A Mind in Crisis (Rant Warning…)

[Nightshade]

Huh?

 

Okay...

 

I have some questions as to your assertions:

 

1) Where are these methods of changing the classes in D&D? In the DMG, where the entire class chapter is taken up by prestige classes (all of which I hated) exept for 1 page at the beginning? This, of course had the sage-like advise "Use the existing character abilities for reference." Thanks for the tip.

 

2) It took me exactly the time it took me to read through FREd to come up with the "how things work" scenerio for my game. It is not particularly difficult. As a matter of fact, there are even sheets in the old Fantasy HERO book that allow a GM to communicate these "setting rules" to players. It would take literally over a hundred hours of work for me to rewrite the base D&D system to meet my needs.

Here are a few that took literally minutes in HERO and what would take me hours in D&D:

 

a) Magic users are much more speciallized on my world. There are Storm Mages, Diabolists, Infernalists, Elemental Mages, Plant Mages, Shapers, Namers, and dozens more. Try to create a Spirit Mage in D&D using the PHB, DMG, and MM (the only books "required" for the game). For HERO, I just tell me players that magic-users must have either a style of magic (Thaumaturgy, for example) or connected special effects (Fire Mages, for example), and tell them how to buy spells. As a GM, that is a whole lot simpler than having to redo the D&D magic system from scratch (including all of the spells) and then trying to explain it to a D&D player who just wants to game.

 

As stated before, the only people who have magic in any form are the spell casters. The gods are mysteries. I like my world pretty realistic in terms of religion, where there are people who have fought religious wars and worship the same gods. The gods don't talk to us. It is a matter of faith. There are atheists who can discuss their atheism with a preist without the "Oh, yeah. Well, if Tyr didn't exist, how could I do THIS!" People can't prove the existance of gods on my world. This is difficult (at best) in D&D.

 

c) Codes of ethics: I hate alignments. That is my opinion, and others are entitled to theirs. There is no force of "GOOD" and "EVIL" on my world. I like playing with shades of grey. I love to give my players moral choices and have them deal with things that may be right or wrong (or wrong and really wrong). I would much rather have players define their characters code of ethics through roleplaying than have them define it as an alignment.

 

d) Levels: I really, really hate levels. I would much rather play a game where I have control of what my character gets better at and at what rate. In HERO, I can play a fighter with a lot of skills (but still a really good fighter), without having to multiclass and get abilities that I don't want and makes no sense for my character. This is more a player thing than a GM issue.

 

I don't feel that my world is particularly strange. The majority of the races are human. I have elves, dwarves, gnomes, but also have giants (two types), intelligent spiders, and some other goodies

 

By the way, these can also be very difficult to do in D&D.

 

Now, that is not to say that D&D doesn't have its merits. It certainly does. It isn't an industry standard and the most popular RPG for nothing. It can do a good job for (I'm sure) most people's worlds with a little tinkering. However, playing a low magic, skill oriented, standard power world without divine magic can be very difficult without changing D&D to something that is definitely not D&D. The best thing world that D&D can run is a world made for D&D. If you didn't have one of those in mind, HERO can generally handle it with less dramatic of a house rule system.

 

Nightshade

[Doug Limmer]

tesuji: when did I EVER say that the Hero System was automatically balanced? But, at least, the Hero System gives you someplace to start. d20 gives you nothing but some examples. And the original examples probably aren't balanced, themselves.

 

Take a look at the feats/prestige classes/etc. produced by the original company, Wizards of the Coast. Do even the experts come up with something balanced? That doesn't even mention the third-party products, or the home-brewed stuff. Of course, you need to look over abilities in any system to check for balance (and propriety). However, to try to claim that it's just as easy to balance stuff in d20 as it is in Hero is ludicrous.

[tesuji]

Re: Huh?

 

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Nightshade

1) Where are these methods of changing the classes in D&D? In the DMG, where the entire class chapter is taken up by prestige classes (all of which I hated) exept for 1 page at the beginning? This, of course had the sage-like advise "Use the existing character abilities for reference." Thanks for the tip.

books not in front of me but i recall there being a section on it in the PHB, a section in the DMG and another set of information in the DMG as well which discusses using non-standard races.

 

Since DND is not a points driven game but an effect driven game, then the pages and pages of mathematical formulae and proscribed costs are not there. the system expects the Gm who wants to make a change to evaluate that changed based on his game and his knowledge of it, not a formula.

 

That may be expecting too much for some.

Originally posted by Nightshade

2) It took me exactly the time it took me to read through FREd to come up with the "how things work" scenerio for my game. It is not particularly difficult. As a matter of fact, there are even sheets in the old Fantasy HERO book that allow a GM to communicate these "setting rules" to players. It would take literally over a hundred hours of work for me to rewrite the base D&D system to meet my needs.

there is a reason for that. We will get to it in a moment.

Originally posted by Nightshade

a) Magic users are much more speciallized on my world. There are Storm Mages, Diabolists, Infernalists, Elemental Mages, Plant Mages, Shapers, Namers, and dozens more. Try to create a Spirit Mage in D&D using the PHB, DMG, and MM (the only books "required" for the game).

lets see... we select spells appropriate from the existing ones... many necromancy, some other. We may want to create some class specific ones too. We decide between spontaneous and prepared and a spells per day charts... probably looking at sor/wiz vs bard/pally/ranger depending on our view of it as a magic centric or mixed class. We probably add a cleric like turning ability, limiting its ability to affect some undead. We fill in BAB, hit dice, skills and bonus feats as needed. Depending on how far i wanted to go with custom abilities (a spirit companion ala a familiar or a druid's animal companion for instance) and new spells, it could be quick or long.

 

Originally posted by Nightshade

For HERO, I just tell me players that magic-users must have either a style of magic (Thaumaturgy, for example) or connected special effects (Fire Mages, for example), and tell them how to buy spells. As a GM, that is a whole lot simpler than having to redo the D&D magic system from scratch (including all of the spells) and then trying to explain it to a D&D player who just wants to game.

OK so if i get you right then my fire mage character can have only one magic spell

 

Fireball 4d6 RKA Area Effect 12m radius selective with incantations, full phase, 3 uses per day, costs end for about 39 cp. No other magic skills or knowledg is required so then go on to build myself a decent fighter type with the 112 cp left to me out of a typical 150. (I can drop lower if you use a lower total.) Did i miss a restriction? is there actually more about building characters and magic that you forgot to include?

 

Hmm lets assume there isn't, thats back to the point we will get to shortly.

Originally posted by Nightshade

As stated before, the only people who have magic in any form are the spell casters. The gods are mysteries. I like my world pretty realistic in terms of religion, where there are people who have fought religious wars and worship the same gods. The gods don't talk to us. It is a matter of faith. There are atheists who can discuss their atheism with a preist without the "Oh, yeah. Well, if Tyr didn't exist, how could I do THIS!" People can't prove the existance of gods on my world. This is difficult (at best) in D&D.

Huh? Why is this difficult.

 

option 1: well obviously you change the clerics and other divine magic to read "arcane magic" and drop the gods. the classes still function but the FX for their abilities are arcane instead of divine.

 

option 2: you drop the divine classes entirely. This may mean pulling some of their traits and spells into the existing arcane classes.

 

Originally posted by Nightshade

c) Codes of ethics: I hate alignments. That is my opinion, and others are entitled to theirs. There is no force of "GOOD" and "EVIL" on my world. I like playing with shades of grey. I love to give my players moral choices and have them deal with things that may be right or wrong (or wrong and really wrong). I would much rather have players define their characters code of ethics through roleplaying than have them define it as an alignment.

So you vut out the alignments thing and say "i dont use alignments. tell me who you are and play your character. The spells and stuff which key on alignment don't exist." You are done.

Originally posted by Nightshade

d) Levels: I really, really hate levels. I would much rather play a game where I have control of what my character gets better at and at what rate. In HERO, I can play a fighter with a lot of skills (but still a really good fighter), without having to multiclass and get abilities that I don't want and makes no sense for my character. This is more a player thing than a GM issue.

Well first off, the key to doing this in dnd is working out with your gm the probalems you have and getting classes customized. Again, classes create a set of "hown stuff works" establishing for instance that you have to learn basic stuff before advanced stuff and what the basic and advanced stuff are.

 

i have a hunch that you really truely deeply do NOT want to play in a world where anyeone can choose to develop any thing at any time.I bet you really do want there to be a rhyme and a reason to what you learn and in what order. I bet you would not want to adventure for a while as a fighter and then because you have saved your points want to develop the ability to throw POWERFUL SPELLS overnight, but that instead you would rather be forced to begin with low level spells and work your way up.

 

Just a hunch.

 

All levels do is prioritize the order in which things are acquired from low to high and put them down that way.

 

do you really want to be able to learn that 4d6 fireball spell and know nothing else about magic? Wouldn't you have preferred to be required to gain lesser magics and work your way up to it? Wouldn't that world make more sense?

Originally posted by Nightshade

I don't feel that my world is particularly strange. The majority of the races are human. I have elves, dwarves, gnomes, but also have giants (two types), intelligent spiders, and some other goodies

 

By the way, these can also be very difficult to do in D&D.

unless i miss my gues, you had to develop the race, determine its abilities give it costs and such. thats pretty much the same as you would do in HERo although the costs would not be calulated but rather assessed.

 

Now we get to the little point you have been making for me...

 

the reason you dont have to spend hours on the magic system is because you DEFINED your world as 'working like hero system." breath water costs in your world half as much as spider climb (assuming similar "spell stuff") just like or rather because of the pricing HERO gives life support vs clinging. your mages will throw a few spells then recharge quickly, at least the ones who burn end, while some mages might just throw willy nilly until their charges run out and then have a long delay. Again both of these occur this way because thats what hero makes good.

 

So what you are saying is: AFTER you define your world to be like HERO does, then you have less work to do using HERO than you would if you tried to use DND for the same world.

 

Well, DUH!

 

Originally posted by Nightshade

However, playing a low magic, skill oriented, standard power world without divine magic can be very difficult without changing D&D to something that is definitely not D&D.

i would actually recommend using d20 modern for that and just drop the modern gear and skills. it is more tailored to a skill heavy environment with light magic.

Originally posted by Nightshade

The best thing world that D&D can run is a world made for D&D. If you didn't have one of those in mind, HERO can generally handle it with less dramatic of a house rule system.

The example you give above is a "world made for hero" where the basic decisions are "stuff works like in hero." This is NOT a general showing that HERo is better for non-DND like worlds, just that HERo is better for HERO like worlds.

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Doug Limmer

tesuji: when did I EVER say that the Hero System was automatically balanced?

No nor did i say you did. You also have not claimed to have been on the grassy knoll, to have crashed in 47 at roswell, or to have Jimmy hoffa in your roll out couch. Nor have i claimed you did.

 

Any other side issues you want to bring up before we get back on topic?

Originally posted by Doug Limmer

But, at least, the Hero System gives you someplace to start. d20 gives you nothing but some examples.

Well, the value of the start HERO gives you and the process HERo gives after that is wholly dependent on how much belief in its accuracy you have. In my view, the math is a lie.

 

For one thing, there are more examples than the one i just gave, many using basic failry simple stuff, which show the results to be obviously defying common sense and many of these are supported even to this day by the main designer. (extra limbs cost, combat skills array cost, just to name two off the top of my head and the additive nature of advantages vs the multiplicative nature of lims is another huge issue.)

 

Second, the entire notion of the static costs is in itself huge. My water breathing example above is one easy example, as is the Ap one.

 

Thirdly and most importanly, HERO's balance works if and only if the GM makes it work. If the GM builds his worlds, his characters, his challenges with deliberate intent to make it work in HERO then HERO's balance works. if he does not, then it doesn't. In spite of all the math, if he doesn't run the game in a way to make hero work, it doesn't balance.

 

The simplest example i can give you is imagine if in your world you had a PC lightning mage and a fire mage who were identical except for your fx decision. Now imagine if your story for the campaign revolves around anecromancer using his undead minions and his own powers to do the various evil deeds and so most of the scenarios deal with this. Imagine if also your simple vision has undead with vulnerability to fire.

 

Does that sound too far afield? A story wrapped around an evil necromancer and his undead minions and undead being hurt by fire?

 

But suddenly the two PCs are not longer balanced. Suddenly mtr fire mage is wailing in for 1.5xdamage often and moreover in the big story arc sessions.

 

Is flying really worth only as much as running? That really depends on the number of interior battles vs exterior and the number of ground movement challneged encounters and the biggie... the number of flying barmints with ranged attacks that assault your party. Which scenario do you script and how often will determine the answer.

 

is swimming really not worth as much as running? Well in that waterworld campaign... the scenarios you script will determine the answer.

 

i got a million of 'em.

 

if your campaign features a lot of golems built as construct immune to stun, is stun only EB really a no charge change?

 

So, in my mind, as you can see, i dont believe in the math producing right answers in the first place... right here being more or less consistent or logical taken in abstract. Sometimes its right, but too many times it produces unreasonable results. Add to this the final conclusion, that whetever the numbers are they will only turn out in play to be balanced based on what i script, that the points i bless are only valid when and because I make them so in play...

 

and you might see why i dont see hero as providing me with more tools, or with better tools.

 

what hero does do is change the getting started dynamic into an incredibly complex one. That directly smakcs my ability to get a game going and get players involved.

 

Originally posted by Doug Limmer

And the original examples probably aren't balanced, themselves.

personally i dont like PRCs much at all and never use them. they dont fit into my game world. oddly enough, i did not feel compelled to use them.

Originally posted by Doug Limmer

Take a look at the feats/prestige classes/etc. produced by the original company, Wizards of the Coast. Do even the experts come up with something balanced? That doesn't even mention the third-party products, or the home-brewed stuff.

See above... see my sig... balance does not come from the system. it comes from the GM enforcing in play the values he sold to the players in character creation.

 

I am not saying that it is EASIER... i think i said just as easy at one point.

 

I am saying its quicker and somewhat less work. In HERO i got all this math and force my players thru all this math and for every case for every ability i goyya ay somepoint examine the RESULTS and judge whether i think its right by comparison with other things BASED ON WHAT I EXPECT TO PUT THEM THROUGH. if so, great, if not i change it.

 

In DND, i skip all the first part and just judge whether i think its balanced BASED ON WHAT I EXPECT TO PUT THEM THROUGH. If so, great, if not i gotta make a change.

Originally posted by Doug Limmer

Of course, you need to look over abilities in any system to check for balance (and propriety). However, to try to claim that it's just as easy to balance stuff in d20 as it is in Hero is ludicrous.

 

The balance occurs because i approve a value and then in play i MAKE that value a reality, i make my scenarios show that value to be a good and proper one..

 

that is no harder or easier in DND or HERo or Buffy or traveller. Some system just require you and your players to do a lot more figuring before you get to the important stage... approval and enforcement.

 

Now that said... some people may NEED the math. A GM unsure of his GMing or wanting a complex system to make it look like he has 'good math" backing him up, might very well prefer to say "use this book" and not just tell his players that he expects balance will come out in play. he may want them to believe, and even believe it himself that the balance comes from the book and not him and lord knows this may be a comfort when a scenario goes wrong and he has angry, or worse dissapointed, PCs on his hands.

 

But IMO any GM from even moderate level of competence is better served by his own judgement and his own intimate knowledge of his campaign for balance than he is with a bulging rulebook and math out the wazoo. For the less competent ones, the complexity of HERo makes it a poor choice on its own weight.

[Markdoc]

Hmmm. It's funny, but in way, Tesuji emphasises exactly the point that made the original poster rant.

 

He's describingthe way things are in DnD and saying "Now isn't this more logical?"

 

The answer of course, is no. That's the way things work in DnD. Should you build a character with the fireball spell and spend the rest on Fighter skills? Well, dammit, that's not the DnD way.

 

But in fact, I DID play a very similar character in Hero system (a very few attack-type fire spells, a big two-handed sword and an attitude) and he was both fun to play and (gasp) well-balanced with the rest of the party.

 

Hero is a metasystem - it is far easier to generate the world (or character) you want than with DnD. Lord knows I have tried both and I have witnessed the attempts of others to do the same. The price you pay is more metagaming jargon upfront.

 

Yes, you can customise DnD (I always did, when I GM'ed it routinely). The 'orrible prestige classes you wisely avoid show how even the game designers often do a poor job of it.

 

All this stuff about three-year olds is largely a red herring. No, in my game world 3-year olds do not routinely have the fireball power. I do not inform my players of this. In my game world, horses generally have 4 legs on the bottom and the head is normally at the end designated "front". I do not inform them of this, either - or even of the fact that cows use a variant of the basic horse rules, with the addition of an HKA. :-)

 

None of which has much to do with game world design: I WOULD inform them if any of these things were significantly different.

 

When I ran a 3e game recently, I told the players "Make up 4th level characters, standard rules, no prestige classes, you can each choose one magic item from this list - oh, and you better have at least one cleric." Simple, easy, we all know we are on the same page.

 

When I ran a Hero sytem game recently I said "Make up 200 point characters suitable for the WH40K Inquisitor universe, equipment has to be paid for". Simple, easy, we all know we are on the same page.

 

Both games worked fine.

 

cheers, Mark

[Nightshade]

We're on the same side

 

Let's try this in a more simple format:

 

I am not saying that D&D is bad. Far from it. I have played in and run many D&D games and had fun. It will do many things well and some things not. I have played in and run many HERO games and had fun. It also will do many things well and some things not.

 

But here is the crux of the discussion. I will give it as two examples of play that have happened in games that I participated in.

 

Example 1) I was running a 3rd ed. game and things were going poorly. The players liked the scenerio, but had a few complaints about their characters.

 

Complaint 1: The Ranger simply had too much combat ability and not enough skills. He did not want to multiclass into Rogue, as that simply made no sense to him. He was 4th level and had put his point into INT, but he would have to wait until 8th level before it helped him with any more skill points.

 

Complaint 2: The Enchanter had problems with spells, specifically the lack of enchantment/charm spells. He had them all, but when he got to 4th level, it was noticed that the only 2nd level spell was Hideous Laughter, which he had already taken at 3rd level. In effect, he got no advantage from his specialization.

 

Complaint 3: The Rogue wanted to use a lasoo as her primary weapon. She took rope use, and the Exotic weapon feat, but there were no real rules for its use. She is a very "rules" oriented player.

 

The second two were relatively easy to "hand-wave" away (I let the wizard take another spell that looked kind of like a charm spell and ropes are not THAT difficult to model). The first one had me stuck. I couldn't reasonably add skills to the Ranger class, especially by attempting to lower the combat ability. The Rogue class multiclass was the only alternative, so we sort of just ignored the sneak attack stuff and let him just take it as a level and moved on.

 

Not long after, we changed over to HERO, and every one of the players (none of whom had ever played HERO before) were much happier with their characters.

 

Example 2: I tried to run my fantasy world in D&D. I would call it a complete disaster. First, I had to (as you suggested) modify the majority of the classes, removing (yes eliminated completely) all of the prestige classes save Duelist (with a rewrite of where they came from), sorceror, monk, cleric, ranger and paladin. I then created from scratch other classes to replace the basic ones that I had eliminated. This took a LOT of time. I never got to the prestige classes (other than duelist, since that one was easy).

 

I then attempted to run a game. After hearing what I did to D&D to make it fit my game, no one wanted to join. It was "too far" away from "standard fantasy" and people wouldn't even give it a try. I eventually threw up my hands, threw away everything and decided that if I wanted to run D&D, I'd just use Greyhawk, as most players were looking at the gods in the PHB as the ONLY ones that they can worship.

 

The first example is why some people don't like D&D as players. The second is why some people don't like D&D as GM's.

 

Now, I only have one real question that needs a response, and it is the question that I always ask when I get into these long, drawn out discussions where people seemingly don't read each others' posts (I admit that I am guilty of this as well).

 

Why did you join the Fantasy HERO forum if you obviously like D&D more than Fantasy HERO? Why even be interested in another system if you like D&D? In my mind, you found a system that you like and works for your style of play, so why even look anywhere else?

 

For my part, I hate D&D. That's an opinion, but one I can certainly argue at length about (a person with a 3 STR can beat a person with an 18 STR at arm wrestling 12.5% of the time! Amazing! I don't think my 4 year old (3 STR at best) can beat me (STR 13-14) 1% of the time at anything requiring strength). That is my personal choice. If you prefer D&D, great! That's your choice, and certainly one you are entitled to.

 

However, I consider it bad manners to come to another company's discussion boards and start extolling the merits of D&D over HERO. I certainly don't belong to any discussion board concerning any d20 product.

 

Nightshade

[Ndreare]

Re: We're on the same side

 

Originally posted by Nightshade

where people seemingly don't read each others' posts (I admit that I am guilty of this as well).

 

Nightshade

 

I read the post.

 

For the record we may read the post however sometimes people become more serious than we want to be.

 

I also feel however that a few people have touched on as things that make sense to them and they are the very things that frustrate me.

 

As the original poster on this topic I was complaining about a mentality that seems all too common. For gods sake if one or two people actually read a book not based on DAD then they would probably see were I am coming from or tell me how stupid both me and the crazy book are. Look at the list of books recommended by the big Steve Long, how many of those can be emulated with the class system DAD lovers use?

[AnotherSkip]

Actually tis post is mostly for Tesuji.

 

Since you brought up some apples and oranges with D&D and HERO I just would like you to do me a favor with some of your apples.

 

Find out how much Waterbreathing and Underwater movement (possibly underwater combat also) (those two to three _only_ separated from everything else) are worth to a beggining character in D&D3RD Waterdeep character. Perferably in the value of stats/beggining skills packages. Oh yeah and keep the values separate. This would be nice for a character i have in mind.

 

Meanwhile in Hero if a Gm so chooses WB can be free in his campaign, or the value can be increased/decreased. Why? because if it makes sense you can _change_ it and that is a prime rule of the toolkit. Just like if a Gm Chose to everyone could have innate WB in any campaign irregardles of what system you build it on. If you think for your campaign that the movement powers are unbalanced then by all means house-rule or campaign-rule them. Steve has not enlisted the Gaming Police to track down rules violators so they may be shot at dawn.

 

Heck most D&D3RDGM's would shoot on sight a WB character unless he had some significant problems.

 

Heck I personally use a houserule version of NCM. I Don't really care what Steve Says on the subject ill take what I want and change some I don' t like and toss the rest.

[tesuji]

Re: We're on the same side

 

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Nightshade

Complaint 1: The Ranger simply had too much combat ability and not enough skills. He did not want to multiclass into Rogue, as that simply made no sense to him. He was 4th level and had put his point into INT, but he would have to wait until 8th level before it helped him with any more skill points.

OK, this seems to be a case of character design by player choice not matching the players goal. If you want to build a ranger with less combat ability and more skills the answer is rather simple, even if you are multiclass-o-phobic. You spend fewer attribute points on the stats which make you combat effective (str, int, con) and more on int so you get more skills. You can double the rangers base skills with the points typically spent on combat stuff and still have points left over.

 

Now if that is also aesthetically displeasing, like apparently multicalssing is tho i dont get it, you could also take the step of asking the GM at the beginning to customize the character class as the books recommend. A simple substitution say, adding 2 base skills per rank in excahnge for losing all the TWF/ambi stuff would probably be acceptable by many Gms.

 

In my game, one character wanted a ranger but the archer model seemed more in line with his character. he asked me and i allowed dropping the AMBI/TWF for a fighter bonus feat. He got what he wanted and play commenced.

 

 

Originally posted by Nightshade

Complaint 2: The Enchanter had problems with spells, specifically the lack of enchantment/charm spells. He had them all, but when he got to 4th level, it was noticed that the only 2nd level spell was Hideous Laughter, which he had already taken at 3rd level. In effect, he got no advantage from his specialization.

Well its possible that the player missed something, a rather important note, when they devised their character. Not all of the schools of magic are created equal. Each school has its own level of potence and they are not equal by any means.

 

This means when you take a weaker school, you might not see as many benefits as when you take a stronger one. this may represent itself in sometimes, at certain points, not seeing every possible advantage being paid off at every level... much like how some classes gain very little at some levels and more at others.

 

Of course, this is recognized in the rules. When the PLAYER chose enchantment as a specialization, did she also complain that she did not have to give up as many or as significant enough counter schools as she would have had she chose evocation or conjuration? Did she feel it inappropriate that she give up less to gain the specialization benefits oor did her malaise only begin when she saw the benefits a little less?

 

Anyway, regardless of whether she managed to connect "paying less" with 'getting less" at all, the easiest answer is to, as GM, communicate to your characters that there are more spells than just the ones in the PHB in the world and introduce them yourself. providing access to these spells for specialists and to even normal wizards but through communication and interaction with wizards is a great way to promote less "kill 'em all" and more "talk first" scenarios and foster building relationships.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Complaint 3: The Rogue wanted to use a lasoo as her primary weapon. She took rope use, and the Exotic weapon feat, but there were no real rules for its use. She is a very "rules" oriented player.

So you as Gm provide her with rules. the gnome in my game wanted lasso too. i gave him rules. he used it a number of times to great effect. The scene long ago where he used it to lasso the enemy dwarf and handed off his end to (or rather had it taken by) the allied dwarven tank who proceeded to drag the enemy fighter into a pit was priceless.

 

BTW just as a point of order, i did not see lasso in the weapons section of the HERO5 rules either. presumably, if she wanted that weapon in HERo5 you would need to build one for her, or possibly let her stat it and you approve it. Why wont that solution work for DND?

 

 

Originally posted by Nightshade

The second two were relatively easy to "hand-wave" away (I let the wizard take another spell that looked kind of like a charm spell and ropes are not THAT difficult to model). The first one had me stuck. I couldn't reasonably add skills to the Ranger class, especially by attempting to lower the combat ability.

Why not? Ok sure it should have been done at lower level but certainly both you and the player can concieve of a class who spends more time on skills and less time on combat, thus removing some combat advancement and adding some skills seems possible and no unreasonable at all.

 

 

Originally posted by Nightshade

The Rogue class multiclass was the only alternative, so we sort of just ignored the sneak attack stuff and let him just take it as a level and moved on.

Actually i would have been very tempted to keep the multiclass and make it "favored enemy specific" to make it play different from the rogue. But thats just me.

 

But again, having more stats in INT and less in STR, CON, DEX seems to me to be the simplest way to achieve the problem solution as yu described it. I normally play around 32 point builds and Str 12 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 16 Wis 14 CHA 10 would produce about 7 skill points per level and definitely show less emphasis on combat. if they emphasized beef stats in build and spent little on INt and then complained about having too few skills, then i would suggest that the problem was a misunderstanding on how to build what they wanted.

 

Would you fault HERo for a guy who built a mentalist with a 10 ego and then complained because his mental powers missed a lot?

 

Originally posted by Nightshade

I then attempted to run a game. After hearing what I did to D&D to make it fit my game, no one wanted to join. It was "too far" away from "standard fantasy" and people wouldn't even give it a try.

Sounds like you and the players you were eyeing as candidates wanted different games. this is not a system issue, is it?

Originally posted by Nightshade

The first example is why some people don't like D&D as players. The second is why some people don't like D&D as GM's.

Well the first seems to be a mixture of inexperience in design and misunderstanding. The second just seems to be a player and gm mismatch.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Now, I only have one real question that needs a response,

Ok.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Why did you join the Fantasy HERO forum if you obviously like D&D more than Fantasy HERO?

Why do i go to burger king on occasion when i like Wendy's more? EVEn if you prefer A to B its not the same as limiting yourself to only ever getting A and then excluding B from your life.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Why even be interested in another system if you like D&D?

Because most systems have good points and bad points and while over the years i have played many systems, including having GMed three different FH campaigns (not to mention the number of HERO based supers games) I find i learn things, both good and bad, from such exposure. Even if i never choose to play FH again, i learned things from those campaigns that helped me when i run MNM or DND or Vampire the masquerade.

 

To me, liking one system better than another, finding one system meets my needs for this campaign better than some other system does not equate to forbidding and exiling the other system to oblivion and then exiling myself from contact with other players who still have the audacity to play that other system.

 

In short, i am amazed that this is even a question?

Originally posted by Nightshade

In my mind, you found a system that you like and works for your style of play, so why even look anywhere else?

because i find the notion of cutting myself off that much to be incredibly and unbelievably and unnecessarily limiting.

Originally posted by Nightshade

However, I consider it bad manners to come to another company's discussion boards and start extolling the merits of D&D over HERO.

Maybe you will notice this but i did not start this thread. Matter of fact you wont find ANY thread about DND vs HERo or MNM vs HERO by me on this board.

 

I dont START extolling... but when i find people on boards i frequent who BEGIN THIER OWN discussions about the aspects of two games i have knowledge of, i will chime in and add my contribution. if i dont have knowledge i usually wont... as you will notice that i have not chimed in on a thread running round about hero vs sas d20.

 

it seems odd that you would find it perfeclty find for other people to start "hero and dnd " threads on this board but would single out only those who dont follow your opinion as those who you consider it rude for them to voice their opinions.

 

also please note that, for the most part, i have not been extolling DND over HERO. mostly i have been saying that DND is as good. i personally see merit in DNDs flexible classes for a fantasy game and dont see them as the strightjackets some people here seem to feel.

 

The impression i get is that its very common round here to see DND as inflexible, when you decide you dont want to alter it or invent your own stuff to meet your campaign needs, and that hero is more flexible because it doesn't give you any thing you need to change and expects you to make it all up. Its highlighted by the idea that changing the DND spells will take a lot of work but making them all up from scratch in hero is fun.

 

i think if your initial world image is far from either systems base designs AND you come at it with an attitude of "i dont want to alter things and create new things to make my image come true" then you will find neither system works well.

 

Think of it this way... if you want to run a scifi game that is unlike terran empires... does the terran empires book make you do more work? NO? Then the greyhawk stuff should not make it more work to run non-greyhawk. if you tried to recruit a bunch of players who had played terran empires and wanted to play terran empires and who decided to not even try the "flatworld" campaign you devides... would you be here beefing about terran Empires ruining your game or how bad HERO players are?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Nightshade

I certainly don't belong to any discussion board concerning any d20 product.

 

Nightshade

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

The answer of course, is no. That's the way things work in DnD. Should you build a character with the fireball spell and spend the rest on Fighter skills? Well, dammit, that's not the DnD way.

Actually its not "the dnd way" as the issue but how much sense does the world make? What are the "reasonable" things that one would expect. is it reasonably to know how to throw just one extremely powerful fireball and have no other knowledge of magic? or is it reasonable to expect to have to work thru several lower level enchantments and garner a level of skill before being able to throw such a powerful enchantment?

 

these are game world designs. you need them in both games. DND presents this information through example classes and spells with levels. A HERo game GM apparently doesn't need to present these at all and can just say build it and be done?

 

thats not how i remember hero games running? thats not the approaches i recall seeing in FH4th.

 

I find it wonderful to see people decrying classes right left and sideways and yet i see package deals after package deals in every hero product that seeks to show genre or campaign style info.

 

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

But in fact, I DID play a very similar character in Hero system (a very few attack-type fire spells, a big two-handed sword and an attitude) and he was both fun to play and (gasp) well-balanced with the rest of the party.

Thats cool but color me simple if i suspoect that the Gm had even a few campaign restrictions or at the very least you and he started on similar pages, so to speak.

Originally posted by Markdoc

All this stuff about three-year olds is largely a red herring. No, in my game world 3-year olds do not routinely have the fireball power.

Why not? if a burly fighter guy with no training can throw 4d6k fireballs, why not a 3 year old? Why should we assume that a huge guy with no magic training can throw fireballs but a three year old cannot? if one is acceptable and fun why is the other unacceptable or unbelievable or silly or just not to be even worth considering?

 

Why wouldn't a three year old who is in fact an abandoned fey son of a ruling effreti hidden away in the world who can throw fireballs not even worth considering in a fantasy world populated by dragons... but Mongo throwing fireballs without a day of magical training is FUN and COOL?

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Find out how much Waterbreathing and Underwater movement (possibly underwater combat also) (those two to three _only_ separated from everything else) are worth to a beggining character in D&D3RD Waterdeep character.

DND does not use a cost or point system for most things.

Can you tell me how many feats i should have to spend in HERO for the ability to throw 4d6 RKA fireballs selective?

 

There are some general costs for magic items and a ring of waterbreathing has a value and there may even be (book not in front of me) an item of the titton or somesuch which gives both water breathing and a free movement sort of thing.

 

I am not all that damiliar with waterdeep having never ran it or played in it, so i cannot assess the regions impact. frankly, it really matters more the campaign the Gm plans to run.

 

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Perferably in the value of stats/beggining skills packages. Oh yeah and keep the values separate. This would be nice for a character i have in mind.

Now we are getting somewhere, explain the character concept and source for the water breathing and water movement stuff. It will probably include extra swimming too.

 

Now my first inclination would be too look at the DMG section on non-standard races and the MM section on aquatic elves. They might even give some ECL recommendations which will be taken with a little saltwater since they don't know the specifics of my campaign.

 

Then, after seeing the character background and deciding if it makes sense, i will probably look at one of two approaches. First i will compare the overall racial mods to the other standard races such as elf and dwarf (who have combinations of advantages and disadvantages) and see if your choice is comparable. This will DEFINITELY involve me thinking about the campaign i will be running and how many underwater adventures i plan and how the rest of the party will deal with it. (For example, if as part of the story nereid tears which provide these capabilities to humans will be available, then your own natural abilities are just flavor more or less.) Its possible it will cause an ECL increasde, but maybe not.

 

If i choose not to use the ECL approach, i might provide a significant flaws such as a penalty on saves vs fire that will serve as a counter.

 

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Meanwhile in Hero if a Gm so chooses WB can be free in his campaign, or the value can be increased/decreased. Why? because if it makes sense you can _change_ it and that is a prime rule of the toolkit. Just like if a Gm Chose to everyone could have innate WB in any campaign irregardles of what system you build it on. If you think for your campaign that the movement powers are unbalanced then by all means house-rule or campaign-rule them. Steve has not enlisted the Gaming Police to track down rules violators so they may be shot at dawn.

Thank you!!!

 

Thats what i have been trying to say.

 

In both systems, you have to look at the values and choose ones that are right for your game. The math doesn;t make the poinbts right. You setting the values to make the cost right does. You make a subjective valuation over whether 5 pts is right for Wb or whether it should be free or more based on your knowledge of your campaign and your assessment.

 

Absolutely!!!

 

the point is that when you are the one choosing whether or not wall crawling is twice as valuable over water breathing or not, then you did not need math to make that subjective decision.

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Heck most D&D3RDGM's would shoot on sight a WB character unless he had some significant problems.

I dont know most DND GMs. Of the ones i know, most would consider it. i allowed it in an older DND game, maybe 1e, i took off some of the elven benefits to compensate.

 

Originally posted by AnotherSkip

Heck I personally use a houserule version of NCM. I Don't really care what Steve Says on the subject ill take what I want and change some I don' t like and toss the rest.

 

in my experience most games use house rules.

[Markdoc]

>>> Why wouldn't a three year old who is in fact an abandoned fey son of a ruling effreti hidden away in the world who can throw fireballs not even worth considering in a fantasy world populated by dragons... but Mongo throwing fireballs without a day of magical training is FUN and COOL?<<<

 

Well, if Mongo is possessed by a destructive fire spirit, why not? And in my case, the Fireball-casting swordsman had a background (of course) that explained why and how.

 

But you seem to be intent on making my point for me!

 

Either of the options you mention above above would be OK and easy to model in Hero: neither would be even possible in DnD without wreaking havoc on the system.

 

You are confusing world design with game design. Should Fantasy worlds have their own internal logic? For me that goes without saying, whether you are playing Hero system, DnD or Teenagers from Outer Space.

 

Does DnD have more internal consistency than Hero? HELL, no! I have played in plenty of DnD worlds where logic and consistency went out the window (Day-glo pink mummies with bowler hats and spats, riding on flying sharks, is one example from a DnD game that springs to mind - and actually a pretty cool game, too.) Is UnderEarth (DnD) more logical than Western Shores (Hero?). Of course not. Both are settings, not game systems.

 

This is why in the example you cited (the dangerous three year-old) I said 3 year-olds do not NORMALLY throw fireballs: because of course I could envisage situations (such as the one you posted) where it COULD happen. But that's as true in DnD as Hero (see Day-Glo pink mummies, above).

 

You are making the (mistaken) assumption that because many possibilities are easily modelled in Hero system that all possibilities must be considered, which of course is nonsense. The possibilities available are defined by the setting and the setting needs to be discussed between players and GM before starting off.

 

I think where the confusion arises is that DnD presupposes a setting - with rangers and clerics, thieves and fighters, where magic works thus and so, and adventurers look thus and so. Doesn't matter if the background setting is GreyHawk or Magical Knight RayEarth, if you use the standard DnD rules, then the game could be set in the same universe. It IS reasonably balanced (no argument there), simply because it is predesigned.

 

I am converting Runequest to Hero system right now and when I have finished I will have a 6-8 page document that I can give to my players in the full expectation of being able to say "here are the world guidleines, make up a character" - and then take it from there. Due to the beauty of the Hero metasystem, I know that will also provide reasonably balanced characters. That document says nothing about spell-casting three year-olds either :-)

 

cheers, Mark

[tesuji]

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

Well, if Mongo is possessed by a destructive fire spirit, why not? And in my case, the Fireball-casting swordsman had a background (of course) that explained why and how.

So, even in HERO you expect the world to make sense. In order for the world to make sense, there needs to be a defined sense for it. That means coveying the sense of what is reasonable and what is not. In spite of your comment earlier, you might well need to tell your players that 3 year olds throwing fireballs is definitely a possibility in this world, whose frequency will depend on the people they encounter.

 

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

Either of the options you mention above above would be OK and easy to model in Hero: neither would be even possible in DnD without wreaking havoc on the system.

So you seem to be thinking, I wounder why you think that.

 

There is NOTHING in the DND system which forbids this.

 

The most obvious way is to determine the "race" of the creature as a non-standard race. Depending on the strength of the fireball, it may be one looking for an ECL bonus or not. It also depends on whether any reasonable drawbacks are assigned... like a vulnerability to cold and how often the Gm plans to apply that in play.

 

I could probably work it out within 5 minutes with the player who brought it up.

 

Did DND the system assume this would be a standard character and provide you prefabbed rules to accomodate it... no. neither did hero. In HERo it has to be made up, either by GM or by player and then vetted by GM.

Originally posted by Markdoc

You are confusing world design with game design.

Avtually it seems to me that you are. I am going to great length to separate the two. classes are not system design, they are campaign design. The degree to which a Gm is willing to vary his classes and races from the baseline is campaign design not system design.

 

people seem to be drawing the conclusion that hero promotes this by not giving you a campaign set and that since DND gives you a campaign set it discourages it. That boggles my mind.

 

Did you feel that all of your scifi campaigns became unworkable after terran empires came out?

Originally posted by Markdoc

Should Fantasy worlds have their own internal logic? For me that goes without saying, whether you are playing Hero system, DnD or Teenagers from Outer Space.

I agree completely.

Originally posted by Markdoc

Does DnD have more internal consistency than Hero? HELL, no! I have played in plenty of DnD worlds where logic and consistency went out the window (Day-glo pink mummies with bowler hats and spats, riding on flying sharks, is one example from a DnD game that springs to mind - and actually a pretty cool game, too.) Is UnderEarth (DnD) more logical than Western Shores (Hero?). Of course not. Both are settings, not game systems.

I agree completely. I never said DND has more consistency.

Originally posted by Markdoc

This is why in the example you cited (the dangerous three year-old) I said 3 year-olds do not NORMALLY throw fireballs: because of course I could envisage situations (such as the one you posted) where it COULD happen. But that's as true in DnD as Hero (see Day-Glo pink mummies, above).

So you seem to be agreeing that neither hero nor dnd has any claim on having more consistency and that any consistency arguments are made at the campaign definition level.

 

is that right?

Originally posted by Markdoc

You are making the (mistaken) assumption that because many possibilities are easily modelled in Hero system that all possibilities must be considered, which of course is nonsense.

I am? Not sure where this notion comes from.

 

i was if you will notice responding to the specific point where the other poster said all he had to do was tell the players to generate the characters an follow hero rules as opposed to spending time developing classes and such.

Originally posted by Markdoc

The possibilities available are defined by the setting and the setting needs to be discussed between players and GM before starting off.

Absolutely!!! We are in complete agreement. The only difference is that DND happens to provide one such setting in its core rulebooks. if you dont like that setting you can do the same legwork you have to do in HERo, devise your own.

 

The catch is, if you happen to want a campaign that shares any notable similarities with the one already there, then its likely you will be saved some work. If not, you are back at square one, just like in hero.

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

I think where the confusion arises is that DnD presupposes a setting - with rangers and clerics, thieves and fighters, where magic works thus and so, and adventurers look thus and so. Doesn't matter if the background setting is GreyHawk or Magical Knight RayEarth, if you use the standard DnD rules, then the game could be set in the same universe. It IS reasonably balanced (no argument there), simply because it is predesigned.

I would not say DND presupposed but rather provides. of course all of its products are set in that universe or the couple universes, much like i expect all of wotc's terran empire supplements will be set in the terran empire sourcebook.

 

 

Originally posted by Markdoc

I am converting Runequest to Hero system right now and when I have finished I will have a 6-8 page document that I can give to my players in the full expectation of being able to say "here are the world guidleines, make up a character" - and then take it from there. Due to the beauty of the Hero metasystem, I know that will also provide reasonably balanced characters. That document says nothing about spell-casting three year-olds either :-)

 

right and the same document for a DND based game set in runequest would outline the class difference, added some new classes, and so forth. In either system if you want to create a custom world, you have to do the legwork and provide your players with enough info. One does not require more work than the other, UNLESS teh custom world bears more similarity with the "core" of each system than the other and thus allows more "as the core rules provide" shared code, , which was my point.

 

To be honest, most HERO games i have seen ran have never taken the step to detail their world anywhere near as well as the three DND core books did. Most games, whether supers or fantasy have done mostly what the poster described... tell them the point range and have them generate the PCs. At best there were some cases where either sample NPCs were provided or ranges were given.

 

When i ran my Fh games, i provided magic systems and detailed

backgrounds and many different options such as racial templates and the like. The magic systems themselves built in a "logical progression" from weak to strong as part of its mechanics (advancement proceeded in somewhat larger expensive leaps when general increases in power were achieved.)

 

I had to do a lot of work for those games to get them going, not all world building as i also did a LOT of work toning down the HERO-isms in the play to keep it to a level when i could easily get new players and not hero veterans involved. streamlining HERo was a chore, more of a chore than streamlining DND was.

[Nightshade]

Okay...

 

Fine. Here we go again. Now we will have to define the system for D&D.

 

I would place all of the classes as part of the D&D system. Why? Because they are in the D&D players handbook. They are not posed as suggestions, considerations, or even examples. They are part of the rules. That is not only my interpretation, but the intrepretation of every single potential player in my D&D on my world example I gave before. Not a couple people, dozens of people. Not a single group, every single person I talked to.

 

What you are actually comparing is the d20 system to HERO, not D&D. D&D is the fantasy version of d20. I can't think of a single published work that stated "ignore all of the classes in the PHB, and use these instead" for a d20 fantasy game. Granted, I don't buy a lot of d20 books, but I highly doubt that any did that. They very likely added a couple basic classes and a bunch of prestige classes.

 

But, since we're talking about campaigns vs. systems, let's talk about some things that are specifically system oriented.

 

1) Statistics

 

As I mentioned earlier, a person with a 3 STR (i.e. a person with the strength of a three or four year old) has a 12.5% chance of beating someone with a STR of 18 (who is a professional weightlifter). That makes sense. This is, of course, due to the statistic system used in d20, and the fact that the dice (not the statistic) are more important. Get a good roll, and it really doesn't matter what your stats are.

 

Compare that to HERO. If a person with a STR of 3 arm wrestled (or attempted a purely strength based action) against someone who had a STR of 18, the STR 3 character would get 1/2d6 while the other would get 3 1/2d6 to resist. In order to win, the low strength character would have to roll a 4,5, or 6, and the high strength character would have to roll 3 ones and a 1,2, or 3 (for the half-die) on his roll. That has an odds of happening of 1:864. That seems more reasonable to me. It is possible, but if it ever happened, you would be amazed.

 

2) Skills

 

d20's skill resolution system is the epitome of randomness. Characters starting out with say a craft skill can make masterwork objects at 2nd level. Granted, it is a 5% chance (they have to roll a 20). Of course, they could just say "I'm going to paint a picture. How good is it?" They roll and get a 20! Amazing! Their first real attempt and they get a masterpiece! Their next attempt, they roll a 3 (+5) and get an 8. Low quality work. Not worth the paint they used to make it. That sort of makes sense, they aren't consistent, yet, but with practice...

 

But wait, here's a wrinkle. We don't need to roll. I can just take 20. There's no real hurry. I can just do it. No problem! This is, of course, a beginner (an apprentice, basically) in the field.

 

Now lets go to HERO. I have the professional skill: painter, but its the same situation. I have an 11- roll (in both circumstances, I am ignoring any stat modification). If I want a masterpiece, that is very difficult, so I take a -8 to my roll. I now have a 3-. I have a 1:216 chance of success. Again, doable, but not likely (and much harder than 5%). Okay, now I want to just make a painting. I make a roll and what do you know! A 3! Does that make it masterwork? Not last I checked. Because there is a point to declaring what you are attempting.

 

'Course, you could do that with d20 as well. But then, HERO doesn't have take 10 and take 20, so they have to put more skill points to consistently make masterwork objects, not just more time (although that does give a bonus, too).

 

3) Combat

 

Here's a fun one. Try to make a called shot in D&D using the PHB, DMG, or MM. Sick of trying to find the rules? That's because you can't. That's right. That is, of course, why a chain shirt or a breast plate lowers your overall armor class. I have only met one GM for D&D that stated that they were not going to make some called shot rules, but the concept that you had to do it at all is puzzling.

 

Here's some other things that D&D didn't bother putting rules in for:

 

a) lasoo (this was already mentioned, and as I stated, easily overcome)

Fencing - Try to make a lightly armored hand to hand fighter in D&D that can survive without magic. It can be done in HERO, and it doesn't take anything more than reading the book.

c) Bec de Corbins, picks, and crossbows - These were weapons that were specifically designed to penetrate heavy armors. The Bec de Corbin is sometimes called the first can opener. That would be armor piercing in HERO. That would be a pain in the butt in D&D.

d) Martial arts - HERO has how many manuevers in the base book? 12 or more (I don't have it with me). IIRC, D&D has the monk (the only basic martial artist) with flurry of blows, quivering palm, and ummm... urmm... maybe one other? Real good choices, there. Way to be dramatic.

 

4) Character generation

 

D&D did much better this time than last about giving characters stat points in lieu of rolling dice to get statistics (even though it is just one of the options). However, they do limit some of the choices in terms of other, seemingly simple (in HERO terms) things.

 

a) Money - Why is your starting money related in any way to your class? I can understand it with Monk, but any of the others, it simply makes no sense. Why can't I start off with more? Or start off penniless? And then to make it a random roll. Ugh. Again, much easier from HERO, IMO.

 

Alignment - I stated this before. D&D PHB specifically states that good and evil are forces in the game. Many of the prestige classes (and even some of the basic classes) have alignment restrictions. Get rid of alignment, and some of the classes become MUCH more powerful (Paladin, Monk).

 

5) Character development

 

Everyone knows that you go through life learning things in spurts. You go to school for 4 years and come out a level 1 engineer (congradulations!). Now, you get your first job, and you learn nothing for a few weeks/months and then suddenly everything clicks together at once. Then you learn nothing for a while and then one day, you learn more. Now you decide to go to school part time and get your MBA. You gain another level of engineer during that time (you are now a PE, for example) and then you learn NO engineering for a long time, because you had to learn all of your MBA skills (all at once) to get your degree and be a 1st level administrator.

 

HERO's skill system is much more fluid, and has a lot more flexibility than any level based system.

 

Don't get me started on the absolutely terrible classes (IMO) that they designed for D&D. I could rant for days on how powerful the cleric is compared to anyone else save, perhaps, for the paladin. Or how grossly underpowered the Ranger and Wizard are compared to the other classes.

 

I admit, I don't like D&D. If you like it, go for it. I am telling you from my experience, D&D will not work adequately "out of the box" for my world, and HERO will. I spent dozens of hours trying to make it work, and it just simply wouldn't. I have played in games using completely GM created worlds that worked great in D&D, and would be a real pain in HERO (mostly due to the high occurance of magic). They both have their merits and flaws (it costs less to be immortal than to be filthy rich, which costs less than a 2d6 HKA (the equivalant of a great sword) in HERO. That makes sense )

 

I did not intend to make this sound like an attack. I firmly believe that any system can handle anything, given enough work and time. But you have to admit that some systems are just better at doing some things than others. For my specific needs for my world, which I had the idea for before I knew HERO existed, HERO works best.

 

Nightshade

[Nightshade]

Wow!

 

These replies are starting to get really long. I should have probably broken that up like tesuji did. Sorry about that.

 

Nightshade

[tesuji]

Re: Okay...

 

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Nightshade

I would place all of the classes as part of the D&D system. Why? Because they are in the D&D players handbook.

If you include classes as part of the rules and system then we are no longer comparing system to system but game to system which is rather silly.

 

In order to compare game to game we would need a HERO fantasy game which currently IIRC does not exist, unless you want to consider the brief western shores thing in FH 4th as being heroes fantasy game. i personally know of no one who jumped on the spell colleges and western shores as their model choice for heroes fantasy rpg.

 

Originally posted by Nightshade

What you are actually comparing is the d20 system to HERO, not D&D. D&D is the fantasy version of d20. I can't think of a single published work that stated "ignore all of the classes in the PHB, and use these instead" for a d20 fantasy game.

I am not all that versed with the breadth of the fantasy d20 market. i find a lot of the 3rd partty stuff lacking.

 

The examples i would bring up are WATOC's oriental adventures which produced its own classes and did not use some/many of the dnd classes... specifically i think, not certain but think, all the spellcasters and paladin were dropped and the monk replaced iirc with a new monk. They might have kept the rogue and fighter as is but i think everything else went bye bye and was replaced.

 

Is that close enough for you to admit the classes are setting?

 

If not, a very soon out product, Monte Cook's Arcana unearthed will present another fantasy world with "all new classes". It wont, if i understand his pre-release comments use any of the core classes.

 

is that enough?

 

 

Originally posted by Nightshade

1) Statistics

 

As I mentioned earlier, a person with a 3 STR (i.e. a person with the strength of a three or four year old) has a 12.5%

OK so DND doesn't do arm wrestling as well as you would iike.

Originally posted by Nightshade

2) Skills

d20's skill resolution system is the epitome of randomness. Characters starting out with say a craft skill can make masterwork objects at 2nd level.

 

But wait, here's a wrinkle. We don't need to roll. I can just take 20. There's no real hurry. I can just do it. No problem! This is, of course, a beginner (an apprentice, basically) in the field.

You have several mechanics just plain wrong here.

 

a master work item, particularly a painting, will NEVER (i possibly should say almost never) in DND be completed on a single roll. each roll represents an amount of work done and the amount of work required goes up with the value of the item and being masterwork that goes up a lot. without skills of significant note you will not really get a result above about 40 gp and a masterwork painting will be worth a lot more than 40 gp. So you are talking about needing MULTIPLE consecutive 20's or at least consecutive in that you do not get a bad failure in between.

 

Secondly, since craft skill has a penalty for failure, you are NOT allowed to take 20 on those checks, period, at all.

 

Perhaps you would be more able to nitpick DND if you knew how it works?

Originally posted by Nightshade

Now lets go to HERO. I have the professional skill: painter, but its the same situation.

I will stop you right there. You seem to be assuming the DND guy had like 1 skill rank so that he needed a 20, is that right? Why would you then equate that with the 2 pt profession at 11- for hero. Wouldn't that be more akin to the familiarity level? or does your example need this skew to be presentable?

 

Using a familiarity, the odds of s 6- being about 5% indicates that with a familiarity a noteworthy success (made by 2) in ONE ROLL (or alternatively achieving a regular success on a harder skill check where the Gm applied some of the penalties for difficulty listed at the beginning of the skills chapter) is about the same as that 5% figure for the random d20 roll.

 

Originally posted by Nightshade

I have an 11- roll (in both circumstances, I am ignoring any stat modification). If I want a masterpiece, that is very difficult, so I take a -8 to my roll.

I think perhaps you are equating masterpiece and masterwork as the same thing.

 

If you wanted a masterpiece along the scale you seem to indicate, then that painting in DND would have a gp values in the high hundreds at least of gp. Lets say 350 gp as a conservative estimate, a similar price increase a masterwork sword has over the normal one. To get 350 gp on a 20 roll you will need 9 rolls of 20 with no rolls below 10 anywwhere in between. Please run those odds.

 

Again, if you knwo the d20 system, you would be better able to run these "minutia i dont like" examples.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Here's a fun one. Try to make a called shot in D&D using the PHB, DMG, or MM. Sick of trying to find the rules? That's because you can't. That's right.

Lets see, called shots in HERo give you a penalty to hit for more damage...

 

ever hear of POWER ATTACK?

 

that in dnd allows you to reduce your to hit by a number up to your combat skill (BAB) and do more damage.

 

DND does not use any special rules for damage going to specifc locations such as hobbling and such, unless you take feats to do so (though i think some of those feats are in the class books, not the big 3.)

Originally posted by Nightshade

That is, of course, why a chain shirt or a breast plate lowers your overall armor class. I have only met one GM for D&D that stated that they were not going to make some called shot rules, but the concept that you had to do it at all is puzzling.

I wonder at this since most of the HERO games i have seen and many of the FH games i have seen decided not to use them as an overcomplication. I think the notion of randomizing the random damage a second time and pretending it represented called shots was silly. I mean, one of the "roll for damage" aspects was did "you hit a vital spot" and the notion of calling a eye shot, taking a -8, hitting that spot and then rolling a 1 for damage and getting told you had a glancing blow to the eye that did nothing of consequence seemd a bit far fetched.

Originally posted by Nightshade

a) lasoo (this was already mentioned, and as I stated, easily overcome)

Where in the HERO5 book is the lasso weapon statted out? i missed that page.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Fencing - Try to make a lightly armored hand to hand fighter in D&D that can survive without magic. It can be done in HERO, and it doesn't take anything more than reading the book.

The DND world is not intended to make "without magic" a viable commodity. Every class and every character is assumed to have and use magic. This is a high magic world. other d20 games which sought to address this have added a base defense bonus and that seems to be working well for them too. off hand i do not know if d20 modern did but i seem to recall it doing so.

 

you are back to "how i would have preferred the DND setting to be".

Originally posted by Nightshade

c) Bec de Corbins, picks, and crossbows - These were weapons that were specifically designed to penetrate heavy armors. The Bec de Corbin is sometimes called the first can opener. That would be armor piercing in HERO. That would be a pain in the butt in D&D.

Clearly you want more detail than DND provides. DND is not trying to simulate historical weapons accuratley, it is trying to replicate weapons in a fantastic magic filled setting.

 

BTW if you look at HERO5 weapons, you will also find crossbows IIRC not being armor piercing.

Originally posted by Nightshade

d) Martial arts - HERO has how many manuevers in the base book? 12 or more (I don't have it with me). IIRC, D&D has the monk (the only basic martial artist) with flurry of blows, quivering palm, and ummm... urmm... maybe one other? Real good choices, there. Way to be dramatic.

IIRC hero martial arts provides a series of present maneuvers which allow you to alter your attacks by basically shuffling the scores between things like attack, defense and damage.

 

In DND and other d20 games, this is acheived by feats such as power attack and expertise (and in other official books all out attack.) other martial artsy feats include improved trip, improved grapple, improved disarm and the like.

 

you really should read up on these things before going off on how bad you dislike dnd. Your points would be better made if you seemed to know of which you speak.

Originally posted by Nightshade

a) Money - Why is your starting money related in any way to your class? I can understand it with Monk, but any of the others, it simply makes no sense. Why can't I start off with more? Or start off penniless? And then to make it a random roll. Ugh. Again, much easier from HERO, IMO.

because in the setting class ~ profession. Wealth in DND plays a major role, equipment per level is recognized as a balancing factor not a flavor element. In the DND world, money is power not just an FX for power.

 

HERO works fine for supers, where wealth is downplayed and equipment = power points.

Originally posted by Nightshade

Alignment - I stated this before. D&D PHB specifically states that good and evil are forces in the game.

Yes. if you look at ancient cultures, that was often a belief, just like they believed in unicorns and dragons and faeries and trolls.

 

while i can understand you not necessarily preferring to use that particular belief as a true element, just as you might not want to have dragons in your world, i cannot understand why it would be anything more than a "they chose something different than i would" thing. Where it it written that subjective modern morality is the only ethos that should be played?

Originally posted by Nightshade

(Paladin, Monk).

I removed alingment restriction from monks, and have used monks and have a pc monk in my game. it did not seem to make him more powerful. I kept alignment/religious restrictions for religious spellusers and added it gor those who did not have them... they did not seem to get weaker?

 

I think you have a nice theory but not any evidence to back it up.

 

 

gotta go... more later.

[Nightshade]

Re: Re: Okay...

 

"The examples i would bring up are WATOC's oriental adventures which produced its own classes and did not use some/many of the dnd classes... specifically i think, not certain but think, all the spellcasters and paladin were dropped and the monk replaced iirc with a new monk. They might have kept the rogue and fighter as is but i think everything else went bye bye and was replaced."

 

I would not call Oriental Adventures fantasy. If it were, there would be no demand for Ninja HERO and products like that. I might say it is a subset of fantasy.

 

"Is that close enough for you to admit the classes are setting?"

 

No.

 

"If not, a very soon out product, Monte Cook's Arcana unearthed will present another fantasy world with "all new classes". It wont, if i understand his pre-release comments use any of the core classes.

 

is that enough?"

 

Forgotten Realms (a WOTC product), Sword and Sorcery, and Kenzer & Company's world (whose name annoyingly eludes me for the moment) all use the base classes. I have an idea, lets compare books that exist.

 

"OK so DND doesn't do arm wrestling as well as you would iike. "

 

Pick any stat based feat, and it works exactly the same. As a matter of fact, pick ANYTHING and it works that way. An 8th level fighter only has +8 to attack over a first level fighter (feats and stats not included). Say they fight a duel to first blood, same situation goes. Compare that to two characters, one of which has 8 combat skill levels more. You see a difference.

 

"You have several mechanics just plain wrong here.

 

a master work item, particularly a painting, will NEVER (i possibly should say almost never) in DND be completed on a single roll. each roll represents an amount of work done and the amount of work required goes up with the value of the item and being masterwork that goes up a lot. without skills of significant note you will not really get a result above about 40 gp and a masterwork painting will be worth a lot more than 40 gp. So you are talking about needing MULTIPLE consecutive 20's or at least consecutive in that you do not get a bad failure in between."

 

The rules have as a requirement for a masterwork item a difficulty of 25. That is the only statement that I can recall (although I don't have the book in front of me).

 

"Secondly, since craft skill has a penalty for failure, you are NOT allowed to take 20 on those checks, period, at all."

 

Really? Great. Name a skill that doesn't have any penalty for failure. The first thing that I will note is that if you fail, the difficulty goes up. I would consider that a penalty.

 

"Perhaps you would be more able to nitpick DND if you knew how it works?"

 

I would say the same about you.

 

"I will stop you right there. You seem to be assuming the DND guy had like 1 skill rank so that he needed a 20, is that right? Why would you then equate that with the 2 pt profession at 11- for hero. Wouldn't that be more akin to the familiarity level? or does your example need this skew to be presentable?"

 

No, to get a 25 skill roll by taking 20 means that they have to have 5 ranks. Hence why they would need to be 2nd level.

 

"Using a familiarity, the odds of s 6- being about 5% indicates that with a familiarity a noteworthy success (made by 2) in ONE ROLL (or alternatively achieving a regular success on a harder skill check where the Gm applied some of the penalties for difficulty listed at the beginning of the skills chapter) is about the same as that 5% figure for the random d20 roll."

 

No. There is nothing in D&D that states it, but I would think that a rank of 5 in a skill would be the equivalent of an 11-. I would think that it depends on how you define the 5 ranks. Is that good, beginner, apprentice, what?

 

"I think perhaps you are equating masterpiece and masterwork as the same thing. "

 

I am.

 

"If you wanted a masterpiece along the scale you seem to indicate, then that painting in DND would have a gp values in the high hundreds at least of gp. Lets say 350 gp as a conservative estimate, a similar price increase a masterwork sword has over the normal one. To get 350 gp on a 20 roll you will need 9 rolls of 20 with no rolls below 10 anywwhere in between. Please run those odds."

 

I am not sure where you are getting these requirement for the multiple rolls. Perhaps if you could site a reference. DMG? If I am wrong, I will admit it, but I need a source.

 

"Again, if you knwo the d20 system, you would be better able to run these "minutia i dont like" examples."

 

Combat and skill roll modifiers are minutia?

 

"Lets see, called shots in HERo give you a penalty to hit for more damage...

 

ever hear of POWER ATTACK?

 

that in dnd allows you to reduce your to hit by a number up to your combat skill (BAB) and do more damage."

 

I understand power attack, and that means very little. The write-up (and even the name) POWER ATTACK means that you are attempting to simply power through their defenses, not do anything with what I would call finesse. HERO has that, too. It is called a haymaker. I would think that very few people would confuse a haymaker with a called shot to an unarmored location.

 

"I wonder at this since most of the HERO games i have seen and many of the FH games i have seen decided not to use them as an overcomplication. I think the notion of randomizing the random damage a second time and pretending it represented called shots was silly. I mean, one of the "roll for damage" aspects was did "you hit a vital spot" and the notion of calling a eye shot, taking a -8, hitting that spot and then rolling a 1 for damage and getting told you had a glancing blow to the eye that did nothing of consequence seemd a bit far fetched."

 

If someone did 1 body to the eye, you wouldn't rule that the eye was no longer there? That added no game effect at all?

 

The random roll for hit location adds two things for a game. First, it makes sectional armor SECTIONAL. The second is it trades the stun lotto (1d6-1 for stun multiplier) for something that (in the hands of the right GM) with a lot more possibility for drama. Instead of having three die rolls (to hit, damage, stun multiplier) you have three die rolls (to hit, damage, and location).

 

"Where in the HERO5 book is the lasso weapon statted out? i missed that page."

 

Good point.

 

"The DND world is not intended to make "without magic" a viable commodity. Every class and every character is assumed to have and use magic. This is a high magic world. other d20 games which sought to address this have added a base defense bonus and that seems to be working well for them too. off hand i do not know if d20 modern did but i seem to recall it doing so."

 

Again, this has been my point from the beginning. I run a low magic fantasy world. Doing that in D&D is difficult. Not impossible, obviously, but difficult. It is because the D&D Player's Handbook, you know the thing that opens the door to Endless Adventure and purports to have everything you need to do that, assumed high magic.

 

"you are back to "how i would have preferred the DND setting to be".

 

How about this for a plan. Make the system books that are required for ANY game using the d20 system have NO setting! I think I know a few... Lets see. Basic D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2nd edition, HERO, GURPS. Wait! I know. We are supposed to (of course) assume that the classes in the fantasy d20 book are merely suggestions, along with all of the spells, all of the skills, and the races! After we get done with eliminating all of that, we are left with "roll a d20, add all of the modifiers, see if you overcame the difficulty level." That's what we spent $60 on? I think not.

 

"BTW if you look at HERO5 weapons, you will also find crossbows IIRC not being armor piercing."

 

And that always bugged me. I always added it. Of course, that doesn't negate the fact that there is no mechanic for doing so in d20.

 

"IIRC hero martial arts provides a series of present maneuvers which allow you to alter your attacks by basically shuffling the scores between things like attack, defense and damage.

 

In DND and other d20 games, this is acheived by feats such as power attack and expertise (and in other official books all out attack.) other martial artsy feats include improved trip, improved grapple, improved disarm and the like."

 

And these are martial arts manuevers? Oh, I get it. Let's look at some of them. Power attack. Pay a feat, and get a haymaker (a free skill in HERO). That looks like a martial art to me. Expertise. Great. I like more combat skill levels. Sounds like martial arts to me. All out attack. Ah, yes. In a book I've never bought or looked at. Improved trip. Make a trip and not provoke attacks of opportunities, IIRC. Perhaps I am wrong on this, but that doesn't sound very martial arts oriented to me. Improved Grapple. Same. Improved disarm. I agree with you on that one.

 

Since you brought in the Complete Fighter's Handbook (AKA Sword and Fist), I guess that I can bring in The Ultimate Martial Artist. Let's see, there are 3 different disarms (Martial, Sacrifice and the Ranged one). There are how many different strikes, grapples, etc.? I'm sure that d20's less than 10 feats do the same thing and provide the same flexibility.

 

"you really should read up on these things before going off on how bad you dislike dnd. Your points would be better made if you seemed to know of which you speak."

 

You should really learn how to debate before you attempt to do so. One of the first rules is to attack only the argument, not the person. It is not only rude, but tends to make long counterposts.

 

"because in the setting class ~ profession. Wealth in DND plays a major role, equipment per level is recognized as a balancing factor not a flavor element. In the DND world, money is power not just an FX for power.

 

HERO works fine for supers, where wealth is downplayed and equipment = power points. "

 

I disagree. Money in Fantasy HERO is just as important at in D&D, for the same reasons. Money is power no matter what system you are in. However, the SYSTEM should not tell people that they can't be wealthy, just because they are an adventurer. Why can't my wizard be from a wealthy family that gave him a stipend?

 

"Yes. if you look at ancient cultures, that was often a belief, just like they believed in unicorns and dragons and faeries and trolls.

 

while i can understand you not necessarily preferring to use that particular belief as a true element, just as you might not want to have dragons in your world, i cannot understand why it would be anything more than a "they chose something different than i would" thing. Where it it written that subjective modern morality is the only ethos that should be played?

 

I removed alingment restriction from monks, and have used monks and have a pc monk in my game. it did not seem to make him more powerful. I kept alignment/religious restrictions for religious spellusers and added it gor those who did not have them... they did not seem to get weaker?"

 

If you removed alignment restrictions, many more people would play Paladins. If you didn't remove the alignment restriction from Monks, would as many people in your group play one? Why do you think that is?

 

"I think you have a nice theory but not any evidence to back it up."

 

I think that this is amusing because this whole thing started with my agreement with what you said!!!

 

Nightshade

[Nightshade]

A little help

 

When I made my last post, while reviewing it I noticed that the formatting came out bad (Okay, really bad). How do you quote someone, comment, provide another quote, and comment?

 

Forgive my ignorance, but I am sort of new at this forum thing (no wonder they call us "Incompetent Normals" at this post level).

 

Nightshade

[Ndreare]

You will have to use the Qote cammands basicly write "QUOTE" in "[" the enter /QUOTE in "[" at the end of the quote. it will look better that way.

[Markdoc]

heh. I think we have taken this thread as far as we can. Tesuji's position (which I obviously disagree with, but which at least he has stated clearly and politely) is that you can easily customise DnD if you want to run other than the standard settings with the standard classes.

 

Having tried it, I can only emphatically disagree. Once you start changing classes about, the very basic examples given in 3e carry you only a very, very short distance.

 

It's only possible to make significant changes to the basic rules without destroying your game if you have:

a) a really comprehensive knowledge of the rules,

a good understanding of the largely unwritten and poorly defined metarules behind the system and

c) a really nice, understanding group of players.

 

I've watched enough DnD campiagns melt down under attempts to mutate the basic system, to see that this is a very common problem. It can be done - I've done it myself when I ran DnD games. But it has NEVER been as simple as with Hero which provides guidelines for doing precisely that.

 

And that's it really. It's the reason I shifted from Gm'ing DnD to GM'ing Hero. It's not that I don't appreciate having stuff done for me - I experienced a flicker of interest when 3e came out - that died once I got the rulesbooks and realised what would be involved in doing anything I wanted with them (doesn't mean DnD modules aren't full of ideas to plunder, of course).

 

As for the comment on detail: one of my own game worlds (for an asian fantasy game) is up on the web, so you can check for yourself. In comparison, I'd be mortally embarrassed to have a piece of lort like "Oriental Adventures" purporting to be an asian fantasy setting with my name on it....

 

cheers, Mark

[tesuji]

Nightshade...

 

regarding a cite to show your almost but not complete lack of understanding of DND craft rules.

 

from the SRD which makes it easy to copy, though the text is essentially identical to the craft skill in the PHB...

 

yes, they hid the information from you on how craft skills work in the craft skill description.

 

Here is the entire skill description. i will bold the portions you missed.

 

Craft (INT)

Craft is actually a number of separate skills. For instance, the character could have the skill Craft (trapmaking). The character's ranks in that skill don't affect any checks the character happens to make for pottery or leatherworking, for example. The character could have several Craft skills, each with its own ranks, each purchased as a separate skill.

A Craft skill is specifically focused on creating something; if it is not, it is a Profession.

Check: The character can practice a trade and make a decent living, earning about half the check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. The character knows how to use the tools of the trade, how to perform the craft's daily tasks, how to supervise untrained helpers, and how to handle common problems. (Untrained laborers and assistants earn an average of 1 silver piece per day.)

However, the basic function of the Craft skill is to allow the character to make an item of the appropriate type. The DC depends on the difficulty of the item created. The DC, the character's check results, and the price of the item determine how long it takes to make the item. The item's finished price also determines the cost of raw materials. (In the game world, it is the skill level required, the time required, and the raw materials required that determine an item's price. That's why the item's price and DC determine how long it takes to make the item and the cost of the raw materials.)

All crafts require artisan's tools to give the best chance of success; if improvised tools are used instead, the check is made with a -2 circumstance penalty. On the other hand, masterwork artisan's tools provide a +2 circumstance bonus.

To determine how much time and money it takes to make an item:

1. Find the DC listed here or have the DM set one.

2. Pay one-third the item's price in raw materials.

3. Make a skill check representing one week's work.

If the check succeeds, multiply the check result by the DC. If the result times the DC equals the price of the item multiplied by 10, then the character has completed the item. (If the result times the DC equals double or triple the price of the item (multiplied by 10), then the character has completed the task in one-half or one-third the time, and so on.) If the result times the DC doesn't equal the price multiplied by 10, then it represents progress the character has made this week. Record the result and make a check for the next week. Each week the character makes more progress until the character's total reaches the price of the item multiplied by 10.

If the character fails the check, the character makes no progress this week. If the character fails by 5 or more, the character ruins half the raw materials and have to pay half the original raw material cost again.

Progress by the Day: The character can make checks by the day instead of by the week, in which case the character's progress (result times DC) is at one tenth the weekly rate.

Creating Masterwork Items: The character can make a masterwork item (an item that conveys a bonus to its use through its exceptional craftsmanship, not through being magical).

To create a masterwork version of an item on the table below, the character creates the masterwork component as if it were a separate item in addition to the standard item.

The masterwork component has its own price and DC. Once both the standard component and the masterwork component are completed, the masterwork item is finished. (Note: The price the character pays for the masterwork component is one-third of the given amount, just as it is for the price in raw materials.)

Repairing Items: Generally, the character can repair an item at the same DC that it takes to make it in the first place. The cost of repairing an item is one-fifth the item's price.

Item Craft DC

---- ----- --

Armor, shield Armorsmith 10 + AC bonus

Longbow, shortbow Bowmaking 12

Composite longbow,Composite shortbow Bowmaking 15

Mighty bow Bowmaking 15 +2/Str bonus

Crossbow Weaponsmith 15

Simple melee or thrown weapon Weaponsmith 12

Martial melee orthrown weapon Weaponsmith 15

Exotic melee orthrown weapon Weaponsmith 18

Very simple item Varies 5

Typical item Varies 10

High-quality item Varies 15

Complex or superioritem Varies 20

In some cases, the "fabricate" spell can be used to achieve the results of a Craft check without the character's needing to make the check. However, the character must make an appropriate Craft check when using the spell to make articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship (jewelry, swords, glass, crystal, etc.).

A Craft check related to woodworking in conjunction with the casting of the "ironwood" spell enables the character to make wooden items that have the strength of steel.

When casting the spell "minor creation", the character must succeed at an appropriate Craft check to make a complex item, such as a Craft (bowmaking) check to make straight arrow shafts.

Retry: Yes, but each time the character misses by 5 or more, the character ruins half the raw materials and have to pay half the original raw material cost again.

[tesuji]

Regarding Nightshades almost but not complete lack of understanding of DND take 20 rules...

 

N said

 

"Really? Great. Name a skill that doesn't have any penalty for failure. The first thing that I will note is that if you fail, the difficulty goes up. I would consider that a penalty."

 

Can you provide a cite for "fail = dc goes up"? I think in some skill cases there is a penalty, but it is a specific skill thing not a general case.

 

Lockpicking is a case of a skill where failure carries no penalty. You can retry.

 

Craft is an example of a skill where failure has a penalty. if you fail by 5 or more, you LOSE materials value in your profuct, you screw up and maend up with more work to do than before you make the skill check.

 

the relevent portion of the rule from the SRD follows...

 

In general, the character can try a skill check again if the character fails, and can keep trying indefinitely. Some skills, however, have consequences of failure that must be taken into account. Some skills are virtually useless once a check has failed on an attempt to accomplish a particular task. For most skills, when a character has succeeded once at a given task, additional successes are meaningless.

If a skill carries no penalties for failure, the character can take 20 and assume that the character goes at it long enough to succeed eventually.

 

book not in front of me for a more accurate PHB page cite.

[tesuji]

Ok i will just handle a few of Nightshades points since this is becoming too much of a chore. teaching DND 101 to the misinformed is just not a career choice i made.

 

1. In DND the difference between a 1st level fighter and an 8th level fighter taken as just the difference in BAB is a laughable comparison. Feats, characteristic points are a part of the leveling system, not some "other thing" and an 8th level fighter would have 6 more feats and 2 more att points than the first. Also, since wealth is also recognized as a part of balance, wealth in equipment, the AC differences between the two would also be dramatic. As a conservative estimate the 1st level fighter's ac would be around 18 (chain shirt lrg shield dex) and the 8th level fighters would be around 24 or so and this can go as high as 29 from the expertise feat.. if we assume a 16 str to start, the 1st level fighter has a to hit bonus of +5 (focus feat, strength, BAB) which means he hits on a 19-20 or only on a 20 if the other guy uses a little expertise. The 8th level fighter has a to hit bonus of +14/+9 (BAB+8, strength+4, focus, masterwork weapon) and if he uses say 3 expertise then this still leaves him at +11.

 

When you eliminate all the other benefits that apply into your levels, and just pick out one element and pretend like that one element is the only difference, you might just be able to make the system look like 8 levels vs one level is trivial. When you add in the various elements that actually go into it, it doesn't look that bad.

 

As for your hero example, the 8 skill levels, there is NOTHING in the rules preventing a beginning PC at either 100 or 150 from having +8 skill levels. There is nothing saying the more experienced fighter has more skill levels at all. This might be the case, or it might not. Right? At least DND gives you significant combat differences as a matter of course.

 

2. on power attack being brute force... specifically that "I understand power attack, and that means very little. The write-up (and even the name) POWER ATTACK means that you are attempting to simply power through their defenses, not do anything with what I would call finesse."

 

Once you, the reader, decide to add that interpretaion in, then i can see where you would be reluctant. The actual description and rule says...

 

"Benefit: On the character's action, before making attack rolls for a round, the character may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed the character's base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage applies until the character's next action. "

 

again, from the srd.

 

you asked for how you would do called shot in DND. I cited the feat that allows the same type of mechanic as HERo. If you choose to prefer to dislike the name of the feat and thus dismiss the obvious "take from hit to do better damage" called shot similarity, thats not my problem.

 

You may choose to not look at it this way, thats fine, albeit, from a HERo background the idea of getting hung up on names and not effects seems rather construed. I mean, would you forbid someone wanting to buy Magentic control as telekinesis in HERO because telekinesis was not called magnetic control? would you disallow someone representing a gun that fires bullets from buying it as energy blast because the name is ENERGY? if not, why not have the same flexibility when thinking DND?

 

BTW the haymaker is a defense penalty for better damage. Called shots in hero are a penalty to hit for better damage, just like power attack.

 

"If someone did 1 body to the eye, you wouldn't rule that the eye was no longer there? That added no game effect at all? "

 

i could certainly HOUSE RULE to add this, but the rules do not make it so. If i wanted this level of house ruling in DND, i could make it swo. It seems odd to keep criticizing DND for not having prebuilt rules for things like this, like crossbows doing ap damage, and so forth when HERo doesn't either.

 

"How about this for a plan. Make the system books that are required for ANY game using the d20 system have NO setting!"

 

that is certainly ONE model for publication. Another is "when we sell someone a game, lets give them a game, not a game builder kit. This way, right after buying our product, they have enoguh stuff to actually sit down a play rather quickly and can get into the under the hood stuff AFTER, not before, they have some experience."

 

While that might not be the model you prefer in your books, the idea of selling a GAME and not ONLY a GAME TOOLKIT has been around for a long time, has been successful too. I doubt it will go away anytime soon, thank god.

 

On feats as martial arts...

 

Power attack equates to the various combat maneuvers (no hero book in front of me but say like fast strike or such) where you penalize OCV and gain dcs. Instead of having several such maneuvers, each purchased spearately giving slightly different scales of OCV for DCs trade, you get one feat which gives you the ability to select the amount of "power" vs "accuracy" for each one. You could look at it as for a BAB+8 guy as representing 8 different maneuvers each - ocv lower and 1 damage higher.

 

Expertise, same thing but with a BAB or 5 limit and to hit goes to defense.

 

Expertise and Power Attack, now we have the ability to maneuver OCv to DCV or damage. Thats a whole lot more maneuvers.

 

"If you removed alignment restrictions, many more people would play Paladins. If you didn't remove the alignment restriction from Monks, would as many people in your group play one? Why do you think that is?"

 

Well since in my game the monk character is still lawful neutral, since i removed the rule after he started playing the monk not as a player request thing but as a change to represent the role i wanted alignments to play, I have to say that it did not seem to have an impact on the number of players wanting to play monks or balance.

 

In general though, the less restricted a class is, the more character concepts that fit within its scope, and thus the more people who would envision characters that fit within it.

 

So from that perspective, loosening alignment restrictions works fine. Its does not however, wreck the game or even cause any serious problems, at least not the way I did it.

[tesuji]

Nightshade, I hope that at least some of this has shown you some items to ponder, not the least of which may be that your lack of DND 3e knowledge is hindering your assessment or your ability to convey reasonable arguments comparing the system. I hope you can see that making overly restrictive assumptions about DND like but the name says power so it must be brute force (paraphrase) while being perfectly willing to accept effect based definitions (magnetic control bought by telekinesis or a gun bought as energy blast) in hero is simply a fairly simple and obvious case of applying different standards to judge two different system.

 

I am not saying DND is better than HERO. if you go back and look i came into this thread disagreeing with the claims about how much better HERO was than DND, specifically in its customization ability.

 

DND obviously does not seem to be your cup of tea and the problems you find in it whether they be mechanical disagreements or lacks you seem unable or unwilling to deal with while the flaws in hero, even when they are identical like crossbows not being treated specially, you seem to be willing or even anxious to address them.

 

OK fine, i know i wont change that perspective.

 

The best i can hope to have accomplished is to give you perhaps the notion that you misunderstood some things in DND or viewed them so restrcitively that perhaps its not as bad as you think if you took the time to actually get familiar with it. I mean, surely even you can think that for instance someone who misread HERo as badly could get some pretty misinformed and erroneous biases against hero.

 

Regardless, enjoy your games.

[AnotherSkip]

Tesujii One problem with your Ftr 8 Vs ftr 1 there are several ways that that can be screwed with.

 

One both fighters can lose or *gasp* not be using their equipment.

 

a bar brawl in a place that forbids weapons and armor. just after having been shipwrecked or at certain points in the very famous modules A1-4 (against the slaver lords)

Or even at any point after having been captutred, stripped, and dumped in a "deathtrap".

 

Not that uncommon in many games.

 

and several feats are neutralised by not having weapons or only one opponent(cleave and great cleave, the martial weapon feats or whatever they are called,the weapon finess feat)

 

 

However part of the Problem with D&D is that it _assumes_ a "more experienced fighter" is better at combat. Hero assumes a more experienced fighter will be able to do more. not just combat.

 

If I as a fighter gain a level or two only through social interaction (sorry for the shockin supposition) what exactly have I _really done_ that has advanced me as a fighter? Trained on the side? Well why did I not bother with leveling and just train on the side?

 

The Assumption is that you will go out and kick arse to get xp to level.

 

there is no other assumption for the classes.

 

if you run a high diplomacy/social interaction game you are advancing in areas that are not applicable to combat and combat combat combat games you spend points on skills eventually that do not apply to those things you are learning.

 

Sorry I prefer a game wherin I can see the metasystem as opposed to one where people arbitrairily decide that Magic Missle is the best first level spell in the game, and contrive to hide the metasystem from the average gamer.