Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 13 KB, 590x813, 2_CLUBS.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
35625178 No.35625178 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

So, I am reading over 5th edition so far and having played all the editions of D&D, I feel like 5th is probably the best.

3rd was my main for a long time and it was a pretty decent system until you got past level 8, then shit started getting ridiculous and it was way too easy to break.

4th edition played more like a tabletop miniatures game and got too far away from the role playing element for my tastes. It was actually really balanced in terms of combat roles though, I have to admit.

AD&D was alright too, but THAC0 was retarded and a lot of the game just didn't mesh with my group after playing the newer versions so we didn't spend much time with it.

Even though it uses 3.5, Pathfinder got fucking crazy. Gunslinging monks and Vampire strippers were starting to show up in our games and while it is fun, it also damn sure isn't D&D anymore and it evolved into its own game in my opinion.

5th edition gets the roleplaying part right and streamlined a bunch of bullshit. Haven't really gotten to the higher levels yet, so no telling if it gets as broken as 3rd edition got, but so far it is more like a simplified combat version of 3rd edition with elements of FATE mixed in for story telling. FATE is a system I loved and this is a great blending of the two. Running FATE get complicated at times with how loose it is, so bringing things back to the D&D setting with clearly established rules but enough play to muck about with things really hits the sweet spot for me.

Releasing the core rulebooks in stages is probably the stupid shit ever though....

>> No.35625296

>>35625178
>THAC0 was retarded
No it wasn't.

>> No.35625523
File: 28 KB, 419x240, IMG_0429.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
35625523

>>35625296
Yes it was. even is the maths was the same it was present in a poorly explained dumb backwards ass fashion.

Even the most retro of retro clones get rid of it, for good reason.

>> No.35625965

I still like my 3.5, but Next is certainly decent and in a few years when the books come down in price i might buy one to assuage my guilt.

If next had been 3.5 minus the magic items dependency, plus 4th minus the powers (i.e. keeping in the +1/2 level to AC and attack and saves to balance it) I would have loved it. Mostly becuase i play high-AC builds but whatever.


It's still a fine system and I understand why it did what it did.

> Releasing the core rulebooks in stages is probably the stupid shit ever though....

They want to extort money out of us for their favewit chawity just for previews of the DMG. THAT shit is why I will not be buying Next. And because there is no provision for skill points. I wish they'd existed as a house rule. Like you pick your skills normally and get +4 on each or whatever (not what 5th did) but then if you WANT, you can do skill points (just hopefully not as stupidly as 3.5 did them with x-class.

>inb4 shitstorm over me being a 3.5 fag, or hating on next. I don't hate it. These are just my opinions.

>> No.35626059

>>35625965

Meh, 3.5 is a good system, just fucktarded for high level play. Actually around mid level it starts to get pretty stupid and the grappling mechanics were utterly idiotic.

>> No.35626069

>>35625523
I will give you that it was explained poorly but it isn't retarded it was just a different way to do things.

d20+bonus = AC (or lower) that you succeed
THAC0-d20 = AC (or higher) that you succeed.

>> No.35626107

>>35626069
No one thinks it's hard to understand, we're saying "a different way to do things" is inherently awkward.
It's like designing a system with a nice clean "3d6 + skill" mechanic except for one skill where you have to break out a deck of nonstandard cards for no apparent reason.

>> No.35626135

I have not played much 5th but I am enjoying being able to use my shield to give enemies disadvantage to hitting my buddies (only one per round but it is still something). It may become my favorite edition, we shall see.

2e has been my favorite system so far because I feel that it does exploration and roleplaying the best so far. Combat isn't anything to write home about good or bad.

3e Never played, I started during 3.5's reign.

3.5 This game seemed like it was less a game and more a character builder that someone slapped a game on. Almost turned me off of tabletop all together but then 4e was announced.

4e This was a bit more fun at first because it was new. Then it became more of a character builder with powers and whatnot. Focus was a lot more on combat. Didn't grow to hate the game like I did/do with 3.5 but it did make me try non-DnD games which i prefer now.

>> No.35626152

>>35626107
Abilities, thief skills (and NWPs if you used them) were roll under.

Saves were roll over your number

Everywhere else in the system was you could tell the DM success or failure and outside forces didn't come into effect. Rolling d20+attack bonus would have been just as awkward in the context of the game.

>> No.35626229

>>35626135
PRetty much my exact feelings.

>> No.35626244

>>35626229

Thirded here.

However, that is what D&D became. No role play, just making characters and battle, battle, battle, and looking for ways to break that battle.

5th edition is fun because of how it puts a lot more emphasis on role playing.

>> No.35626278

>>35626135
>2e has been my favorite system so far because I feel that it does exploration and roleplaying the best so far. Combat isn't anything to write home about good or bad.
Accurate post is accurate. 2e wasn't any better balanced than 3.5. But balance just didn't matter, very much. It was never the focus of the game, and no one in the party ever cared if you were the weakest or strongest character. Playing the pathetic, weakling thief was just as much fun as the fighter dominating combat at low levels or the wizard who is bending space and time to send that worthless-ass thief to go bungle a robbery.

>> No.35626282

>>35626244
I am the first in this chain and this is why I am liking 5e so far. I have found 2 other fa/tg/uys that share my opinions of DnD.

But now we must never talk about non-DnD games least we begin to disagree.

>> No.35626294

>>35625965
>stuff about skill points

It’s in the DMG, wait a month and a half

>> No.35626433

>>35626294
Binary skills are much better than the clusterfuck that was 3e's skill points.

>> No.35626453

>>35626244
That's basically been the focus of the system since its very inception. The depth and relative of your roleplaying is primarily dependent on the group and the GM, the system is secondary to that.

>> No.35626522

>>35626152
Retarded stuff stays retarded even if you do it often.


>>35626135
> 3.5 This game seemed like it was less a game and more a character builder that someone slapped a game on.
Exactly. And PF took it to logical conclusion (thousands of non-options).

But I never started to hate 3.5, since it did a lot of things right.

4e I can't play. Even if I like some stuff: Defences instead of Saving Throws, for example. Too much of a wargame.

Still not certain if I should waste my time on 5e.

>> No.35626549

>>35626522
It can't hurt to try. At the very least it will serve to find 'what' you like or don't like about 5e if you try it out. People who bash things they have never played are >>>/v/ that way.

>> No.35626586

>>35626522
>Retarded stuff stays retarded even if you do it often.
But it wasn't and still isn't retarded. Just because it is not the d20 system that you are used to does not make it retarded.

>> No.35626597

>>35626453

>That's been the idea since it inception

Not really. Gygax made a game with next to nothing on combat. He wanted the focus to be on playing characters and told people to use the Chainmail combat system to solve physical disputes.

>> No.35626598

>>35626522
>But I never started to hate 3.5, since it did a lot of things right.
The only thing 3.5 did right was making the whole game follow the same mechanic (except lolcasters because they don't need to follow any fucking rules!).

>> No.35626601

>>35626586
>Just because it is not the d20 system
This, it's retarded because of it's design and implementation.

>> No.35626618

>>35626598

Casters are easy as hell to nerf. Don't allow resting in game, just at the end of a session and if the end of session is in a place where you can't rest, then they don't rest.

The only reason casters are over powered is because people don't enforce the rules on them.

>> No.35626642

>>35626618
Please start this argument, you're not going to convince him because he cares as much as about actually playing the game as a feminist cares about facts.

But at least the both of you will be stuck here in your bitter, stupid arguing.

>> No.35626647

>>35626601
It isn't retarded and you calling it retarded does not make it so.

>> No.35626661

>>35626642
>>35626618
I wasn't talking about casters being over or under powered. I was talking about the fact that they don't have to give a shit about the roll d20+bonus to meet or beat a DC. But thanks for trying to make me start an argument I guess?

Both of you need to learn to read.

>> No.35626662

>>35626647
Sorry, I will amend the statement.

>This, it's counter-intuitive in that it is poorly designed and implemented by any general persons opinion.

>> No.35626676

>>35626662
Are you just talking about THAC0 or each of the mechanics I mentioned?

I don't find THAC0 counter intuitive but I went into it not expecting it to behave one way or another. Numbers are number do whatever the fuck you want with them.

>> No.35626718
File: 169 KB, 480x640, 1372867572044.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
35626718

>>35626676
>fails at finding THAC0 image in folder.

Just THAC0.

I wouldn't say that roll-under by itself is counter-intuitive unless it isn't standard in the game, a.k.a. contradicted by other checks in the game.

Thief skills by themselves would make a lot of sense to someone who was starting out fresh.

>> No.35626722

>>35625523
Wot. No, man. It's easy. People always try to think of the enemy's armor as a goal they have to reach, when THAC0 is the opposite.

If you're a low-mid level fighter and you have an attack of 13. That means if you roll a 13 or over, then you hit.

An enemy's AC is what you subtract from that. If an enemy's AC is 10, then you only need to roll a 3 or higher to hit, which is easy, obviously.

If an enemy's AC is -4, then they're a bit harder to hit, and you gotta add 4 to your attack. That means the number you're looking for on your d20 is a 17. 17 or higher and you hit.

It's a matter of your sword being hindered by an opponent's armor as your sword is a force in its own right, rather than your sword trying to overcome the enemy's AC as if it were a mountain that you find in Pathfinder.

The thinking is different. It's subtle, but somehow more satisfying to me.

>> No.35626727

>>35626676
I think THAC0 is counter intuitive because of shit like +1 weapons.

Things that give you a bonus (like a +1 sword) to your THAC0 actually lower it.

In an ascending AC system something that gives you a bonus like the +1 sword increase your bonus to hit.

One of these mechanics is more consistent than the other, and that makes it more intuitive.

>> No.35626738

>>35626107
But THAC0 came before the system we use now, isn't it?

So if we're talking about "different" then the current system is the strange one. Of course that's not the case, for various reasons.

>> No.35626761

>>35626727
I think it's simpler than that, subtraction just fucking sucks.

>> No.35626772

>>35626738
Here's the thing: ye olde dnd had no concistency. Some things are roll over, some things are roll under. A +1 to thac0 is a penalty, so +1 swords give -1. And so on.

>> No.35626818

>>35626761
But it's a basic mathematical operation.

It's really easy. Really!

Just play Baldur's Gate and you'll get the hang of THAC0 within the first few hours, easily.

The best way to understand is by doing.

>>35626772
I'm not saying it's perfect. We're talking about THAC0. And a +1 isn't a penalty. You're still thinking backwards. Your numbers aren't supposed to get bigger. They're supposed to get smaller. Your AC and THAC0 both get stronger.

You can see your strength on the die itself. If you have a THAC0 of 3, and you roll a 4, then you know that unless your enemy has a negative AC (which isn't very common, especially at lower to mid levels), that you hit. If you hit your THAC0, then you KNOW that you hit. You become a conqueror and a fighter of heroic legend. Your opponent's AC only helps you. It adds to your THAC0 unless it's negative. Your enemies become footstools that you use to climb ever higher and accumulate more wealth.

FUCK YEAH, THAC0!

>> No.35627290
File: 52 KB, 480x360, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
35627290

>>35626818
A +1 to thac0 means you need to roll 1 higher. Fuck no, grognards!

>> No.35627619

>>35626727
>Things that give you a bonus (like a +1 sword) to your THAC0 actually lower it.
Don't modify your THAC0 modify your rolls.

>> No.35627684
File: 38 KB, 499x497, nope-theres-only-trash-in-here.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
35627684

>>35625178
>4th edition played more like a tabletop miniatures game and got too far away from the role playing element for my tastes.

>> No.35627720

>>35626244
Please explain how it puts more emphasis on roleplay than any other edition.

Does it have narrative mechanics? Flexible stunts? Social combat? Actions that aren't entirely fluff-agnostic?

5e is exactly as roleplay intensive as you want it to be, just like every other DnD. Saying it is by nature more focused on roleplay just because dickgirl elves are canon is bullshit.

>> No.35627776

>>35627720
Not the quoted, but I find rollplaying not valid to roleplay.

>> No.35627847

>>35627619
That adds an extra step and requires somewhere else to write it down.
>>35627720
You write down some traits about your character, and you get advantage for roleplaying to those traits.
Like fate points I guess.

>> No.35627863

>>35626818
>I'm not saying it's perfect. We're talking about THAC0. And a +1 isn't a penalty. You're still thinking backwards. Your numbers aren't supposed to get bigger. They're supposed to get smaller.
Yes, and that's the very incongruity people criticise. It's not that it's mathematically any more or less difficult, it's that it doesn't mesh at all with the other game aspects where bigger translates to better, be it HP, Levels, Attributes or just money. THAC0 just breaks with that scheme for no actual gain.

>> No.35627873

>>35627847
>That adds an extra step and requires somewhere else to write it down.
You can still do the subtract/add to your THAC0 since the math is the exact same. I'm just saying the bonuses in a way that makes more sense.

Apparently gamers cannot into numbers.

>> No.35627883

>>35627720
Dickgirl elves have been cannon since 1e.

>> No.35627894

>>35627863
>it doesn't mesh at all with the other game aspects where bigger translates to better
You mean you want those saves and AC to be higher?

I understand that you don't quite get the system but it isn't retarded.

>> No.35628058

I've run systems with THAC0 before (AD&D and a retroclone)... I use a lookup table on the GM screen.

No actual math involved, just reading across the table. The player just has to roll, and add any bonuses from a magic weapon or circumstance.

I suspect THAC0 was specifically designed so that players wouldn't be burdened even with simple arithmetic...

Done that way, it's far simpler than even ascending armor class.

>> No.35628112

>>35627894
>You mean you want those saves and AC to be higher?
Well, yes, such a system is preferable. There's no innate advantage to having a negative progression scheme over a positive one. But there is a distinct disadvantage in creating the incongruity of having some of the character's statistics progess negatively while others do so positively.

So in other words, it only brings a disadvantage for no actual gain. That this disadvantage can eventually be alleviated by getting used to it is secondary, since even then it still doesn't actually bring any innate positives to the table.

>> No.35628115

>>35627894
No one's saying it's retarded, but it's pretty much identical to another system that's more similar to every other mechanic in the game.

Higher numbers are better everywhere except for AC, so why not change the way AC works to something mechanically identical that looks the same as everything else?

>> No.35628120

>>35628058
I hate lookup tables so much. If your game requires something usualy used for polynomials, you've done something wrong.

>> No.35628171

>>35626152
Having half your stuff roll over and the other half roll under was stupid. I absolutely love that now everything is d20 + modifiers to hit a DC. It makes it a million times easier to figure out what you're doing on the fly.

>> No.35628204

>>35628120
Come on, if you get used to it, you can play attack rolls up to level 20 without anything more complicated than single digit addition.

>2e attack matrices--looks complicated as fuck, just a page full of numbers
>In play: Roll this die, add +1 for your sword, and I'll tell you if you hit.

>3.5 ascending AC and BaB: It's easy, just add this and this to your roll, and try to hit this number
>In play: Add your BaB, plus strength bonus (after considering the fatigue penalty), add your charge bonus, add bonus from magic weapon (counts as +3 against this creature type am I flanking? Oh wait, it has cover but is that really half cover? etc etc etc

I will admit it's not well explained in the original 2e PHB, but most retroclones make a point of cleaning that right up, or giving easy rules to switch to ascending AC.

>> No.35628211

>>35628112
There is one innate advantage - It gives you a clear endgame from the very beginning.

While you can get up to -10 AC in ADnD, for the most part the "goal" of most people stacking armor is AC 0. Why? Because that's the number the system is talking about. Everything about THAC0 is about getting to 0, which is the finale, done, endgame. Everything past then is just goin' crazy for numbers.

The problem with counting up is that there's no longer a defined point where the game says, "This is where your AC should be to play in the big leagues." This is why you get people thinking janky monk builds with 58 AC by level 20 are good, or why +30 to hit is considered okay by late game instead of amazeballs.

Now, the ACTUAL math for 3e did stay relatively close to ADnD levels (accounting for how easy it was to get more bonuses to hit), but I used to see tons of new players not sure where their AC should be at any level and especially newbie DM's not knowing that the Fighter should be hitting on 10+ not on 18+.

>> No.35628217

>>35628115
>No one's saying it's retarded
Have you read the thread. That is how this started.

>> No.35628393

>>35628211
5e solves that problem. Highest ac a player can get is 24, and that requires a 20th level barb with max dex and con.

>> No.35628426

>>35628211
Right, which isn't an innate problem with the mechanic, just with the execution... bonus creep and build wanking is one of the main things that turned me away from 3.5 (after enjoying it for several years in HS).

I've been defending THAC0 on principle, but my go to these days is Barbarians of Lemuria... simple addition, some rules for customization (rather than optimization).

It sounds like 5e is trying to get back to that, but when I flipped through the PHB at the game store, I was just like "I'm not going to use even 20% of this stuff, and if it doesn't just make my player's eyes glaze over, they will just get wrapped up in options and forget about the game"

>> No.35628897

>>35628426
I feel the same way and have been defending THAC0 on principal as well. Never played Barbarians of Lemuria though. Cruncy I prefer d%, less crunchy I do HQ2.

Though I am only playing 5e now. I'm just not running.

>> No.35629228

>>35628426
>they will just get wrapped up in options and forget about the game
I wish I could meet gamers that weren't this.

>> No.35629911

>>35629228
I felt the same way after moving on from my Highschool group. I didn't realize at the time that what I liked about the game was that it was something fun to do with my friends. And of course, we got through all the ridiculous munchkinism and monty hauling in 7th grade... by the time highschool rolled around, we were much smarter about when and how to observe the rules.

My best suggestion is to get people you like into RPG's, rather than trying to befriend whose only commonality is that they are self described "gamers".

>> No.35629912

What can you tell of this homebrew? Previously one fellot /tg/er hated Gamble, moving the mechanic from the character and to the player.

>> No.35629952

>>35629911
Yeah, its harder when you're an oldfag. I can either play with people ten years younger than me or ultra-munchkins. Shitsux.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action