Shannow
Waster of Time
Of course "better" is a matter of opinion. I'm aware few codexers will agree with most of this post.
Now there is little reason to design an cRPG around D&D rules apart that they are familiar and easily understandable. I still spent some time thinking about adaptions for cRPGs. That is what this thread is about.
I've always had serious issues with D&D because lots of stuff simply didn't make sense. To have a playable game, you need lots of abstraction but D&D had lots of weird decisions, imho.
3rd ed changed lots of things and I think it changed especially the core rules for the better. Save scores finally made sense, they fixed the str and con modifiers for fighter archetypes vs other classes, attribute modifiers themselves work much better and sensical, removal of previous THAC0 and AC numerals, attacks per round, multi-classing, xp-based level progression, AOOs, spell DCs, skills, feats, etc. I perceive all that as improvements. On the other hand spell selection is less interesting than in 2nd ed (at least in cRPGs) and 3rd ed handles high (epic) levels even worse due to HP inflation (and feats).
So here some thoughts how 3rd ed could have been adapted to cRPGs to "make more sense":
Since it was an issue in another thread I'll start with AC:
I'd go with a four pronged system.
1. A defense roll against an attack roll. If a char can learn to attack better, he can learn to parry, too. EG, if a goblin with a bab of 2 (+2 through modifiers) attacks your fighter he'd roll a d20 +4 to see if he hits you. You are lvl 5, have 14 dex, a large shield and a feat that grants +1. --> Base defense Bonus (BDB) 5 + 2 +2 +1 = Defense Bonus (DB) of 10. so you roll a d20 + 10 to defend against the goblin's attack. If your roll is higher, you successfully paried/evaded/defended.
I'd make every consecutive attack in that round cause a malus of -2 to -3 to your DB. So swarming weak enemies can be a threat. Feats could open up options like full defense where you increase DB by sacrificing your attacks, or ripost, where you'd sacrifice an attack for the option to ripost on a successfull defense roll, etc...
2. Armor would give absoption. If you failed a defense roll you get hit. Damage is absorbed depending on the armor, EG, padded armor gives 2 of absorption that are detracted from any physical dmg against you. Full plate mail would give 10 absorption and ancient dragon hide 15. Those would be the ranges I was thinking about.
3. I'd give armor AC, that would represent how well it covers the body and how many weakspots it has. EG, padded armor is a weak armor, gives little absorption, but covers the body very well, thus it has high AC, around 18, full plate'd have 19 and a breastplate'd have maybe 12 since it only covers the torso. The idea is that if the attack roll surpasses the defensive roll by more than 18, 19 or 12 respectively it by-passes the armor absorption. But only when using light and medium weapons. Especially with light weapons one could take feats that allow for a fighting style that is aimed at by-passing armor.
4. But armor doesn't just have bonuses. I never liked the arbitrary way D&D cuts off the max possible dex bonus.
Armor maluses: Every armor decreases attack bonus and DB and movement speed depending on its weight. Those maluses can be decreased by three armor feats (that D&D already has). Depending on weight armor also causes dex maluses that cannot be decreased (unless one introduces a new feat for that, too) but doesn't impose a max dex bonus.
So in the end different armors would be balanced around absorption, AC and the maluses.
Weapons and "criticals": There'd be light, medium and heavy weapons. "Criticals" wouldn't happen through rolling of a 20 but by surpassing the defensive roll by a certain amount.
Light weapons: Lower damage range but suited to armor by-passing (counts as "critical). Feats like sneak attacks, precision and improved critical would effectively decrease the armor's AC to achieve this.
Medium weapons: Higher damage range, but not as suitable for sneak attacks, precision, etc. Armor by-pass on crit unless power attack is chosen, in which case they'd count as heavy weapons.
Heavy weapons: Highest damage range. No armor by-pass but max dmg + doubled str modifier on crit. "Critical" happens when attack roll surpasses defensive roll by 20 or 19 or 21 or etc. depending on exact weapon (eg: two handed sword vs two handed axe vs medium weapon in power attack) and feats.
Saving throws would also get d20s to throw against spell DCs. The effect of spells would then also be dependant on how much they surpassed the saving throws. That'd at least reduce the binary functioning of spells at the moment, eg for domination spells.
Eye-hand-coordination determines how well you can hit stuff. In D&D the AB for str came from the abstraction that you "hit through" armor and thus AC when you are strong enough. Since hitting through AC now just means hitting through absorption the AB now goes to dex. Unless you take some "brawn" feat that changes it to str (the way finesse works in standard D&D).
Hit point inflation: Never liked it. Especially the first few levels are really bad. I'd tripple the starting points you get from your class and halve the hp you get through leveling.
Of course there'd be a lot more that'd need to be adapted/balanced (eg: sneak attacks, elemental dmg from weapons, +1 (2,3,4,5,etc) modifiers and more) and the system still doesn't "make sense". I just think it makes more sense. As mentioned, a game needs abstraction and if it were up to me, I'd use a completely different system to design a game. Something close to JA2 probably.
Was just bored and thought I'd share my thoughts.
Now there is little reason to design an cRPG around D&D rules apart that they are familiar and easily understandable. I still spent some time thinking about adaptions for cRPGs. That is what this thread is about.
I've always had serious issues with D&D because lots of stuff simply didn't make sense. To have a playable game, you need lots of abstraction but D&D had lots of weird decisions, imho.
3rd ed changed lots of things and I think it changed especially the core rules for the better. Save scores finally made sense, they fixed the str and con modifiers for fighter archetypes vs other classes, attribute modifiers themselves work much better and sensical, removal of previous THAC0 and AC numerals, attacks per round, multi-classing, xp-based level progression, AOOs, spell DCs, skills, feats, etc. I perceive all that as improvements. On the other hand spell selection is less interesting than in 2nd ed (at least in cRPGs) and 3rd ed handles high (epic) levels even worse due to HP inflation (and feats).
So here some thoughts how 3rd ed could have been adapted to cRPGs to "make more sense":
Since it was an issue in another thread I'll start with AC:
I'd go with a four pronged system.
1. A defense roll against an attack roll. If a char can learn to attack better, he can learn to parry, too. EG, if a goblin with a bab of 2 (+2 through modifiers) attacks your fighter he'd roll a d20 +4 to see if he hits you. You are lvl 5, have 14 dex, a large shield and a feat that grants +1. --> Base defense Bonus (BDB) 5 + 2 +2 +1 = Defense Bonus (DB) of 10. so you roll a d20 + 10 to defend against the goblin's attack. If your roll is higher, you successfully paried/evaded/defended.
I'd make every consecutive attack in that round cause a malus of -2 to -3 to your DB. So swarming weak enemies can be a threat. Feats could open up options like full defense where you increase DB by sacrificing your attacks, or ripost, where you'd sacrifice an attack for the option to ripost on a successfull defense roll, etc...
2. Armor would give absoption. If you failed a defense roll you get hit. Damage is absorbed depending on the armor, EG, padded armor gives 2 of absorption that are detracted from any physical dmg against you. Full plate mail would give 10 absorption and ancient dragon hide 15. Those would be the ranges I was thinking about.
3. I'd give armor AC, that would represent how well it covers the body and how many weakspots it has. EG, padded armor is a weak armor, gives little absorption, but covers the body very well, thus it has high AC, around 18, full plate'd have 19 and a breastplate'd have maybe 12 since it only covers the torso. The idea is that if the attack roll surpasses the defensive roll by more than 18, 19 or 12 respectively it by-passes the armor absorption. But only when using light and medium weapons. Especially with light weapons one could take feats that allow for a fighting style that is aimed at by-passing armor.
4. But armor doesn't just have bonuses. I never liked the arbitrary way D&D cuts off the max possible dex bonus.
Armor maluses: Every armor decreases attack bonus and DB and movement speed depending on its weight. Those maluses can be decreased by three armor feats (that D&D already has). Depending on weight armor also causes dex maluses that cannot be decreased (unless one introduces a new feat for that, too) but doesn't impose a max dex bonus.
So in the end different armors would be balanced around absorption, AC and the maluses.
Weapons and "criticals": There'd be light, medium and heavy weapons. "Criticals" wouldn't happen through rolling of a 20 but by surpassing the defensive roll by a certain amount.
Light weapons: Lower damage range but suited to armor by-passing (counts as "critical). Feats like sneak attacks, precision and improved critical would effectively decrease the armor's AC to achieve this.
Medium weapons: Higher damage range, but not as suitable for sneak attacks, precision, etc. Armor by-pass on crit unless power attack is chosen, in which case they'd count as heavy weapons.
Heavy weapons: Highest damage range. No armor by-pass but max dmg + doubled str modifier on crit. "Critical" happens when attack roll surpasses defensive roll by 20 or 19 or 21 or etc. depending on exact weapon (eg: two handed sword vs two handed axe vs medium weapon in power attack) and feats.
Saving throws would also get d20s to throw against spell DCs. The effect of spells would then also be dependant on how much they surpassed the saving throws. That'd at least reduce the binary functioning of spells at the moment, eg for domination spells.
Eye-hand-coordination determines how well you can hit stuff. In D&D the AB for str came from the abstraction that you "hit through" armor and thus AC when you are strong enough. Since hitting through AC now just means hitting through absorption the AB now goes to dex. Unless you take some "brawn" feat that changes it to str (the way finesse works in standard D&D).
Hit point inflation: Never liked it. Especially the first few levels are really bad. I'd tripple the starting points you get from your class and halve the hp you get through leveling.
Of course there'd be a lot more that'd need to be adapted/balanced (eg: sneak attacks, elemental dmg from weapons, +1 (2,3,4,5,etc) modifiers and more) and the system still doesn't "make sense". I just think it makes more sense. As mentioned, a game needs abstraction and if it were up to me, I'd use a completely different system to design a game. Something close to JA2 probably.
Was just bored and thought I'd share my thoughts.
