You favorite tabletop RPGs and why

[AmazonQueen]

For me, I think the magic systems in D&D was the most annoying thing. The combat didn't bother me too much, as long as I didn't scrutinize it too closely, but I bumped my head on the magic systems every time I played.

If I play D&D or Pathfinder I always prefer sorcerers to wizards because of not having to memorise a set selection of spells. So many spells never got used because of the fixed selection system used.

 

[AdamCrock]

If I play D&D or Pathfinder I always prefer sorcerers to wizards because of not having to memorise a set selection of spells. So many spells never got used because of the fixed selection system used.

I second that - Sorcerer / Sorceress class is just more flexible albeit somewhat restricted in the number of spells he/she can master

Imagine to forget to pick a level 4 "stone skin" spell and do not ever have it - for a mage - this would be a suicide ! xD or a challenge ..."never use stone skin and lvl 8 iron skin"

 

[Oerdin]

Dungeons & Dragons !!! Feel the Satanic Panic ! #Hellfire Club .... Oh and it's not strictly tabletop but it's played on top of a table haha ha .... ha :/ : Magic The Gathering ! \m/ Peace !

At first I did not understand (2nd edition) why THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class 0) is better than lower - we're getting under 0 with drow (dark elves) weapons ! :O Than in the next editions of D&D suddenly positive is better ! Did math changed ? No - it was the equations - I cannot imagine a math geek not loving D&D .... I mean the 20 sided dice (and sometimes You even have to throw 1d100 - my favourite - imagine : scoring a 100 critical hit on that throw .....) !!! xD I would be ecstatic - to say the least ! xD

There''s just 1 beef I have with D&D , which is how come the higher strength give You the higher chance to hit with a melee weapon ?!

And as far as the meme goes kids remember to practice Your archery because when the Apocalypse comes You're gonna be raised as an level 2 Skeleton Archer instead of an ordinary level 1 Skeleton xD

I think the general idea is that the higher your strength the more likely you were to over power the enemy's defenses. Get through the armor, etc...

 

[Hygro]

Also your aiming finesse, ala firing a rifle accurately, pails in comparison to your raw strength in aiming a sword swing successfully.

 

[AdamCrock]

Also your aiming finesse, ala firing a rifle accurately, pails in comparison to your raw strength in aiming a sword swing successfully.

Actually using strength parameter for aiming in melee and dexterity for aiming in ranged combat has been a very heated issue among D&D players for ages, because one side thinks a whole AC concept doesn't make much sense because armor doesn't reduce damage (unless it's specified in it's parameters/magic properties ) what armor does actually is reducing Your chance to be hit, which makes no sense. The others side thinks that the system works fine so why fix it and introduce a new set of parameters to a game which has a plenty already (and thus complicate it even more). Personally I think that AC (Armor Class) / "To Hit "system is flawed, but it worked so far - I'm in the middle.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Sounds like maybe you should look around at some other game systems. I've played Iron Crown's "Rolemaster" system a little bit - the combat system was called 'Arms Law' - and it was superior to AD&D for pure combat. iirc, playing out a fight in that system took a lot longer, but that might not be a drawback, depending on what kind of game you're looking for. To my memory, combat was more ruthless than in D&D. Characters had fewer 'hit points', relative to damage dealt. Missile weapons in particular were a lot nastier. 'Critical hits' were crippling. Combat is a bit more like the Lord of the Rings films: An accomplished warrior could be flatlined by a crossbow; anybody who gets hit by a giant or a troll is probably a red smear on the floor; if you even see an adult dragon or a major demon, your whole party should just run. Last time I played it must have been 20 years ago, so I don't know if it's still being published.

Spoiler :

 

[Hygro]

Actually using strength parameter for aiming in melee and dexterity for aiming in ranged combat has been a very heated issue among D&D players for ages, because one side thinks a whole AC concept doesn't make much sense because armor doesn't reduce damage (unless it's specified in it's parameters/magic properties ) what armor does actually is reducing Your chance to be hit, which makes no sense. The others side thinks that the system works fine so why fix it and introduce a new set of parameters to a game which has a plenty already (and thus complicate it even more). Personally I think that AC (Armor Class) / "To Hit "system is flawed, but it worked so far - I'm in the middle.

Even from the "does the blow physically impact the person", I think strength makes more sense for to-hit. I also think some of the later versions switching, say, daggers and rapiers to dexterity is fine. Armor as damage reduction is a fine method, but armor as blocking damage (100% damage reduction, aka causing misses) is also fine.

@EgonSpengler I am 100% for deadlier and more chancy combat. 5th edition's main failure is that everyone basically always hits, does the same damage, with the same bonus, and everything has a lot of hit points. This means most every fight is a predetermined drawdown of resources.

 

[AdamCrock]

Even from the "does the blow physically impact the person", I think strength makes more sense for to-hit. I also think some of the later versions switching, say, daggers and rapiers to dexterity is fine. Armor as damage reduction is a fine method, but armor as blocking damage (100% damage reduction, aka causing misses) is also fine.

@EgonSpengler I am 100% for deadlier and more chancy combat. 5th edition's main failure is that everyone basically always hits, does the same damage, with the same bonus, and everything has a lot of hit points. This means most every fight is a predetermined drawdown of resources.

Well that makes sense, and yet if we should go with AC reducing damage instead of influencing a chance to be hit ..... let me put it that way : how does a bloke in heavy plate armor dodges the blow more easily than a thief in leathers ? Which one is more likely to be hit : a heavy dude in plate armor or a sneaky thief in leathers ??

 

[AdamCrock]

O I know what You're gonna say - actually Dexterity in D&D contributes to AC so that the two of the fore mentioned characters even out eventually but still - it's the principle of the thing : that plate armors make You "dodge" more effectively

 

[Hygro]

Well that makes sense, and yet if we should go with AC reducing damage instead of influencing a chance to be hit ..... let me put it that way : how does a bloke in heavy plate armor dodges the blow more easily than a thief in leathers ? Which one is more likely to be hit : a heavy dude in plate armor or a sneaky thief in leathers ??

Easy, the sword hits your armor instead of you.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Well that makes sense, and yet if we should go with AC reducing damage instead of influencing a chance to be hit ..... let me put it that way : how does a bloke in heavy plate armor dodges the blow more easily than a thief in leathers ? Which one is more likely to be hit : a heavy dude in plate armor or a sneaky thief in leathers ??

O I know what You're gonna say - actually Dexterity in D&D contributes to AC so that the two of the fore mentioned characters even out eventually but still - it's the principle of the thing : that plate armors make You "dodge" more effectively

I may have mentioned this earlier, but part of the problem you're onto here is that D&D doesn't account for skill in defense. Characters get bonuses to 'To Hit' as they level up, but they should also get bonuses to 'AC' as they level up. And Fighters and Paladins should be harder to hit than Wizards and Rogues of the same level. The real answer to your question is that, yes, a knight in plate armor would be harder to hit than a thief in leathers because a trained warrior would be harder to hit than a thief, regardless of what they were wearing. If I challenged a UFC fighter to a sparring match, he could literally have one hand tied behind his back and I still wouldn't be able to lay a glove on him. A good defensive boxer like Floyd Mayweather could literally dance circles around me until I collapsed with exhaustion (which would take about 2 minutes ) and I'd never touch him.

 

[Hygro]

I may have mentioned this earlier, but part of the problem you're onto here is that D&D doesn't account for skill in defense. Characters get bonuses to 'To Hit' as they level up, but they should also get bonuses to 'AC' as they level up. And Fighters and Paladins should be harder to hit than Wizards and Rogues of the same level. The real answer to your question is that, yes, a knight in plate armor would be harder to hit than a thief in leathers because a trained warrior would be harder to hit than a thief, regardless of what they were wearing. If I challenged a UFC fighter to a sparring match, he could literally have one hand tied behind his back and I still wouldn't be able to lay a glove on him. A good defensive boxer like Floyd Mayweather could literally dance circles around me until I collapsed with exhaustion (which would take about 2 minutes ) and I'd never touch him.

Iron Heroes, the Mike Mearls 3.5 edition spinoff, gives you an increased defense as you level, and armor does damage reduction.

 

[AdamCrock]

Iron Heroes, the Mike Mearls 3.5 edition spinoff, gives you an increased defense as you level, and armor does damage reduction.

I need to look into that . :O

I may have mentioned this earlier, but part of the problem you're onto here is that D&D doesn't account for skill in defense. Characters get bonuses to 'To Hit' as they level up, but they should also get bonuses to 'AC' as they level up. And Fighters and Paladins should be harder to hit than Wizards and Rogues of the same level. The real answer to your question is that, yes, a knight in plate armor would be harder to hit than a thief in leathers because a trained warrior would be harder to hit than a thief, regardless of what they were wearing. If I challenged a UFC fighter to a sparring match, he could literally have one hand tied behind his back and I still wouldn't be able to lay a glove on him. A good defensive boxer like Floyd Mayweather could literally dance circles around me until I collapsed with exhaustion (which would take about 2 minutes ) and I'd never touch him.

I agree on the "seasoned warrior". (Totally makes sense ) argument but also if You wear clunky and heavy armor doesn't it reduce Your ability to "dodge" even a little ? I mean "NO" if You are like Conan the Barbarian or Chuck Norris on level far beyond Your imagination, than You don't need armor , the armor needs You ! (because she misses You) .... xD

 

[AmazonQueen]

Easy, the sword hits your armor instead of you.

Except it also hits your armour when it hits you. Also a lot of weapons cause damage to you without penetrating your armour.
Quite a few knights in full plate died without their armour being penetrated. HarnMaster was a system where weapons and armour were rated for different types of damage (blunt, piercing and cutting, also other effects like fire). It was cumbersome for pen and paper play but I've often wondered why most videogames go for simplistic systems when the computer can keep track of all that stuff much easier and quicker than a referee.

 

[El_Machinae]

I may have mentioned this earlier, but part of the problem you're onto here is that D&D doesn't account for skill in defense. Characters get bonuses to 'To Hit' as they level up, but they should also get bonuses to 'AC' as they level up. And Fighters and Paladins should be harder to hit than Wizards and Rogues of the same level. The real answer to your question is that, yes, a knight in plate armor would be harder to hit than a thief in leathers because a trained warrior would be harder to hit than a thief, regardless of what they were wearing. If I challenged a UFC fighter to a sparring match, he could literally have one hand tied behind his back and I still wouldn't be able to lay a glove on him. A good defensive boxer like Floyd Mayweather could literally dance circles around me until I collapsed with exhaustion (which would take about 2 minutes ) and I'd never touch him.

You'd (at best) get in 'ineffective' blows. I don't like the Hit Point mechanic, but this is captured in Hit Points in the 5e system. Especially with the short rest, where you spend some time pulling glass out of your feet in the bathroom, and you're back to being able to fight Hans Gruber.
RollMaster was pretty good, especially if you wanted to die from dysentery after visiting a pub. And we quite enjoyed its critical hit mechanic, of creating the equivalent of wild dice that moved you up your weapons damage chart. And armor was spiffy, where it changed the nature of the damage you were taking.

 

[AdamCrock]

And besides an experienced rouge would say

Except it also hits your armour when it hits you. Also a lot of weapons cause damage to you without penetrating your armour.
Quite a few knights in full plate died without their armour being penetrated. HarnMaster was a system where weapons and armour were rated for different types of damage (blunt, piercing and cutting, also other effects like fire). It was cumbersome for pen and paper play but I've often wondered why most videogames go for simplistic systems when the computer can keep track of all that stuff much easier and quicker than a referee.

Exactly ! My savior ! Someone finally admits that plate armor IS cumbersome ! Thank You ! <3

 

[Angst]

DND 5E. It's the most elegant system for what it's trying to do. Its problem is mostly build diversity which eg Pathfinder has, but DND shines more facilitating roleplay, while Pathfinder allows for build diversity.

I've tried a few other kinds of RPG's, and I generally prefer systems where you design your combat ability from the ground up. Making a crazy one-hit samurai in Shadowrun 6E would be great if the core system wasn't such as mess.

 

[Hygro]

Except it also hits your armour when it hits you. Also a lot of weapons cause damage to you without penetrating your armour.
Quite a few knights in full plate died without their armour being penetrated. HarnMaster was a system where weapons and armour were rated for different types of damage (blunt, piercing and cutting, also other effects like fire). It was cumbersome for pen and paper play but I've often wondered why most videogames go for simplistic systems when the computer can keep track of all that stuff much easier and quicker than a referee.

1st and 2nd edition also changed different armor's bonuses vs different weapons.

But what we're talking about is avoiding HP loss which is itself a highly abstracted measure of "resistance to all things that could take you down."

If someone swings a sword at you, and you block with your bare arm, you might get deadly lacerations, broken bones, or lose an arm. Aka you take HP loss. If you have armor, you can parry with your armored arm. The miss their attempt to do HP damage.

If someone swings a hammer at you, same thing. Sure you might get kidney damage if they land your torso. But parrying with your unarmored arm is still going to wreck your arm, but with armor, turns harm into a parry.

And besides an experienced rouge would say

Exactly ! My savior ! Someone finally admits that plate armor IS cumbersome ! Thank You ! <3

@AmazonQueen and going off this, chainmail might only give you 5ac protection. Full plate 9ac. But the chain and the plate both cover your full body. However the plate does it better and, as it's less cumbersome than chainmail, allows you to dodge and parry with your armor better. The abstraction already accounts for what we're discussing.

 

[AdamCrock]

You'd (at best) get in 'ineffective' blows. I don't like the Hit Point mechanic, but this is captured in Hit Points in the 5e system. Especially with the short rest, where you spend some time pulling glass out of your feet in the bathroom, and you're back to being able to fight Hans Gruber.
RollMaster was pretty good, especially if you wanted to die from dysentery after visiting a pub. And we quite enjoyed its critical hit mechanic, of creating the equivalent of wild dice that moved you up your weapons damage chart. And armor was spiffy, where it changed the nature of the damage you were taking.

Or run away before the Dragon (edit - like Minsc) /end edit - when he's weapon is not enchanted at least (+3) , he says - "my weapon is ineffective, lat's run and find a bigger sword !" (or somehing like that xD) - at least that's what he said about ineffective weapon , I am sorry Baldur's Gate 2 was my first tangle with D&D, back than I went weeks wondering what THAC0 is (Untill I figured it out - it means To Hit Armor Class Zero)

@AmazonQueen and going off this, chainmail might only give you 5ac protection. Full plate 9ac. But the chain and the plate both cover your full body. However the plate does it better and, as it's less cumbersome than chainmail, allows you to dodge and parry with your armor better. The abstraction already accounts for what we're discussing.

chainmail also has +2 AC slash and -2AC pierce or -2 AC slash and +2 AC pierce (they've switched the values after 3rd (and a half) edition)

Which brings me to another issue ! - How can I not "slash" with short swords ?! But that's another story - I don't mean to rile You up Sorry about the mess that I've already made ! :O

chainmail also has +2 AC slash and -2AC pierce or -2 AC slash and +2 AC pierce (they've switched the values after 3rd (and a half) edition)

I mean it's better to pierce it , rather than slash it

 

[AmazonQueen]

1st and 2nd edition also changed different armor's bonuses vs different weapons.

But what we're talking about is avoiding HP loss which is itself a highly abstracted measure of "resistance to all things that could take you down."

If someone swings a sword at you, and you block with your bare arm, you might get deadly lacerations, broken bones, or lose an arm. Aka you take HP loss. If you have armor, you can parry with your armored arm. The miss their attempt to do HP damage.

If someone swings a hammer at you, same thing. Sure you might get kidney damage if they land your torso. But parrying with your unarmored arm is still going to wreck your arm, but with armor, turns harm into a parry.

Which brings up another problem with D&D. Full HP or 1 HP I fight exactly the same, 0 HP I collapse. No fatigue, no loss of functionality due to wounds?