This thread can't have a title because of PhoneLobster.

[erik]

Ah, from Lago's link it seems K does not consider level bonuses scaling to be bonuses, and is not against them.

But situational modifiers, weapon damage, armor protection are all bonuses as well, and I think they are useful if not necessary ones at that. If they too aren't considered bonuses, then what the hell?

The crap I and probably most folks want to get rid of are retarded +X magic items, buff spells and other odd things like racial mods and skill synergies and other bullshit. I'd much rather something like Half-Elves having a special Silver Tongue ability that they can use rather than +2 Diplomacy. But hating that shit doesn't necessitate the silly claim of being opposed to all bonuses.

[hyzmarca]

cut off the mooks at the bottom as you advance,

And there's your problem. Cutting off the mooks is not a necessary and might not even be desirable. It's perfectly reasonable to make high level characters better than mooks just by giving them better abilities, including ones that slaughter mooks.

[DSMatticus]

Saying you are against bonuses is kind of like saying you are against numbers. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Characters will in some case be described numerically. If there is any difference in that numeric description between two different characters, that's a bonus and/or penalty (same thing, whatever) that someone got at some point, some where.

It's a little too broad of a statement to get behind. Things I can get behind:
1) Keeping sources and extents of bonuses minimal, so everybody stays on the same RNG.
2) Keeping active/passive abilities and straight up numeric bonuses off the same choice list, so you aren't choosing between +X damage and "do Y."

[...You Lost Me]

I know this has been brought up before, but the http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Simplified_Rac ... iant_Rule) on the wiki are ability-less and are very much complimented for not using bonuses.

[erik]

I like those, YLM.

I was giving races Primary and Secondary abilities, a bonus Skill and then a Weakness (daylight penalty for vampires, initiative penalty for plantfolk, tibbits are nonthreatening etc.).

Mine that I'm working on looks pretty similar, though Ghost Wheel's Combat, Passive, Utility demarcation is a bit more sophisticated than my Primary, Secondary distinction (wherein primary is just a bigger deal than secondary).

[K]

Saying you are against bonuses is kind of like saying you are against numbers. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Characters will in some case be described numerically. If there is any difference in that numeric description between two different characters, that's a bonus and/or penalty (same thing, whatever) that someone got at some point, some where.

I AM done with numbers.

Too many things in RPGs today are represented with numbers, and in most cases needlessly. There are too many calculations and too many rolls and most of them are completely unnecessary. Hell, a 3.X round can take a half hour or more.

Not just that, but too many things are given the illusion of tactical depth with numbers. For example, why would a 3.X 10th level Wizard need the "Dagger +2 attack" in his stat block with all the related numbers? He's never going to make a dagger attack, and if he did he'd miss. Even if he hit, his numbers are so far off the range that his damage would be pathetic.

Why even have 3.X skills if you don't have sufficiently large stats adding to those skills and don't have them at max ranks? It's not like you are going to be able to make level-appropriate rolls with them or are going to be dumb enough to burn feats for bonuses to those skills, but people still have them "just in case" their pathetic scores might beat the odds and work when they need them.

Dice and number manipulations are the easiest of abilities to write, but also the least flavorful. I mean, who really is going to brag to their friend's about that reroll that they got on an attack? Will you even notice the +2 from Flanking on most days? Is stacking all your feats and class features to make a Grapplemancer really worth it?

Why even give divergent attack bonuses or defenses when you can just hand out bigger and better abilities? Why worry about whether the fighter has a big enough damage modifier if you are just going to add HPs to monsters to offset the damage bonus you just gave the fighters?

Not to be an old man here, but I honestly think that a generation has been ruined by video games. They honestly are craving for that next slight numerical bonus like it was a real ability, even going so far as to mock people that, in theory, might be doing 1% less damage and accusing them of being second-rate players (though none could actually prove how much actual damage is being done since the final damage numbers are within statistical deviation).

That doesn't mean that you go diceless or stop using numbers, but it does mean that we should honestly look at whether any particular system needs another roll or has to be represented by a bonus/penalty. In most cases, I think the answer will be "no."

[Koumei]

Woah woah woah.

Hell, a 3.X round can take a half hour or more.

Are you playing with people who are stoned, or with like 800 player groups? Disgaeagame (tabletop version), most entire battles were over in like 5 minutes. From "rolling Initiative and putting figures on the map" to "and now we loot and/or eat the corpses."

I agree that it's pointless to even list numbers that will always fail/you'll never use - nobody actually gives a shit about their Wizard Dagger Attack, and chances are most Arcane Casters and Rogues will never actually make a Grapple check with any chance of success. And yeah, aside from the skills which are "one rank to be able to do it, you don't need a result" (Sleight of Hand for quickdrawing) or "I just need to hit this static DC" (Tumble for AoO avoidance), you either max it or you empty it.

Dice and number manipulations are the easiest of abilities to write, but also the least flavorful. I mean, who really is going to brag to their friend's about that reroll that they got on an attack? Will you even notice the +2 from Flanking on most days?

This is true as well. I mean, I noticed it when writing up various classes, and the whole Disgaeagame and Dungeon Crusade stuff. A bonus or re-roll is easy but boring. Even "cute" things like "you treat a 1 as a 20" or whatever are just dice manipulation and not actually interesting in play. I was also discussing that with people in regards to 40k - almost every special weapon rule is "Reroll all misses/reroll 1 miss/reroll all 1s to hit/reroll all failed wounds/reroll 1 failed wound/reroll all 1s to wound, ignores armour, ignores armour on a 6, always wounds on the roll of X, causes instant death (usually useless), causes instant death on a 6, +X to Strength". And they seriously need 200 special weapons - you start to notice that an Eerie Gaze is just a non-template Neural Shredder is just a ranged Neuro-Whip really quickly.

Is stacking all your feats and class features to make a Grapplemancer really worth it?

Given you're casting spells to do it (meaning they're not always on - you need to either prepare for the next fight or decide what you're going to cast in the first round before jumping in), and some of these apply special effects (being on fire, dazing people, grappling people from a distance), then yes, it's worth it and fun. Just being a Grapple Fighter, on the other hand (let's pretend his feats could give him a big enough number to make that work), would be lame.

That doesn't mean that you go diceless or stop using numbers, but it does mean that we should honestly look at whether any particular system needs another roll or has to be represented by a bonus/penalty. In most cases, I think the answer will be "no."

Right. Scaling back the amount of simple numerical things can only be a good thing. It's just some of your points on the way to this (I would have thought obvious) statement I take issue with.

[Chamomile]

I've actually recently made a system that has no real numerical increase abilities whatsoever. It's something I slapped together in about a week and suffers from being 90% MTP, but I think it can act as a very solid base atop which other things might be built.

[Blicero]

Are you playing with people who are stoned, or with like 800 player groups? Disgaeagame (tabletop version), most entire battles were over in like 5 minutes. From "rolling Initiative and putting figures on the map" to "and now we loot and/or eat the corpses."

Judging solely from your campaign writeups, Koumei, your games seem to be noticeably easier than most Tome games I've played or even read about. It may be that you just have godlike players who always know everything, but I suspect the quickness in resolution is partially due to your inclinations and actions.

In my experience, 3.T rounds tend to take 5-15 minutes, depending on the complexity of the situation. But we rarely had 1-round curbstomp battles.

[tussock]

Personally, I think having bonuses is fine, but hit/AC bonuses should mostly be automatic. The second you introduce a sword that gives +5 to hit, that becomes all but necessary, because if the RNG is even remotely balanced, that's going to give you a huge advantage, to the point where it becomes necessary, even if when the item didn't exist you didn't feel like you needed it.

This isn't strictly true. +5 to hit changes your DoT by a smaller percentage as your base attacks are more successful, to the point that once your attacks are hitting all the time anyway it's not worth anything at all.

It's more valuable to your weakest combatants, but they're still the weakest combatants with it or without it. You just have to allow the Fighter to get to the point where he hits all the time anyway, regardless of the weapon, while ensuring the non-Fighters can't get there even with it. 1st edition worked like that at very high levels, though most of the good weapons were still limited to +3.

[Koumei]

Judging solely from your campaign writeups, Koumei, your games seem to be noticeably easier than most Tome games I've played or even read about.

Honestly it varied from session to session. Plenty of fights were indeed "Reminders that the PCs are awesome". But even a Stunlock enemy (with little in the way of actual damage) with a bunch of HP was actually a short fight. Likewise when I threw in groups of enemies or started making bosses several levels above them - the fights weren't precisely easy in that they would take big loads of damage and stuff and couldn't just automatically do X, but they still reacted quickly, made their decisions quickly, did the rolling-and-adding quickly... it was quick.

And most games I've played in with reasonably intelligent people and not "yes this is an eight-player game, half of you have cohorts and are bringing followers to battle, and in order to give everyone screen-time I'm tripling the number of enemies, also it's too fucking early for this and I'm a coffee addict who has only had two mugs this morning" were similar.

I just don't think 3.X actually does take that long.

In my experience, 3.T rounds tend to take 5-15 minutes, depending on the complexity of the situation. But we rarely had 1-round curbstomp battles.

Even 2-3 rounds would usually be over pretty quickly. But yes, I'll admit Disgaeagame is all about the 1-round-KO (just like actual Disgaea - "Win on round 1, or don't see round 2"). And also why I don't see "People spam the same ability all the time" as an actual problem. When your average combat is "one round", and you have maybe 2 or 3 fights in a session, who even cares?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Personally, I think having bonuses is fine, but hit/AC bonuses should mostly be automatic. The second you introduce a sword that gives +5 to hit, that becomes all but necessary, because if the RNG is even remotely balanced, that's going to give you a huge advantage, to the point where it becomes necessary, even if when the item didn't exist you didn't feel like you needed it.

Assuming that the RNG was balanced before the introduction of the sword and the introduction of the sword didn't induce uncontrollable jealousy or accusations of favoritism, why is that a problem?

[Aryxbez]

Assuming that the RNG was balanced before the introduction of the sword and the introduction of the sword didn't induce uncontrollable jealousy or accusations of favoritism, why is that a problem?

As I understand it, it takes away choice in the matter, especially if there's other more cooler magic items out there, that increase tactical options and so forth. Much like the problem even 4th edition had with Iron Armbands of Power/Archery, and Reckless weapons (nevermind their magic item selection was already limited and disappointing). Since they increased your raw numbers that you'll use more, it takes far more prominence, but is definitely more boring than say a Trident of Fish Command.

Plus, we all hating with the pucking of the RNG, that's what 3rd edition does after all.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Sorry, I meant more in the sense of a DM-fiat reward or a random generation. Letting people pick up magical items on any kind of entitlement schedule is a whole 'nuther ballgame.