3rd May 2004, 2:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 3rd May 2004, 2:55 PM by A Black Falcon.)
It's called d20 because that's what it is. d20. As in, it's a RPG system that uses a 20-sided die, or d20, as the main thing. It's not called "Dungeons & Dragons 3.0" because it isn't JUST D&D, as its use in things like Star Wars shows... :)
But d20 really IS third-edition AD&D (they dropped the "A" for the third edition (1999? 2000?) because, well, there's nothing for it to be "advanced" from anymore...) at its core. Or more accurately it's the game system D&D uses generalized for use by any kind of RPG...
Oh, and as the name is supposed to imply, it's simplified. You probably won't need those d4 (pyramid-shaped!), d6, d8, 10, d12, and d20 dice you also had to have for previous versions of D&D... :) Those six dice that D&D had been using since version one were consolidated into a system that just uses a 20-sided die. D&Dv3 also did many, many other changes to the system (got rid of THAC0, Armor Class now has HIGHER as better instead of lower ( in ad&d 2 and below, an AC 10 is the worst and the best is ... well, really low... I've seen -12... -20 maybe?)
Anyway, explaining AD&D 2.5 (which, since it is the system used in Baldur's Gate, BGII, and Planescape: Torment, is the one I know by far the best) is silly when 3 is here... but I haven't ever actually PLAYED a game that uses D&D 3 or d20, so I can't directly comment. Well, BG2 had subclasses from v3, but that has little to do with d20 I think (instead of just the standard classes (Fighter, Ranger, Mage (and the 8 Mage specialties), Bard, Theif, Paladin, Cleric, and Druid), there are also three subclasses in each of those classes that you can also choose)
d20 is the perfect name. As long as you know what it refers to, that is. :)
"throws". Central feature to D&D. That is, saving throws. Combat works like that too... in 2.5, it was more complex. I don't know how they dealt with the removal of THAC0 (that is, To Hit Armor Class Zero -- a part of the complex formula AD&D 2.5 goes through to see if you hit them... it involves your THAC0 and their Armor Class primarially (as in, if your THAC0 was 15 you needed to roll a 15 on a 20-sided die (THAC0 used them. :) ) to hit someone with an Armor Class of 0. If their AC was 5, say (that's WORSE, mind, than a AC of 0), you then had to just roll a 10. Oh, and it doesn't become impossible to hit -- a 20 is always a hit (Critical Hit - more damage) and a 0 always a miss. I don't know how hitting works in D&D 3 (d20) other than that I heard they completely reworked it... but that's as I know it from those three games. :)
Okay, so D&D bases everything on dice rolls. Saving throws too, of course... those improve with levels. Like much else, in D&D 2.5 lower is better; I don't know 3.0. So? It's a board game! What else could you expect?
I personally think D&D is the best role-playing game system I've ever seen. Well, 2.5 anyway... as I've said I haven't played a 3.0/d20 game except the demo of Neverwinter Nights, which doesn't count, and the few aspects put in BGII, which I don't know what they are excepting the subclasses.
Oh, and it's not total randomness. Quite the opposite. You like science and math! D&D is a HIGHLY mathmatical system...
http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/game/25804.html
'AD&D Rules FAQ' has a nicely in depth overview of AD&D 2 rules. I know d20 is different, by a lot in some cases, but that's a start (and it's something I have read, unlike anything describing d20. :) )
Look near the bottom, where it describes how to figure out if this guy is better off with dual-wielding or with one sword. Sounds simple, right? Two swords are better than one if they do more overall damage.
Oh, D&D before 3.0 gave weapon damage by dice -- ie 2d4 for a Bastard Sword vs. 1d8 for a Longsword? See the difference there? 2d4 is a range of 2 to 8. 1d8 is 1 to 8. Okay, so the Bastard ("Hand-and-a-Half") Sword is better, right? Not necessarially. It's two dice, so you'll get more low scores, but also more high ones... the 1d8 is easier to do 8 damage with than the 2d4.
But that isn't my point, really... what I meant to say was how complex the system is. First, dual-weilding has a THAC0 penalty to the offhand weapon. Second, the offhand weapon can never have more than one attack per round (versus, for a fighter, 2 or 3 for the main hand weapon). And then weapon proficiencies come into play... is that guy more proficient with the one weapon than with the two he'd be dual-weilding?
The point is that they come up with the result that for that guy he does more damage with a weapon that, if you just add up the numbers it says, should do less. See what I mean by complex? D&D has SO much depth...
Yes, it's all based on dice rolls. But so many factors influence those dice rolls that the better character WILL win, on average, overall! It's NOT random luck. Far, FAR from it. Oh, sure, for one hit it's luck, but the better character will over the course of time do far better than the lesser. But, given the nature of D&D, anything's possible... a high-level fighter enemy may be hard but can be taken down by a group of lower-level people if they're lucky. But the better one has a huge advantage.
They just don't spell these things out for you. At least, not in the D&D games I've played... honestly, I'd LIKE a box like Diablo II has that shows how much damage you're actually doing with the current weapon, because very few people can do all that math (yes, looking at the hits you do is one way to tell, but that's a bit deceptive because that is with the enemy AC factored in, not just the raw hit...)... you need to think of things like 'which weapon am I most proficient in', 'second weapon, two-handed weapon/ranged weapon (can't have two swords and any ranged weapons equipped... and as for shields they can only be equipped with slings, not bows or crossbows.)/shield'... and in that factor in the shield AC bonus vs the advantage of having a bow or crossbow or of doing more damage... and then of course armor and items all factor in -- as you get farther all those rings and belts and gloves with magical properties can affect your stats (though those changes at least are reflected on the character stats)... as well as what type of damage -- as you get far in D&D you'll need magical weapons (that brings up weapon damage... how the best swords are only proportionally better than average -- I beat BGII, at level 17, and my main character's weapon was one I got in the first quarter of the game, doing something like 7-11 damage or so... or was it 8-13... but the other enchantments and stuff make it a very powerful weapon for D&D! None of that silly "9999 damage" here. Realism, as another world sees it...), or golems that are immune to everything but Blunt weapons (VERY annoying things!), armors that add a AC bonus vs only Piercing (mostly arrows/bolts), etc... so many factors are involved and all tie together to make in an incredibly complex game system. I love it.
Oh, and I like how D&D's level system works -- how the main stats (Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Charisma, and Wisdom) are set -- levelling up doesn't change them. Same with armor class... oh, items can change those things, and will -- the Girdle of Hill Giant Strength gives you strength 21, or that Full Plate +3 has a very low armor class -- but the numbers are set. Different from most systems where levelling up lets you change stats... oh, your saving throws will improve with levels, and your chance to hit, and you'll get access to better weapons and items... but the difference isn't quite as great as some games. Particularly because after a certain point (in the teens), you reach a point of diminishing returns... after level 8 or 9 actually your characters will start gaining just between 1 and 3 HP a level! You get most of your HP early on... it's keeping the characters within limits of what is "possible", and recognises that at a point you start getting less better at stuff with efforts... no 9999 damage and 99999 HP characters. That's absurd and should be by any set of rules and D&D recognises that. See, D&D is trying to not just be a game but rules that could run an entire gameworld... many gameworlds, actually. The Forgotten Realms aren't exactly the only world of D&D... that's why they are so detailed and complex. And try to be "realistic" (by the rules they set). A much better system than most, definitely.
Of course, that completely ignores MAGIC. I love D&D's magic system! It's the best. Easily. See, NO MAGIC POINTS. Magic points are so annoying and unrealistic... okay, hit points aren't so much better, but D&D deals with that by having it so that 0 to -9 HP is 'knocked out', and you can't be hurt; only if you take a blow where you go below -10 are you permanantly dead. Above that and if you go find a temple, or use high-level magic, you can ressurect them... (Yes, it is annoying when a character gets permanantly killed. However, enemies who can get you below -10 are rare and that doesn't happen very often... in D&D games at least... almost always it's a resurrectable death. Oh, and one more thing... save a lot... :) ) anyway, no magic points is great. Okay, so it leads to unrealistic things like sleeping in dungeons (and hoping you aren't woken up by random enemies) all the time to get spells memorized, but it's better than drowning yourself in mana potions...
... I finished Baldur's Gate II last week after spending two and a half weeks playing it at an average of 5 or 6 hours a day (excepting a couple of days I didn't play it, but it probably averages out to that... 75 hours for the whole game, maybe? I'd played 5 hours a few months back when I first started, but stopped then for some reason...), and it reminded me how much I love that game and its system (AD&D2.5 with some D&D3 tossed in), so I've got to defend it of course.
But d20 really IS third-edition AD&D (they dropped the "A" for the third edition (1999? 2000?) because, well, there's nothing for it to be "advanced" from anymore...) at its core. Or more accurately it's the game system D&D uses generalized for use by any kind of RPG...
Oh, and as the name is supposed to imply, it's simplified. You probably won't need those d4 (pyramid-shaped!), d6, d8, 10, d12, and d20 dice you also had to have for previous versions of D&D... :) Those six dice that D&D had been using since version one were consolidated into a system that just uses a 20-sided die. D&Dv3 also did many, many other changes to the system (got rid of THAC0, Armor Class now has HIGHER as better instead of lower ( in ad&d 2 and below, an AC 10 is the worst and the best is ... well, really low... I've seen -12... -20 maybe?)
Anyway, explaining AD&D 2.5 (which, since it is the system used in Baldur's Gate, BGII, and Planescape: Torment, is the one I know by far the best) is silly when 3 is here... but I haven't ever actually PLAYED a game that uses D&D 3 or d20, so I can't directly comment. Well, BG2 had subclasses from v3, but that has little to do with d20 I think (instead of just the standard classes (Fighter, Ranger, Mage (and the 8 Mage specialties), Bard, Theif, Paladin, Cleric, and Druid), there are also three subclasses in each of those classes that you can also choose)
d20 is the perfect name. As long as you know what it refers to, that is. :)
"throws". Central feature to D&D. That is, saving throws. Combat works like that too... in 2.5, it was more complex. I don't know how they dealt with the removal of THAC0 (that is, To Hit Armor Class Zero -- a part of the complex formula AD&D 2.5 goes through to see if you hit them... it involves your THAC0 and their Armor Class primarially (as in, if your THAC0 was 15 you needed to roll a 15 on a 20-sided die (THAC0 used them. :) ) to hit someone with an Armor Class of 0. If their AC was 5, say (that's WORSE, mind, than a AC of 0), you then had to just roll a 10. Oh, and it doesn't become impossible to hit -- a 20 is always a hit (Critical Hit - more damage) and a 0 always a miss. I don't know how hitting works in D&D 3 (d20) other than that I heard they completely reworked it... but that's as I know it from those three games. :)
Okay, so D&D bases everything on dice rolls. Saving throws too, of course... those improve with levels. Like much else, in D&D 2.5 lower is better; I don't know 3.0. So? It's a board game! What else could you expect?
I personally think D&D is the best role-playing game system I've ever seen. Well, 2.5 anyway... as I've said I haven't played a 3.0/d20 game except the demo of Neverwinter Nights, which doesn't count, and the few aspects put in BGII, which I don't know what they are excepting the subclasses.
Oh, and it's not total randomness. Quite the opposite. You like science and math! D&D is a HIGHLY mathmatical system...
http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/game/25804.html
'AD&D Rules FAQ' has a nicely in depth overview of AD&D 2 rules. I know d20 is different, by a lot in some cases, but that's a start (and it's something I have read, unlike anything describing d20. :) )
Look near the bottom, where it describes how to figure out if this guy is better off with dual-wielding or with one sword. Sounds simple, right? Two swords are better than one if they do more overall damage.
Oh, D&D before 3.0 gave weapon damage by dice -- ie 2d4 for a Bastard Sword vs. 1d8 for a Longsword? See the difference there? 2d4 is a range of 2 to 8. 1d8 is 1 to 8. Okay, so the Bastard ("Hand-and-a-Half") Sword is better, right? Not necessarially. It's two dice, so you'll get more low scores, but also more high ones... the 1d8 is easier to do 8 damage with than the 2d4.
But that isn't my point, really... what I meant to say was how complex the system is. First, dual-weilding has a THAC0 penalty to the offhand weapon. Second, the offhand weapon can never have more than one attack per round (versus, for a fighter, 2 or 3 for the main hand weapon). And then weapon proficiencies come into play... is that guy more proficient with the one weapon than with the two he'd be dual-weilding?
The point is that they come up with the result that for that guy he does more damage with a weapon that, if you just add up the numbers it says, should do less. See what I mean by complex? D&D has SO much depth...
Yes, it's all based on dice rolls. But so many factors influence those dice rolls that the better character WILL win, on average, overall! It's NOT random luck. Far, FAR from it. Oh, sure, for one hit it's luck, but the better character will over the course of time do far better than the lesser. But, given the nature of D&D, anything's possible... a high-level fighter enemy may be hard but can be taken down by a group of lower-level people if they're lucky. But the better one has a huge advantage.
They just don't spell these things out for you. At least, not in the D&D games I've played... honestly, I'd LIKE a box like Diablo II has that shows how much damage you're actually doing with the current weapon, because very few people can do all that math (yes, looking at the hits you do is one way to tell, but that's a bit deceptive because that is with the enemy AC factored in, not just the raw hit...)... you need to think of things like 'which weapon am I most proficient in', 'second weapon, two-handed weapon/ranged weapon (can't have two swords and any ranged weapons equipped... and as for shields they can only be equipped with slings, not bows or crossbows.)/shield'... and in that factor in the shield AC bonus vs the advantage of having a bow or crossbow or of doing more damage... and then of course armor and items all factor in -- as you get farther all those rings and belts and gloves with magical properties can affect your stats (though those changes at least are reflected on the character stats)... as well as what type of damage -- as you get far in D&D you'll need magical weapons (that brings up weapon damage... how the best swords are only proportionally better than average -- I beat BGII, at level 17, and my main character's weapon was one I got in the first quarter of the game, doing something like 7-11 damage or so... or was it 8-13... but the other enchantments and stuff make it a very powerful weapon for D&D! None of that silly "9999 damage" here. Realism, as another world sees it...), or golems that are immune to everything but Blunt weapons (VERY annoying things!), armors that add a AC bonus vs only Piercing (mostly arrows/bolts), etc... so many factors are involved and all tie together to make in an incredibly complex game system. I love it.
Oh, and I like how D&D's level system works -- how the main stats (Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Charisma, and Wisdom) are set -- levelling up doesn't change them. Same with armor class... oh, items can change those things, and will -- the Girdle of Hill Giant Strength gives you strength 21, or that Full Plate +3 has a very low armor class -- but the numbers are set. Different from most systems where levelling up lets you change stats... oh, your saving throws will improve with levels, and your chance to hit, and you'll get access to better weapons and items... but the difference isn't quite as great as some games. Particularly because after a certain point (in the teens), you reach a point of diminishing returns... after level 8 or 9 actually your characters will start gaining just between 1 and 3 HP a level! You get most of your HP early on... it's keeping the characters within limits of what is "possible", and recognises that at a point you start getting less better at stuff with efforts... no 9999 damage and 99999 HP characters. That's absurd and should be by any set of rules and D&D recognises that. See, D&D is trying to not just be a game but rules that could run an entire gameworld... many gameworlds, actually. The Forgotten Realms aren't exactly the only world of D&D... that's why they are so detailed and complex. And try to be "realistic" (by the rules they set). A much better system than most, definitely.
Of course, that completely ignores MAGIC. I love D&D's magic system! It's the best. Easily. See, NO MAGIC POINTS. Magic points are so annoying and unrealistic... okay, hit points aren't so much better, but D&D deals with that by having it so that 0 to -9 HP is 'knocked out', and you can't be hurt; only if you take a blow where you go below -10 are you permanantly dead. Above that and if you go find a temple, or use high-level magic, you can ressurect them... (Yes, it is annoying when a character gets permanantly killed. However, enemies who can get you below -10 are rare and that doesn't happen very often... in D&D games at least... almost always it's a resurrectable death. Oh, and one more thing... save a lot... :) ) anyway, no magic points is great. Okay, so it leads to unrealistic things like sleeping in dungeons (and hoping you aren't woken up by random enemies) all the time to get spells memorized, but it's better than drowning yourself in mana potions...
... I finished Baldur's Gate II last week after spending two and a half weeks playing it at an average of 5 or 6 hours a day (excepting a couple of days I didn't play it, but it probably averages out to that... 75 hours for the whole game, maybe? I'd played 5 hours a few months back when I first started, but stopped then for some reason...), and it reminded me how much I love that game and its system (AD&D2.5 with some D&D3 tossed in), so I've got to defend it of course.