the result of either PCs or the DM 'doing something stupid' or breaking rules.

As to the gold dragon at lvl 1: yes that would be ridiculous. Just like it would be ridiculous in 3.5. The above example is not like that, but something that can come about from a reasonably normal and fair encounter.

Don't presume to know what I prefer or don't prefer. That's just a distraction comment and you know it.

I'd still like to hear you revisit your comments on the Rogue and SA.

[T]

Also, too, I never stated this:

I said it was wrong of you to extrapolate from the fact that skills go off the RNG to the fact that AC/AB go off the RNG, because that is unrelated.

They were presented as two separate cases, both representative of possibly wonky math in 3.5. I never said that one was caused by the other. You decided that I had said that, when I had in fact never said anything of the kind.

[violence in the media]

The first thing the hag does, being a moderately smart creature with an INT of 10, is to punch a hole in the bottom of the boat.

What's the DC for punching a hole in the bottom of a boat? Is this something the hag could reasonably fail at and give the PCs warning of an imminent attack? Or is this a metaphorical punching and she's set up an underwater snare that the PCs could possibly detect before collision?

I'm not trying to pick apart your example, but it seems like there's a whole lot of potential things that you're ignoring that could happen before the MC narrates, a gnarled, leathery fist punches through the bottom of your dinghy. IIRC, the DMG (which I don't have with me) mentions something about adjusting CR/EL for favorable conditions on the monster's part (I think the example is orcs with bows across a chasm or on a ledge or something), but I don't think it says much about under-geared PCs.

If you're asking whether a string of unfortunate decisions and poor rolls can lead to untimely demise...well, that's more of a discussion about playstyle.

[T]

violence: I get what you are saying. But there are rules for sundering/attacking wood. Wood has a hardness (5) and HP (10/inch) associated with it. Hardness is like DR (I think), but 10 HP isn't all the much and a typical rowboat isn't all that thick. So you have to do 10 HP/inch, -5 HP/strike due to hardness. As far as hitting an inanimate object, the SRD says (it's online and I have access to it right now):

An object’s Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (-5 penalty to AC), but also an additional -2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.

So a sea hag who swims up under your boat and takes a full round action, since you don't know it's there, automatically hits. Even if it doesn't take a full round action, the boat is going to have a super shitty AC, like an AC of 2, so it's pretty much an auto hit anyway. I don't know if sea hags can attack, full attack, etc. while swimming - the monster entry doesn't clarify. I assume they can since they are aquatic. They get claw attacks at 1d4+4, so they are doing 0 to 3 HP of damage per strike. It's probably DM judgement call whether or not they get both attacks for a full attack, while clinging to the bottom of the boat. Even if they don't, it's quite possible they could destroy/punch a hole in the bottom of a boat in a couple rounds. Again, the rules aren't clear what happens to a boat when you deal 10 HP of damage to it. Clearly you 'killed' it, but what does that mean? Even if it takes them longer then 2-3 rounds, if they are clinging to the bottom of the boat in the middle of the lake, what can the PCs do in 10-20 seconds to stop it? Sure they could fire off a water breathing spell or something, but a paladin in full plate isn't going to be able to get his armor off. Note you wouldn't have a water breathing spell until 5th level, and this is a CR 4 encounter (or maybe not).

The hag could also take the route of trying to outright break the boat. The SRD says this:

When a character tries to break something with sudden force rather than by dealing damage, use a Strength check (rather than an attack roll and damage roll, as with the sunder special attack) to see whether he or she succeeds. The DC depends more on the construction of the item than on the material.

A simple wooden door has a DC of 13, a good one DC 19, and a strong one 23. A sea hag has 19 STR. I don't know what kind of door a row boat is equivalent too, but let's just say good. 19 STR is +4 for the ability check, so the hag has a 30% chance of 'breaking' the boat per attempt.

I just looked the above up - I could certainly be wrong about what I stated. I don't think it's a particularly far fetched example - it happened, it was a fun encounter, and we survived. I'm pretty sure it was by the rules (you'd still have to make some judgment calls interpreting them) as much as it could be.

But regardless, shouldn't a monster's native abilities/terrain be factored into the CR? I wouldn't think a flying monster shouldn't get a CR raise just because he decides to fly, as Kaelik pointed out with the Barghest.

If orcs are across a chasm by DM design, truly raising the difficulty of the encounter, I could see where you are supposed to raise the CR (but by how much?) If the orcs climb up on a ledge while the PCs stick their thumbs up their asses and watch, after initiative is rolled, and the PCs don't have ranged weapons, I would think CR shouldn't be raised - dumb PCs put themselves in that spot. Besides, if the DMG doesn't really give much in the way of actual mechanics for modifying CR for different encounters because of favorable terrain, being without your equipment, or anything else, it's just hand waving anyway. That's just basically saying, "CRs kind of work, until they don't. Fix them if they are inappropriate." Which is fine by me in the long run - I can't imagine CRs are ultimately anything but a guideline, because it's an RPG and there are just too many variables to account for everything.

In the hypothetical situation of where 5th level PCs don't have their armor or weapons because they've been captured: Kaelik says they aren't expected to go up against CR 5 encounters, because they no longer have all of the capabilities of a 5th level party. I buy that. What are they supposed to go up against then? They are certainly more powerful than 1st level characters. Do they need CR 2? 3? 4? Are there actual mechanics for how to adjust things? Or are you just winging it, like we did back with 2e.

It's an interesting discussion and one I would be interested to hear your guys thoughts on - you clearly have a lot more experience than me with respect to CRs. I've DM'ed a fair amount of 2e, long ago as a young kid, but never 3.5. I'm getting ready to DM 3.5 with the old group and am wrapping my head around the differences. But ultimately it is a tangental topic to my original one.

[Kaelik]

Okay, first thing first, when you are talking about monsters and such, there are two things to keep track of: CR and EL.

EL is Encounter Level. It is the thing you use to determine if something is an appropriate challenge for the party.

CR is Challenge Rating, it is the number that rates the monster.

If you pit two CR 5 monsters against the party, that is an EL 7 encounter, and you would use EL 7 as the number to determine how hard the encounter would be.

But the monsters would remain CR 5.

Likewise, if you use a CR 5 monster in a tough situation, it might be EL 6 instead, but it would still be a CR 5 monster.

It's not really a contradiction, but I'm tired of trying to explain it to you. The expectation is that character BAB, damage, AC, HP, and other stuff scales with the predetermined counterparts for monsters. That expectation is often met. It does not have to be, and you don't have to break the rules to not meet that expectation. For example, you still haven't quite explained how a level 5 character with a CON of 9 (not a far fetched example) has 'twice' the HP (or whatever the factor is) to match up with higher monster damage. I agree, 9 CON is not optimal and no player who knows what he's doing should stick anything less than a 10 in there, but it still happens.

And you haven't explained how a 2e Fighter with 9 Str 3 Con and 18 Int is on the RNG either. Because he isn't. That's the point, when players make bad choices, they can in fact be off the RNG. There is nothing you can do to prevent that other than make players choices meaningless.

If the PCs AC isn't scaling appropriately through poor decisions on the player's or DM's part, it doesn't change the AB of the monsters. Yes, the monster's AB could be changed through a house rule, but the rules as printed give the monsters a specific AB. And to finish off this statement, a PC making a poor choice in armor, or the DM doing something that takes away an item, isn't a house rule nor is it breaking a rule. If a CR 4 enemy with DR can disarm you or sunder your weapon (totally within the rules), how is that the DM breaking the rules? If you are on a castle wall when that happens and the disarmed weapon goes over the edge, preventing immediate recover, is that breaking a rule? Does the CR of the enemy change mid battle because the DM used the same tactics against you that you can use against him?

If a CR 4 enemy with DR can disarm or sunder your weapon, then that's part of the CR. You are supposed to be able to deal with that fact. If you can't, then I guess you weren't capable of dealing with a CR 4 enemy.

Of course, if it disarms you, the sword can't go off the castle wall, because when you are disarmed, the weapon ends up on the ground in the square you are occupying. But whatever.

Here's an example. I'd like to see how you'd rate the CR of this. 4 lvl 4 PCs in a boat, far away from shore. Three of the four have decided to remove their armor so they don't sink and die. One keeps his plate on. A sea hag (planned encounter because the lake is infested by sea hags) attacks the party. The first thing the hag does, being a moderately smart creature with an INT of 10, is to punch a hole in the bottom of the boat. Three PCs do not have the expected AC for their level. The fourth does, but will quite possibly die from drowning. The CR for a night hag is 4. As you've kindly pointed out to me, that is appropriate for a lvl 4 party. Should the CR of this encounter be adjusted, even though the DM isn't being mean, nor is the DM doing anything out of character for the monster? The hag lives in water and is attacking in it's natural habitat, and using it to it's advantage as an intelligent creature. Doesn't the CR for this monster take into account that you'll be encountering it in lake settings? If not, how much do adjust it by? It's all good and fine to say it should arbitrarily be adjusted up, but I'm willing to bet the DMG gives no real rules about when to adjust CRs and by how much, other than just acknowledging that sometimes they should be adjusted.

I would the rate the CR of that encounter "Player stupidity." "Hey guys, let's go out into the ocean in a tiny easily destroyed boat when we can't breath water. Also, then let's go to the Elemental Plane of Water."

If they are a in a boat so small and slow that a Hag can punch a hole in it, then they will all die, and the deserve it.

If the hag breaks the boat, then all of them drown, regardless of who can or can't swim. This is because PCs are actually really bad at swimming. The swim rules basically force them to roll to see if they can move at all, and then take a huge penalty to speed.

The PCs literally cannot escape the Hag, cannot attack the Hag, and are just going to be pulled under one by one and drowned. If you are in the water, fighting a Sea Hag, and you don't breath water, you have already lost.

If you see the had, you have to make a save, or effectively drown. If the Hag uses a standard action, you have to make two saves, Will and Fort, and if you fail either, you die. And then, the Hag can just grapple you and drag you under, and you drown. It moves you 20ft straight down if it wins a grapple, and you can swim 5ft a round if you succeed on a swim check.

Nothing about your AC even matters at all, so this example has literally nothing to do with the RNG in any way.

I'd still like to hear you revisit your comments on the Rogue and SA.

Revisit in what sense? Yes, the Rogue requires SA to be level appropriate. Therefore, in Core, Rogues could not be level appropriate against many things. That's why they fixed it, by giving Rogues like 6 ways to SA undead, 3 to SA Constructs, and two ways to SA literally everything immune to SA. And that is why 3e Rogues are considered a valid class.

I did specifically state that since you were operating from the SRD instead of owning books or playing the game that I excused your lack of knowledge of things that only come up from having played the game for the last several years.

[T]

Makes sense about the CR/EL distinction.

And you haven't explained how a 2e Fighter with 9 Str 3 Con and 18 Int is on the RNG either. Because he isn't. That's the point, when players make bad choices, they can in fact be off the RNG. There is nothing you can do to prevent that other than make players choices meaningless.

Yes, that character is totally off the RNG. I agree. I like how you use 3 CON compared to my 9 CON. Way to go to extremes. A 9 or lower in an ability isn't that rare. A 3 is. The question at hand is not CAN you get off the RNG, it's how easy is it to do so. And how much you are penalized when you do it.

If I could sum up all your arguments, it would be this, "You can get off the RNG in any game. Therefore, it is pointless to talk about how easy it is to do so in different games." There are things you can do to prevent that.

But, let's look at your example. This is all up until level 9 or so.

In 3.5, a character with 9 CON is 1 HP down per level. His HP is NOT scaling as fast as the expected damage done, which scales faster in 3.5 than it does in 2. Not only is his HP not scaling fast enough with expected values in 3.5, he's not scaling fast enough for the lower 2e expected values. So the fact that expected damage and HP together scale faster in 3.5 than they do in 2e means you get more out of sync with the expected damage the more your HP underperforms the expected value.

In 2e, with 3 CON, you are down -2 HP per level. You are still seriously disadvantaged with respect to HP, but since monsters do less damage in general compared to 3.5, it's not as much of a disadvantage. WITH 3 CON.

It's still not a great comparison because you used different scores than I did. So to even it out, with 9 CON or 9 STR, you don't get any penalties at all in 2e so you have your class average damage and HP. You aren't rewarded for your lower than average abilities, but they don't punish you. Yes, you might as well just give the character a 10 CON, because it makes no difference in game play. It doesn't change the fact that fewer of your players are punished for poor scores (and rewarded for better scores).

Mind you, with your example stats, in 3.5, your character is down 4 HP per level and down 1 HP damage per strike (and to hit, but that's a different problem). So even though monster HP and damage are calculated with the expectation that your PCs have higher HP and do more damage (relative to 2e), you are actually doing less damage, missing more, and are considerably weaker, not only to the expectations of what the 3.5 RNG wants, but also in a straight up comparison to 2e.

So to sum it up, a character with either set of those stats (9 STR/9 CON or 9 STR/3 CON) does better relative to the values expected by the RNG in 2e than he does in 3.5e. Monsters in 3.5e have higher HP than in 2e, yet the character is punished MORE and does LESS damage. Monsters do more damage in 3.5, yet the character has fewer HP. He just flat out sucks more in 3.5e compared to 3.5e monsters than he would in 2e compared to 2e monsters.

If a CR 4 enemy with DR can disarm or sunder your weapon, then that's part of the CR. You are supposed to be able to deal with that fact. If you can't, then I guess you weren't capable of dealing with a CR 4 enemy.

Ok, so my examples of a character being without a weapon does not make them only fit for a lower CR/EL encounter. There are mechanisms in the rules for removing your character's weapons. Sunder, disarm, etc. I didn't have to resort to the "DM breaking the rules" as you said earlier.

Of course, if it disarms you, the sword can't go off the castle wall, because when you are disarmed, the weapon ends up on the ground in the square you are occupying. But whatever.

What if the wall is 1' wide? haha. Just kidding. Good point - in the limit of 5' squares, this wouldn't happen without some contrived situation.

I would the rate the CR of that encounter "Player stupidity." "Hey guys, let's go out into the ocean in a tiny easily destroyed boat when we can't breath water. Also, then let's go to the Elemental Plane of Water."

stuff

Nothing about your AC even matters at all, so this example has literally nothing to do with the RNG in any way.

First part - fair enough. Something that PCs still might do, but they probably deserve death. Still, it's a CR 4 monster in an encounter that 4th level characters can't meaningfully prepare for or deal with. D&D is apparently a game where you never ever get in a boat unless you can breathe water.

Second part - I disagree. It was a reasonably non contrived scenario for why PCs wouldn't have armor on. Or are you saying the PCs have their armor on 24/7? If not, it can affect the RNG. But whatever. Just let it be known that I said there were situations in a game where a PC might be without their equipment without resorting to the DM breaking rules or making shit up. Which is how you characterized my statements when you said:

If the DM breaks the rules in one area, but not another, then the rules have created an imbalance.

Yes, the Rogue requires SA to be level appropriate. Therefore, in Core, Rogues could not be level appropriate against many things.

Yeah, exactly. Which was my point, which was why I brought it up. You could have very easily said splat books fix things instead acting like a can of dicks and calling me an idiot for stating almost exactly what you just stated above.

This whole thread is full of you misreading and mischaracterizing my statements. All the while calling me an idiot.

[shadzar]

This whole thread is full of you misreading and mischaracterizing my statements. All the while calling me an idiot.

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

[Kaelik]

Stuff about ability scores

No, that's not how it works. First of all, you have to consider the way ability scores are generated. 3e has a system that gives better ability scores than 2e. So you don't get to compare 2e ability scores to 3e straight.

Secondly, the point is not how much a specific person is off the RNG, or what stats, the point is that if you roll a 3 in 2e, you don't put it in Con, and likewise, when you are playing a fighter, you don't put a 9 in Con, because you put your best stat in Str, and your next best in Con, and by definition in order to have a legal character, your second highest stat has to be at least a 10. So your hypothetical 9 will never ever happen unless a player deliberately chooses to be off the RNG.

Ok, so my examples of a character being without a weapon does not make them only fit for a lower CR/EL encounter. There are mechanisms in the rules for removing your character's weapons. Sunder, disarm, etc. I didn't have to resort to the "DM breaking the rules" as you said earlier.

No, your hypothetical character starting without a weapon does not happen, and if the enemy spends their combat actions disarming one of the party members, and then he can still just pick up a stick off the ground and be -1 or -2 to hit, then that's the enemy using their combat abilities. If the Orc kills the Wizard, it doesn't mean the Wizard is off the RNG on his attacks, it means the enemy used their combat actions to incapacitate a PC.

First part - fair enough. Something that PCs still might do, but they probably deserve death. Still, it's a CR 4 monster in an encounter that 4th level characters can't meaningfully prepare for or deal with. D&D is apparently a game where you never ever get in a boat unless you can breathe water.

No, it's not. Any level 4 party can meaningfully prepare for that encounter by only getting on big and/or fast boats, which just sail to land when a hag starts attacking them. Any boat that can sail faster than 40ft actually can't be attacked more than once by the same hag, and most boats are so huge that even if you did break a hole in them, they could just keep sailing.

D&D world is slightly different than the real world, so just like you don't fight wars with armies, you also don't sail in hag infested waters on small boats.

Second part - I disagree. It was a reasonably non contrived scenario for why PCs wouldn't have armor on. Or are you saying the PCs have their armor on 24/7? If not, it can affect the RNG. But whatever. Just let it be known that I said there were situations in a game where a PC might be without their equipment without resorting to the DM breaking rules or making shit up. Which is how you characterized my statements when you said:

No, it's really not reasonable, that's the point. The hag never attacks AC, but still proves why you don't get in a small boat like that. So when you are on a larger boat, you just keep your armor on, and you generally leave exploring dangerous water areas to people who are competent at it just like people in the 1400s left sea expeditions to people who were good at it.

[T]

True about ability score generation. Though 2e does have an optional method for generating scores, printed in the core PHB, that corresponds to the default method in 3.5e. I was assuming that method since most games I played in back in the day used that method then, and it was also the best way to compare the two systems. I shouldn't have assumed that though, just like I shouldn't have assumed from the beginning from this thread that I meant both 2e and 3.5e core. Sorry about that.

The rest of your argument is 'No, don't do stupid things.' That doesn't really address the math. To say

Secondly, the point is not how much a specific person is off the RNG, or what stats.

is to explicitly miss (or avoid) the point. I have been specifically talking about the math. Don't try to change the subject.

It is however good advice, but doesn't really help find where the mechanics have problems. It actually makes your argument, "There aren't problems with the rules, mechanics, and balance in this game, because you should never do what is unbalanced." I googled your Oberoni fallacy thing, and your argument must be some corollary to it. "The rules aren't broken because you shouldn't do the broken thing," instead of "The rules aren't broken, just change them." I don't think you want to be making that argument, but that does appear to be what you are saying.

The same with the rest of your comments. "Don't do that." Don't get in a row boat in hag infested waters. So you are supposed to carry around a war galley? You are supposed to always know the water has hags in it?

The problem with the "Don't do that" argument is that it doesn't address the problems in the rules. Don't be a monk. Don't take an odd level of fighter. Don't take skills which fit your character sketch if the primary ability is low. Don't be a Rogue without all the optional rules for SA. Don't play without the splat book, except for this one, it sucks. Shit, don't be a fighter. Don't. Players should be rewarded for making good choices, but having specific problems with the way the math works, having specific BAD choices, makes for a poor rule set which reduces the enjoyment of many players.

The problem with the "Don't do that" argument is that it punishes new players who don't have complete mastery of the rules. While mastery of the rules should be awarded, it's a bad to have new players sit around with their thumbs up their collective asses because they didn't know all the rules.

It also makes novice DMs unintentionally punish novice players even more. A hag in a lake attacking some 4th level PCs in a canoe, who have had NO chance to realize there would have been a hag is sure to doom them. It's the old school DM-fucks-you-over thing that people hate around here so much. Yet poor novice DM doesn't even realize what he's doing; it was a CR 4 and level appropriate?

Maybe it's been a long time since you've played with new players, or played without all the splat books, or played without the Tomes. I'm currently playing with a lot of new players. Not just new to 3.5 like me, but new as in never played an RPG before. Most of them do not have PHBs even. There are about 4 copies for 15 people (not all of whom play all the time), the rest either borrow or look at the SRD. Many of these new players get frustrated during the game because they don't realize that as a fighter, CON is the 2nd most important score. They don't realize they shouldn't be a fighter. They don't realize they wasted a feat on Cleave. And they have to live with those choices now. And moving forward, they don't realize they should buy magic weapons, magic armor, etc. They don't realize they are supposed to pour through the DMG looking for magic items to buy. So on and so forth. It doesn't take long for them to be so out of sync with the rest of the party or opponents, that they are useless.

The problem with the "Don't do that" argument is that it's not an argument.

[...You Lost Me]

T, you're trying to say that it's possible to get off the RNG, and that's a bad thing.

Kaelik is saying that yes, it's possible to get off the RNG, but if you actually read the game thoroughly and do a bit of thinking, the actions you should take are obvious.

D&D is renowned for being a not-player-friendly game, so the fact that you have people who haven't read the entirety of the Player's Handbook or DMG doing poorly makes sense--the game is hard to understand, but once you understand it, it's mostly your fault for when you're off the RNG against opponents.

[Kaelik]

The problem with your argument is that it isn't specific to 3e.

You are arguing that PCs could make bad decisions in 3e, and will therefore be off the RNG. Great, they can make those exact same mistakes in 2e, and they will be off the RNG there too.

The reason I pointed to the Oberoni Fallacy is because there are no problems with the mechanics. The problems are with the hypothetical decisions of the stupid players who magically become intelligent when they play 2e.

There are no problems in the rules. Yes, the Monk is a bad class that is never on the RNG. It's a bad class precisely because other classes are on the RNG.

Good thing 2e doesn't have any shitty classes that aren't on the RNG... oh wait, yes it does. A 2e Thief is just as disadvantaged in combat as a 3e Monk.

If you want to claim there is a problem with 3e mechanics, you have to show how X problem is a problem that brings PCs off the RNG in 3e, but not int 2e.

All of your examples fail the 2e test.

Poor player decisions drop PCs of the RNG regardless of edition.

Losing your weapon or armor drops you off the RNG regardless of edition.

There are plenty of things that drop you off the RNG in 3e. You have consistently failed to show that there exists some large quantity of them in 3e that don't in 2e.

[T]

Kaelik is saying that yes, it's possible to get off the RNG, but if you actually read the game thoroughly and do a bit of thinking, the actions you should take are obvious.

What Kaelik is saying, and has said repeatedly, is "Don't do that", "Don't break the rules", and "Don't be stupid." With a couple "You are retarded" and "You are stupid"s thrown in. He has repeatedly misunderstood me, mischaracterized me, and just said false things without admitting he said them. The leaps of logic he's made (thinking I said skill RNG affects combat RNG - say what?) from some of my statements are astounding, and frankly, fucking retarded. He also seems to like to shift the argument when he's wrong. Look at his fucking 9 STR, 3 CON example. He brought it up, brought it up again as an example of something I didn't acknowledge, then just said it doesn't matter because you'd never put those scores like that. I didn't put those scores like that, he did. That's a piece of shit argument style. It's a lot of noise with no substance. He's always right, because he just changes the point. He's always right, because he attacks something he imagined you said.

This whole thread was about this: it seems to be easier to get off the RNG in 3.5e than it is in 2e. It was an impression I had, and I wasn't sure if it was right. To say, "You can get off the RNG in any game, it's an invalid topic" is bullshit. To say, "You can get off the RNG in any game by doing stupid shit, so don't do stupid shit" is also bullshit. When the whole discussion was about getting off the RNG.

Analogy time:

T: Hey is car A or car B safer?
K: You can die in any car, it doesn't matter.
T: But is car A or car B safer?
K: You only die in a car if you do dumb shit, so it doesn't matter.
T: But what if someone hits you, which one is safer?
K: Eat a dick you stupid asshole.

T: Hey is car A or car B safer?
K: You think car B is a pig? Don't you know what a car is?

T: Hey is car A or car B safer?
K: No, that's wrong. Don't do that.

[Kaelik]

Point of order:

You should always use my full name, or at least more than the first letter, because there is an actual poster named K.

[...You Lost Me]

Better Analogy Time:

T: Is Car A or Car B better for when you drive off a cliff?
Kaelik: Why the fuck would you drive off a cliff? Are you dense?
T: But is Car A or Car B safer for when you drive off a cliff?
Kaelik: Here's a better way to solve your problems--don't drive off cliffs.
T: But you could drive off a cliff sometimes maybe!
Kaelik: Yes, if you're retarded.
T: I know this one time a guy drove off a cliff in Car B. It sucked.
Kaelik: Eat a dick you stupid asshole.

[shadzar]

Kaelik is saying that yes, it's possible to get off the RNG, but if you actually read the game thoroughly and do a bit of thinking, the actions you should take are obvious.

D&D is renowned for being a not-player-friendly game, so the fact that you have people who haven't read the entirety of the Player's Handbook or DMG doing poorly makes sense--the game is hard to understand, but once you understand it, it's mostly your fault for when you're off the RNG against opponents.

the problem is really that there IS a right choice to be made. such shouldnt exist in the first place, otherwise there really is NO choice. it should be just there up front. this is a problem with WotC editions not found in 2nd. people brought up on WotC editions are playing the numbers game, not the roleplaying game.

why does this all sound like something i have said before?

another problem with this "right way" to choose, makes the game have a limit. there becomes a finite way to play and thus loses replayability in the long run. this either causes component bloat, to add more possibilities that change what is "right", or edition treadmill so that when people have played the "right choices" enough they dont get bored playing them over and over. the problem in general with "system mastery" editions that WotC makes, as opposed to systems that are impossible to master because there is no "right" choice to make.

modern gamers are playing to beat the system, rather than play the game. more interest in doing things the quickest way like a video game competition to have the lowest time.

sadly it makes the RNG a moot point. the existence of the ability to optimize for the RNG in ANY way or defeat the RNG, means you have effectively eliminated the random factor and are playing more to Mother-May-I and MTP, than editions that rely upon the RNG. ergo why older editions shouldnt have added levels beyond a certain point without adjusting the RNG..which would have created a different game, or jsut moved the RNG where those lower levels doesnt exist so can no longer affect the RNG.

it is similar to what 4th did with tiers, but sadly when you left one teir, the previous tier still was a part of the game, and the numbers didnt scale properly because the RNG didnt scale properly.

imagine the tiers concept but doing it like this to maintain the RNG:
Heroic: 1~10
Paragon: 1`10
Epic: 1~10

each new teir is like starting over with the RNG again (say THAC0 resets for 2nd), and you never see those smaller things because they no longer effect you as a threat and wouldnt give XP. you have all your "powers" but effectively a Paragon tier level 1 character. the rules change a bit for the numbers, but the RNG remains stable and no auto-win. the game would have phases, and this way the RNG SHOULD never fail if it worked to begin with, and the game could go on forever as long as the tiers were adjusted right and the RNG keeps resetting.

[ishy]

Many of these new players get frustrated during the game because they don't realize that as a fighter, CON is the 2nd most important score.

Maybe, just maybe if they are new to the game, they should read their goddamned class description. Here I'll quote it for you since you clearly haven't read much about the system you are criticising:

Constitution is important for giving fighters lots of hit points, which they need in their many battles.

- Edit: I mean what is next? Saying the wizard is a terrible class because you could in theory make a wizard with 6 int, so she can't cast a single spell?

[T]

Better Analogy Time:

T: Is Car A or Car B better for when you drive off a cliff?
Kaelik: Why the fuck would you drive off a cliff? Are you dense?
T: But is Car A or Car B safer for when you drive off a cliff?
Kaelik: Here's a better way to solve your problems--don't drive off cliffs.
T: But you could drive off a cliff sometimes maybe!
Kaelik: Yes, if you're retarded.
T: I know this one time a guy drove off a cliff in Car B. It sucked.
Kaelik: Eat a dick you stupid asshole.

Haha, nice

D&D: Putting a 9 in CON is like driving your car off a cliff.

[T]

Many of these new players get frustrated during the game because they don't realize that as a fighter, CON is the 2nd most important score.

Maybe, just maybe if they are new to the game, they should read their goddamned class description. Here I'll quote it for you since you clearly haven't read much about the system you are criticising:

ishy, this is kind of a weak argument. I'm sure it says CON is the 2nd most important ability to for paladin, ranger, monk, and every other martial class, right? As you all know, CON is the only ability that if ability damage reduces you to 0 kills you. Again, many players don't know that up front. And way to throw in a snarky statement too. Anyway, for all I know, it probably says the same thing in 2e. Is that fighter penalized more or less in 2e or 3.5e for a dumb choice? That's the question I've been interested in.

Regardless, it's still the "Don't do that" argument when I was interested in the math behind the game of what is *possible*, not what is prudent. I'm not even saying falling off the RNG is always bad. But really, it's pointless at this point in time - when we were looking at the math, Kaelik was so confused and/or wrong about what scaling meant, how some 2e monster traits are calculated, and other things that he was unable to even look at the math properly. Despite that, "All of [my] examples fail the 2e test." Except where they didn't. Now it's become a discussion about "don't do that", which while it can be interesting and good advice, I'm not interested in. It does have implications for games, but it's not the point.

But you guys really can't see that. You really think I'm trying to say 2e is better than 3e. IT'S NOT. 2e sucked horse dick in so many ways it's not even funny. Doesn't mean there aren't parts of it that were not objectively worse than 3e, only different, and sometimes objectively better.

[violence in the media]

T, I'm not really sure what you're even asking anymore. 3.x works well enough in a lot of cases. HOWEVER, if you're expecting to just mindlessly plug scenarios into the system and always have it return desirable results, you're going to experience a lot of disappointment.

And this goes back to my mention of your group's playstyle. If you unwittingly pit your players against the infamous Giant Crab just because "it's CR 3, and they're level 3, and we're on a beach, and I have this cool mini, and hey, what could go wrong?" does your group just roll with it and draw up new characters? Do you apologize for inadvertently unleashing that catastro-fuck on them and modify the encounter? Do you just just shrug and say they should have known not to mess with giant crabs and they should quit being babies about it? There are a lot of encounters that can wind up like this, but you can usually spot them as MC if you're prepared (e.g. not picking a random, unfamilar monster because you need one of CR X, not reading an encounter out of a module for the first time in the middle of the game).

[T]

HOWEVER, if you're expecting to just mindlessly plug scenarios into the system and always have it return desirable results, you're going to experience a lot of disappointment.

Agreed. I'm not expecting it to return desirable results. I'm curious to know if the results are more/less catastrophic than if you attempt to plug in the same scenarios in 2e. I'm curious to know, if in the case of overpowered PCs, they are more likely to blow by all obstacles without breaking a sweat in 2e or 3e.

It's probably too difficult to figure out though, as ishy and hogarth both pointed out:

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.

Even if the averages are the same for various quantities in each system, the variances are wildly different for different quantities. Throwing in a large helping of varied play styles that you mention makes it next to impossible to gauge.

[T]

That crab link was great by the way. Thanks for sharing

[RobbyPants]

and most boats are so huge that even if you did break a hole in them, they could just keep sailing.

This is somewhat off topic, but given 3E's retarded object damaging rules, when you finally reduce a section of something larger to 0 HP, doesn't that destroy a 10x10 foot section of it?

I mean, yes, it seems stupid that a hag making three or four claw attacks could literally rend a 10x10 foot section of the boat, but still.

[T]

Holy crap, do the rules really say that 10'x10' section gets destroyed? I thought it was bad enough that you could 'chop down' a door with a bow and a couple of arrows.