2e, the farthest edition back that I still recall in any detail, was very much part of the arms race. "+X weapon to hit" is just as much a part of the arms race as needing a +X weapon to keep up with the math.
Do you know the percentage of monsters in 2E that required a +X weapon to hit? 16%
Could you share with me where you got that number?
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
2e, the farthest edition back that I still recall in any detail, was very much part of the arms race. "+X weapon to hit" is just as much a part of the arms race as needing a +X weapon to keep up with the math.
Do you know the percentage of monsters in 2E that required a +X weapon to hit? 16%
Could you share with me where you got that number?
The 2E Core Rules CD (and later the 2.5 Core Rules CD) came with a monster-maker tool. It also had a comprehensive compendium of all 2E monsters (released up to that point, anyway). That compendium had filters that allowed you to only view certain level monsters, certain AC monsters, certain XP monsters, and so on, so you could easily pick from level-appropriate monsters when adventure designing. Using those filters, you could narrow it down so that only monsters that required +X or better weapons to hit would be viewable. The list was surprisingly small when compared to the thousands of available monsters that were made in the 11 year run of 2E.
The 2 core goals of DDN: 1. Create a version of D&D that embraces the enduring, core elements of the game. 2. Create a set of rules that allows a smooth transition from a simple game to a complex one. - Mike Mearls
2e, the farthest edition back that I still recall in any detail, was very much part of the arms race. "+X weapon to hit" is just as much a part of the arms race as needing a +X weapon to keep up with the math.
Do you know the percentage of monsters in 2E that required a +X weapon to hit? 16%
Could you share with me where you got that number?
The 2E Core Rules CD (and later the 2.5 Core Rules CD) came with a monster-maker tool. It also had a comprehensive compendium of all 2E monsters (released up to that point, anyway). That compendium had filters that allowed you to only view certain level monsters, certain AC monsters, certain XP monsters, and so on, so you could easily pick from level-appropriate monsters when adventure designing. Using those filters, you could narrow it down so that only monsters that required +X or better weapons to hit would be viewable. The list was surprisingly small when compared to the thousands of available monsters that were made in the 11 year run of 2E.
That's interesting. Say, since you have such an easy reference tool, those 16% of monsters that required +X weapons to hit, what percentage are they when you start levelling up? For example, what percents are they for monsters suitable for facing PCs at, let's say levels 10, 15, and 20?
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
Weapons should be more than flavor. If I go to the trouble of wielding a greatsword, it should definitely not do the same damage as a dagger. Too simplified.
This.
I agree fighters should not be defined by their weapons like the older editions, but at the same time, players do want to make their choices mean SOMETHING.
Again, this is not what I was stating. Not anywhere close.
That's interesting. Say, since you have such an easy reference tool, those 16% of monsters that required +X weapons to hit, what percentage are they when you start levelling up? For example, what percents are they for monsters suitable for facing PCs at, let's say levels 10, 15, and 20?
Since the monster math of 2E was sometimes a bit wonky, you had a broad range to deal with. A 2 HD monster could have an amazing armor class and THAC0, while an 8 HD monster could have a terrible AC and THAC0. Oh, and by the way...there were no monsters that required higher than a +3 weapon to hit, and there were less than 20 of those that did require a +3 weapon to hit.
Going by your given examples of PCs level 10 to 20, and only listing monsters that required a +3 or better weapon to hit...
By level 10, a fighter that didn't even try very hard could successfully hit a Night Hag or Marut (both AC 0). By level 15, he could hang with a Pit Fiend, a Phoenix, and even a Death Slaad (ACs of -5, -3, -4, respectively). With any amount of success, he could even tie it on with a Balor, Arcanaloth, or Ultroloth (all AC -8), but I would suggest waiting until level 18 or so.
If you're below level 10 you probably won't ever come across anything requiring a +3 weapon to hit. If you do, it'll likely be an Intellect Devourer (AC 4). If you never leave the Prime, you probably won't come across anything, ever, that requires more than a +2 to hit. Even the fabled and mighty Tarrasque only requires a +1 or better to-hit (as do most lycanthropes and some of the more powerful undead).
In short, if a PC acquires a +2 weapon, he likely won't ever need to trade up for something better unless he plans on plane-hopping much later in his career.
The 2 core goals of DDN: 1. Create a version of D&D that embraces the enduring, core elements of the game. 2. Create a set of rules that allows a smooth transition from a simple game to a complex one. - Mike Mearls
In short, if a PC acquires a +2 weapon, he likely won't ever need to trade up for something better unless he plans on plane-hopping much later in his career.
You keep mentioning plane hopping, but that is not the only place demons and devils and such are encountered. There are plenty of demonic cults, evil clerics, and evil wizards who've enslaved demons as their muscle in the prime material plane.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
In short, if a PC acquires a +2 weapon, he likely won't ever need to trade up for something better unless he plans on plane-hopping much later in his career.
You keep mentioning plane hopping, but that is not the only place demons and devils and such are encountered. There are plenty of demonic cults, evil clerics, and evil wizards who've enslaved demons as their muscle in the prime material plane.
This is true. It also doesn't change the fact that a PC will never need more than a +3 magic weapon, no matter where he goes. And to that end, he won't need the +3 weapon until at least level 10 or so (that magic level number that most people claim they never play past).
The 2 core goals of DDN: 1. Create a version of D&D that embraces the enduring, core elements of the game. 2. Create a set of rules that allows a smooth transition from a simple game to a complex one. - Mike Mearls
In short, if a PC acquires a +2 weapon, he likely won't ever need to trade up for something better unless he plans on plane-hopping much later in his career.
You keep mentioning plane hopping, but that is not the only place demons and devils and such are encountered. There are plenty of demonic cults, evil clerics, and evil wizards who've enslaved demons as their muscle in the prime material plane.
This is true. It also doesn't change the fact that a PC will never need more than a +3 magic weapon, no matter where he goes. And to that end, he won't need the +3 weapon until at least level 10 or so (that magic level number that most people claim they never play past).
Yeah, 2e kept the value of X in "+X weapon" under better control. That's no lie. But the point is that you do eventually need a +X weapon because, as you level, the creatures that you don't need an army of to challenge the party grow more and more likely to require a +X weapon to hit them. The arms race is still there, it's just a footrace compared to the nascar like race in 3e and 4e.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
Weapons should be more than flavor. If I go to the trouble of wielding a greatsword, it should definitely not do the same damage as a dagger. Too simplified.
This.
I agree fighters should not be defined by their weapons like the older editions, but at the same time, players do want to make their choices mean SOMETHING.
You can achieve that through properties though. Damage is solely a measure of effectiveness as a weapon, making one lethal weapon do more damage than another weapon that is also lethal is a silly way to make weapon choice count. Every weapon on the list can kill. Killing with a lethal weapon is all about luck and skill/training, not about the weapon itself.
Actually, I agree with this. But I want it expanded past 'Slashing/Piercing/Blunt'. Not sure what, though.
2e, the farthest edition back that I still recall in any detail, was very much part of the arms race. "+X weapon to hit" is just as much a part of the arms race as needing a +X weapon to keep up with the math.
Do you know the percentage of monsters in 2E that required a +X weapon to hit? 16%
Could you share with me where you got that number?
The 2E Core Rules CD (and later the 2.5 Core Rules CD) came with a monster-maker tool. It also had a comprehensive compendium of all 2E monsters (released up to that point, anyway). That compendium had filters that allowed you to only view certain level monsters, certain AC monsters, certain XP monsters, and so on, so you could easily pick from level-appropriate monsters when adventure designing. Using those filters, you could narrow it down so that only monsters that required +X or better weapons to hit would be viewable. The list was surprisingly small when compared to the thousands of available monsters that were made in the 11 year run of 2E.
That's interesting. Say, since you have such an easy reference tool, those 16% of monsters that required +X weapons to hit, what percentage are they when you start levelling up? For example, what percents are they for monsters suitable for facing PCs at, let's say levels 10, 15, and 20?
And the bolded is the important part. It doesn't matter if a small slice uses the + to hit requirement, what matters is how often they're supposed to be used.
Statistics don't show cause and effect, yes, I know they sure seem to, but rarely do they tell the whole story. Please bear that in mind.
