Dungeons and Dragons Online

[Alkiera]

i can only hope, jpark.

Especially with the nature of classes in D&D, where there are classes all about fighting, and other classes that are okay at fighting, but are balanced by having lots of skills for utility... Where a barbarian or fighter would just wade into combat, a rogue would either sneak thru, or talk his/her way past people....  Some disguise skill, some persuasion-type rolls...

I could only hope they've thought it that far thru.  Quest/task-based exp is certainly a step in the right direction.

Alkiera

[Ironwood]

If you play strategically with a Rogue, you can carve them up just as much as the toe-to-toe fighter.  Rogue's got much love in the 3rd edition.  Especially with Tumble and Sneak attack.

[eldaec]

Am I right in remembering that rogues get xD6 bonus damage for every attack to the rear or to a stunned opponent, where x is level divided by 2? Which always meant that in most party situations any rogue could basically carve anything up that the GM allowed him to.

Or am I remembering some ruleset other than D&D?

[Ironwood]

Am I right in remembering that rogues get xD6 bonus damage for every attack to the rear or to a stunned opponent, where x is level divided by 2? Which always meant that in most party situations any rogue could basically carve anything up that the GM allowed him to.

Or am I remembering some ruleset other than D&D?

Basically, when the opponent is denied their Dex AC bonus, they are eligible for a sneak attack.  Which can cover a wealth of sins.  Just chuck in an itching bomb and then cut the guy's fucking head off.

Further, flanking ALSO allowed you to get sneak attacks in.  So if you have a Rogue on either side of you (possible with tumble and Sneak) you were going to get fucked hard.

That's one reason I preferred ToEE over NWN - the use of sneak attack in NWN sucked horrible hairy donkey balls.  Basically, because they couldn't code it right, you usually got a sneak attack all the fucking time.

My Rogue in ToEE (dual wielding rapiers for the finesse WIN) used to do so much damage, especially when the warrior was on the other side of the opponant - brandishing his massive critical axe of cutting.

Ah, I might reinstall now...

[jpark]

For a Fighter/thief, is it the case that a thief can then use short swords for "backstab" or does he remain limited to daggers for this purpose?  (in the case of the more recent DnD pen and paper rules).

[Ironwood]

For a Fighter/thief, is it the case that a thief can then use short swords for "backstab" or does he remain limited to daggers for this purpose?  (in the case of the more recent DnD pen and paper rules).

Doesn't work like that anymore, I don't think.  Basically Sneak attack is a training and a knowledge of weak points, rather than a weapon proficiency.  So you can actually sneak attack with a pencil, if you choose.

Which, of course, means the DM MIGHT have to rule that sneak attack from the shadows with a halberd just isn't on....

[Sobelius]

And while there are a lot of nice things about Sneak Attack, it has its limits:

- can only be used on living creatures with discernable anatomy (undead, oozes, constructs, plants and incorporeal)
- creatures immune to critical attacks are immune to sneak attacks
- you have to be able to see and reach the creature's vital spot(s)/organs
- can't sneak attack a creature with concealment (i.e. in fog, light or dense foliage, blurred, invisible, etc.)

So it's not an I win button in the PnP universe, though if the online game doesn't take into account the above, then it could easily become overpowered. TOEE certainly took care of the first two on the list -- which is easy to do since the monster types are so well defined in 3E. (IMHO, 3E made D&D incredibly consistent -- providing a consistent system for monster abilities/powers was sorely needed.)

[Samwise]

For a Fighter/thief, is it the case that a thief can then use short swords for "backstab" or does he remain limited to daggers for this purpose?  (in the case of the more recent DnD pen and paper rules).

You can use any "light" weapon for a sneak attack, I believe, which is any weapon with a size category lower than your own (e.g. a Small weapon if you're a human, or a Tiny weapon iif you're a halfling), with a few exceptions that are clearly noted (such as a rapier, which is considered a light weapon for Medium characters even though it is also Medium).  A rogue can therefore use a shortsword to sneak attack - in fact, the rogue weapon list was written with an eye toward smallish, light weapons that could be used in sneak attacks.

Even if you could use a greatsword or halberd to sneak attack, though, it wouldn't provide that great of an advantage.  In 3E, sneak attack damage is a bonus that's calculated independently of the weapon damage (1d6 per 2 rogue levels).  So if a 20th level rogue sneak attacks with a dagger, it's 1d4 + 10d6 damage.  If that same rogue sneak attacks with a shortsword, it's 1d6 + 10d6 damage.  The extra point or two of damage from using a larger weapon is all but inconsequential in that equation, which is IMO a Good Thing.

A far more interesting combination is using rogue/wizard to perform sneak attacks with spells.  Any spell that requires an attack roll (e.g. a touch spell like Shocking Grasp or a ranged touch spell like Acid Arrow) is treated just like a weapon for purposes of sneak attacks, which means that if you use that Acid Arrow on a flatfooted opponent who's less than 30 feet away, you apply your sneak attack damage (if any) to it.  Something about a wizard being able to use anatomical knowledge to hit an opponent in the vitals just seems very right to me.

[Ironwood]

Yes, indeed.  And thanks for the clarification on the 'light' weapons thing, which I had forgotten.  This also reminded me why I chose rapiers - the heaviest weapon that can still sneak.

For those who haven't had a chance to check out 3rd Edition rules, you really ought to.  They're clear, concise, consistant and, above all, fun.  The only failing is when they start pulling all the 'other' shit from the old editions :  Like psionics.  That should have been caned in the barn a long time ago.

[Samwise]

And if you don't want to actually shell out money for the books (I wouldn't blame you), check out this site.  Mmmm... OGL...

[Alkiera]

Yes, indeed.  And thanks for the clarification on the 'light' weapons thing, which I had forgotten.  This also reminded me why I chose rapiers - the heaviest weapon that can still sneak.

For those who haven't had a chance to check out 3rd Edition rules, you really ought to.  They're clear, concise, consistant and, above all, fun.  The only failing is when they start pulling all the 'other' shit from the old editions :  Like psionics.  That should have been caned in the barn a long time ago.

Some people claim the new Expanded Psionics Handbook for 3.5 rebalanced the system and made it alot more sane.  I haven't read it, but I do know psionics was out of hand before.

Alkiera

[Alkiera]

And if you don't want to actually shell out money for the books (I wouldn't blame you), check out this site.  Mmmm... OGL...

That link was dead for me... so I found the 3.5 SRD on WotC's site.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35

Q: What's missing from the SRD compared to the core D&D rulebooks?

A: Mostly the "flavor" elements. There are no named gods, none of the spells have significant NPC names, there's no mention of Greyhawk, etc. You'll also note that there are no rules for character creation, for advancing characters in level, calculating experience, or anything else related to the topics forbidden by the d20 System Trademark Guide.

Still useful for checking out rules, tho.

Alkiera

[Kageru]

I was always considered the D&D rules a terrible millstone. They didn't actually work all that well for pen and paper and I doubt they'll work that much better in an online game. They're so cheesy and exploitable, calling out to the mini-maxers, while at the same time having a broken progression (helpless at levels 1-6, godlike at 20+) and a whole bunch of spells that anyone with an eye for game balance would blanch at. And this is being marketed as an advantage rather than tragic evidence of a lack of any originality or brains on the part of the developers?

Sure i've got fond memories of roleplaying, but that's got little to do with the ruleset.

[SirBruce]

I was always considered the D&D rules a terrible millstone. They didn't actually work all that well for pen and paper and I doubt they'll work that much better in an online game.

This may have been true with 1E, but if you aren't familiar with 3.5E, you really shouldn't say such things.  Except for some of the basic class concepts and some of the spells, it's a very different game.

Bruce

[schild]

I still far prefer 2 and 3 to 3.5. But then, I don't think ANY of them translate well to games.

[sidereal]

We have D&D to thank for 'hit points' and all of the asstastic combat and damage mechanics that therefore ensue.  For that I will never forgive it.

But I still play every Friday.

[Kageru]

I've played the ruleset neverwinter was using. If anything it's become even more monty-haul and min-maxing than before. You can see that in this thread where people are working how they can apply the thief backstab bonus to spells. And the spells themselves are still imbalanced, far too many with "all or nothing" effects which are just not a good idea in a MMORPG, and only barely so in CRPG. Heck, it still has complete heal and reverse complete heal right?

Now if you want to inherit the D&D universe, that I can see, although most of it was fairly pulp. But trying to adapt the D&D rules, without change, to a MMORPG is not something to be applauded.

[Samwise]

You can see that in this thread where people are working how they can apply the thief backstab bonus to spells. And the spells themselves are still imbalanced, far too many with "all or nothing" effects which are just not a good idea in a MMORPG, and only barely so in CRPG. Heck, it still has complete heal and reverse complete heal right?

WRONG.  (You get the bold font because in my last post I provided the link whereby you could have researched this before citing it.)  Very very few spells have "all or nothing" effects in 3.0, and even fewer in 3.5.  In particular, Heal and related spells now have level-dependent effects.


As for min-maxing, bullshit.  You don't know me.  Multiclassing rogue and wizard isn't min-maxing.  I know this because I'm playing a rogue/wizard right now and I could almost be casting fireball right now instead of magic missile if I'd gone straight wizard.  As it is, I'm too gimped of a rogue to be good as a rogue, and too gimped of a wizard to be good as a wizard.  I will never get the levels back that I spent on rogue, and I'll always be a level or two behind on my wizard spells because of it - getting an occasional +1d6 sneak attack damage doesn't make up for that even a little bit.  High level spells are far more awesome than that.

Why am I playing a rogue/wizard?  Because I really liked the character concept of a rogue/treasure hunter type with a scholarly bent, who gradually starts applying his knowledge to the practical use of magic.  I gave up the incredibly awesome feat "Dodge" so I could take "Skill Focus: Knowledge: arcana", for crying out loud.  As a first level rogue.  Because I wanted to take feats that reflected the mental image I had of my character, not the ones that would keep me alive.  You call that min/maxing?  My inner min/maxer kicks my outer roleplayer every time we look at our character sheet, knowing that this character could be a spellcasting badass if I'd just gone vanilla wizard instead of trying a different type of character.

I comment on the +1d6 sneak attack damage not because I think it is teh uber.  I comment on it because it is nifty.  It's a natural synergy between the skills of what were completely disparate classes in previous versions of D&D, but which 3E has let me combine into a relatively unique character concept, one that isn't illustrated in the Player's Handbook.  My character's entire theme, if it could be summed up in one cliched sentence, would be "knowledge is power."  In this case, my character has a diverse body of knowledge that allows him to not only to wield arcane energy as a tool and weapon, but to analyze the anatomy of an opponent and hit them in the vitals more effectively than a single-minded spellcaster could.  And the rules actually reflect that to some extent.  I could technically do more damage by having an extra level of wizard and casting lightning bolt instead of acid arrow.  I don't care, because saying "I surprise him with an acid arrow to the groin!" is just more fun than saying "Lightning bolt!"

With me?


(Edit: I apologize for the snippiness of the above post.  I just consider being called a min/maxer to be an affront to every principle I stand for where D&D is concerned.  Feel free to mock me for the intense geekiness of that last sentence.)

[Kageru]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I'm certainly not intending to criticise your playstyle because I'm not interested enough to know what it is. I just picked one random example of how D&D encourages people to think in terms of systems rather than identities. It was marginally anachronistic when it was transferred from a miniatures wargame to pen and paper, where more should have been left in the hands of the GM. It's mind-bogglingly ill-suited to a MMORPG which has the capacity to background game mechanics into the structure of the virtual world.

Have you seen this man?

But heh, we'll see how it comes out. Although the developer probably gives me an unfair advantage in predicting suckage.

[SirBruce]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I'm certainly not intending to criticise your playstyle because I'm not interested enough to know what it is. I just picked one random example of how D&D encourages people to think in terms of systems rather than identities. It was marginally anachronistic when it was transferred from a miniatures wargame to pen and paper, where more should have been left in the hands of the GM.

Kangeru, I don't know your age or background, so perhaps I'm off-base here, but you really have your history really turned around.

D&D was hardly "anachronistic" when it came out.  Back in those days, nearly *all* RPG systems were focused on mechanics.  The game world and background were also important, but at the core the games were far more about die-rolling than role-playing.  Now, certain GMs could take those structures and create campaigns that were heavy or light on mechanics, as their group wished, but there wasn't some magical land of True RPers that was defiled by the introduction of D&D.  LARPing was not that widespread.

The so-called "StoryTelling" style games were a rarity, and didn't really come into vogue until more recently, with VtM and the like.  These games emphasize plot and roleplay over mechanics, and that's fine if you like that sort of thing.  Personally, I tend to find them wanting -- they make interesting campaign settings, but the mechanics are often lacking.  One of the reasons systems like D20 and GURPS became so popular was their ability to have good mechanics which could then be applied to a variety of game settings without having to reinvent the wheel every time.

It's mind-bogglingly ill-suited to a MMORPG which has the capacity to background game mechanics into the structure of the virtual world.

I don't understand this at all.  Just the opposite: heavy mecahnics is mind-bogglingly well-suited for MMORPGs, because computers are great at crunching numbers.  How in the world would you do it any other way?  Do you want every player to have their own GM, personally crafting and arbitrarting everything that happens to them?  There are so many things wrong with that I don't even know where to begin.

"Background game mechanics into the structure of the virtual world" sounds to me like hiding stats and rolls and the like so people can't see them.  That's great in theory, but the game is going to have to have consistent rules underneath the hood, and players will just figure out what they are.  Unlike a GM, the computer can't fudge die rolls or modify rules or make up new stuff on the fly to keep things obscure for the player.  And even if it could, people would simply find that frustrating.

MMORPGs are not primarily about "Role Playing" bout about expanding the horizons of previous CRPG games.  You want real RP?  Go play a text-based MUD or the like.

Bruce

[stray]

I didn't read all of this thread (too much PnP talk for my tastes), so in case someone already said this, my apologies.

I'm really looking forward to this game because it's NOT the D&D that has become the main focus of discussion here. It's Dark Alliance first, D&D second. Or, in other words: VIDEO GAME first, PnP second.

No offense, but this thread (at least what I read of it) is basically 4 pages worth of irrelevant bullshit. Can someone please talk about DDO?

[Ironwood]

I'm really looking forward to this game because it's NOT the D&D that has become the main focus of discussion here. It's Dark Alliance first, D&D second. Or, in other words: VIDEO GAME first, PnP second.

Then it's going to suck.  I liked Dark Alliance, but Good God, what makes anyone thing it would be a good online game ?  If they don't put a lot of thought into the mechanics and into the characters, it'll die a death.  IMO anyway.

And if we're going to end the PnP discussion, then Bruce and Samwise kicked your ass.  Heh.

[Samwise]

I just picked one random example of how D&D encourages people to think in terms of systems rather than identities.

Your accusation was that any discussion or recognition of game systems equates to min/maxing.  My assertion is that the D&D 3 ruleset is flexible and balanced enough that you can think in terms of identities and the system will actually reflect and support the identity that you thought of; using the game system to construct the identity that you came up with outside of the system is not min/maxing.  D&D 2 didn't allow that to nearly the same extent, nor do most RPG systems that I've seen.  The exception is light-rules systems that require lots of arbitrary case-by-case GM rulings to maintain balance (which won't work in a MMOG unless you have one hell of a customer service budget).

[WindupAtheist]

The D&D combat system has always sucked ass.  Tactics and preparation are meaningless if you get a couple of bad saving throws.  In every D&D computer game I've ever played, I've run into battles where I had to stop and reload over and over again because my characters kept getting instakilled by poor rolls.

[Paelos]

I agree, the D&D system just pissed me off. Way too much emphasis on random crap that gets you killed. I don't like constantly dying in games over and over because of randomness.

[Samwise]

I agree, randomness is fun in PnP (feels like gambling!) but not so much on a PC (feels like bugs!).

Easy fix, though.  Every d20 roll can easily be reduced to a percentage chance of success, and every damage roll can easily be reduced to an average.  Suppose that a fighter with a longsword has a +6 on his attack roll and does 1d8+3 damage.  Against an AC 10 opponent, he hits on a roll of 4-20, which is an 85% chance of success.  Multiply that by his average damage (7.5) and you get 6.375 damage per swing.  Against an AC 20 opponent (35% chance to hit) it'd be 2.625 damage per swing.

The same logic could be applied to just about any die roll - just figure out what the average probable effect of the die roll would be, and use that.  It's a little like taking 10 on everything but with fuzzy results instead of boolean success or failure (which would make no sense for combat, which is why you can't take 10 on an attack roll).

This would suck in PnP (fractions are hard!) but would be very workable on a PC (billions of calculations per second, biatch!).  And on the average, it's exactly equivalent.

[Samwise]

I hit "quote" instead of "modify" to correct a typo and discovered that there is no "delete post" button.  Let this be a warning to the rest of you!

[Sky]

I hit "quote" instead of "modify" to correct a typo and discovered that there is no "delete post" button.  Let this be a warning to the rest of you!

[Rasix]

If you want it purged, just send a friendly message to your local moderator.   I could do this now, but then the valuable insight would be lost.   

[Alkiera]

The D&D combat system has always sucked ass.  Tactics and preparation are meaningless if you get a couple of bad saving throws.  In every D&D computer game I've ever played, I've run into battles where I had to stop and reload over and over again because my characters kept getting instakilled by poor rolls.

Couple notes.  The DDO devs have said yes, there are creatures with powerful effects like this in the game, but not until higher levels, and they aren't ubiquitous.  Second, they point out that clerics, among others, have spells that make you highly resistant or immune to 'save or just die' type spells.

OMG Forced Grouping!!111, I can hear it already...  yeah.  While compared to the average person in Ebberon, a player IS a superhero... The things you're tasked with fighting are just as badass as you, if not moreso.  In a one-on-one fight you can survive, if you have the right skills/spells/tactics... think rock/paper/scissors.  If you're a DW rogue without magic weapons, there are plenty of monsters with DR 5/+1 that you're going to have problems with, where a sorc could nuke them down easily.  Whereas if they have elemental or magic resistances, that sorc will have trouble, and the rogue will be fine.

Gaining levels in d20 makes you a) somewhat more powerful, and/or b) somewhat more flexible.  Multi-classing is ideal for those who wish to trade power for flexibility.  As far as rogue/arcane caster goes, I'd go with something like 16 rog/4 sorc as a final build, say, a treasure seeker/dungeon delver with a magical assist.  That'd give you attacks of +14/+9/+4, same as a 19th rogue, and you'd only have 8d6 sneak attack, and you'd miss one of the special rogue feats....  For which you gain a familiar, 6 0th, 6 1st, and 3 2nd level spells per day, a bit more will save than you'd otherwise have as straight rogue.

For spells, I'd suggest...(6, 3, 1)
0th - Detect Magic, Read Magic, Mage Hand, Light, Mending, puny damage spell of choice.
1st - Identify, Magic Weapon, Expeditious Retreat
2nd - Spider Climb

So yes, you're slightly weaker than a traditional 20th level rogue, slightly lower skills.  For which, you gain a good bit of magical utility.

To me, this is working the ssytem to fill the desires of the character.  And if you're human, or a race with rogue or sorc as a preferred class, you'll take no exp penalty.  If you went with wizard instead of sorc, you'd get a larger selection(as many as you can write down in a collection of spellbooks) of spells, but you'd have to prepare them ahead of time, and be limited to 4 0th, 3 1st, and 2 2nd level spells per day.

I see D&D 3.5 as being the most straight-forward, easy to learn of the various gaming systems I've seen.  There are only 2 kinds of rolls, 1d20+ some stat, and weapon/spell damage rolls.  Nearly everything is the former.  And yet, there is room for flexibility, and room for the GM (or game designer, in CRPGs/MMOs) to play the system however they wish.

Alkiera

[shiznitz]

I find rogue/arcane builds a lot of fun as long as one avoids the temptation to be a fireball-casting thief. Spiderclimb + sneak attack FOR TEH WIN!

[Kageru]

The PnP systems I liked the most was 1st edition runequest (before AH got it) and Rolemaster. I still think the heroquests in RQ are a fantastic model for character advancement and perhaps one of the origins for WoW's concepts of progression. Although given it's not yet in who can tell. I certainly wasn't meaning to support the story-telling systems which have always been a bit of a cop-out. But even with these systems I wouldn't support their direct translation to a MMORPG because there are things that will not translate and some things that could be done better when you have a computer doing the book-keeping for you.

Saving throws, D&D's to-hit system, spell memorization, lots of the spells are all things I expect to not translate cleanly. They're simplified due to the limits of how many aspects can be calculated and recorded by human beings with pieces of paper without breaking game flow. Even the levels and the use of a D20 are evidence of `chunky' gradients in the interests of simplicity. Advertising that it's an accurate representation of the 3.5e++ rules is simply reducing the desigers freedom to make it better.

I was also thinking about mini-maxing. To an extent it seems to me an inevitable result of true freedom to make substantial decisions in the characters development. Either it's perfectly balanced or people with the ability to analyse games will realise that some paths simply are sub-optimal. You can see this in WoW where you can't optimise a class, because there is no freedom, but it's hard not to realise that many talents give low return. End result being flavor of the month templates and "gimps" who tried to do something different. The bad reputation it has in PnP is largely because it represented someone finding exploits in the ruleset when they should have been concentrating on the gameplay. But is it a bad thing in a MMORPG where your interaction with inidividual players is less deep?

Perhaps we'll find out, because I bet DDO will be aimed at the munchkin brigade rather than the serious RP'ers market. And I expect them to find lots of raw material to work with.

[Samwise]

I'm hugely interested to see what the munchkin brigade does with core 3.5 rules.  Most of the worst munchkins I've seen nowadays have to resort to whining at the DM or bringing in "supplementary" material (e.g. conning the DM into letting them play a lizard man with +5 natural armor and no significant drawbacks).  I always took this as a good sign that the core rules were pretty well balanced, since you had to dip outside of them to get really munchkinny.  If anything can prove that false, though, it'll be the MMOG community.

[stray]

Who are these "munchkins"?

I already said who this game was going to appeal to: The BG: DA crowd. The City of Heroes crowd (ie the video game crowd).

This must be the 3rd or 4th time I've linked this here, but it needs to be done again:

DDO gameplay footage (26 MB)

[Samwise]

The term "munchkin" can be summed up as "selfish, immature powergamer," but that doesn't really do it justice or put it in its proper context.

The canonical definition of "munchkin", though, is this document, which also defines three less-commonly-referred-to archetypes.

Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies, and Munchkins