I would largely echo Zanath's comments. Dual Classing is NEVER required. The game expects single class humans. For those gamers who want a slightly more complicated character that requires some strategic thinking, dual classing is a fun option. And even at that, in PnP dual classing normally is done at fairly low levels (like 3rd or 7th level fighter) and is really not terribly difficult to manage.
With all due respect, I'm anything but a power gamer. The importance of proper builds for squeezing the most out of the game is amply demonstrated by the many large FAQs dedicated to it (the very first response for a "dual classing" google search is a lengthy Baldur's Gate-related article on the subject focusing primarily on powergaming), and the fact that many class combinations are pretty useless while others are far better than simply going with a single class. Of course you don't have to do it (though doing hardcore runs without reloads will certainly have greater chances of success when you squeeze the most out of the system), but it's still true that some things are just far better than others, and that's not an ideal situation (IMO). If I was a power gamer, I'd welcome this, since it's hard to powergame with a level playing field.
Beyond that, the real problem is the system makes no sense. Someone with 14 Strength can be a fighter, but if you're a cleric, you can't learn to fight with the same strength stat. 15 strength isn't good enough either, nor is 16. Only the magic 17, a completely arbitrary stat requirement, allows you stop focusing on clericing and start focusing on killing thangs better. Meanwhile, a half-elf can NEVER stop clericing and start focusing on killing thangs better; he has to focus on both from the start or he is stuck clericing forever. There's not really any good reason why humans and half-elves (who can be socially, physically and mentally nearly indistinguishable from humans) are so different mechanically - it just is, a game artifact rather than something intended to increase immersion.
Similar problem with the argument for why nothing but a human can be a paladin. I get the lore reason, but I don't like it because PCs are almost by default exceptional. You can play a Lawful Good drow whose greatest joy is flower-growing (in PNP, not BG, but OTOH, Viconia can become non-evil-aligned and did switch deities), but not a demihuman that found the ideals of a martial god appealing? What sort of good-aligned god turns away honest petitioners because they're not of the "right" race anyway?
There are some good things about classes, at least potentially. All those specific-for-different-races bard equivalents, for instances, is certainly very flavoursome and would be hard (not impossible, but hard) to replicate in a classless system. Problem is, that doesn't apply to BG - if you're an elf, you just can't be a bard, full stop, even though the entire "human-only bardic college" justification can't possibly apply to the MC of that game.
Finally, words can not describe my dislike for racial level caps. Aside from being difficult to swallow lore-wise (a dwarf can become THIS good a fighter and then NO MORE, she's incapable of learning more fighting skill because of inherent dwarfishness), they're an awful balancing mechanic because it makes demi-human characters better than humans until you reach an arbitrary point where they become worse than humans and then totally useless compared to humans. Much like the problem where low-level mages are almost useless and die to a stray sneeze, but high-level mages break the game over their knee and laugh at comparably-levelled fighters and thieves, balance can not be achieved by "for one part of playing the game you're better than everyone else, then for the rest of the game you suck compared to everyone else, or vice-versa".
Oh wait, I guess words could describe my dislike for them.
Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not arguing the game shouldn't use AD&D2e for its mechanics. Changing it dramatically would be kind of pointless, both due to its niche market value and the fact a good portion of that niche market is attached to the AD&D2e ruleset. I am glad they've made it possible to mod this (although, since there's hardly any flavour attached to racial choice anyways, funnily enough I might not actually bother to apply such a mod). Mostly I just wish those games hadn't been hitched into that system to begin with, and had used a more intuitive and less clunky ruleset. Once again, you are certainly entitled to disagree, it's all subjective.
Actually I think the mistake is in thinking a single class cleric can't fight. They are the second best class in the game for combat. The only thing that makes clerics much weaker in combat is weapon specialization (an optional rule in PNP). So the basis of your complaint against builds comes down to weapons proficiencies alone?! In PNP the expectation would be kits or specialty priests for the various priesthoods, so the single class cleric of a warrior deity would likely end up looking more like a fighter cleric anyway. And with the easier experience table of clerics, a single class cleric of a warrior deity would likely be pretty close to a fighter/cleric combination in pure fighting ability.
But the bottom line on all of this is that you obviously just are not a 2E guy. That's fine, you don't have to like it. I love it, with over 30 years playing 1E/2E I find the AD&D systems to be simple, intuitive and almost infinitely flexible. Soooo, you can play 3E or whatever you prefer, and I can run 2E for my group and it's all good.
Of course they can fight, I just used cleric/fighter as an example, a particularly absurd one since realistically anybody should be able to transition into being a fighter primarily. The point here isn't power level, but the nonsensical restrictions on how it works.
As for 3e, I liked it better but the whole prestige classes thing is a horrid mess. My preferred systems would be without classes entirely, so... not D&D of any edition. Though come on, man, you can not say THAC0 is simple and intuitive.
What most powergamers don't realize is how pointless it all is. As I've said many times in many threads, it's simply not required, it doesn't make the game any easier, because powergaming simply leads to lots of excess stats that are simply not needed. the only time power-gaming is helpful is when you're using difficulty mods that assume you're going to use every cheesy trick and power-gamed tactic in the book to win.
Hell I've actually NERFed (or occasionally buffed) a lot of stuff in my own game down to it's proper levels of power, and can still play just fine with all my usual restrictions.
Hell...using a non-power-gamed character, you can beat all of BG2 while restricted to the BG1 level cap. The only classes that really suffer are mages and even they aren't THAT bad, since it actually gives you incentive to use wands and scrolls the way they are intended, as back-up spells or to attempt to cast spells higher level then you normally could instead of XP abuse fodder (considering the scrolls are weaker in most cases then they should be (6th level should cast at 12th level, 7th at 14th level, 8th at 16th level, and 9th at 18th level...but they all cast at lvl 10 in BG2), I see that as a fair trade for not having to roll a success chance for successful casting).
BG and DnD are simply about using what you have been given in the most efficient manner possible. That's one of the biggest differences between 2nd and 3rd.
In 2nd, your initial rolls determine the type of character you play since you're supposed to roll stats first, then pick an applicable race you meet the requirements for, then after adjustments pick a class you meet requirements for. And then you're is supposed to roleplay their stats out accordingly.
While in 3rd edition, due to the fact that EVERYTHING is scaled (Oblivion style), if you screw up your build, you're going to end up being a load to the party.
2nd edition at least, each level of each class had a set amount of xp, so lower level classes levelled more quickly then higher level classes, where as in 3rd your xp to next level depends on your total class levels (+ any ECL you might have) making it much more difficult to recover from a bad-decision.
Due to the low power levels in 2nd edition, if you dual badly, you still got SOME perks that make you more powerful then you would've been without dualing at all, and the fact you need a higher prime stat in the new class then your old one, means you're probably more suited to play this new class anyway. BG uses a threshold system, and it doesn't matter if you have 99% thief skill, if the threshold says 100, you're $%#^ed. Of course another difference, in PnP, until 10+ all thief skills are capped at 95% success, and several (way more then BG acknowledges to exist) of them aren't available until level 10 (Detect Illusion is supposed to require a minimum of lvl 10 before they can begin to put points into it, and the vanilla thief requires a minimum of lvl 10 before they can use their Read Language skill to read and cast magical scrolls (Technically even bards aren't supposed to be able to cast from scrolls either until 10, but they can still attempt to read them at any level, and most of the kits lack that ability).
Oh anyone can transition into a fighter...it's quite easy in fact...just go to a fighter's college for 8-10 years since you suck at it due to a lack of innate talent, oh but if you're not wise enough to maintain what clerical skills you have WHILE focusing on your studies, that you're also having to work extra hard at, you forfeit ALL of your clerical training you've attained so far due to your skills getting rusty and being unable to maintain the required level of devotion.
Dual-class requires exceptional stats because if you aren't already reasonably gifted in your area of expertise, it takes the normal amount of time required to take the first level (8-21 years, class depending). And if you weren't at least naturally inclined (15+ prime) towards your old class, trying to maintain your skills while mastering a new class will be impossible.
That said, there are rules available for abandoning a class, if you decide you don't like it but lack the stats to dual-class. As long as you have 4+ points more then the minimum requirement of the class you want, you can simply abandon all your old training, and become a lvl 1 of that new class instantly, allowing your real-world experience to fast track you into lvl 1, while you let your other skills/training fall into disuse due to the inability to focus on multiple classes at once.
Yes Ayiekie I think thac0 is simple and intuitive. I remember when we first started using it with 1E rules, before it was "official" or published anywhere and just being blown away by how easy it made the math of everything. As a DM I never need any charts or calculator for anything; I ask a player their thac0 and have them roll their die. If their result with modifiers equals or exceeds their thac0 minus the target's AC its a hit. I honestly don't understand how anything could be easier. And even better, the player doesn't have to understand any of it, just know that a lower thac0 is better. My background prior to AD&D was all strategy board games (Tactics II, Midway, War in the Pacific), so if anything I found AD&D a bit on the overly simplified side. But it is such a perfectly colorful and easy system for bringing in new gamers, and I've really enjoyed introducing newbs to gaming over the decades since.
An easier system would be one where higher numbers are better, as opposed to one where higher numbers are usually better except sometimes they're not. I'm used to it through decades of playing D&D-variants too, but for someone new to gaming, THAC0 is a tremendously unintuitive concept.
"Roll a d20, higher is better. Now subtract the result you got from your THAC0 - a value where lower is better - to give the AC you hit, where lower is better. Watch out for negative numbers, you essentially add those when calculating whether you hit. If you hit, then roll for damage, where higher is better. Your strength modifier adds to your damage, but subtracts from your THAC0."
I note there's been several threads on this very forum with non-D&D veterans confused by THAC0. Plus it's all over the place online, and the most amazing thing is all the unintuitive and sometimes-up-sometimes-down modifiers involved with THAC0 are totally unnecessary, since you can get the same mathematical results with an additive system like 3e. It was a system that was complex for absolutely no benefit other than being complex, which is why I think it's hard to defend.
My only gripe about 2nd is how inconsistent the terminology can be at times, with regard to when a + or minus is good or bad. Especially in some of the 3rd party supplements where they can be all over the place. You have to read over every rule carefully to ensure you understand what it's actually meaning to say.
Zanath I would agree the terminology was not always consistently applied.
But as far as the math of it all, the player doesn't need to understand any of it, as long as the DM or computer does. And again Ayiekie I match your decades of experience. And I've played extensively with younger players. Including getting veteran players wives, kids and siblings up to speed, and I've never found thac0 to be any problem at all. The whole "higher is better" thing is almost entirely a bias of gamers trying to push a newer rules set. I've never seen any problems coming from true newbs.
Well, aside from the fact I literally have while getting my fiancee (who is a computer programmer, so it's not like she's exactly slow-witted) to play in the last year, again, there's more than one thread on this very forum with people not understanding it. And many, many more at a google search for it.
@atcDave Are you seriously saying THAC0 is better than attack bonus in 3rd ed? It's the same in 3rd ed system but better in presentation in every way. No, the math isn't hard either way, but I'm amazed anyone can call THAC0 intuitive and good, precisely for the reasons @Ayiekie laid out.
@atcDave Are you seriously saying THAC0 is better than attack bonus in 3rd ed? It's the same in 3rd ed system but better in presentation in every way. No, the math isn't hard either way, but I'm amazed anyone can call THAC0 intuitive and good, precisely for the reasons @Ayiekie laid out.
No I'm not saying its "better". I'm saying its simple and a non-issue. Its 100% on the DM or computer, which mechanism is in place should make zero difference to the player; the DM or computer does all the math. And I fail to see how "lower is better" is a difficult concept to understand. Sorry, no disrespect, but it seems like whining about nothing. A DM or game designer chooses which rule set they want to use, and the details should make little difference to the players.
This whole thread seems to just be belly-aching about 2E; which is what annoys the heck out of me. I've played in 3E and 4E games, which are functional and fine if that's what the DM wants to use. I prefer 2E for a lot of reasons; my players have never voiced any serious complaints and enjoy my game a lot, even the guys who run a different rule set for their own games. There is no "better" or perfect set of rules. It is ALL up to what the DM wants to use.
@atcDave Are you seriously saying THAC0 is better than attack bonus in 3rd ed? It's the same in 3rd ed system but better in presentation in every way. No, the math isn't hard either way, but I'm amazed anyone can call THAC0 intuitive and good, precisely for the reasons @Ayiekie laid out.
No I'm not saying its "better". I'm saying its simple and a non-issue. Its 100% on the DM or computer, which mechanism is in place should make zero difference to the player; the DM or computer does all the math. And I fail to see how "lower is better" is a difficult concept to understand. Sorry, no disrespect, but it seems like whining about nothing. A DM or game designer chooses which rule set they want to use, and the details should make little difference to the players.
This whole thread seems to just be belly-aching about 2E; which is what annoys the heck out of me. I've played in 3E and 4E games, which are functional and fine if that's what the DM wants to use. I prefer 2E for a lot of reasons; my players have never voiced any serious complaints and enjoy my game a lot, even the guys who run a different rule set for their own games. There is no "better" or perfect set of rules. It is ALL up to what the DM wants to use.
It's not difficult to understand, but it is less intuitive than the 3rd edition system. Can you make an argument in favor of lower-is-better and the scenario @Ayiekie has supplied over 3rd edition?
For reference: "Roll a d20, higher is better. Now subtract the result you got from your THAC0 - a value where lower is better - to give the AC you hit, where lower is better. Watch out for negative numbers, you essentially add those when calculating whether you hit. If you hit, then roll for damage, where higher is better. Your strength modifier adds to your damage, but subtracts from your THAC0."
In 3rd ed: Roll d20, higher is better. Add to your base attack bonus, where higher is better. See if it beats your enemy AC, where higher is better. If you hit, roll for damage, where higher is better.
The net result is the same. Essentially, the math is the same. However, the presentation of old editions isn't the best, and leads to what also @ZanathKariashi describes. I feel like you're defending a strangely presented mechanic due to nostalgia.
Its 100% on the DM or computer, which mechanism is in place should make zero difference to the player; the DM or computer does all the math. And I fail to see how "lower is better" is a difficult concept to understand. Sorry, no disrespect, but it seems like whining about nothing. A DM or game designer chooses which rule set they want to use, and the details should make little difference to the players.
I think this comes down to a fundamental difference in rules philosophy. Your philosophy is that the DM is the only one who needs to know most of the rules, whereas some of us are coming from a philosophy that virtually all of the rules should be transparently available to the players. Both approaches have their pros and cons, but 2e is clearly built to accommodate the former with its sheer bulk of optional systems and rules sets hidden within the DMG. This is not "whining about nothing," it is an attempt to express how 2e works against us when we want the players to understand the rules as well as the DM.
Why does it matter if its nostalgia? And again, the player doesn't need to do any of the math you keep complaining about. The concept is fully as simple as 3E. The player knows they're trying to roll high, and they're trying to beat a certain number derived from their own thac0, and an opponent's AC that the player doesn't know. In fact, that's a key part of the equation, it makes no difference to the player how the math of it works because they should never know the opponent's AC anyway! From a player's perspective there should be no difference how the math is done, they shouldn't even have all the data!
Well, I make it a habit to never complain about anything the DM wants to run, on account of the DM is the one running it. But seriously, it's a thread about the system, of course people are going to complain if they don't like it. Moreover, all complaining about game mechanics are by definition "complaining about nothing" because RPG game mechanics are not exactly important.
But whether you have no problem with THAC0 or not, it's a simple fact attestable by a casual google search that it confuses people. A lot of people. And even though you have no problem with it, surely you have to agree that a system where "adding points is always good, subtracting points is always bad, and you always aim to roll over the target" is simpler than a system where "adding points is sometimes good and sometimes bad, subtracting points is sometimes good or sometimes bad, and you either roll under or over depending on what it is". You can like 2ed best - and all power to you! - but even if you hate everything else about 3e (which, I'll remind, I'm not pushing for, since my whole first post was about "I hate class-based systems"), making rolls and modifiers consistent was a good change.
Don't take it personally, probably noone here is playing in your game. I mean, Dragon Age II is my favourite CRPG of all time (making me part of a small but passionate minority), but you didn't see me arguing with the person that used it as a self-evident example of terribleness (mostly because it was off-topic, but still).
That does remind me of another comment I wanted to make about systems, though, especially in reference to how BG's PCs and NPCs are "overpowered". They are, sure (and many of them outright break the game rules), but realistically there's a reason for that. Baldur's Gate, like nearly every D&D-based RPG, can't really play like PNP D&D because it's a very different experience. In a real D&D campaign, you might have two or three encounters in a full day, and that'd be pushing it at low levels. In a video game, you probably have 20.
A lot of time in D&D roleplaying is (usually, more or less depending on group, of course) taken up with conversation, group planning, chatting with NPCs, getting lost in dungeons, and other things that don't take up nearly as much time, if it takes up any at all, in a CRPG (that's not Planescape Torment), so the combat rate is a lot higher for interest value. Even with the best will in the world and a lot of devotion to matching the PNP mechanics, that fact is always going to warp the game mechanics around it. Very few real starting D&D groups are going to determinedly lawnmower their way through entire nests of low-level creatures the way you do in Baldur's Gate and many other D&D-based games, and fewer still would survive it.
Edit: And this is exacerbated even further by the fact that a fight that would take an hour to roll out at the table can be over in a minute or two of Baldur's Gate game time.
But it's not exactly fun to have to reload due to character death after every other fight, either, so the games always tweak in various ways to make this possible (making healing potions ridiculously cheap and common, making it easy to "rest for the night" in places this is not realistically possible, and yes, making characters tend to be more powerful than real D&D characters would be). That admittedly doesn't have much to do with the topic, just an observation about the conflict between PNP rules and CRPG design, my apologies for the text wall.
I don't care for hidden mechanics either. The game mechanics are fully visible to anyone who wants to know how things work. But those players who may be confused by concepts like Thaco truly never need trouble themselves. And seriously, those are two different sorts of players; those who care will understand, those who don't, don't need to worry about it. But if you mean specifically the targets AC? That really is never the player's business. And yes, several of my regular players are also engineering types. They are exactly the folks who do understand the mechanics of the game and have no problems with them. The actor, cartoonist and chef not so much...
As far as Ayikie's comments about the differences of CRPGs, I actually agree completely. Ideally a CRPG is probably best if it's designed as such from the start. Any rule set that starts with PNP is going to have certain challenges in a CRPG environment. Balance being probably the biggest, AD&D works best from about levels 4-9, which is a fairly narrow range. While CRPGs are all about constantly adding power and experience, scaling everything up continuously. As for me though, I remain most interested in AD&D regardless, largely because I actually see the computer as a substitute for when my gaming group is not available. Back in the day I often played Ultima, Wizardry, Phantasie and several others, but I always consider myself a PNP gamer first.
[atcDave] Your philosophy is that the DM is the only one who needs to know most of the rules, whereas some of us are coming from a philosophy that virtually all of the rules should be transparently available to the players.
It has to be this way. otherwise it's just a group writing project. Most of the scenario and it's contents is made up by the DM.
[atcDave] Your philosophy is that the DM is the only one who needs to know most of the rules, whereas some of us are coming from a philosophy that virtually all of the rules should be transparently available to the players.
It has to be this way. otherwise it's just a group writing project. Most of the scenario and it's contents is made up by the DM.
I have no problem with the players actually knowing all the rules, in fact, every player in my regular group has taken a turn DMing on their own. And no doubt those players who pay attention and care can be a big help in game management. But the game should run fine even if the DM is the ONLY one who completely gets it. And I've run plenty of groups like that occasion too.
But there will always be details that are hidden from the players. That's all about immersion and making the world feel like a living, breathing place, not just a math exercise.
It has to be this way. otherwise it's just a group writing project. Most of the scenario and it's contents is made up by the DM.
Obviously, setting and scenario information has to be hidden from the players for the purposes of the story. But information like "The creepy vizier is actually a good guy and it's the Prince Consort who's the real villain" is not rules text. Hiding that from the players (so that they can investigate and determine the truth themselves) is not the same as hiding racial level limits from the players (something discussed exclusively within the 2e DMG), for example.
You know, I guess all this debate comes from what's actually not only a change in mechanics, but a whole paradigm shift between editions.
Up to AD&D 2e, the game was founded on the premise that campaigns are the DM's game. He or she's the one with the responsibility of knowing the rules inside out and refereeing the game. As a player you take part on this adventure and the focus is in playing rather than role-playing, if you get my meaning.
And unless the DM changed the rules as written, you didn't always get to pick your character class. Rolling your stats and seeing what came out of it was part of the fun. In fact, it was part of playing the game. Great stats across the board were the exception rather than the rule. All those character options and optional classes were actually about showing the versatility of the system. In other words, to show all the different types of campaigns the system could be used for. And that decision was usually on the hands of the DM, provided of course that players were on board with the general tone.
Reading 3e and everything that came after gives me the impression that the game has changed on a fundamental level. The DM's been sort of stripped of all that power/authority. Sure his/her word is still final when it comes to rules and whatever happens inside the game, but the rules as written (and even the tone of the books) are way less supportive of that mindset.
From then on, it's less about your character being a part of something greater (the campaign) and more about the campaign as a backdrop to whatever characters the players come up with. Instead of having rules to justify the lore, the lore is now supposed to accommodate whatever "build" the players come up with.
Seriously, I'm far from being the first to mention this. 3e books treat the player as the ultimate authority in the game. And that can certainly have an influence on players who are introduced to the game via these editions. Nowadays I always see a certain sense of entitlement on players, who, to a certain degree, take offense whenever restrictions are imposed by the DM. Specially if those restrictions involve race/class combinations.
I sincerely think the argument of "restrictions end up restricting roleplaying" is ultimately hogwash. Every campaign is set on one (or more) universe(s) with their own rules and guess what, conventions as well. Good actors act well based on the premise that's been given to them (the script). RPG players have no script, but they have a setting nonetheless. Also, RPGs are unique in the sense that instead of competing against each other, players are collaborating. If you're the kind of player who insists on being the oddball and refuses any ruling that will restrict your precious "character concepts," I guess you're less fun to play with than you actually think. Sort of like a prima donna.
And that's perfectly fine. But again, what bugs me is that between the lines, modern D&D seems to at best, validate and at worst, reward that kind of attitude.
I have never known of a DM who tried to hide game information from the players that was so relevant to their character as a racial level limit. Okay I take that back; I can think of one, I would general describe his game management style as "bad." Nobody played with him for long. The Players Handbook is kept as simple as possible, but it is never the ONLY source of information, it is merely the most essential information.
But as to what is withheld from players, I would say its a little more than just major plot points. Players should never know exact details about things like a character's level, maybe not even class depending on the situation. They shouldn't know details on equipment, scores or spells of people they meet. Depending on situation they may be told things in general terms (the character seems clumsy, the character seems to know how to handle a mace, the character is carrying a holy symbol of a good-aligned deity); story type things they can see or figure out. But I would NEVER tell a player "that guy is a sixth level Ranger with +2 chain mail...." Well, maybe the Ranger part, if they were all on good terms.
I don't care for hidden mechanics either. The game mechanics are fully visible to anyone who wants to know how things work. But those players who may be confused by concepts like Thaco truly never need trouble themselves. And seriously, those are two different sorts of players; those who care will understand, those who don't, don't need to worry about it.
I have heard a lot of insults being thrown at people who get confused by thac0... lazy is a new one. It is as ridiculously baseless as all the others.
But whether you have no problem with THAC0 or not, it's a simple fact attestable by a casual google search that it confuses people. A lot of people. And even though you have no problem with it, surely you have to agree that a system where "adding points is always good, subtracting points is always bad, and you always aim to roll over the target" is simpler than a system where "adding points is sometimes good and sometimes bad, subtracting points is sometimes good or sometimes bad, and you either roll under or over depending on what it is".
This is made worse by: 1. Absolutely AWFUL convoluted explanation done in game and in pnp books of what is otherwise a simple system. 2. The authors of BG and the PnP books inability to remain consistent about the terminology.
My "insults" aren't directed at anyone in special. I'm presenting a completely hypothetical situation based on my experiences playing and discussing D&D.
And I'm no more serious (or incendiary) than you were being when you said that "Classes are inherently terrible" or that "THAC0 is objectively bad and you're an objectively bad person if you like it".
I never said lazy. My friends who don't care about the mechanics are often the most engaged role players, they're the ones who do the most to bring the world to life. And I guarantee they wouldn't understand 3E, or even the strategy of Monopoly any better. But they'll add color and fun to any group.
And as far as "awful" explanations go, any RPG needs to be played to be understood. It's the nature of the beast. Doesn't matter what rules are in use, the whole concept requires hands on experience. But when 2E came out there was a D&D Basic set that was aimed at true newcomers, and people playing ADVANCED D&D were expected to already know the system basics.
@atcDave sounds like your players are really slow. Or you're underestimating them. I'd say any person who "wouldn't understand 3E" - or any edition of D&D - is of very little mental ability.
And as far as "awful" explanations go, any RPG needs to be played to be understood. It's the nature of the beast.
How is that a retort? I have seen plenty of forum responses where experienced players wrote a much superior explanation of thac0 than what you find in official sources. Where people didn't understand thac0, then they read those good explanations and they did.
The only way playing even relates to it is if you mean having a new player play with an experienced one who can explain to their better than the pnp books do. If this isn't what you meant then please elaborate.
My "insults" aren't directed at anyone in special. I'm presenting a completely hypothetical situation based on my experiences playing and discussing D&D.
And I'm no more serious (or incendiary) than you were being when you said that "Classes are inherently terrible" or that "THAC0 is objectively bad and you're an objectively bad person if you like it".
Well, the latter there is pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek, I should hope. But a comment like "If you're the kind of player who insists on being the oddball and refuses any ruling that will restrict your precious "character concepts," I guess you're less fun to play with than you actually think. Sort of like a prima donna." seems much more likely to be intended seriously - at the very least, there's many people who unironically would agree completely with it. If it wasn't, that's great, it just wasn't clear to me. Like THAC0 to many people.
Comments
Beyond that, the real problem is the system makes no sense. Someone with 14 Strength can be a fighter, but if you're a cleric, you can't learn to fight with the same strength stat. 15 strength isn't good enough either, nor is 16. Only the magic 17, a completely arbitrary stat requirement, allows you stop focusing on clericing and start focusing on killing thangs better. Meanwhile, a half-elf can NEVER stop clericing and start focusing on killing thangs better; he has to focus on both from the start or he is stuck clericing forever. There's not really any good reason why humans and half-elves (who can be socially, physically and mentally nearly indistinguishable from humans) are so different mechanically - it just is, a game artifact rather than something intended to increase immersion.
Similar problem with the argument for why nothing but a human can be a paladin. I get the lore reason, but I don't like it because PCs are almost by default exceptional. You can play a Lawful Good drow whose greatest joy is flower-growing (in PNP, not BG, but OTOH, Viconia can become non-evil-aligned and did switch deities), but not a demihuman that found the ideals of a martial god appealing? What sort of good-aligned god turns away honest petitioners because they're not of the "right" race anyway?
There are some good things about classes, at least potentially. All those specific-for-different-races bard equivalents, for instances, is certainly very flavoursome and would be hard (not impossible, but hard) to replicate in a classless system. Problem is, that doesn't apply to BG - if you're an elf, you just can't be a bard, full stop, even though the entire "human-only bardic college" justification can't possibly apply to the MC of that game.
Finally, words can not describe my dislike for racial level caps. Aside from being difficult to swallow lore-wise (a dwarf can become THIS good a fighter and then NO MORE, she's incapable of learning more fighting skill because of inherent dwarfishness), they're an awful balancing mechanic because it makes demi-human characters better than humans until you reach an arbitrary point where they become worse than humans and then totally useless compared to humans. Much like the problem where low-level mages are almost useless and die to a stray sneeze, but high-level mages break the game over their knee and laugh at comparably-levelled fighters and thieves, balance can not be achieved by "for one part of playing the game you're better than everyone else, then for the rest of the game you suck compared to everyone else, or vice-versa".
Oh wait, I guess words could describe my dislike for them.
Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not arguing the game shouldn't use AD&D2e for its mechanics. Changing it dramatically would be kind of pointless, both due to its niche market value and the fact a good portion of that niche market is attached to the AD&D2e ruleset. I am glad they've made it possible to mod this (although, since there's hardly any flavour attached to racial choice anyways, funnily enough I might not actually bother to apply such a mod). Mostly I just wish those games hadn't been hitched into that system to begin with, and had used a more intuitive and less clunky ruleset. Once again, you are certainly entitled to disagree, it's all subjective.
But the bottom line on all of this is that you obviously just are not a 2E guy. That's fine, you don't have to like it. I love it, with over 30 years playing 1E/2E I find the AD&D systems to be simple, intuitive and almost infinitely flexible. Soooo, you can play 3E or whatever you prefer, and I can run 2E for my group and it's all good.
As for 3e, I liked it better but the whole prestige classes thing is a horrid mess. My preferred systems would be without classes entirely, so... not D&D of any edition. Though come on, man, you can not say THAC0 is simple and intuitive.
Hell I've actually NERFed (or occasionally buffed) a lot of stuff in my own game down to it's proper levels of power, and can still play just fine with all my usual restrictions.
Hell...using a non-power-gamed character, you can beat all of BG2 while restricted to the BG1 level cap. The only classes that really suffer are mages and even they aren't THAT bad, since it actually gives you incentive to use wands and scrolls the way they are intended, as back-up spells or to attempt to cast spells higher level then you normally could instead of XP abuse fodder (considering the scrolls are weaker in most cases then they should be (6th level should cast at 12th level, 7th at 14th level, 8th at 16th level, and 9th at 18th level...but they all cast at lvl 10 in BG2), I see that as a fair trade for not having to roll a success chance for successful casting).
BG and DnD are simply about using what you have been given in the most efficient manner possible. That's one of the biggest differences between 2nd and 3rd.
In 2nd, your initial rolls determine the type of character you play since you're supposed to roll stats first, then pick an applicable race you meet the requirements for, then after adjustments pick a class you meet requirements for. And then you're is supposed to roleplay their stats out accordingly.
While in 3rd edition, due to the fact that EVERYTHING is scaled (Oblivion style), if you screw up your build, you're going to end up being a load to the party.
2nd edition at least, each level of each class had a set amount of xp, so lower level classes levelled more quickly then higher level classes, where as in 3rd your xp to next level depends on your total class levels (+ any ECL you might have) making it much more difficult to recover from a bad-decision.
Due to the low power levels in 2nd edition, if you dual badly, you still got SOME perks that make you more powerful then you would've been without dualing at all, and the fact you need a higher prime stat in the new class then your old one, means you're probably more suited to play this new class anyway. BG uses a threshold system, and it doesn't matter if you have 99% thief skill, if the threshold says 100, you're $%#^ed. Of course another difference, in PnP, until 10+ all thief skills are capped at 95% success, and several (way more then BG acknowledges to exist) of them aren't available until level 10 (Detect Illusion is supposed to require a minimum of lvl 10 before they can begin to put points into it, and the vanilla thief requires a minimum of lvl 10 before they can use their Read Language skill to read and cast magical scrolls (Technically even bards aren't supposed to be able to cast from scrolls either until 10, but they can still attempt to read them at any level, and most of the kits lack that ability).
Oh anyone can transition into a fighter...it's quite easy in fact...just go to a fighter's college for 8-10 years since you suck at it due to a lack of innate talent, oh but if you're not wise enough to maintain what clerical skills you have WHILE focusing on your studies, that you're also having to work extra hard at, you forfeit ALL of your clerical training you've attained so far due to your skills getting rusty and being unable to maintain the required level of devotion.
Dual-class requires exceptional stats because if you aren't already reasonably gifted in your area of expertise, it takes the normal amount of time required to take the first level (8-21 years, class depending). And if you weren't at least naturally inclined (15+ prime) towards your old class, trying to maintain your skills while mastering a new class will be impossible.
That said, there are rules available for abandoning a class, if you decide you don't like it but lack the stats to dual-class. As long as you have 4+ points more then the minimum requirement of the class you want, you can simply abandon all your old training, and become a lvl 1 of that new class instantly, allowing your real-world experience to fast track you into lvl 1, while you let your other skills/training fall into disuse due to the inability to focus on multiple classes at once.
My background prior to AD&D was all strategy board games (Tactics II, Midway, War in the Pacific), so if anything I found AD&D a bit on the overly simplified side. But it is such a perfectly colorful and easy system for bringing in new gamers, and I've really enjoyed introducing newbs to gaming over the decades since.
"Roll a d20, higher is better. Now subtract the result you got from your THAC0 - a value where lower is better - to give the AC you hit, where lower is better. Watch out for negative numbers, you essentially add those when calculating whether you hit. If you hit, then roll for damage, where higher is better. Your strength modifier adds to your damage, but subtracts from your THAC0."
I note there's been several threads on this very forum with non-D&D veterans confused by THAC0. Plus it's all over the place online, and the most amazing thing is all the unintuitive and sometimes-up-sometimes-down modifiers involved with THAC0 are totally unnecessary, since you can get the same mathematical results with an additive system like 3e. It was a system that was complex for absolutely no benefit other than being complex, which is why I think it's hard to defend.
But as far as the math of it all, the player doesn't need to understand any of it, as long as the DM or computer does. And again Ayiekie I match your decades of experience. And I've played extensively with younger players. Including getting veteran players wives, kids and siblings up to speed, and I've never found thac0 to be any problem at all. The whole "higher is better" thing is almost entirely a bias of gamers trying to push a newer rules set. I've never seen any problems coming from true newbs.
Sorry, no disrespect, but it seems like whining about nothing. A DM or game designer chooses which rule set they want to use, and the details should make little difference to the players.
This whole thread seems to just be belly-aching about 2E; which is what annoys the heck out of me. I've played in 3E and 4E games, which are functional and fine if that's what the DM wants to use. I prefer 2E for a lot of reasons; my players have never voiced any serious complaints and enjoy my game a lot, even the guys who run a different rule set for their own games.
There is no "better" or perfect set of rules. It is ALL up to what the DM wants to use.
For reference: "Roll a d20, higher is better. Now subtract the result you got from your THAC0 - a value where lower is better - to give the AC you hit, where lower is better. Watch out for negative numbers, you essentially add those when calculating whether you hit. If you hit, then roll for damage, where higher is better. Your strength modifier adds to your damage, but subtracts from your THAC0."
In 3rd ed: Roll d20, higher is better. Add to your base attack bonus, where higher is better. See if it beats your enemy AC, where higher is better. If you hit, roll for damage, where higher is better.
The net result is the same. Essentially, the math is the same. However, the presentation of old editions isn't the best, and leads to what also @ZanathKariashi describes. I feel like you're defending a strangely presented mechanic due to nostalgia.
From a player's perspective there should be no difference how the math is done, they shouldn't even have all the data!
But whether you have no problem with THAC0 or not, it's a simple fact attestable by a casual google search that it confuses people. A lot of people. And even though you have no problem with it, surely you have to agree that a system where "adding points is always good, subtracting points is always bad, and you always aim to roll over the target" is simpler than a system where "adding points is sometimes good and sometimes bad, subtracting points is sometimes good or sometimes bad, and you either roll under or over depending on what it is". You can like 2ed best - and all power to you! - but even if you hate everything else about 3e (which, I'll remind, I'm not pushing for, since my whole first post was about "I hate class-based systems"), making rolls and modifiers consistent was a good change.
Don't take it personally, probably noone here is playing in your game. I mean, Dragon Age II is my favourite CRPG of all time (making me part of a small but passionate minority), but you didn't see me arguing with the person that used it as a self-evident example of terribleness (mostly because it was off-topic, but still).
That does remind me of another comment I wanted to make about systems, though, especially in reference to how BG's PCs and NPCs are "overpowered". They are, sure (and many of them outright break the game rules), but realistically there's a reason for that. Baldur's Gate, like nearly every D&D-based RPG, can't really play like PNP D&D because it's a very different experience. In a real D&D campaign, you might have two or three encounters in a full day, and that'd be pushing it at low levels. In a video game, you probably have 20.
A lot of time in D&D roleplaying is (usually, more or less depending on group, of course) taken up with conversation, group planning, chatting with NPCs, getting lost in dungeons, and other things that don't take up nearly as much time, if it takes up any at all, in a CRPG (that's not Planescape Torment), so the combat rate is a lot higher for interest value. Even with the best will in the world and a lot of devotion to matching the PNP mechanics, that fact is always going to warp the game mechanics around it. Very few real starting D&D groups are going to determinedly lawnmower their way through entire nests of low-level creatures the way you do in Baldur's Gate and many other D&D-based games, and fewer still would survive it.
Edit: And this is exacerbated even further by the fact that a fight that would take an hour to roll out at the table can be over in a minute or two of Baldur's Gate game time.
But it's not exactly fun to have to reload due to character death after every other fight, either, so the games always tweak in various ways to make this possible (making healing potions ridiculously cheap and common, making it easy to "rest for the night" in places this is not realistically possible, and yes, making characters tend to be more powerful than real D&D characters would be). That admittedly doesn't have much to do with the topic, just an observation about the conflict between PNP rules and CRPG design, my apologies for the text wall.
And yes, several of my regular players are also engineering types. They are exactly the folks who do understand the mechanics of the game and have no problems with them. The actor, cartoonist and chef not so much...
As far as Ayikie's comments about the differences of CRPGs, I actually agree completely. Ideally a CRPG is probably best if it's designed as such from the start. Any rule set that starts with PNP is going to have certain challenges in a CRPG environment. Balance being probably the biggest, AD&D works best from about levels 4-9, which is a fairly narrow range. While CRPGs are all about constantly adding power and experience, scaling everything up continuously.
As for me though, I remain most interested in AD&D regardless, largely because I actually see the computer as a substitute for when my gaming group is not available. Back in the day I often played Ultima, Wizardry, Phantasie and several others, but I always consider myself a PNP gamer first.
But there will always be details that are hidden from the players. That's all about immersion and making the world feel like a living, breathing place, not just a math exercise.
Up to AD&D 2e, the game was founded on the premise that campaigns are the DM's game. He or she's the one with the responsibility of knowing the rules inside out and refereeing the game. As a player you take part on this adventure and the focus is in playing rather than role-playing, if you get my meaning.
And unless the DM changed the rules as written, you didn't always get to pick your character class. Rolling your stats and seeing what came out of it was part of the fun. In fact, it was part of playing the game. Great stats across the board were the exception rather than the rule. All those character options and optional classes were actually about showing the versatility of the system. In other words, to show all the different types of campaigns the system could be used for. And that decision was usually on the hands of the DM, provided of course that players were on board with the general tone.
Reading 3e and everything that came after gives me the impression that the game has changed on a fundamental level. The DM's been sort of stripped of all that power/authority. Sure his/her word is still final when it comes to rules and whatever happens inside the game, but the rules as written (and even the tone of the books) are way less supportive of that mindset.
From then on, it's less about your character being a part of something greater (the campaign) and more about the campaign as a backdrop to whatever characters the players come up with. Instead of having rules to justify the lore, the lore is now supposed to accommodate whatever "build" the players come up with.
Seriously, I'm far from being the first to mention this. 3e books treat the player as the ultimate authority in the game. And that can certainly have an influence on players who are introduced to the game via these editions. Nowadays I always see a certain sense of entitlement on players, who, to a certain degree, take offense whenever restrictions are imposed by the DM. Specially if those restrictions involve race/class combinations.
I sincerely think the argument of "restrictions end up restricting roleplaying" is ultimately hogwash. Every campaign is set on one (or more) universe(s) with their own rules and guess what, conventions as well. Good actors act well based on the premise that's been given to them (the script). RPG players have no script, but they have a setting nonetheless. Also, RPGs are unique in the sense that instead of competing against each other, players are collaborating. If you're the kind of player who insists on being the oddball and refuses any ruling that will restrict your precious "character concepts," I guess you're less fun to play with than you actually think. Sort of like a prima donna.
And that's perfectly fine. But again, what bugs me is that between the lines, modern D&D seems to at best, validate and at worst, reward that kind of attitude.
Unless I'm wrong, of course.
But as to what is withheld from players, I would say its a little more than just major plot points. Players should never know exact details about things like a character's level, maybe not even class depending on the situation. They shouldn't know details on equipment, scores or spells of people they meet. Depending on situation they may be told things in general terms (the character seems clumsy, the character seems to know how to handle a mace, the character is carrying a holy symbol of a good-aligned deity); story type things they can see or figure out. But I would NEVER tell a player "that guy is a sixth level Ranger with +2 chain mail...." Well, maybe the Ranger part, if they were all on good terms.
See: http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/20979/thac0-sucks-and-needs-to-die-in-a-fire/p1
The gist of it is basically This is made worse by:
1. Absolutely AWFUL convoluted explanation done in game and in pnp books of what is otherwise a simple system.
2. The authors of BG and the PnP books inability to remain consistent about the terminology.
Also, you're kind of unnecessarily insulting here.
And I'm no more serious (or incendiary) than you were being when you said that "Classes are inherently terrible" or that "THAC0 is objectively bad and you're an objectively bad person if you like it".
And as far as "awful" explanations go, any RPG needs to be played to be understood. It's the nature of the beast. Doesn't matter what rules are in use, the whole concept requires hands on experience. But when 2E came out there was a D&D Basic set that was aimed at true newcomers, and people playing ADVANCED D&D were expected to already know the system basics.
The only way playing even relates to it is if you mean having a new player play with an experienced one who can explain to their better than the pnp books do. If this isn't what you meant then please elaborate.