#3E-Proficiency

[thydungeongal]

D&D 3e is an interesting edition in the context of D&D's greater history because it very much set D&D on its current course: it was the first edition of D&D to utilize the d20 system (where most actions are resolved via the roll of a d20 + modifiers trying to beat target numbers of ever-increasing difficulty) and it was the first edition of the game under Wizards of the Coast, and in many ways D&D 5e is specifically a throwback to D&D 3e. Sort of.

You see, the thing that sets D&D 3e apart from the other sundry versions of D&D, including its more similar than people are willing to acknowledge Wizards of the Coast sisters 4e and 5e, is that it's a rather complex game. This is something it has a reputation for, and it stands out as the most complex edition of D&D even when set against its other complicated siblings. Most discussions of said complexity, however, focus mostly on characters, which is understandable, because characters are the main way in which players will end up interacting with the game. And on a purely character-based level the game already is more complex than any other edition of D&D: players need to worry about feats (which are more plentiful than in 5e and require keeping track of more variables than in 4e), class features (some of which can be so complex as to mandate keeping track of a whole other character), spells, skills (which need to be bought in ranks: none of that "skilled" or "proficient" binary, skills are increased one point at a time), and whatever else. But there's more.

And that stuff is why I say that 5e is only "sort of" a successor to D&D 3e. It is a successor to D&D 3e in the sense that D&D 3e is the edition of the game it's most structurally similar to: characters consist of more or less the same parts as they did in D&D 3e, but there's often more gradation and fewer discrete choices between those parts. But when it comes to the actual philosophy of gameplay, D&D 5e is a lot more similar to 4e than most people are willing to admit.

Which is weird, because on a superficial level D&D 5e is a rejection of many things that informed D&D 4e's design. D&D 5e characters don't have any of the same "stuff" that D&D 4e characters have, so they must be different, right? Well, there's that focus on characters again. Because D&D 3e's design is about much more than just the way characters are built. D&D 3e is the closest thing that D&D has ever had to a physics engine (it's a really bad physics engine that doesn't really simulate anything beyond D&D 3e, but it is there). It's a game where plausibly every interaction in the fiction of the game could be run through the game's system to get a consistent result. D&D 3e is a game that gives you the DC of a Balance check to run parallel to the peak of a roof on an angled roof. It's DC 15.

This type of maximalist game design has really only been present in D&D twice: first in the Dungeon Master's Guide for the first edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, which was the greatest example of Gary Gygax off his shits ever produced, and then again in D&D 3e. And 3e took it to unprecedented levels, because even though the AD&D 1e DMG was full of weirdly specific rules it never got to the same level as 3e. And even though D&D 5e is superficially taking after 3e (mostly in a "look we made the 4e go away so the game is good again right?" type of way) it is at the end of the day a completely different type of game.

Anyway D&D 4e and 5e both run on 3e's code but are both doing their own things on it, and D&D 3e kinda sucks but as a thing that exists it kind of represents this strange dream of a game that wasn't quite there. A hard systemic tabletop dungeon crawler with all the Stuff you know from Dungeons & Dragons but running on a sleeker code. There is a reason why D&D 4e abandoned 3e's maximalist design and why 5e didn't adopt it again beyond superficial similarities: D&D 3e had also, by design, turned D&D into a game of fair combat encounters, and while there were some callbacks to AD&D 1e's laissez faire design (where a level 1 party could run into instant death killer bees: 3e put back those encounter tables but heavily curated the capabilities of low level monsters to make sure that one-shotting player characters wouldn't be so commonplace), D&D was now forevermore a different type of game. A game where the goal was for characters to be able to take a certain number of combat encounters each day and expect to survive. And hey, of all of WotC's three editions of D&D, at least D&D 4e sort of accomplished that goal!

But yeah, D&D 3e was designed as a systemic game with multiple interlocking parts that was actually kind of stupid as a system but one could still extract varying quantities of fun out of it through system mastery, but because a lot of those interlocking parts were kind of unnecessary for the sake of what most people wanted out of the game successive editions wouldn't follow that design. But it makes one think: what would a new edition of D&D that had maintained that desire for systemic design and simply polished it up and made it actually not bad have looked like? Probably not like Pathfinder 1e, sorry Pathfinder fans but Pathfinder isn't exactly an evolution of D&D 3e's design philosophy as much as it is simply doing all the same stuff and fudging some numbers.

[vixensdungeon]

Some notable 5e house rules from my dusty old 5e campaign, which I'm totally gonna keep running someday.

Slow Natural Healing. Characters don’t regain hit points at the end of a long rest. Instead, a character can spend Hit Dice to heal at the end of a long rest, just as with a short rest. (DMG variant rule.)

Tweaks: I rule that this benefits from Song of Rest. I add that you also regain HP equal to your level + CON modifier (minimum 1) whether or not you spend any hit dice. This does not benefit from Song of Rest.

Feedback: Some players didn't like this, but all admitted it was probably good for balancing resource management and adding some consequence to injury.

Minor Feats. At 1st level, and again at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th level, you may choose a minor feat. A minor feat is any feat that grants a +1 increase to an ability score; however, if taken in this way, you do not receive the ability score increase. If you choose to take the full version of a minor feat you already have instead of an Ability Score Improvement at a later time, you can instantly take a new minor feat as well. Like proficiency bonus, this is tied to character level.

Feedback: Everyone loves this. No downsides.

Resurrection. Resurrection is not necessarily survived, as it is a difficult exertion on the body. I use a 2e table for % chance to survive, based on the target’s Constitution, but nearby characters may raise the chance by 3%, once each. This is done by assisting in some way or simply focusing on a positive memory of the target; use your imagination.

Feedback: Nobody has failed yet (this being 5e, death has been rare), but this system has added a lot of tension to resurrection scenes. Players have enjoyed going around and saying a few words.

Split-classing and dual-classing. Like a maniac, I put AD&D style multiclassing (renamed to distinguish it from 3e/5e multiclassing) and dual-classing back in it.

Feedback: Super unbalanced. Everyone loves it.

I dabbled with some changes to the skill system, attack bonus progression, and saving throws (which are by far the worst things in 5e progression), but sadly never fully implemented any of them. Couldn't figure out anything I really liked.

Planning on bringing back Vancian casting and making all spells full-round actions if I ever run 5e again.

I was going to skip the variant rule from the DMG because that's not really a house rule and go one by one on the rest, but I think these all tie up into a neat whole for the most part.

Rank: D, I think you might just be happier playing AD&D, maybe with some tweaks from newer editions added in

[landoflustfulladies]

gensokyohyakkiyako

And what's wrong with Samurai? Never actually played 3e, just 4 and 5

So this one isn't as absolutely dogshit as Truenamer, since it's less "completely unusable" as it is "there's a way to do this better."

I compared it to just a worse fighter. What I mean by that is many of its class features are a narrow version of feats a fighter can take at the time the fighter would be able to get those feats. Daisho Proficiency is just Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword, which is double funny that it gets this as a feature separate from its base proficiencies, especially cause that's the only feature it gets at level one. Oh, and speaking of base proficiency, same as fighter but no shields. Two Swords as One is just two weapon fighting that only works with specific weapons (though you do get to ignore the dex requirement two weapon fighting normally has). Iaijutsu is just the quickdraw feat except only with specific weapons, and there's no requirement to ignore. Improved Initiative is just the improved initiative feat.

That leaves us with Kiai Smite and Staredown. Kiai Smite is like Smite Evil but a little to the left. Starts at 3rd level, once per day you can add your charisma to an attack and damage roll, with another use every four levels or so (max 4 times a day). Compared to Paladin's Smite Evil, which only works on evil targets but adds you paladin level to damage instead of charisma (still adds charisma to hit), so damage scales better on paladin but narrower use case.

Staredown is their only truly unique feature, though it is pretty dope. You get an increasing ability to intimidate enemies, to the point that at 20th level folks need to make a saving throw not to panic when you draw your sword. This is pretty nice, I'll admit.

Skill points are the same as fighter, saves are the same as fighter, hit dice are the same as fighter. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if a fighter could find a way to get Smite. If you got rid of Staredown this would just be a fighter, a fighter can do all of this, except that the fighter can use his two weapon fighting with weapons other than a bastard sword and short sword, and can quickdraw things other than those as well. Outside of its intimidate feature, Samurai is genuinely just a slightly worse fighter, with none of their flexibility. If you wanna play a samurai who uses one sword instead of two, play either a Fighter, a Paladin, or a Knight, but don't play a Samurai.

[stupidsexynonbinaryperson]

I said in a post earlier that duskblade is the bees knees. The question is, of course, why? "Faux-Grognard", you may be asking "how is this different to any other gish, and why is it better than pathfinder's magus, which is literally the same class?". You might also be asking what a gish is. For the uninitiated into the cult of feeling special, a gish is just any character or class that hits stuff and casts spells. Generally arcane spells, so that we can exclude clerics so they can remain healbots forever and paladins because they suck. For the 5e audience, eldritch knight and bladesinger are both attempts to make a gish, one of which succeeds far better than the other. Oh and I guess swords bard, but that isn't particularly relevant to this discussion.

Characters that fight and wield magic are sort of a staple of dnd. Back in B/X, we had elves. Not as good as casting as a cleric, although they did get up to 5th level spells, and got their spellcasting before them, but were limited in other ways (level maximums, ability score requirements, xp required to level up).

The complete elf handbook for AD&D 2e is where, I believe, we get the idea of the bladesinger from, an elf capable of fighting and casting with a musical theme.

3e/3.5 comes along, and there is an explosion of caster options. Half-casters, full casters, gishes, arcane casters, divine casters, not-a-casters. Magic was the thing to do. Bladesinger becomes a prestige class, and there is also the spellsword prestige class.

All of these suck compared to duskblade.

I know nothing of 4e, so I'm skipping it. As any person interested in previous editions should. You want to make things boring in the name of balance? Go play pf2e, it's probably better and goblins don't have 29 hp.

On release, 5e lacks a gish class which isn't a subclass. That's find, so did every edition except B/X. It also lacked an arcane half caster. Sure there was warlock, but that's not a half caster really, and they changed it from being an intelligence class to a charisma class because a bunch of people got their knickers a twist and didn't read the new flavour, and complained about it. And now everyone, wrongly, believes that all you need to be a lawyer is to be persuasive.

So, rather than talk about what makes duskblade so cool and epic, let's first talk about people's regrettable introduction to the concept of gishes. In all fairness, eldritch fighter is pretty good. Actually it is the most gish of the gish options in 5e. Way to go! Bladesinger, however, is a stain. Now, you may argue that like how eldritch knight is a bit more fighting but not as magic, bladesinger is more magic than it is fighty. But that is kind of an issue. See, when it comes down to it, gishes aren't good casters. Primary casting isn't their role, gishes do damage. Bladesinger, played optimally, has no reason to go to the frontline. And that sucks. All of its features are defence orientated, to make up for the lack of defence options on a wizard. But a lack of defence is part of the balance of the class, always has been and always should be. If you want better defence, you should be forced to give something up. But bladesinger allows you to bypass that. This just incentivises playing a wizard with an AC higher than a martials, rather than playing a character in the front line.

Now, back to duskblade. Duskblade is the gish to end all other gish options. Full base attack bonus, same as fighter and other martial classes, as expected. The rare intelligence based spontaneous casting, which is kind of expected on a class not meant to be a primary caster. It retains the flavour of being made by elves- many gish based options are usually tied to them. A d8 hit die which isn't great but not terrible. Light and medium armour proficiency. You can't actually wear medium armour until later levels due to arcane failure chance, but regardless.

Duskblade, however, does everything right. It's key ability, the class gimmick, is being able to channel melee spells through a weapon of your choice, and having a shit ton of spell slots to do it with.

I do mean a shit ton of spell slots, by the way.

You do also get the ability to ignore arcane spell failure chance, which is pretty standard for gish classes and prestige classes in 3.5. The rest of the abilities aren't so great, but duskblade is an amazing chassis to make a gish build. It does lack splatbook support, so its spell list is fairly limited, but it has some great options. Did you know that dimension hop is a melee spell, and doesn't require consent from the person effected to work?

Most of duskblade's spell list are offensive, damage dealing spells. A lot of them are melee spells. But it also gives a good amount of non-offensive combat options, to help you get into position, position others, or hit more reliably (true strike gives a +20 insight bonus to your next attack).

Duskblade also has full caster level, which means your spells remain viable throughout the campaign. So while they may be of a lower level, they are as effective as a wizard casting a spell of the same level. A lot of gish options don't do this.

PF1e gave magus, the system's legally distinct duskblade, access to 6th level spell slots, but with less spell slots overall. That is, I suppose, fine. Just not to my tastes.

Anyway, the only reason why they made artificer is because eberron is popular. Duskblade would have made a much better arcane half caster for 5e, and there are a bunch of options for subclasses to choose from. A few, from the top of my head, is a general spellsword subclass, for the basic "standard" subclass choice. Jade Phoenix Mage for focusing on more damage. And yoink bladesinger from wizard and put it pretty much as is, with some minor adjustments, on duskblade. More defensive orientated, but not egregious as you have given up access to 9th level spells and such.

You should probably reduce the amount of spell slots given, though.

[thehomelybrewster]

Ability Scores in 5e & Other RPGs

This little rant is inspired by a post by a blog named The Angry GM, titled "Your Ability Scores Suck" as well as a post titled "8 Abilities - 6, 3, or 4 Ability scores?" by DIY & dragons, because those two articles and my past few months of looking at various TTPRGs have led me to some insights into my own philosophy in how I like TTRPGs and how I feel about 5e's Ability Scores.

So let's look at how a couple of RPGs handle ability scores or their equivalents. Namely I'll look at D&D 5e, Pathfinder 2e, The Dark Eye (4th Edition Revised), CAIRN, and Pokémon. Yes, Pokémon is relevant to this. And it'll actually be the second game we'll discuss, but the first obviously has to be...

D&D 5th Edition

D&D famously has six ability scores: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. In most situations the exact ability score no longer is that important, however, since from 3e onwards d20-based checks have become the near-universal input you play D&D with. This means that instead the ability score modifier is key, which ranges from -4 to +5 for most player characters.

Now while these six scores might seem pretty equal, players have quickly figured out that certain ability scores are more desirable than others, unless you play specific classes.

Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom are for example the three most common saving throws. 109 out of the 361 spells in the Player's Handbook force a saving throw using one of these three ability scores, while Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma only have 24 spells. Thankfully every D&D class gives proficiency with two saving throws, one of the three major ones, and one of the lesser ones (and certain subclasses as well as the monk get more saving throw proficiencies, but that's besides the point).

Additionally, when it comes to skills, and thus out-of-combat usefulness, Strength only has one skill tied to it by default (Athletics), while Constitution has none. Charisma has four skills to its name, Dexterity three, and both Intelligence and Wisdom have five.

Now the DIY & dragons article mentions that there are effectively three axes you have to cover with your ability scores: physical vs mental, force vs grace, and attack vs defense. That leads to eight abilities total. In 5e, using what we know about the game, we can make some great deductions.

For one, Strength is almost exclusively concerned with physical force attack, while Constitution nearly exclusively covers physical force defense. Dexterity meanwhile fully covers physical grace attack, as well as physical grace defense, since it affects AC and is used for Stealth, as well covering evasion-type saving throws. Dexterity is incredibly powerful in 5e, arguably the most powerful ability score.

On the mental stat side, the lines are less clear. All three ability scores can be used for offence, though Intelligence, being the casting ability score of only wizards and the generally utility-based artificers is the least offensive of the three. Still, its association with wizards means it probably is best associated with force, because fireball. Charisma easily can be sorted into grace and is mostly offensive, and Wisdom straddles the line between force and grace, but is also both clearly offensive and defensive.

As you can see, Intelligence & Wisdom & Charisma are rather ill-defined, a point also made by the The Angry GM article, but mechanically Wisdom is universally useful, while Charisma is either super important (because you're playing either a Charisma caster or a face-type non-caster, such as a rogue), or can easily be sidelined/dumped. In fact a lot of tables seem to disregard or minimize Charisma when it comes to roleplay, my tables have definitely done that. Mostly because you don't want to have players not participating in roleplay encounters because they don't have at least a +2 in Charisma and several skill proficiencies in that area.

Speaking of proficiencies, for skills the maximum you can add is +6 or +12 if you have expertise, while with saving throws the maximum proficiency bonus is +6, so with saving throws in particular, a +5 for a saving throw from that relevant abilty score is a massive defensive boon, though it's often less relevant for skill checks.

This knowledge, as well as the known issues with Intelligence-based skill checks often being seen as gate-keeping plot relevant information, leads to the realization that Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma are the three most frequent "dump stats", with the latter two in particular often having implications in out-of-combat situations, while Strength is a "safe" choice for full spellcasters.

Now let's think about how other games handle this... Let's begin, as I threatened in the beginning, with...

Pokémon

Pokémon famously uses six so-called base stats for its collectible creatures: HP, Attack, Defense, Special Attack, Special Defense, and Speed. Using the system described by DIY & dragons, Attack and Defense clearly map onto the physical, and Sp. Attack and Sp. Defense clearly onto the mental. There is no distinction made between grace and force. HP is a universally defensive stat, and Speed is both offensive and defensive.

Naturally, Pokémon doesn't involve dice rolls. These stats are used for formulas and comparisons. But you can already see that Pokémon, at least since Special got split into Sp. Attack and Sp. Defense starting in Gold & Silver, has a clear division of these stats, with it being clear what they do.

Now due to the mechanics and the goals of Pokémon, an individual character (read: the actual Pokémon) doesn't need to have balanced stats. Largely also because these stats only affect combat, the main mechanic of these games. Any out-of-combat activity present in Pokémon games in fact uses distinct stats, completely distinct from the base stats of the Pokémon. These can then be discarded/put into the background when that out-of-combat activity, such as Pokémon Contests, is removed from subsequent releases.

Now let's look at a D&D-related game that has a different approach to ability scores, because it provides a stepping stone to look at different RPGs...

Pathfinder 2nd Edition (Pre-2023 Revision)

Pathfinder, being a game spun out off the 3rd Edition of D&D, also uses the six ability scores that D&D uses: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.

Just like with 5e, Pathfinder associates certain skills with certain ability scores, and just like 5e, Strength and Constitution are connected to only one and no skills respectively.

Still, that's just part of the bigger picture. Pathfinder 2e, just like D&D 3e, doesn't use ability scores as saving throws. Rather it uses three distinct saving throws that are tied to ability scores. Those saving throws are Fortitude (Constitution), Reflex (Dexterity), and Will (Wisdom). These are, for the keen-eyed, the same ability scores that are the primary saving throws in 5e. This means that defenses are covered exclusively by these three ability scores, and of these Constitution remains purely defensive, while Dexterity and Wisdom also have offensive capabilities. Still, the offensive power of Dexterity is lowered because in general it cannot be used to increase your weapon damage, contrary to how 5e does it.

It should also be noted that both when it comes to skills and saving throws, the calculations for rolls are very different than in 5e! If you are proficient with a skill or saving throw, you add both a bonus equal to your degree of proficiency (from +2 to +8), as well as your character's level, to the roll, in addition to your ability score modifier. This leads to massive bonuses, especially since magical effects can be added to that, too. Of course Pathfinder uses a sliding scale to determine difficulty classes and has a degrees of success system, but with that knowledge, the -4 to +5 you add to your rolls will matter less than 5e's ability score modifiers do. In general, as long as the modifier is at least a +1, it's fine.

This has actually led to Wisdom being considered a dump stat for many Pathfinder players, and that especially applies when playing with one alternate rule that I want to highlight.

In the Gamemastery Guide, the Alternative Scores variant rule splits Dexterity into Dexterity and Agility, merges Strength and Constitution, and makes Charisma rather than Wisdom the relevant ability for Will saving throws. That variant rule acknowledges the power of Dexterity and the relative weaknesses of Strength and Constitution, but somehow strengthens Charisma further. I don't have any numbers or insight on how popular this alternate rule is, but given what I know about Pathfinder 2e character optimizers, I wouldn't adopt the change to Will saves if I were to run this variant rule myself.

Still, the knowledge of these three saving throws puts us nicely into the realm of indie RPGs, which have really run with this. So let's look at one as an example.

Cairn

This lovely little game written by Yochai Gal has been a well-supported indie darling and is currently in a playtest for a 2nd edition.

Cairn uses three ability scores: Strength, Dexterity, and Willpower. It also uses a d20 roll under system, contrary to 5e and Pathfinder. This means that you aim to roll below your ability score, rather than adding a number to a d20 roll and seeing if you can meet the difficulty class threshold.

They are also, in combat, mostly defensive. Strength in combat mostly concerns surviving blows. Dexterity is used to determine if you move before the enemies and for escaping combat. Both Strength and Dexterity can be used for saving throws against certain spells. In combat Willpower is necessary to cast spells without suffering penalties.

Offensively none of the three ability scores are that important. They don't add to damage, they aren't important for making attacks, or anything of the sorts. Spellcasting outside of dangerous situations usually doesn't involve die rolls either.

This makes the three ability scores very balanced, but it also gives them comparatively little meaning. They are your protection from harm. Including out of combat. But Cairn doesn't know skill checks whose failure state isn't "nothing happens". If player characters have no pressure, they succeed. Especially if they have useful equipment for it.

Using the DIY & dragons blog post as reference, Strength only represents physical force defense, Dexterity only represents physical grace defense, and Willpower represents mental grace and force defense.

So, let's look at a different roll-under system, one that might provide additional inspiration for game designers...

The Dark Eye (4th Edition, revised)

The German TTRPG The Dark Eye (Das Schwarze Auge) is old, almost as old as D&D, and in its design its often as an antithesis for D&D. It's incredibly math-y, has a generally less heroic (but also categorically "good") playstyle, and is a class-less (kinda), level-less system. To ensure I know what I'm talking about, I'll focus on the 4th edition, which has by now been superceded by its own 5th edition, because that's the one edition of it I actually played.

DSA (its German acronym which I will use for brevity's sake) uses eight attribute (!) scores:

Courage, Cleverness, Intuition, Charisma, Dexterity, Agility, Constitution, and Strength.

Each of these eight attribute scores affects the character directly. Heroes have base values (melee attack, ranged attack, parry, initiative) that are calculated by adding together set combinations of attribute scores and dividing the sum, most often by 5, to determine those base values. For brevity's sake, let's look at two of these base values: attack and parry. Attack is calculated with Courage + Agility + Strength, while parry is calculated using Intuition + Dexterity + Strength. Both use two "physical" attributes and one "mental" attribute.

Similar rules also apply to calculating how much your character can withstand, be it through their general vitality (which is equivalent to hit points), their endurance (mostly used as a resource for athletic feats), and their wound limit, all of which can be used to defeat characters. Even the amount of astral points, the spellcasting resource, is calculated using your attribute scores. Every attribute is used at least once when calculating these eight values, with only Cleverness, Charisma, and Dexterity being used only for one of these eight fundamental character traits, with Charisma being the least important, because it is only used to calculate astral energy points, which are irrelevant for characters that don't know spells.

Furthermore skill checks in DSA are made by rolling three attribute checks in a row and then using skill points to modify the results if necessary. Skills use either three distinct attribute scores (e.g. Cooking, which requires Cleverness & Intuition & Dexterity), or two attribute scores (with one being used twice, e.g. Perception requires one Cleverness check and two Intuition checks). Simple attribute checks where you use only one attribute are rare, with heavy lifting often being the key example for it. There are also loads of skills in DSA, with the character sheet per default having twenty four skills, with more being common on most characters.

As you can hopefully see, all eight ability scores are used very often and impact your character greatly. They are furthermore more clearly delineated than the D&D standard, however they also don't map onto the DIY & dragons parameters for ability scores, despite having eight of them!

Conclusion

What can we learn from this? Well, honestly, draw your own conclusions. The six ability scores of D&D and Pathfinder are not the "be-all and end-all", that's for sure. You really need to think about what your game wants to do.

Is it just combat-focused? Then all ability scores should matter in combat and to (roughly) the same degree!

Does your game consist of multiple gameplay elements? If yes, then they should all be accessible and fun for players even if their base stats are "bad" in one aspect, while still allowing for specialization of player characters.

Generally, there is no "one size fits all" solution, and this rant hasn't even gone into ambiguity between different terms, the implications of specific terms and associated thresholds, or the exact history of ability scores in D&D before 3rd Edition!

Anyway, I hope this was legible, fun and informative.

[earlgraytay]

Wait do tieflings still have +2 Cha and +1 Int? I thought WotC got rid of ability score modifiers for different "races"/ancestries

Unfortunately, both things are correct.

... Wizards has been churning out these books that contain a bunch of errata-fixes, Alternate Ways To Play, and stuff like that-- kinda like the 3e Unearthed Arcana book, except that there's so. many. more. of. them. Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Tasha's Cauldron Of Everything, and so on and so on.

And one of the things they've really been pushing with these books is a model of the game where different species don't have innate ability score increases (or cultural weapon proficiencies/skill proficiencies, or any sort of proclivity for a particular class, or... you get the idea). They've really taken the backlash about how D&D Is Racist to heart and have given people who don't want to play a game like that the tools they need to do so.

....Except that a) the shit in the Everything books only overwrites what's in the Player's Handbook if your DM says so, and b) it's a band-aid solution at best and shoddy game design at worst.

Because, like... look... yes, the model of the world that D&D is based on is fucked up; the idea that people can be divided into separate "races" that each have their own culture and are fundamentally good at different things is Bad irl and is Bad in D&D.

But also, character creation in a TTRPG is about making interesting choices. Whether it's like, Gamma World 4e where the "interesting choices" are "roll on a table and make sense of the abomination you've created", or a PBTA game where your skin mostly determines what kind of story you want to tell, or D&D where you sit down and crunch a bunch of numbers. You're making choices that give you certain abilities and lock you out of others.

In D&D, the two fundamental choices that you make at the start of every game are "species" and "class". Are you an elven wizard, a halfling rogue, a human fighter, a dwarven cleric? These choices are supposed to shape how your character interacts with the world on both a mechanical and characterization level.

Taking one of those choices and making it, essentially, "how fast do you want to move and do you want a spell-like ability or a feat"... I feel like that's a bad idea from a game design perspective, even if it's the correct idea from a Not Having A Fucked Up Worldview perspective. Because, like, it turns a choice that's supposed to be incredibly meaningful for the first few levels into "eh, whatever your DM feels is Goodthink".

The way I would honestly handle it is to make backgrounds more mechanically important than they are in 5e right now and offload most of what used to be ~racial traits~ into backgrounds. Keep "what species are you" as an actually interesting choice, but move most of the crunch into a place where you could be a human raised by dwarves if you want.

[talenlee]

4e: Having A (Weapon) Type

Surely I’ve written about this already.

The 4e weapon system is one of its strongest points and it’s strength is directly linked to the ongoing attempt to make ‘person who uses a weapon’ as someone who can do cool or good things and not just being there to hold the wizard’s bags. The fundamental design of melee weapon-wielding characters’ powers is that the powers tend towards a generic set of effects, doing damage, pushing people around, pulling them, repositioning you – all that kinda jazz. But then, through feats, the powers that checked for weapons would be able to check the weapon you were using and add on special effects.

What this meant is that the weapon system of 4e is one of the most interesting I’ve seen in D&D where weapon choice is not a simple matter of mathematical superiorities. Back in 3e and 2e D&D there were just weapons that were the best in show. 2e went a step further than 3e did by making it so that some classes were simply not allowed to use the best weapons and this was a point of balance for them, which is how you know that the 2e wizard was so weak, since it only got to use the longsword when it was a bladesinger.

That’s a joke, and the only people who are going to get it are older than me.

4e weapons had basically four things that could be used to distinguish one weapon from any another:

A weapon category. All the hammers were listed as hammers. All the axes were axes. All the spears are spears. This sounds simple, but don’t worry about it for now.

A proficiency bonus. This represents the bonus you get to attacks made with this weapon if you’re trained in how to use it. This makes weapons beneficial to use if you’re trained in them and also represents the level of effect you can get out of being an expert in them.

Damage dice! This represents the scale of damage the weapon can do – multiple smaller dice being more even and capable of doing reliable damage, and single larger dice having more variance between high and low numbers.

Keywords. These are the key spice to this whole soupy mess, which means that suddenly you have a lot of standardised ways to make weapon groups relate to one another.

The keywords that a weapon can have isn’t even that long:

Brutal (reroll low numbers, sick as hell, used by the coolest and hottest heroes)

Defensive (gives you a defense bonus, good for people with shield envy)

Heavy Thrown (a huckable item you can use with strength)

High Crit (when you crit, you really crit)

Light Thrown (a huckable item you can use with dexterity)

Load Free (something to do with crossbows, who cares)

Load Minor (oh no more crossbow stuff)

Off-hand (ranger stuff)

Small (it’s small)

Stout (it’s not small)

Versatile (it can be small)

Every one of these factors can be fine tuned and there are trends within a category. For example, most light blades, in the vein of swords (you know, sword, smaller sword, bigger sword, much bigger sword, much smaller sword) tend to have no keywords that change their damage output, and instead their keywords relate to being usable and flexible. To compensate for this, they have the highest proficiency bonus (typically) for their damage dice, and swing at +3.

But that’s swords, that’s the cisgender white boy who listens to podcasts of the weapon sets. Sure, that’s the one that somehow mathematically winds up on top but that’s just because of fundamental biases from the people who designed the system. And in the context of the weapon system of 4e D&D, there are things you want to be able to do that aren’t necessarily damage (and hush up, CharOp board veterans since there are actually better things than dead and shaving fractions of turns only matters when dealing with spherical goblins in a vacuum).

Polearms and spears tend to be reach based! Axes and hammers tend to be heavy! Flails are chainy and daggers are stabby! But for most part, when you pick up one of these items, most of these traits aren’t immediately evident. Instead, you can invest in feats for proficiency with fancy weapons, or feats that support the way those weapons work. Every single weapon expertise feat, representing skill with that weapon, brings with it a special benefit that changes how those weapons relate to the powers that use weapons.

What this means is that when you play a character who uses weapons, what weapon you choose to use can be a part of how you relate to your powers. If your feats are in demand for something else, you can look at the support your weapon gives a small number of things. Just as an example, one of the most poached parts of the game in Character Optimisation is what I summarise as ‘Polearm Malarkey,’ which when fully developed, lets a defender of some variety interrupt an enemy attack, even against themselves sometimes, and push an enemy mid-attack a square away, then knock them prone – which can be their whole turn, since they were already in the middle of an attack. That’s really powerful but it needs a lot of feats. On the other hand, if you like being able to knock people prone and deprive them of actions and only have one feat or two to invest in it, you could try and wield a flail instead, and use Flail Expertise, then choose your powers in a way that let you impose slides on people. All that malarkey the defender with a fully mature polearm build can do, a level 1 Avenger or Swordmage can do with Flail Expertise…

But there’s not a lot more the flail expertise can do with that.

And that means there’s not just the matter of what a weapon can do but what it can grow into. Crucially though, and this is very important, at every step along the way these weapons are pretty good and offer rewards for what you’ve invested. It’s not like the 3e feat chain design where players take feats that suck pants in exchange for the promise of one day being able to Whirlwind Attack and then have nothing more for their build to look forward to.

Great system. I love when I see a coherent, sensible system like this built into a TTRPG from the baseline. Realism and historicity are not that important when the weapons designed in the game are game objects that players are meant to interact with! Make it so nobody has to make bad choices to get to better choices! You don’t get anything by putting traps in front of your players!

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[onslaughtsixdotcom]

Hit Dice, Hit Points & Weapon Damage: Part 2

Last October I was talking about Hit Dice, Hit Points & Weapon Damage in my various games, and how I want to work to unify some of this.

Since that post I've thought a lot and want to move forward with things it does, and this required a few changes. First up, I recategorized the classes:

Couple things: I will be adding a feat that allows you to bump your Hit Die to the next die up (maximum of d12). I like feats in my games! I think big chunky complex games like what else should have lots of customization options.

Under this system, your hit die is also your hit die, as in the die you roll for damage. Your character does damage, not your weapon. That's not to say weapons won't have differences; I am much more strictly implementing a "light/medium/heavy" system and locking those weapons behind class proficiencies. I prefer light/medium/heavy to the 3e "simple/martial" divide; it just makes more sense to me.

For equipment I'll be starting with my Canonical Weapons List. I really like this one as it simplifies the list just enough. Probably, I will deep dive into the Martial Options I've got for my 5e house rules and compare against the Wolves weapons. (I keep going back but then stopping for some reason. It obviously works in that game or in OD&D. Why am I so hesitant here?)

But, the first thing I've got to cut from the weapons list is the damage. And once that's done, there's a little bit of work to be done to ensure an "archetype" exists for each one--there's 3 damage types, so if there's a heavy weapon there needs to be 3 of them, one for each type.

Light weapons will be disadvantage on damage (roll 2, take the lowest) while Heavy weapons will be advantage or when you take the weapon, you can increase it from your Hit Die up one step (maximum of d12).

Still working on the magic system. I have always liked the way 5e does saves and so I'll be sticking to that, but I am thinking of changing the way they are statted. I think this version of my game is removing "proficiency bonus" the way it works in 5e. You'll still have a base attack bonus that increases with level, but skills are moving to a skill ranks system ala 3e, and saves are probably going to use the New Modifiers system.

And, two house rules that I've been using for a while now that are going to stay: Hit Points are your Hit Die plus your CON Score (no modifiers ever added) and Stats are 1d6+8 six times, assign as desired.

The first thing I'm going to wholly design for this is probably the Barbarian, because I have an interesting and new take on it.

[sahraeyll]

Top 10 Medical Billing Companies to Streamline Your Practice in 2023

Top 10 Medical Billing Companies⁢ to Streamline Your Practice in 2023

Top 10 ‌Medical Billing Companies to Streamline Your Practice in 2023

In ‍today’s complex ​healthcare environment, efficient medical billing is critical ​for maintaining the financial ⁣health of medical practices. Outsourcing ⁢medical billing ⁤can⁤ streamline⁢ operations, reduce costs, and ultimately improve patient satisfaction. In this article, we’ll ⁢delve into the ⁤ top 10‌ medical billing companies in 2023 that promise to enhance the billing‌ process for healthcare providers.

Why Choose⁢ a ⁤Medical ​Billing Company?

Expertise: ⁢Medical ‍billing companies ⁣employ‍ specialists proficient in billing codes and regulations.

Efficiency: Streamlined processes reduce time spent⁤ on billing, enabling healthcare providers to focus on patient care.

Cost-Effective: Outsourcing billing can save on in-house hiring and training costs.

Regulatory Compliance: Stay updated with the latest coding and compliance‍ regulations to avoid audits and​ penalties.

Top 10 Medical Billing Companies in ‌2023

Company‌ Name

Specialties

Key ‌Features

Website

1. eCatalyst Healthcare Solutions

Multi-specialty

Cloud-based, RCM experts, 24/7 ‍support

ecatalysthealth.com

2. AdvancedMD

General Practices

End-to-end billing, customizable solutions

advancedmd.com

3. Kareo

Small Practices

User-friendly interface, integrated EHR

kareo.com

4. Medical Billing ‌Wholesalers

Specialty-focused

Affordable pricing, detailed reports

billingwholesalers.com

5. Optimum Healthcare IT

Hospitals, Practices

Data ⁤analytics, revenue cycle optimization

optimumhealthcareit.com

6. MedBillingExperts

Multi-specialty

Comprehensive ⁤billing solutions, 24/7 ‌support

medbillingexperts.com

7. athenahealth

All​ specialties

Cloud-based management,​ payer connections

athenahealth.com

8. CareCloud

Hospitals, ​Practices

Integrated revenue cycle, patient engagement

carecloud.com

9. MediBill

Behavioral health

Tailored solutions, experienced staff

medibill.com

10.⁣ 3E Technologies

Multi-specialty

Proven track record, personalized service

3etechnologies.com

Benefits of⁤ Choosing a⁤ Medical Billing Company

Employing a medical billing company offers several advantages:

Increased Revenue: Companies specialize in ​maximizing reimbursements⁢ through expert coding and submission practices.

Reduced Errors: Advanced ​technology and ⁣experienced⁤ specialists minimize billing mistakes, leading to faster reimbursements.

Scalability: Services can be ⁣adapted to‌ the size and needs of your practice, whether you’re‍ a solo⁢ practitioner or a large healthcare organization.

Practical Tips for Choosing the Right Medical⁤ Billing Company

Assess ⁤Your Needs: Determine ⁣if​ you want full-service ‌billing or specific services ⁤such ​as coding or‌ accounts receivable management.

Check Credentials: ⁣Verify the ⁣company’s qualifications, ‌experience,‍ and compliance with healthcare regulations.

Read Reviews: Look for ‌client testimonials to gauge reliability and service quality.

Request a Demo: Many companies offer free ​trials or demonstrations ​to⁣ allow ‍you to evaluate their services.

Case Studies: Success Stories from Practices Using Medical Billing Companies

One medical⁤ group saw a 30% increase in revenue within six​ months of​ switching to eCatalyst Healthcare Solutions. Their personalized approach and thorough reporting led to improved⁤ collections and more accurate ​billing ‍practices.

Another practice, using AdvancedMD, improved patient engagement by ⁤integrating their billing ‌system with their EHR, resulting in ⁢quicker payments and enhanced patient satisfaction.

First-Hand Experience

As a healthcare provider who transitioned to using Kareo, I ‌experienced significant‌ improvement in‌ billing efficiency. Their user-friendly software allowed my ⁣staff to quickly manage claims, and the ⁢customer support​ team was always ready to assist. This change not only ⁢reduced our billing errors but also⁢ freed up time for us to focus more on patient care.

Conclusion

In the competitive landscape of healthcare,‌ partnering with the right‌ medical billing company ⁣can‍ dramatically improve the efficiency ⁢and profitability of your ⁢practice. From increasing revenue to reducing administrative burdens, the options outlined in this article provide various solutions tailored to⁣ meet your ⁣specific needs. Evaluate each option carefully and choose‍ a partner‌ that aligns with your practice objectives to ensure optimal ​performance in 2023 and⁢ beyond.

https://medicalbillingcertificationprograms.org/top-10-medical-billing-companies-to-streamline-your-practice-in-2023/

[toast1862]

i will say that bg1's 2e system is a lot easier to build characters in than nwn's 3e system... my first attempt at building a character in that was just a total disaster so i ended up following a build guide. in bg1, most level ups i'm just hitting ok or choosing another weapon proficiency. no feats or anything. it's really simple. which has its own problems. but i'm not dependent on a guide to not fuck my guy up completely

[thydungeongal]

What's your take on the Complete Handbook series from 2e?

I haven't read all of them, but honestly, what few of them I have read I have quite enjoyed. I might be in the minority here but I actually like kits (for those not in the know: a kit is basically a package of proficiencies, unique abilities, and what have you that you could slap on top of a character class to give it a bit more variety: sort of like a subclass in 5e parlance but entirely optional!) and since one of the first AD&D 2e books I read was the Worldbuilder's Guidebook my first encounter with kits was that book telling me that as a GM it's a good idea to choose a specific list of kits to your campaign setting and try to map them to the cultures on your campaign map. I understand that at the time when 2e was still the current edition people eventually started burning out on kits (much like people would eventually burn out on Prestige Classes in the 3e days), but since I don't have that context to me they seem more like a campaign prep tool.

And also like the Complete Priest is legit so cool for presenting so many different unique types of specialty priest it's so cool.

[vixensdungeon]

Star Wars Roleplaying Game Saga Edition (Wizards of the Coast, 2007)

Time to get back on my nonsense. We move ahead again to the aftermath of the Clone Wars with a brand new Star Wars toy.

As previously, character creation is very D&D 3e core, but this edition is quite different from the previous WotC ones, and was in many ways a preview of 4th Edition. I used the random age, height, and weight generation tables from the Revised Edition because this one doesn't have those, boo.

Amphedril Covfefe

Species: Human Class: Soldier Destiny: Rescue Strength 15 Dexterity 16 Constitution 14 Intelligence 11 Wisdom 11 Charisma 9 Hit Points: 32 Fortitude: 15 Reflex: 16 Will: 11 Talents: Armored Defense Skills: Endurance +7, Initiative +8, Knowledge (tactics) +5, Perception +5 Feats: Armor Profiency (light, medium), Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Proficiency (pistols, rifles, simple weapons) Weapons: Blaster rifle, knife Gear: Blast helmet and vest, encrypted, short-range comlink, 325 credits Age: 17 Height: 1.5 meters Weight: 79 kilograms Description: Amphedril is a tiny plump young woman with short-cropped black hair and brown eyes. A patriot, she has enlisted in the newly formed Imperial Army to continue defending her beloved Republic Empire from any threats it might face. Too short to be a stormtrooper.

[stupidsexynonbinaryperson]

The Tome of Battle: The Book of Anime Fighting Magic

It has been an unacceptable amount of time since I last 3.5posted. I shall fix this.

The Tome of Battle (ToB) was a supplement released back in 2006. It's goal? Make martials great again.

One of the issues that has plagued 3e/3.5 and 5e/5.5 is the martial/caster disparity. Where casters get more spells that do more stuff, martials mostly get to hit things more. This wasn't necessarily such a problem back in the days of TSR's DnD. Primarily because it took longer for casters to level up than it did fighters and rogues. However, when 3e came along, everyone started leveling up at the same xp thresholds. Hence, the casters would quickly outpace the martials. Now, 3e/3.5 still had a couple things holding casters back. Their early levels were still quite dangerous, and they were beholden to less armour proficiencies and a d4 hit die for wizards and a d8 for clerics and druids. Clerics and druids were of course far better of than your wizards and sorcerers, and are generally considered the two most powerful classes in the game. Now, wizards, clerics, and druids were still required to prepare in the proper vancian style: preparing spells into their spell slots at the start of the game. Spontaneous casters, of course, had spells known, and generally had more spell slots but less overall versatility, basically required to take the best spells and make do.

In this we find the Tome of Battle. The ToB was an early attempt at the 4e combat system, introduced as a semi-playtest in the latter days of 3.5. It introduces three classes: Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader. Warblades are better fighters, swordsages better rogues and monks, and crusaders better paladins.

Note that I did say better versions of preexisting classes. While this is a little tongue and cheek, the options of the ToB vastly outstripped many other martial classes, to the point where if you were playing with it, you were pretty much forced to take a level or two in one of the classes from the ToB (initiators). That or take a feat.

How the system worked is that, as the title implies, it gives maneuvers, that are definately 100% not spells. They come in three forms: strikes for hitting stuff, counters for when you get hit or doing stuff not on your turn, and stances, for buffs. Initiators are closest to spontaneous casters in this analogue, with maneuvers and stances known, although they could only actually prepare another subset of these manuevers so the comparison breaks down a little.

The maneuvers aren't as powerful as magic, however this is counter-acted by the fact that they are refreshed every encounter. Some are spell-like, particularly from the desert wind and shadow hand disciplines. Which disciplines you have access to depends on which initiator you pick. You can, of course, take a feat to gain a specific maneuver that you qualify for. And another for a stance of the same discipline.

Initiating is more versatile than spellcasting. The character building rules for spellcasters go as follows: don't fucking multiclass. This is because you will end up gaining new spell levels slower, and your caster level goes down, which means you cannot overcome spell resistance as easily. Initiators don't have this problem, your initiator level (IL) is equal to your level in an intiator class, and also half your level in all other classes. This allows for greater versatility and multiclassing, something which became a staple for martial builds. Usually by necessity.

Also with the initiator classes came a host of prestige classes of various flavours of fun and cool.

Overall, the ToB is a very well balanced book, and I personally think it is perhaps the finest way so far displayed of closing the martial/caster gap. Of course it doesn't completely remove it, but it does make it better. The classes are tier 3 (not explaining right now), which sets them in the well balanced category, along with other such darlings as the duskblade and binder. Overall, I prefer the approach in ToB than in 4e, as it provides extra power to the martials, while keeping the mechanical distinction to casting, something that doesn't exist in 4e.

It also got nicknamed the book of anime fighting magic the reasons for which I shall leave as an exercise for the reader.

[instantebookmart]

Organic Chemistry Student Solution Manual/Study Guide 3rd Edition, ISBN-13: 978-1119378693 [PDF eBook eTextbook] 1104 pages Publisher: Wiley; 3 edition (January 4, 2017) Language: English ISBN-10: 1119378699 ISBN-13: 978-1119378693 This is the Student Study Guide and Solutions Manual to accompany Organic Chemistry, 3e. Organic Chemistry, 3rd Edition is not merely a compilation of principles, but rather, it is a disciplined method of thought and analysis. Success in organic chemistry requires mastery in two core aspects: fundamental concepts and the skills needed to apply those concepts and solve problems. Readers must learn to become proficient at approaching new situations methodically, based on a repertoire of skills. These skills are vital for successful problem solving in organic chemistry. Existing textbooks provide extensive coverage of, the principles, but there is far less emphasis on the skills needed to actually solve problems. About the Author David Klein is a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University where he teaches Organic and General Chemistry. He is a dynamic and creative teacher and uses analogy to help students grasp difficult topics. Klein’s unique informal voice and manner of presentation help students truly master key topics in this course. He is also the author of Organic Chemistry as a Second Language and General Chemistry as a Second Language, which have both been highly successful. What makes us different? • Instant Download • Always Competitive Pricing • 100% Privacy • FREE Sample Available • 24-7 LIVE Customer Support

[vintagerpg]

PHBR1: The Complete Fighter’s Handbook (1989) is, love it or hate it, probably the defining book of second edition AD&D in a philosophical sense. The idea here is to spice up the fighter, the least mechanically interesting character class in the roster. This is partly accomplished through new combat rules — there are fighting styles, special maneuvers, a whole new martial arts system. I don’t find these particularly interesting, but they are sturdy enough if you want some extra crunch.

More than the extra rules, PHBR1 introduces character kits. These are sort of a collection of aesthetics, roleplaying cues and perhaps a single special mechanic tweak in exchange for some sort of hindrance. In sum, at this point, they’re the illusion of variety with very little mechanical impact. Thus, the generic fighter can become a swashbuckler, a pirate, a gladiator, a cavalier and so on, without knocking the game out of balance with a billion different rules and powers. For now.

Illusion or not, kits become pretty central to the 2E experience almost immediately, which is pretty neat, because, as I said, they’re primarily packages of vibes instead of weighty mechanical options. Much of their ambiance is derived from the non-weapon proficiencies — in the main rules these were optional, but their use in defining character kits really solidified their place in the core play experience, even if, as a skill system, proficiencies are inadequate.

All of this is pretty formative, I think, to 3E, as well, where the tinkering with character builds mutate kits into prestige classes with significant mechanical impact (ironically while removing any real reason to play a fighter past prestige level). This book also lays the ground work for the tactical focus and feats of the later Players Option book that in turn is a clear prediction of 3E combat.