D&D 3.X and Pathfinder. Yeah or Nay!?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I...did not enjoy 3e.

However, I did enjoy True20.

But no matter what, I must thank WotC for creating Ascending AC. I have no freaking idea how that took so long to develop. When it came out, I uttered a truly epic D'oh!
One thing that is really impressive about Ascending AC is how it doesn't use any of the same numbers as Descending AC. Ascending AC scales up from 10 and Descending AC scales down from 9.

It means when I am using random monster stats from the OSR scene, where both systems see use, I never wonder which system that AC is written in. It is obvious. I can then use it as-is, or subtract it from 19 to the get the version I want. The exact same formula works whichever way I am converting.

That's one of my criticisms of ACKS. By creating his own AC system, he has muddied the waters by having a new Ascending AC system that overlaps with Descending AC.
 
That's one of my criticisms of ACKS. By creating his own AC system, he has muddied the waters by having a new Ascending AC system that overlaps with Descending AC.
A lot of ACKS feels like the author was being paid by the word. It's not high Gygaxian, but he does express a predisposition to use a pair of words where merely one would plenty suffice.

---

I like the idea of both 4e's defenses and other game's saves; defenses make the attacker feel good ("I'm through their defense!"), saves make the defender feel good ("I saved!"), but I'm not sure the two can be combined without slowing things down. I think 5e's stat saves are good, though; they're nice and clear, rather than the vague-feeling classic D&D save categories (Of which the only ones I really like are Dragon's breath and Poisons), and they feel related to your character rather than your class.

Swords and Wizardry method. Each class gets a Saving Throw that increases with level. Just one. And it gets better over time. Simple, elegant, classic but modern.
It's not quite as simple as it looks though, because various classes and races have modifiers on top of their magic number.
 
It's not quite as simple as it looks though, because various classes and races have modifiers on top of their magic number.
Still simpler than 6 stats, relative difficulty that never actually changes and of course the questions around whether or not Proficiency or racial and class based abilities count. Calculate a number, write it in the box on your sheet. Job done.

Got to love that simple, elegant design.
 
Swords and Wizardry method. Each class gets a Saving Throw that increases with level. Just one. And it gets better over time. Simple, elegant, classic but modern.

S&W:WB is my go-to OD&D and this is one of the reasons.

I've also combined it with both Advantage & Primes. AKA, you have advantage for saving throws for your Prime stats.
 
I really like parts of the Pathfinder system. I think archetypes are awesome because they allow you to change your class features to become something different from your base class. From a character perspective, where it falls down is the same as where 3/3.5 fell down - Feats. In theory, they are an awesome idea, however, they became bloated so quickly and became a min/maxers wet dream before the 2nd expansion came out. Nothing requires pre-planning of your character more than feats - and pre-planning your PCs career sucks. Especially when your subsequent adventures don't reflect the advances you want to take.
 
Yeah I like the idea of Feats but they do seem fiddly. Interesting that AW's Moves are kind of a simplified Feats system, I wonder if it was an influence on 5e's class based Feats system.
 
On the other hand, any 2E character can strive to gain levels which will increase saves (and questing for magic items a handful of which help with saves as well). The strength of the given attack vector was based on how powerful the effect would be if the save was failed, not an attempt to change the difficulty of the save itself.

And again, speaking for myself, "strive to gain levels' in the context of DnD 2E is just more gambling. The number of interesting choices I make is drastically lower, and the number of different situations I encounter is drastically lower. It doesn't really matter how you justify it, when I think of saving against the entire range of "poisons" that exist in a fantasy world, and know my chance is the same regardless, it doesn't feel a rpg, it feels like craps.
 
And again, speaking for myself, "strive to gain levels' in the context of DnD 2E is just more gambling. The number of interesting choices I make is drastically lower, and the number of different situations I encounter is drastically lower. It doesn't really matter how you justify it, when I think of saving against the entire range of "poisons" that exist in a fantasy world, and know my chance is the same regardless, it doesn't feel a rpg, it feels like craps.
Seems to me that either way, if a walking through tall grass and a snake bites me, I look at my character sheet and make a roll. I agree the needed number on the roll it more variable in 3.5, but I don't see how that equates to an interesting in-game choice.

The 3.5 method certainly feels more "realistic" though.
 
Seems to me that either way, if a walking through tall grass and a snake bites me, I look at my character sheet and make a roll. I agree the needed number on the roll it more variable in 3.5, but I don't see how that equates to an interesting in-game choice.

The 3.5 method certainly feels more "realistic" though.
In this example it seems the interesting choice Totentanz is seeking is made by the DM (in 3.5E) in selecting the poison. Because the selected poison might have a higher or lower save percentage, vary the initial damage, and vary the secondary damage. Recall that Totentanz complaint is that in 2E the save chance is the same regardless of which poison a character is exposed to.

The question of interesting choices is not just player facing... but DM facing as well.
 
In this example it seems the interesting choice Totentanz is seeking is made by the DM (in 3.5E) in selecting the poison. Because the selected poison might have a higher or lower save percentage, vary the initial damage, and vary the secondary damage. Recall that Totentanz complaint is that in 2E the save chance is the same regardless of which poison a character is exposed to.

The question of interesting choices is not just player facing... but DM facing as well.

Yes, that's an important dimension. A more granular representation of poison also gives more texture to in-character decisions. For example, if I'm playing a Con 16 Barbarian, I probably won't worry about the snake in the grass. On the other hand, I might still want to stock on anti-venom or check with the Cleric before we go fight something with more potent venom, and if I'm not prepared, I might want to flee the encounter!

The final layer of "interesting decision" is the ability to build to cover up bad saves in 3.5. I can take feats, I can multi-class, etc. In the older games, I choose class/class combination once, and I don't make any meaningful class decisions or feat selections.

So, there's a lot of "game" crammed into that relatively small difference in experience. I fully recognize that different people might not care much about that granularity and the gamefeel it engenders, and some people find choosing feats and multi-classing level by level to be arduous, rather than fun. I just have an appetite for a degree of simulation and active customization in my gaming.
 
If I wanted to vary the poisons in AD&D that is already done for me. Plus or minus to the save and varying effects have always been part of the game.
 
Last edited:
I think the five saving throw categories is probably my least favorite thing about AD&D. I think I enjoy descending AC more. Everything I've seen since 3E has been an improvement on that, weather it's the 3e, 4e, 5e or something like Star Wars Saga Edition.
 
Ah. You were wrong. 3E was fun.:hehe:

3E was fun for me! It gave me a place to put all my bad players and keep the best for my OD&D games!! :devil:

And again, speaking for myself, "strive to gain levels' in the context of DnD 2E is just more gambling. The number of interesting choices I make is drastically lower, and the number of different situations I encounter is drastically lower. It doesn't really matter how you justify it, when I think of saving against the entire range of "poisons" that exist in a fantasy world, and know my chance is the same regardless, it doesn't feel a rpg, it feels like craps.

THIS is another reason I use the SW;WB single save. I can define any save as modified by one or more ability scores or other factors. Let's say the poison is demonic and instead of killing, it corrupts the victim. I can tailor the save to be D20 + CON + WIS (or whatever).

If its a snake in the grass, I could go D20 + DEX so the PC yanks away their leg before the fangs go too deep.
Of course, I can +4 to -4 for situational mods as well.

FOR ME, that is enough customization so its not a generic save against all generic events.
 
I think the five saving throw categories is probably my least favorite thing about AD&D. I think I enjoy descending AC more. Everything I've seen since 3E has been an improvement on that, weather it's the 3e, 4e, 5e or something like Star Wars Saga Edition.
I just don't get the hate some people have for descending AC. Is it really worse than rolling a D20 and trying to get as close to the skill level as you can by adding a bunch of little modifiers? Or rolling 3d6 to get below a given number. Ar a D100 below a given number. Or rolling a whole bunch of dice and only counting those that roll 8 or more. Or rolling a bunch of dice and if one of them comes up a 1 something whacky happens while if one is a 6 you roll it again. Or rolling a bunch of dice, then having to decide which ones you want to keep. Or any of the other dice systems there are out there.

Descending AC is just a way of determining whether a given attack hits. Nothing more, nothing less. And once you grok that, it ceases being an issue at all.
 
Hate’s a strong word. Many people think it is anti-intuitive compared to ascending AC, myself included. I certainly see no reason to use it in a new game (not retro clones) other than for nostalgia.
It's a rule. Neither better nor worse than any other. But very much the victim of a massive smear campaign since WotC took over the D&D license. It's neither more nor less intuitive than any other.

It's just a rule.
 
One thing I like about Descending AC is that you have a TN to hit of 20, and the AC is added to the player's roll as a bonus along with any other bonuses. It is basically farming all the bonuses out to the player. The player can handle the whole roll. The more attack resolution I can farm out to players, the better. Anyway, players like getting big bonuses. Telling someone they get a +9 to hit is more exciting than telling them they need to beat a 10. It's the same thing mathematically, it just sounds cooler.

I never saw the point in hiding AC from a player making an attack. I think taking a swing at someone is a pretty good way to appraise their defenses.

I find it is pretty much a wash though. I don't care what I use. I use creatures with both and swap them on the fly depending on what the player needs.
 
It's a rule. Neither better nor worse than any other. But very much the victim of a massive smear campaign since WotC took over the D&D license. It's neither more nor less intuitive than any other.

It's just a rule.

Wizards didn't create ascending armor class so I'm not sure why they would smear alternatives. They just took from rules TSR created and thought it (ascending AC) worked better for most D&D players.
 
It's a rule. Neither better nor worse than any other. But very much the victim of a massive smear campaign since WotC took over the D&D license. It's neither more nor less intuitive than any other.
It doesn't match up to other places in the system, though. Even just simple things like stat modifiers; Str +1 increases your to-hit roll, which is good; but Dex +1 decreases your armour class, which is also good. You're using one mathematical symbol to do different things at different times, which is unintuitive.

It's not bad necessarily, it's just weird.
 
It doesn't match up to other places in the system, though. Even just simple things like stat modifiers; Str +1 increases your to-hit roll, which is good; but Dex +1 decreases your armour class, which is also good. You're using one mathematical symbol to do different things at different times, which is unintuitive.

It's not bad necessarily, it's just weird.
One thing to think about, other than AD&D being a kludge of unrelated subsystems, is that Armour Class is a reference to the Class of your Armour as described in a wargame.

So the lower the number of your AC, the closer you are to First Class Armour. Because obviously first is best. Only magic gear complicates things and can sent you into negative numbers quite quickly.

One of the things I really like about descending AC is the way each class has a separate entry on the chart. Or even completely separate charts in AD&D 1e. It really sells the idea that some classes are better at combat than others.
 
Wizards didn't create ascending armor class so I'm not sure why they would smear alternatives. They just took from rules TSR created and thought it (ascending AC) worked better for most D&D players.

And Zeb Cook has said that they considered Ascending AC for 2e but decided it would piss off too many players, Ascending AC was also a common houserule, so I don't think it was some major innovation when WoTC brought it in, many saw it as long overdue.
 
One thing to think about, other than AD&D being a kludge of unrelated subsystems, is that Armour Class is a reference to the Class of your Armour as described in a wargame.
I get that, and it works fine in that context (Although you could probably drop the numbers without too much of an issue). But once it left that audience and more got stacked onto the mechanic, it wound up not really meshing with the way the game evolved.
 
At this point, I am going to state again that it is really cool that it is so easy to translate between Ascending and Descending AC. You can always run the one you prefer.
 
I get that, and it works fine in that context (Although you could probably drop the numbers without too much of an issue). But once it left that audience and more got stacked onto the mechanic, it wound up not really meshing with the way the game evolved.
Certainly in the early days, AD&D didn't so much evolve in a planned or even logical way. It just sort of happened. And if you look at those era TSR games, most of them follow the format of character creation, combat, spells or powers as genre appropriate. And that's it. Which to the modern eye is near inconceivable. An entire RPG. In 64 pages or less? Inconceivable!

tenor.gif
 
I really like parts of the Pathfinder system. I think archetypes are awesome because they allow you to change your class features to become something different from your base class. From a character perspective, where it falls down is the same as where 3/3.5 fell down - Feats. In theory, they are an awesome idea, however, they became bloated so quickly and became a min/maxers wet dream before the 2nd expansion came out. Nothing requires pre-planning of your character more than feats - and pre-planning your PCs career sucks. Especially when your subsequent adventures don't reflect the advances you want to take.

Yeah, Feats, Class/Levels combined with a full-blown skill system, multi-classing, never-ending ascending numbers of AC and DCs, all these things combine to eventually get to the point where at Level X, you can be totally incapable of performing a key function at Difficulty X unless your character is properly built.

3x/PF requires proper builds. Not The Gaming Den level of building, but building and planning the Career is necessary, nonetheless, and you're right Dan, it sucks.
 
For me, Descending AC worked best when players had AC written on their character sheet. Need to hit AC 7? Roll D20 and hit that number, especially as players logged all their modifiers into their chart.

I agree with Stevethulhu that THAC0 / Descending AC isn't a major issue BUT I have found that Ascending is easier on player brains when you play in the evenings after work. The same basic math players can do at 4pm gets oddly complicated at 9pm. Not for all players, but I have seen that issue occur many times over the years when I note the difference of my morning, afternoon and evening sessions at cons.
 
A lot of ACKS feels like the author was being paid by the word. It's not high Gygaxian, but he does express a predisposition to use a pair of words where merely one would plenty suffice.
To be fair, Alex did give a Ted Talk on how we should all endeavour to write and read above our current level because that's a good way to enrich our intellect. You could argue that a RPG might be better served more with Denzel's "explain it to me like I'm a four-year old", but you have to give it to him for walking the walk.
 
For me, Descending AC worked best when players had AC written on their character sheet. Need to hit AC 7? Roll D20 and hit that number, especially as players logged all their modifiers into their chart.
Hell I did that from the first time I put my AD&D character on loose leaf paper, and every character sheet I made since. That's why I never hated THACO, it was just shorthand for what we had been writing out for years.
 
At this point, I am going to state again that it is really cool that it is so easy to translate between Ascending and Descending AC. You can always run the one you prefer.

For sure, the math is simple enough for even a math moron like me to convert old material on the fly.
 
Nay! :argh: Plus, Floundering! :yawn:
There, my work here is done. :thumbsup:

Release the Tangent! :irritated::storm: (oh, I think it might already be out, stomping about... :ooh:)
 
To be fair, Alex did give a Ted Talk on how we should all endeavour to write and read above our current level because that's a good way to enrich our intellect. You could argue that a RPG might be better served more with Denzel's "explain it to me like I'm a four-year old", but you have to give it to him for walking the walk.
Yeah, I get that, and it helps that the ACKS rules are simple enough that it doesn't really get in the way of understanding them.

As ever, it comes down to "what are your goals for this project", and "highly-accessible text" probably wasn't one of his goals.
 
I have zero interest in those games. So, that's a definite nay.

I'm not much of a d20/D&D type of gamer anyway, probably because it wasn't my entry product into the hobby. I have played (not ran) D&D 5e once, with a prefab character and only a very basic knowledge of the rules, and that's really the only D&D game I've ever been in. I also own a few OSR products (Silent Legions, Crypts & Things Revised) that look fun, but the closest thing to 3e/3.5/PF/4e I own is probably Shadow of the Demon Lord.
 
Ascending AC has the virtue of being easier to explain to new players, and it's part of the general realignment of all systems using the "higher ->> better" design theory. If the math is the same, then I'm always going to take the version that's easier to do, easier to teach, and aligns well with the rest of the system.
 
I work as an auditor for the United States federal government and create and use spreadsheets five days a week. Descending AC certainly isn't rocket science, but during my off time I want to do as little math as possible.
 
I like descending AC. I grew up with it and it's what I associate with my childhood D&D which is still the best D&D. Those were the most fun RPG times for me. Ascending is fine I understand why people like it. It all makes sense but it's wrong. It's not how 10 years old me played so it's wrong.
 
We completely skipped 3.0, 3.5 and 4e D&D; found 3,0 etc. too fiddly with Feats and BAB, etc. It seemed like a good idea but the sheer number of Feats (oh I forgot some were worthless and some must have) made it hard to make an internally consistent world, let alone the plethora of classes and prestige classes; seemed more of a candy store and many near meaningless choices.

1e and 2e D&D had many an issue as well, but we already had house rules and learned to ignore many of the fiddly bits decades ago. Not that we play or played much straight up D&D since the 80s. Will still play some AD&D or OD&D, Basic etc. just because know it so well, but certainly with how we learned to play/house rules.

As to the broader question, we are not much fans of the WOTC d20 mechanic / d20 system...and kind of annoyed how it got slapped onto everything (especially Traveller at one point).
 
As i had some Amazon vouchers for crimbo i decided to plump for a PF campaign book. I went for Land of the Linnorm Kings, which is a sort of faux Scandanavia. On first blush it looks quite nice. Some (fairly) brief gazateers of the nations and cities, a dozen or so adventure sites that can be fleshed out and bits and bobs of monsters, history and magic.

Bit of a one-note setting, but hey, it's one region where killing a linnorn (a sort of ancient dragon) instantly enables you to claim a throne.
 
I agree with the general sentiment that Pathfinder is too complex for my tastes, and to be honest it was actually the case with D&D3E too, in retrospect. I had played it a few times, but nothing like the level I play 5E these days. 5E ticks almost all the boxes of how I like to play generic fantasy games.

What I will say for Pathfinder though is that it has tremendous sticking power from it's fanbase. I know several gamers that play that system exclusively, and you will see plenty of books in game stores still. This can probably be put down to good management from Paizo, but I think another factor is that OGL still exists. As such, it actually remains a good option for third party publishers because the market is still pretty big.
 
Last edited:
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top