The d20 System Part Two

I never take anything back that I write so I am just going to add on to my last entry. I still pretty much hate 3.0/3.5 as a version of D&D. It's too fucking complicated and a lot of times the DC numbers are just random and up to the DM to make up on the spot. That makes no sense to me. At least with the older rules, 1st and 2nd edition, you had a number to try and roll under. Lets use this as an example.

Lets say in second edition you have a Fire-building of 14. It's a windy day, and the wood is kind of damp. I say -4 to the roll. Okay the character needs to roll a 10 or lower and he is able to build a fire and get warm.

In 3.0 or 3.5 there is NO number for the character to even start with. The DC is completely up to the DM. So lets say the character has 4 in Fire-building, well then what is the number he needs to reach? Do I have to break out my calculator to figure out his 50/50 shot at making the number? Does that mean if the DC is supposed to start at 10, that I should make him roll a 6 or higher, or does a 4 translate to 14 in relative similarity? It just confuses the hell out of me. It's a complicated system of determining skills checks against NON-opposing forces.

I think it works great when you are talking about hitting and defending, cause you have a certain number you need to hit and it's pretty straight forward. You don't have to figure out two different things for each character like you do in 2nd edition. Each person has a number to reach and wham, right in the chiseled chin of my 14th level warrior.

I also like the idea of your stats giving you more additions and help in the lower levels. It was a VERY poor idea for 2nd edition to have you only get bonuses at 16 or higher. So it translated a dexterity of 8 as being the same as a dex of 14, which if you are using any modicum of common sense MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE AT ALL! I know it was supposed to be an exponential rise in power as the stats went up, but just keep telling yourself that, it was an oversight in designing in the game that caused it and they used that lame exponential schtick to cover their asses.

Overall so far, and I am still hip deep in my investigation, both systems are quite good in certain ways and quite bad in others. I'm not sold on switching over just yet, but making a hybrid version of the game for myself is definitely in the near future. I am going to take the best of both systems and warp them together to make one that makes fucking sense. I have this bad feeling that most of the stuff I use is going to be from the new system though, cause you can tell they really went over it with a fine tooth comb and did their homework in a lot of ways. It's a good system, but I can make it better for the kinds of games I want to run.

Michael

The d20 system

I hate to admit this, but in the past couple of days I have been submersed in a game that uses the dreaded d20 system and I have to say I like it. I am a big enough man to admit when I might have been wrong about a system. Let's not get carried away and say that I like it BETTER than 2nd edition for AD&D, but for other systems I can see it working quite well. I am sure it would work just fine for AD&D but for me to switch would just be stupid on my part. I have fixed, adjusted and manipulated 2nd edition to work for me in my own way. To switch to another would flush all that hard work down the toilet.

I can say this however, I will not rip apart someone for using 3.5 anymore. I will however still defend what I said in my previous posts as to the evil nature of WOTC. I still agree with myself on the difference between ROLE playing and ROLL playing and that doesn't matter what system you use.

3.5 is still something that is supposed to be simpler than 2nd edition, but let me tell you it's not in many ways. You can get pretty deep into combat with 3.5. With that being said it can also be simplified just like 2nd edition and in many ways it works just as well if not better.

I might be a big man when it comes to admitting I am wrong, but that still doesn't mean I feel good about it. One good thing to come out of this is I am no longer afraid of learning the new system and I have on good authority that I will be getting some new 3.5 books for my birthday. Does this mean I will be switching my current campaign over to 3.5. HELL NO!!! This does mean that if a certain game or genre fits better with 3.5, or if I am running something for my friends who have switched to the darkside many years ago, I might use it. I MIGHT use it. I am open to using it now.

One thing that really made me investigate the system more was the rule about Vitality Points and Wound Points, which at first I thought was stupid, but after reviewing it's very solid. We have been doing the same thing for years, but we didn't have two different stats for what we called HIT POINTS. For example in 2nd edition I have a current character who is a 23rd level fighter and he has 167 hit points. Now even we knew that didn't mean he could take at least 16 full strength bastard sword hits, it was a number resembling his level and experience as to how badly he is injured. Scraps and bruises were much of the number. Even near misses in certain situations. We always played that if you were backstabbed and didn't have the ability to block a blow in any way, your HIT POINTS were almost useless. It was a call on the spot between the DM and the PC at that point.

In the 3.5 edition it's pretty clear which is which. For people with little experience in roleplaying, like newbies or someone switching from Rifts or AD&D it's a good way to explain why you get so many hit points in 2nd edition. I don't consider this a improvement on 2nd edition, more like a better explanation of how HIT POINTS worked. So now you get Wound points equal to your Constitution and however many Vitality Points you get for being a certain level fighter. My 23rd level fighter would have stats like this: Wound Points of 16 (Con) and 151 Vitality Points. Seems logical to me. WOTC had to tell others this, but we have been playing the same way for years and years, but here it's spelled out for the players, which is good.

In closing, 3.5 is not as evil on it's own as I claimed it once was. However WOTC is still an evil fucking company and I stand by what I said about switching systems whenever they tell you to. If you play 1st edition and it's working for you, save your money and stay where you are, same goes for people playing 3.5, just stick with what works and forget about the juggernaut called WOTC telling you need to buy a whole new set of books. FUCK THEM!!! Play what you like, and right now I like 2nd edition for AD&D, but I can see how people can like either 3.0 or 3.5. More power to you with whatever system you use.

Peace out

Michael

Gary Gygax and my youth

From the beginning my friends and I have complained about the stupid tables and charts Gary Gygax put in his first edition rule book. He was the scapegoat of whatever we found wrong with the current system we were playing in. It was easy to complain about him from afar. But one thing holds true about all those statements, he was ALWAYS mentioned when it came to D&D and in some small way we all loved him.

A huge part of my life is role playing. Without D&D I would have never considered role playing. I wouldn't have hung out and met a lot of the people that now fill my life without that simple game which you play in your head with dice and a piece of paper. It's truly a sad day for my friends and I.

I speak for a lot of people in my corner of the world and say that without Gary and his insane tables and charts we would have never had anything to complain about. He was a genius in that he created something totally new and it brought out the geek in a lot of us through our young lives and into our adult ones as well.

Not many people can say this about their life, but this man, Gary Gygax will live forever in a game we will continue to play for years and years to come. What a legacy he has created with one simple book of rules in 1974.

You will be missed. You are now off the complaint list and your name will only be mentioned in good light from this moment on. From now on I will only complaint about Wizards of the Coast. They deserve it anyways.

We love you Gary, rest in peace.

Michael

On a related note to my last blog entry about 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons. I think Gary says it best in this interview from 2005 about the new editions of Dungeons and Dragons. If anyone has a right to comment on what is wrong with the new editions, it's the man that created the genre and the game itself.

Have you had a chance to play or even look at some of the current Dungeons & Dragons games?

Gygax: I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book super heroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.

Amen Brother, Amen

Michael