Alright then, though from the sound of things later editions have different problems. Still, my preference for GURPS was formed when 2nd Ed. (or 1st) were the only available AD&D options, and reflects that to a fair degree. Again, the biggest thing I noticed from skimming the 3rd Ed. rules was that they had begun implementing point systems like GURPS, though they did not go nearly far enough with it, IMHO.
Third Edition was all about classes and multiclassing. It was heaven for munchkins, with enough splatbooks you could dip into a couple of prestige classes for synergetic abilities and have completely overpowered specialties. More importantly for me, any attempt to homebrew anything required designing classes, and I hated that.
Well, the simple solution there is to just get rid of classes....
...BONUS stat points/4 levels?! Tell me I misread/understood that, else you practically conceded my point that characters are grossly overpowered as they level.
You have not and I have not. 2nd Edition ability scores became stupidly more powerful for every point you put in beyond 18 (to speak nothing of that ridiculous Strength percentile die for Warriors), but in later Editions ability scores progressed far more linearly. And that's for 3rd Edition. In 4th Edition you gained a +1 bonus to two ability scores at 4th, 8th, 14th, 18th, 24th and 28th level, and +1 to all scores at 11th and 21st level.
Though I could say you are right in 4th Edition, as the game is pretty insistent that every ten levels, your adventure changes in scope.
Well, unless the DM encouraged munchkins, 2nd Ed. stats could not realistically rise past 20 anyway, and only get that high for demi-human characters who pushed the stat where they got a +1 bonus all the way to 19, then found an Ioun Stone and/or used a 9th level Wish spell, and any DM who will let a character with a 19 stat do that is probably running a munchkin campaign. In that case, it really does not matter what system is used, because the players will demand and the DM allow munchkin characters under any "rules" (to the extent those even remain relevant.) I will not say their extensive line of Munchkin parodies sold me on Steve Jackson Games (because Illuminati and GURPS did that,) but they did not hurt.
Fourth edition... honestly, it sounds like I would hate it, because all of the old AD&D munchkinizing tendencies are exacerbated by attempts to cater to console gamers looking for naught but XP and powerups.
Anyway, in 2nd Ed. Str bonuses to damage ranged from +1 at 15 to +6 at 18/00 (but +5 at 18/90-91, so anything >+4 was VERY rare.) The to hit bonus was +1 at 17, +2 at 18/51 and did not reach +3 until 18/00. Dex bonuses to AC went from -1 at 15 to -4 at 19 (since Elves got a +1 Dex bonus.) Con bonuses to hit dice went from +1 at 15 to +5 at 19 (since Dwarves got a +1 to Con.) With an Ioun stone or something to raise Con to 20 characters actually got to REGENERATE HP; there is a reason I ignored the bonuses. Setting that aside though, this is how it would break down with Str, Dex and Con at equal levels:
Maxxed out, the 20th level fighter has a net -1 to hit and +1 to damage when he does, but only because he is at a full 18/00.
18/91-99: -2 to hit, +0 damage; 18/76-90, -2 to hit, -1 damage; 18/51-75, -2 to hit, -2 damage. On average for exceptional stats (i.e. >18:) -1.98 to hit, -1.28 damage
18/01-50, -2 to hit, -1 damage (the attacker gets a break here because fighters could not have 18 Str, which would be -2 to hit, -2 damage.)
Straight 17s= -2 to hit, -2 damage; 16s= -2 to hit, -1 damage; 15s= -1 to hit, -1 to damage.
2nd Ed. only gave +1 damage two-handed (and only with an optional Fighters Handbook rule;) otherwise, it just changed bastard sword damage to 2d4 instead of the 1d8 it did one-handed. I THINK greatswords did 1d12 (never used them, so do not quote me;) save for a few exceptions all others did d8 or less. So unless both have straight 15s, all else being equal the 20th level fighter has -2 to hit -1 to damage (in a few cases -2) with d8 or less damage, and the 10th level fighter has 10d10 HP.
Even with a d12 greatsword the attacker gets 5.5 HP/hit, which just happens to be exactly what 10 attacks must average to drop a defender with 10d10 HP. Even at 3 attacks per round that will still take 4 rounds; given misses and the unlikelihood of the attacker wielding a greatsword, 5 or 6 rounds is more plausible. If the 20th level fighter misses even once OR has anything less than a greatsword, there is NO chance he kills the 10th level fighter with 10 attacks capped at 6 or 7 points each.
In other words, even if a 10th level fighter does not fight back, a 20th level fighter must whale on him for a full minute to kill him!
Maxxed out, the 20th level fighter has a net -1 to hit and +1 to damage when he does, but only because he is at a full 18/00.
18/91-99: -2 to hit, +0 damage; 18/76-90, -2 to hit, -1 damage; 18/51-75, -2 to hit, -2 damage. On average for exceptional stats (i.e. >18:) -1.98 to hit, -1.28 damage
18/01-50, -2 to hit, -1 damage (the attacker gets a break here because fighters could not have 18 Str, which would be -2 to hit, -2 damage.)
Straight 17s= -2 to hit, -2 damage; 16s= -2 to hit, -1 damage; 15s= -1 to hit, -1 to damage.
2nd Ed. only gave +1 damage two-handed (and only with an optional Fighters Handbook rule;) otherwise, it just changed bastard sword damage to 2d4 instead of the 1d8 it did one-handed. I THINK greatswords did 1d12 (never used them, so do not quote me;) save for a few exceptions all others did d8 or less. So unless both have straight 15s, all else being equal the 20th level fighter has -2 to hit -1 to damage (in a few cases -2) with d8 or less damage, and the 10th level fighter has 10d10 HP.
Even with a d12 greatsword the attacker gets 5.5 HP/hit, which just happens to be exactly what 10 attacks must average to drop a defender with 10d10 HP. Even at 3 attacks per round that will still take 4 rounds; given misses and the unlikelihood of the attacker wielding a greatsword, 5 or 6 rounds is more plausible. If the 20th level fighter misses even once OR has anything less than a greatsword, there is NO chance he kills the 10th level fighter with 10 attacks capped at 6 or 7 points each.
In other words, even if a 10th level fighter does not fight back, a 20th level fighter must whale on him for a full minute to kill him!
Yeah, that's pretty terrible.
Nature of the beast; make characters progressively harder to kill as they advance and they soon become very difficult to kill.
OK, fine, later editions reduced that approximately one-third, partly by letting the 20th level character raise his stats 4 times (because extra attacks, HP and lower THAC0 were not already advantage enough. ) I guess the good news for our "hapless" (but surprisingly hardy) 10th level fighter is that his opponent has not yet reached 20th level and raised Str AGAIN (is that capped, or is he in Fire Giant territory now?) That high level fighters can unleash enough firepower to level a small city does not mitigate the mid level fighters ability to absorb tremendous damage without flinching. Even in 3rd and 4th Ed. the high level fighter needs many attacks to slay a mid level fighter not even resisting.
Fire Giants have Strength 31 in 3rd Edition, so no . An Ogre has a Strength of 21.
Oh, good; I was worried we were power-gaming.
Actually, if he's not resisting, then you can coup de grâce him. In the case of our terrible fighter build from two posts ago, we can go for a -10 Power Attack then (more than that, actually, since a defenceless character will have penalties to defence and cannot use the Dodge feat we gave him), since you only get to do the one attack in the entire round, for 2(2d6+26) for an average of 66 damage, outright killing the 55hp fighter, and even if he survived, he'd still have to succeed at a DC 76 Fortitude Save or die outright. And, just so you have an idea of what a DC 76 save means, the Tarrasque has +38 to its Fortitude save, meaning it would have to roll a natural 38 on a d20 to survive (not exactly true, since natural 20s are always successes, but you get the point). [EDIT:] Oh, and then he'd have to roll a DC 15 Fortitude Save again to avoid dying from massive damage.
Yeah, I started not to say, "not resisting," because I did not mean simply standing still awaiting a coup de grâce, just not fighting back at all. Couple things there sound familiar; Dodge is often a GURPS characters best Active Defense, because weapon skill must be fairly high before Parry is effective (most people do not use Block, because then you have to carry around an encumbering shield.) Without at least minimal armor to add a point or two of Passive Defense to those rolls combat is still (pardon the pun) dicey. The DC check sounds like the HT check, except evidently based on damage rather than HP in 4th Ed. (which actually speaks to my complaints against ever inflating AD&D HP, though the simpler solution is still to just say no character is ever "experienced" enough to survive being shot in the face.)
So mid level characters cannot ignore thrashings by high levels ones for a full minute; I guess that is some improvement. The core problem remains though: The mid level character can still absorb far more damage than a low level one; the high level character just inflicts such an overwhelming amount of damage it does no matter. Against anyone less, like the low level character or even an equal level character, we still have a scenario where even if the attacker is consistently hitting an opponent doing nothing more than trying to avoid the blows it will take a while to kill him.
Maybe in BG (though even it allows characters to advance past 20th level; the ToB XP cap was 8 million, enough for Thieves to hit 40th level!) With tabletop AD&D it was more of an unintended consequence as characters who survived long enough became omnipotent. It got kind of ugly in later years, as TSR released expansions allowing characters to reach levels as high as 50; I have no idea how DMs kept THAT "challenging." That brings up another realism issue: How plausible is it for a character to start out as a Two Rivers farmboy and end up the Dark One? Maybe for immortal elves, or even long-lived dwarves, but a human who has maybe 60 good years between maturity and decreptitude? I guess mages can become liches, but that usually ends a career as a PC.
Yeah, I never had any interest in the 'epic levels' games. But as for characters reaching epic levels, there are any number of reasons to ascend. Take a fighter. Maybe he becomes someone like Lan, a warrior of legendary skill, until even the gods take notice and grant him a place as one one of their proxies. Or he could obtain (or forge his own) magical artefact of incredible power that allows him to travel through the planes. Or maybe he bathes in the blood of a slain Dragon and gains their power and immortality. It's just limited by your imagination.
I am not saying it should never be an option, can never make sense within any gameworld, but it should not be the norm for ALL gameworlds where characters survive long enough. And even if someone like Lan took an Aes Sedais fireball to the face or got hit with balefire he would be as dead as quickly as Baerlon drover.
I always understood Paladins and Rangers as Specialist Fighters just like all the Specialist Mages were still Mages, and generally viewed Bards, Druids, etc. much the same. The only one requiring separate treatment was the Bard, because of his spellcasting. The rest were just subtypes who had more disadvantages to offset a few particular extra advantages, neither of which conflicted with their basic class. Except for priest spells at high level, there is ultimately not much justification for saying Paladins and Rangers are distinct classes but Cavaliers and Barbarians are just Fighter kits (if I understood OotS correctly, the latter is now a class of its own anyway.)
Nah, I still have my 2nd Edition PHB, so I can assure you they subdivided their classes into those four groups. Mages was specifically the generalist type of Wizard. Why did they do that? Hell if I know, I stopped trying to make sense of 2nd Edition long ago.
As for 3rd Edition, yes, they made Barabarians a standard class. Also Monks.
Makes sense; IIRC Monks were originally a separate class in AD&D 1st Ed. too, but very unbalanced.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 27/09/2012 at 10:40:30 AM
Baldurs Gate Enhanced Edition: Edit 2 with added video & launch delay
07/09/2012 09:48:16 PM
- 2694 Views
!!!!!
07/09/2012 10:49:47 PM
- 1338 Views
I played the hell out of BG2, but only played BG1 once
08/09/2012 06:07:15 AM
- 1436 Views
BGI is a lot more fun because a lot more challenging, IMHO.
08/09/2012 02:33:17 PM
- 1308 Views
*revelation*
08/09/2012 05:45:28 PM
- 1265 Views
You need not be behind them to assassinate (the high level thief ability.)
08/09/2012 06:04:31 PM
- 1300 Views
ahh yes i remember, every hit is a backstab for 30 seconds or something.
08/09/2012 07:07:12 PM
- 1369 Views
Right; it is pretty much an instakill, considering the multipliers at the level it becomes available
08/09/2012 09:03:47 PM
- 1258 Views
fireballs are so epic in BG1
08/09/2012 05:41:34 PM
- 1310 Views
I disagree about it being the only good third level spell;lighting bolt and haste are also excellent
08/09/2012 06:26:08 PM
- 1412 Views
Yeah, I loved Lightning Bolt.
08/09/2012 06:44:59 PM
- 1245 Views
it was such a liability
08/09/2012 07:11:36 PM
- 1287 Views
Bouncing is what makes lightning bolts great, because you get to hit people more than once.
08/09/2012 08:59:10 PM
- 1228 Views
There's an unfortunate Wizard in the Firewine Bridge Ruins...
09/09/2012 12:58:18 AM
- 1324 Views
Oops.
09/09/2012 01:43:23 AM
- 1316 Views
that's why BG1 was so awesome. exploration=rewards
09/09/2012 09:09:22 AM
- 1289 Views
For sure; it made additional playthroughs fun even after beating the game.
09/09/2012 04:48:40 PM
- 1379 Views
Also, FB and Skull Trap are also almost interchangeable until 10th level, but ST damage is uncapped.
09/09/2012 02:02:17 AM
- 1798 Views
Multi-player was actually pretty simple if you just used it to create your whole party.
08/09/2012 02:19:35 PM
- 1283 Views
well yeah, because there was no connection to figure out
08/09/2012 06:59:49 PM
- 1393 Views
Right; I was never a big multiplayer fan anyway, but customized parties were nice
08/09/2012 08:53:45 PM
- 1404 Views
Where's the fun in having a customized party and losing all the character interaction, though?
09/09/2012 04:03:10 PM
- 1373 Views
I dislike most of the BG NPCs anyway, so I do not much feel the lack.
09/09/2012 04:45:12 PM
- 1482 Views
Re: I dislike most of the BG NPCs anyway, so I do not much feel the lack.
10/09/2012 01:23:44 PM
- 1326 Views
Suggestion since you're not using the NPCs anyway...
15/09/2012 11:34:28 PM
- 1386 Views
That is a good thought; I never played IWD.
16/09/2012 03:31:01 AM
- 1285 Views
Where did you think I just got it?
16/09/2012 04:39:43 PM
- 1231 Views
How would I know you just got a game released in the late nineties?
17/09/2012 06:57:19 PM
- 1228 Views
Re: How would I know you just got a game released in the late nineties?
17/09/2012 11:08:09 PM
- 1409 Views
I still like GURPS' character points best.
17/09/2012 11:40:12 PM
- 1278 Views
Heh, I'm not surprised.
18/09/2012 01:47:55 AM
- 1274 Views
If you want to avoid hyperspecialization, avoid classes.
18/09/2012 07:36:43 AM
- 1487 Views
I've never played GURPS, so I don't know how its system works.
18/09/2012 03:32:21 PM
- 1368 Views
I recommend it, but it is a bear to run.
19/09/2012 03:37:19 AM
- 1711 Views
Re: I recommend it, but it is a bear to run.
19/09/2012 08:35:24 AM
- 1325 Views
It is the difference between "what if...?" and "whatever...."
19/09/2012 10:58:31 PM
- 1366 Views
Re: It is the difference between "what if...?" and "whatever...."
20/09/2012 12:31:10 AM
- 1292 Views
AD&D cannot avoid one-sided encounters without restricting epic characters to epic encounters.
24/09/2012 05:53:39 AM
- 1586 Views
Re: AD&D cannot avoid one-sided encounters without restricting epic characters to epic encounters.
24/09/2012 07:03:39 AM
- 1275 Views
Things are a little different if you are the GM, yes.
24/09/2012 08:33:23 AM
- 1512 Views
Re: Things are a little different if you are the GM, yes.
24/09/2012 07:24:51 PM
- 1400 Views
My point is no one should be at any level.
25/09/2012 01:23:21 AM
- 1515 Views
Re: My point is no one should be at any level.
25/09/2012 03:41:42 AM
- 1528 Views
I know no more about AD&D 3rd Ed. than I retain from skimming the book a few times in a store.
25/09/2012 05:16:49 AM
- 1322 Views
Re: I know no more about AD&D 3rd Ed. than I retain from skimming the book a few times in a store.
25/09/2012 06:05:39 PM
- 1446 Views
Re: [Insert relevant subject line here.]
26/09/2012 08:12:05 AM
- 1468 Views
Re: [Insert relevant subject line here.]
26/09/2012 05:48:34 PM
- 1324 Views
Re: [Insert relevant subject line here.]
27/09/2012 10:26:16 AM
- 1939 Views
Re: [Insert relevant subject line here.]
27/09/2012 05:23:13 PM
- 1261 Views
I did not realize how awful classes were until liberated from them.
28/09/2012 12:49:14 AM
- 1396 Views
Re: Things are a little different if you are the GM, yes.
24/09/2012 08:45:05 PM
- 1257 Views
I thought Yrrth a perfectly fine game world; obviously anything less generic requires some effort.
25/09/2012 12:14:09 AM
- 1307 Views
GURPS and TV Tropes are a natural fit, so I will throw in a link to their page on it.
19/09/2012 03:50:37 AM
- 1378 Views
I can't speak for IWD I, but II is okay on the story front so far.
18/09/2012 06:36:16 PM
- 1227 Views
I've still only played about 4 hours of BG1
08/09/2012 03:59:49 PM
- 1328 Views
If you have not yet, you should look into the Weidu mods.
08/09/2012 06:12:20 PM
- 1219 Views
But what's the point in playing the game if you don't use the NPCs?
08/09/2012 06:47:38 PM
- 1232 Views
Not having a bunch of potentially useful but AI ruined incompetents constantly fumbling.
08/09/2012 08:55:53 PM
- 1360 Views
Yeah, but optimising the whole group sounds ridiculously easy.
09/09/2012 01:03:51 AM
- 1226 Views
Well, there are always mods for that.
09/09/2012 01:37:42 AM
- 1177 Views
For talking to pretty much anyone, really.
09/09/2012 03:20:29 AM
- 1279 Views
True.
09/09/2012 03:46:24 AM
- 1280 Views
Well, I usually don't have thieves in my party.
09/09/2012 04:56:21 AM
- 1226 Views
there wasn't a good enough thief option in bg2/ToB
09/09/2012 09:15:21 AM
- 1170 Views
I noticed that also; another argument for creating a party via MP even if you move it back to SP.
09/09/2012 11:45:12 PM
- 1282 Views
Just how many thieves do you even need?
10/09/2012 06:22:58 PM
- 1262 Views
You can get by with half a thief, yeah, but it forces you to forego maxing out some thief abilities.
10/09/2012 06:47:48 PM
- 1248 Views
Any suggested parties for beginners? *NM*
10/09/2012 01:13:38 AM
- 694 Views
I am completely stoked about it.
10/09/2012 07:07:09 PM
- 1307 Views
TotSC made BGI a LOT more fun.
10/09/2012 07:46:03 PM
- 1187 Views
all the kits/races/dual wielding etc will be available in bgee
11/09/2012 09:02:35 AM
- 1206 Views
Ah; nice.
11/09/2012 06:57:14 PM
- 1330 Views
i'm not sure they were even state of the art at the time
12/09/2012 09:26:05 AM
- 1224 Views
Remember, BGI was released only about two years after Doom.
13/09/2012 12:05:11 AM
- 1286 Views
If by "two" you mean "five," then yes. DOOM was released in 1993.
13/09/2012 03:22:58 PM
- 1255 Views
Ah, 1998. The golden year. Ocarina of Time. Starcraft. Half-Life. *NM*
13/09/2012 04:16:21 PM
- 711 Views
That just reminds me of how sad it is that StarCraft died this year . *NM*
13/09/2012 11:55:28 PM
- 690 Views
Fair enough; I was thinking of Doom in terms of when I started playing it and Doom II (1995.)
14/09/2012 03:56:50 PM
- 1359 Views
I don't mind the graphics in it
12/09/2012 04:38:47 PM
- 1287 Views
Good, me neither, but I have heard others criticize them.
12/09/2012 11:51:16 PM
- 1182 Views
I used the PS3 web browser as my primary browser for about 3 months
13/09/2012 01:13:22 PM
- 1225 Views
*nods* I suspected as much, but had no first hand experience confirming it.
14/09/2012 04:03:15 PM
- 1280 Views
I'm going to ask this here rather than start a new topic as its somewhat related.
10/09/2012 07:42:32 PM
- 1245 Views
And it now has been delayed till Nov *NM*
15/09/2012 03:52:41 AM
- 685 Views
On another note, shame on all of you for not telling me Jon Irenicus is Ra's Al Ghul
15/09/2012 04:19:21 AM
- 1273 Views