This "out for DAYS" thing in D&D makes about as much sense to me as being a paranoiac who needs to top off their car's fuel tank all the time. Just because you might end up on a long 250+ mile trip at some point doesn't mean you live in perpetual fear and preparation for it. Again, these are community modalities that really start to be embraced in 3e, likely to WotC's initial consternation and eventual relent.

With surprise, scouting, stance (aggression posture), reactions, bribes, distance, morale, etc. you have to TRY to carelessly piss off everything you meet to endure Terminator Mobs with must-have Max HP.

Quote from: CRKrueger;962486Well, the reason the monsters from the Caves of Chaos don't sack Hommlet is because Hommlet is a different module.  The humanoids from the Caves of Chaos, would have to assault The Keep on the Borderlands which is a castle at the top of a crag, with a narrow winding road for approach.  Ridiculously defendable.

OK, I stand corrected, fair enough.  But I don't think that it's that impossible to think that (let's face it, Ogres and Goblins aren't intelligent) some of the monster tribes would try to siege the Keep.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;962483The first problem is 'healing'.  Most older editions, (and if I'm wrong, I am completely willing to be corrected on this, I'm basing this on my memory of Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D) had you out for days, even weeks if you took significant 'damage'.*  Which can slow the pace of the game.  And it also brings up some other logic issues.

Let's assume, that the PC's were in the Caves of Chaos, and they rustle the jimmies of several tribes of humanoids, including the Ogre(s), but in the process take a lot of damage requiring a retreat.  Let's also assume, that being old school players, they kept amazingly accurate maps and manage to get back to Hommlet to heal up.  My issue, as someone who deals in consequences, is what's to stop all the tribes from spilling out and taking revenge on the Village?

The various groups inside the dungeon outnumber and out-power most of the inhabitants, also the PC's can't help much because they're resting up to recover the lost 'resource' known as Hit Points.  Now some games (like someone mentioned, Mongoose's Conan) give you options as to increase the amount of a healing gained outside of combat, 4e and 5e, for examples gives examples as to what you can do with that.  Is it a good answer to this conundrum?  Not for me to decide.


Which, conveniently brings up the second issue: Damage output.  Remember there's a lot more of 'them' than of players, and attrition will win in D&D sooner or later.  There's only so many small groups (even if they're smaller than the players) a group of adventurers and retainers can go up against before they have to turn back.

One way I can think of to mitigate this issue is to adapt some rules from Black Streams: Solo Heroes, by Sine Nomine, with it's Fray dice and their turning monsters HP into HD and alter the base damage system.  But some people have issues with 'minion' rules.  Still it's an answer.  Again, the OP will have to decide if it's a satisfactory one.


*Using quotes because HP is not supposed to represent health, but a mixture of things, and yet (ignoring spell names) it took you a long time to recover, as if you were actually injured.  It's a tad confusing as to what the designers were going for.  And no, I'm not snarking, I'm genuinely confused.

Both of those issues are only problems if you assume the party consists only of a handful of unaccompanied PCs. If the party is larger than that, comprising PCs and their NPC henchmen, hirelings and other hangers-on, they both disappear.

For the first, trusted henchmen double up as backup characters if something happens to the main PC. There's also somewhere safe (either in camp, guarded by the hirelings, or back in a settlement doing the same) to leave a convalescing PC.

For the second, if you have henchmen, not only do you have more damage output through more bodies, but tactics are possible too. There doesn't have to be a lot more enemies than the player's side, but nor does the disparity have to be so large.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;962483The first problem is 'healing'.  Most older editions, (and if I'm wrong, I am completely willing to be corrected on this, I'm basing this on my memory of Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D) had you out for days, even weeks if you took significant 'damage'.*

True in RAW, but easy to houserule. For ages, I've seen DMs allow PCs to heal their Level+CON bonus per day. So a 4th level dude who lost 18 of 22 HP would only be down 4-5 days which isn't game breaking. Also, a non-caster D&D game doesn't mean no alchemy or no potions. It's quite doable for there to be "natural healing" methods that accelerate healing. If healing potions can be crafted from herbs, then those 4-5 days can be minimized to 1-2 days by throwing gold at the problem.

Or you can go with "all magic is long rituals" and thus not quick, so the non-caster PCs can visit the temple for a day and recover entirely with a hefty tithe.

This is the intent of the game. It's a feature. If you remove difficult resource management issues from D&D (of which HP are the most difficult to manage), it becomes shitty, just as a game.

Quote from: Kiero;962500Both of those issues are only problems if you assume the party consists only of a handful of unaccompanied PCs. If the party is larger than that, comprising PCs and their NPC henchmen, hirelings and other hangers-on, they both disappear.

For the first, trusted henchmen double up as backup characters if something happens to the main PC. There's also somewhere safe (either in camp, guarded by the hirelings, or back in a settlement doing the same) to leave a convalescing PC.

For the second, if you have henchmen, not only do you have more damage output through more bodies, but tactics are possible too. There doesn't have to be a lot more enemies than the player's side, but nor does the disparity have to be so large.

The issue I have with the idea of Henchmen and Hirelings is...  Where are you are you getting the funds?  What are you shorting yourself?  Again, not a snark.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;962505The issue I have with the idea of Henchmen and Hirelings is...  Where are you are you getting the funds?  What are you shorting yourself?  Again, not a snark.

A bigger group means bigger potential to take in money. You're a larger scale operation able to do more, go for longer, take away more loot. Instead of the handful of PCs taking on a contract to help a small village with their problem for a few pennies, they can help a larger town with a much bigger problem for a lot more.

Sure the PCs might not be raking in as much loot individually, since they're taking shares of the whole, but it's going to be a bigger pie they're taking a slice of.

Furthermore, having to keep paying everyone and the loyalty issues that may bring adds another dimension to the game. It's not just about the PCs keeping themselves entertained, but supporting an enterprise.

Quote from: Larsdangly;962503This is the intent of the game. It's a feature. If you remove difficult resource management issues from D&D (of which HP are the most difficult to manage), it becomes shitty, just as a game.

See; 3.x removing the resource element from magic and thus destroying any balance present between casters and everyone else.

Quote from: Kiero;962508A bigger group means bigger potential to take in money. You're a larger scale operation able to do more, go for longer, take away more loot. Instead of the handful of PCs taking on a contract to help a small village with their problem for a few pennies, they can help a larger town with a much bigger problem for a lot more.

Sure the PCs might not be raking in as much loot individually, since they're taking shares of the whole, but it's going to be a bigger pie they're taking a slice of.

Furthermore, having to keep paying everyone and the loyalty issues that may bring adds another dimension to the game. It's not just about the PCs keeping themselves entertained, but supporting an enterprise.

You meed more start up capital to get a decent amount of hirelings, then you need to provide for them which requires a lot of ongoing gain.  The slice of the pie gets smaller and smaller the more help you hire.  It's basic economics.  The bigger the army, the more capital you need.  Both to start up and to maintain.  More then the random number of gold you get as a level 1 adventurer.

Which actually makes me wonder about the original crew's expectations.  I wonder if level 1 in Fighting Man or Magic User actually meant that they had reach a war leader stage, where they could easily get a decent army of minions to do a lot of the grunt work for them.  That being a Fighting Man already meant years, if not decades of little adventures and pissant "Kill the Rats" jobs and now they could actually issue a call for aid and expect it.

But somewhere along the line, one of the various designers of the not quite as early editions changed that, making level 1 a beginning adventurer rank.

Sometimes, I get the impression that the expectations are so different we're not even talking the same language with Gronan or Chirine.

Quote from: Kiero;962508See; 3.x removing the resource element from magic and thus destroying any balance present between casters and everyone else.

I think the issues in 3.x and magic run deeper than that.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;962509You meed more start up capital to get a decent amount of hirelings, then you need to provide for them which requires a lot of ongoing gain.  The slice of the pie gets smaller and smaller the more help you hire.  It's basic economics.  The bigger the army, the more capital you need.  Both to start up and to maintain.  More then the random number of gold you get as a level 1 adventurer.

Which actually makes me wonder about the original crew's expectations.  I wonder if level 1 in Fighting Man or Magic User actually meant that they had reach a war leader stage, where they could easily get a decent army of minions to do a lot of the grunt work for them.  That being a Fighting Man already meant years, if not decades of little adventures and pissant "Kill the Rats" jobs and now they could actually issue a call for aid and expect it.

But somewhere along the line, one of the various designers of the not quite as early editions changed that, making level 1 a beginning adventurer rank.

Sometimes, I get the impression that the expectations are so different we're not even talking the same language with Gronan or Chirine.

For hirelings, you need capital, for henchmen, you don't. Henchmen get a share, not a wage, so unless you annoy them or withhold their share, they tend to stick with you. If you have more people, you can take bigger risks and take away more loot, it's a bigger pie. You don't just need more capital, you have a bigger earning potential. The dichotomy you describe doesn't make sense, if that were true no enterprise would ever grow.

Quote from: Larsdangly;962503This is the intent of the game. It's a feature. If you remove difficult resource management issues from D&D (of which HP are the most difficult to manage), it becomes shitty, just as a game.

I agree. I think many game designs become relatively pointless when they make healing (and revival/res) easy, fast, and/or trivial, and/or actual death very unlikely.

I also prefer it when play (combat and otherwise) offers potential ways to actually avoid injury, rather than inevitably leading to a gradual drain from a huge pile of hit points. I'd rather manage risk and meaningful injury than manage a relatively predictable and unavoidable drain that has little/no consequence as long as it doesn't reach zero.

In fact, I think when a game removes the risk of serious lasting injury with effects, it escalates the stakes of gameplay, sometimes to the point where in order for combat to have any risk or consequence requires TPK or at least removing the healing abilities somehow (prevent the healer from healing one way or another). I think often this "seems to work" mainly because players don't really want unpredictable risk of losing PCs or TPK, or they're just used to it and don't know or also don't want to deal with limping, one-armed, or long-term convalescing PCs. Personally, I think the latter is more interesting, especially with a combat system where those results are more or less consequences of in-combat situations and choices.

Quote from: Kiero;962511For hirelings, you need capital, for henchmen, you don't. Henchmen get a share, not a wage, so unless you annoy them or withhold their share, they tend to stick with you. If you have more people, you can take bigger risks and take away more loot, it's a bigger pie. You don't just need more capital, you have a bigger earning potential. The dichotomy you describe doesn't make sense, if that were true no enterprise would ever grow.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong (and seriously, please do) but I thought you had a limited amount of Henchmen depending on your Charisma score in the AD&D era, was it not the same for earlier editions?

Quote from: Skarg;962555I agree. I think many game designs become relatively pointless when they make healing (and revival/res) easy, fast, and/or trivial, and/or actual death very unlikely.

I also prefer it when play (combat and otherwise) offers potential ways to actually avoid injury, rather than inevitably leading to a gradual drain from a huge pile of hit points. I'd rather manage risk and meaningful injury than manage a relatively predictable and unavoidable drain that has little/no consequence as long as it doesn't reach zero.

In fact, I think when a game removes the risk of serious lasting injury with effects, it escalates the stakes of gameplay, sometimes to the point where in order for combat to have any risk or consequence requires TPK or at least removing the healing abilities somehow (prevent the healer from healing one way or another). I think often this "seems to work" mainly because players don't really want unpredictable risk of losing PCs or TPK, or they're just used to it and don't know or also don't want to deal with limping, one-armed, or long-term convalescing PCs. Personally, I think the latter is more interesting, especially with a combat system where those results are more or less consequences of in-combat situations and choices.

Completely agree and what you initially describe is default 5e. I suspect it "works" because most new game groups dont know any better (and it is fun enough, as is, for a time, esp for a newcomer), the group doesnt last more than a year by which time they're getting a bit bored with it, or they tweak the rules / move onto other more interesting systems.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;962570Now, correct me if I'm wrong (and seriously, please do) but I thought you had a limited amount of Henchmen depending on your Charisma score in the AD&D era, was it not the same for earlier editions?

Up to four plus your CHA bonus. Ie somewhere between 4 and 7, depending on what that is. Even four henchmen per PC is a lot of extra bodies - and all of them with class levels and so damned useful.

There's no limit beyond your purse to the number of hirelings you can have.

Just play AD&D1e and only allow people to play fighters or thieves. You can have plenty of exciting adventures like that. I mean look at the telly shows Vikings and Last Kingdom, basically everyone is a fighter.

Quote from: Larsdangly;962503This is the intent of the game. It's a feature. If you remove difficult resource management issues from D&D (of which HP are the most difficult to manage), it becomes shitty, just as a game.

Personally I like combat to be dangerous and deadly and something to avoid where possible.

Omnipresent effective healing in D&D games in which I've been a player is one of the reasons I don't care to play D&D unless I'm the DM. I might go for it if a DM presented a setting where there wasn't a temple or magic shoppe on every corner resurrecting the dead or selling healing potions buy-one-get-one-free. Not a problem with the actual rules of D&D, just my experiences trying to be a player in various campaigns.