Quote from: Omega;912910Right. The OD&D oddity was how each class progressed in gaining HP. Though in AD&D there was the other quirk of where each class stopped gaining HD and just gained HP.

No, neither of those is the oddity I was talking about.

If you assume that (a) M-U should gain one hit die every two levels, half the rate of a fighter, and (b) ".5 hit dice" is changed to "+1 hp", then the M-U progression should be:


Level     Hit Dice                Level     Hit Dice
------    ---------               ------    ---------
  1         1                        6          3+1
  2         1+1                      7          4
  3         2                        8          4+1
  4         2+1                      9          5
  5         3                       10          5+1



And the progression does work like that... up to level 7. But level 8 is 5 dice, level 9 is 6+1. and level 10 is 7. It's as if Gygax decided in advance what hit dice the class should have at name level and a couple other levels and just tweaked hit dice at other levels to make it fit. I prefer to think in terms of M-Us sacrificing half a hit die per level for magic ability, and clerics sacrificing a quarter of a hit die per level for half as much magic ability, so I've tweaked my own progressions accordingly.

The way hit points work after name level isn't odd at all. It becomes very regular for all class: full hit die every two, three, or four levels, depending on class. It just slows down compared to lower levels.

Another interesting observation.

In BX the HD is Fighters (and Dwarves) use a d8, Clerics (And Halflings and Elves) use a d6, while Thieves and Magic Users use a d4.

All HD capping at level 9 with the additive bonus +hp differing there. MUs getting a +1/level, thieves getting a +2. Clerics using a +1, elves a +2. Fighters using a +2, Dwarves using a +3 progression. Though the demi-humans level cap far earlier than 14.

Quote from: Omega;912954Chris reads D&D with hate tinted glasses so. So EVERYTHING Gygax says is read in the most negative interpretation possible.

And I'd still rather debate things with him than some of the others here because when not off on another anti-D&D crusade he actually makes sense and has valid points.

He's like that friend you just don't "go there" with on one certain topic, because you know it won't end well.  We're all crazy in different ways, 1e and earlier is just one way in which Brady is crazy, so talk to him about something else, then he's fine.

Quote from: Omega;912954Chris reads D&D with hate tinted glasses so. So EVERYTHING Gygax says is read in the most negative interpretation possible.

No, I respect the man for what he did.  But also know that he was human.  You know, like all of us?  We all had flaws.

However, I may have figure out how to change the 'tone' of my posts, because for someone who hates D&D, I have fun running it way too much.  

Quote from: Omega;912954And I'd still rather debate things with him than some of the others here because when not off on another anti-D&D crusade he actually makes sense and has valid points.

Thank you.

Quote from: Doom;912738I also get to call you  out as a liar, you nutless bastard, as I did not say the squares were 5'. So at least show a little manhood and admit, flat out, you were wrong. You won't do that, of course.

Anyone who is interested can read the original thread which I linked to. What you said only made sense if you believed the squares were 5 feet wide. Your entire point (there's nowhere on the maps where a party could avoid being entirely in a fireball) was utterly wrong given the actual scale.

QuoteBut I still will call you a liar and will do so forever afterward if you don't simply acknowledge an error here on your part at the very least.

If you mean about the cloak of protection, I already acknowledged that error. It doesn't negate my point, that other characters often achieve better than AC20, in direct contradiction to what you said, an error you still haven't acknowledged. If you mean that I was wrong about what you said in the other thread, no, I was not wrong.

QuoteSeriously. You're that guy

You're that guy who has to find the big shiny "I WIN!" button in a cooperative game and harp on it endlessly, quibbling about every caveat raised and running quickly to the personal insults when he can't answer the counterarguments. Why? What fun can be derived from this? If you're playing, challenge yourself to play a non-Wizard or a Wizard who doesn't have your char-op spell choices; if you're DMing and you really can't come up with anything to challenge the char-op Wizard who is wrecking everything, just give fewer long rests and scale the encounters up a bit, and they're going to have to work harder--if they don't welcome the challenge they're really not worth playing with. If you just think that D&D 5e is really broken because of a few spells, then suggest a fix or advocate for another game.

Don't really care for Tomb of Horrors too much.

For module design there's a very wide spectrum to how much information helps the party.

What I mean is that if a player memorizes the Tomb of Horrors module and then plays through the module it'll be a walk in the park as most of the threats are pretty easy to get around if you know how they work. But if you do the same thing with a random 4ed module it doesn't get much easier since you still have to hack through the monsters and thinking up battle tactics in response to the monsters plays a big role and knowing all of the monsters' stats is only the starting point.

Don't really like either extreme much. Prefer adventures in which the main challenge isn't learning about the location but rather applying what you've learned to your advantage.

My ideal adventure has a lot of challenges in it that'll turn the PCs into roadkill if they try to fight them head on but also lots of features that the PCs can grab a hold of and use to cheat to even the odds. Stuff like "the giant statue is in bad repair," "the river is full of alligators" and "the goblins get drunk off their ass during a big party every full moon" that the PCs can use to their advantage rather than specific puzzles to get solves.

Quote from: Omega;912842Off topic. But its kinda interesting how classes and there HP have shifted over the years.

We went from everyone using a d6
to magic users having a d4, thieves with a d6, clerics with a d8 and fighters having a d10
to current where wizards use a d6, rogues use a d8 while clerics and fighters are unchanged. And the Ranger got a bump up from a d8 to a d10.

Rangers initially had 2d8, though.

Quote from: RPGPundit;914618Rangers initially had 2d8, though.

Right. And they HD cap at level 10. One level more than a Fighter and Paladin. (effectively 2 due to that extra dice.) And here is where it gets interesting again. At the cap, all three average... 49HP. After that though the AD&D Ranger falls behind and by level 20 the Ranger has 69 HP compared to the other two's average of 82.

The AD&D Druid is another oddity. They dont cap in HD. Instead they have a soft level cap of 11 a max level of 14. They end with an average HP of 63 to a Clerics 62. But if you cant pass the soft cap then a Druid is only going to have around 49 HP average.

Which shows that someone was paying some sort of attention to where everyone would end up in the HP progression. Though it makes me curious exactly why the Ranger does start off strong in HP. But past level 5 starts to lag behind on average.

Theres all sorts of odd math juggling in AD&D thats allways puzzled me. Moreso because I suck at math!

Quote from: Omega;914630Right. And they HD cap at level 10. One level more than a Fighter and Paladin. (effectively 2 due to that extra dice.) And here is where it gets interesting again. At the cap, all three average... 49HP. After that though the AD&D Ranger falls behind and by level 20 the Ranger has 69 HP compared to the other two's average of 82.

The AD&D Druid is another oddity. They dont cap in HD. Instead they have a soft level cap of 11 a max level of 14. They end with an average HP of 63 to a Clerics 62. But if you cant pass the soft cap then a Druid is only going to have around 49 HP average.

Which shows that someone was paying some sort of attention to where everyone would end up in the HP progression. Though it makes me curious exactly why the Ranger does start off strong in HP. But past level 5 starts to lag behind on average.

Theres all sorts of odd math juggling in AD&D thats allways puzzled me. Moreso because I suck at math!

I never worried too much about that, because (contrary to some of the Talmudis Scholarship gang of the OSR) I don't actually buy the notion that the mechanics were all carefully crafted and planned out for ideal balance or something like that.

Monks got 2d4 at 1st as well. Blimey, i remember that keeping my Monk alive was harder than the MU in most cases.

Quote from: One Horse Town;915313Monks got 2d4 at 1st as well. Blimey, i remember that keeping my Monk alive was harder than the MU in most cases.

Ill buy it a monk tends to be forced in to melee a mage not so much.

Quote from: RPGPundit;915311I don't actually buy the notion that the mechanics were all carefully crafted and planned out for ideal balance or something like that.

I think the fact that they weren't is one of the things I like best about them.

I agree that how the game grew organically is quite appealing--at least right up until I want to play a thief.

Quote from: RPGPundit;915311I don't actually buy the notion that the mechanics were all carefully crafted and planned out for ideal balance or something like that.

Nor I. But I do think that the people involved had been wargaming for years, so when they just wrote up a table they had some decent instincts. But on the other hand, if there were "power imbalances", that same wargaming background would mean they weren't worried about it. "You're weak? So it'll be a sweeter victory when you win!" "He's strong? Sure, but he's not that smart."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;915456Nor I. But I do think that the people involved had been wargaming for years, so when they just wrote up a table they had some decent instincts. But on the other hand, if there were "power imbalances", that same wargaming background would mean they weren't worried about it. "You're weak? So it'll be a sweeter victory when you win!" "He's strong? Sure, but he's not that smart."

There's that and also different levels of balance. For some, balance is when all characters are equal at all times. For others it's that Fighters start off strong and Wizards weak added to the fact that Fighters level up more quickly and Wizards take longer to get better and in the end, Wizards are strong and Fighters not as strong in terms of damage output or utility. Balance can mean humans get bonus XP and no other boon as a race, but demi-humans get enhanced vision, natural abilities to hide, or get a bonus to a stat. Personally, I like the sort of balance B/X and AD&D had. Of course, some people won't even call that balance at all.