TheRPGSite

Hi there!

I am DMing a bit of 1e again (Vs Cult of Reptile God atm), and I found that low level lethality is so far comparable (just a bit higher) to 3e! Why? Because of the very same minus-10-HP-till-proper-death rule.

Unless a total party kill comes about, the survivors drag the uncunscious away and restore them. Which I have no problem with, but Basic D&D has more insta-death when we played KotB and the likes.

So, instead of the wanton slaughter of RC/BECMI (or OD&D) low levels, so far low level AD&D is much more forgiving (except with poison etc., that's still scary as shit).

I am a bit suprised as I had expected more random death and prepared the players to not get too attached to any character.

I like it both ways but find it interesting that AD&D 1e is not as grindy for us as it sounds in many AARs online:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?26290-The-Temple-of-Elemental-Evil-ate-my-Game-Group&highlight=temple+elemental+evil

Opinions?

Remember that if a character is reduced to below 0 hit points restoration is long and painful process. Unless there is access to a heal spell or similar magic the character remains in a coma for 1-6 turns (10-60 minutes) and is further very weak and unable to undertake any adventuring activities for at least a week regardless of hit point restoration by any means short of a heal spell.

So yes, while an AD&D character can survive being brought to below 0 hit points there is no pop up or quick restoration method to get an individual back into action until 6th level spells are available.

Quote from: Settembrini;911701Hi there!

I am DMing a bit of 1e again (Vs Cult of Reptile God atm), and I found that low level lethality is so far comparable (just a bit higher) to 3e! Why? Because of the very same minus-10-HP-till-proper-death rule.

For what it's worth, the rule in AD&D 1st Ed is at zero hit points, the character is dead.

The optional "negative hit point" rule is that if a character is struck down to 0 (optionally as low as -3) with a single blow, the character is unconscious, losing 1 hit point per round, dying at -10. The first part of that is important. If a monster does 6 points of damage when you've got 2 hit points left, bringing you to -4, death is instant. Because the threshold is set by the DM, between 0 and -3, you can customize the level of lethality you want.

That said, though, player choice is probably going to be a more salient variable. You can set the rules to be more lethal, but it doesn't necessarily translate into PC death. It's more likely to translate to more cautious and prudent action, particularly in a sandbox.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;911705Remember that if a character is reduced to below 0 hit points restoration is long and painful process. Unless there is access to a heal spell or similar magic the character remains in a coma for 1-6 turns (10-60 minutes) and is further very weak and unable to undertake any adventuring activities for at least a week regardless of hit point restoration by any means short of a heal spell.

So yes, while an AD&D character can survive being brought to below 0 hit points there is no pop up or quick restoration method to get an individual back into action until 6th level spells are available.

Sure, healing magic is needed. OD&D and even BECMI are even more unforgiving, though.

I read your emphasis on heal instead of healing.
I will check the DMG and make up my mind if I will continue to accept simple healing magic.

Thanks!

As has been mentioned, the negative hp survival rules are completely optional in 1e. They are also quite a bit more stringent than 3e.

What I found with 1e with the optional rule (and mind you I only came back to 1e and OD&D after having gone through BECMI, 2e, and 3e) is that you don't necessarily die as often as BECMI and OD&D, but you do spend a lot of time dragging your wounded back to a safe place and spending a week recuperating. At 1st level, if you get into combat at all, you really have to manage the fight well (bottlenecking the enemy such that the squishies are shielded and that the wounded fighters can rotate out of harms way and switch to spears, etc.) or else someone is quite possibly going down. In a pure tactical resource management game (be able to feed and protect your wounded for the week it takes them to heal up, all the while not getting anyone else dropped) this can certainly be part of the challenge of the game. For lots of gaming styles, however, I can certainly see why someone might ask "so, what exactly does the week wait add to the game? We have to go find a bolthole and can't just press on through and adventure regardless, just make it 24 hours."

Quote from: Lunamancer;911950For what it's worth, the rule in AD&D 1st Ed is at zero hit points, the character is dead.

The optional "negative hit point" rule is that if a character is struck down to 0 (optionally as low as -3) with a single blow, the character is unconscious, losing 1 hit point per round, dying at -10. The first part of that is important. If a monster does 6 points of damage when you've got 2 hit points left, bringing you to -4, death is instant. Because the threshold is set by the DM, between 0 and -3, you can customize the level of lethality you want.

That said, though, player choice is probably going to be a more salient variable. You can set the rules to be more lethal, but it doesn't necessarily translate into PC death. It's more likely to translate to more cautious and prudent action, particularly in a sandbox.

I think you are wrong in respect to the DMG, it is indeed more lenient.
see p. 82, Zero Hit Points.

In other news I abhor the word "sandbox" as it is just playing an RPG and needs no special name as if it was a certain taste.
There is no substitute for good gaming. On this very site we used to assume what was later called sandbox as being thebaseline of well played campaigns.

The only thing that warrants its own word is Hexcrawl.

Quote from: Settembrini;911701Opinions?

I never liked OD&D's below zero and you are dead rule. So my rule is that at level one you can go to -3 before you die. You lose -1 hp per round bleeding out unless an ally takes a round binding your wounds. This limit lowers by -3 per level. This is limited by your constitution. If you have a constitution of 12 you will die at -12. If you have a con of 18 it is -18. In all cases you go unconscious at 0.

I found this a much more balanced rule than death at -1 of OD&D/BECMI or -10 of AD&D. -3, -6, -9 at 1st, 2nd and 3rd level means that TPK are more possible than AD&D. And Constitution has a easy to remember meaningful effect other than some percentage you have to look up.

I am hearing all of you, but I call bullshit on the -10 rule in 1e being optional.
 
It is the BASELINE rule (when reading the DMG, I understand for those who came from OD&D it could have looked like an optional rule)!

I just realized I have played much much more OD&D and BECMI than low level AD&D 1e!

Quote from: Lunamancer;911950For what it's worth, the rule in AD&D 1st Ed is at zero hit points, the character is dead.

The optional "negative hit point" rule is that if a character is struck down to 0 (optionally as low as -3) with a single blow, the character is unconscious, losing 1 hit point per round, dying at -10. The first part of that is important. If a monster does 6 points of damage when you've got 2 hit points left, bringing you to -4, death is instant. Because the threshold is set by the DM, between 0 and -3, you can customize the level of lethality you want.

That said, though, player choice is probably going to be a more salient variable. You can set the rules to be more lethal, but it doesn't necessarily translate into PC death. It's more likely to translate to more cautious and prudent action, particularly in a sandbox.

RAW, the rule is not optional

QuoteWhen any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally as low as –3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until –10 is reached and the creature dies. Such loss and death are caused from bleeding, shock, convulsions, non-respiration, and similar causes. It ceases immediately on any round a friendly creature administers aid to the unconscious one. Aid consists of binding wounds, starting respiration, administering a draught (spirits, healing potion, etc.), or otherwise doing whatever is necessary to restore life.

I highlighted the confusing part in bold. The option is to use -3 as a threshold not 0. The RAW rule states that unconsciousness is at 0 or lower, death results at -10.

Quote from: Settembrini;911970I am hearing all of you, but I call bullshit on the -10 rule in 1e being optional.
 
It is the BASELINE rule (when reading the DMG, I understand for those who came from OD&D it could have looked like an optional rule)!

Got you covered with my above post. Man the new remastered PDFs are great!

Interesting. I'll have to check my AD&D DMG when I get home.

As an aside, for all it's talk about lethality, after the "funnel" no characters in my Dungeon Crawl Classics campaign died.

I tend to chuck the negative whatever rule and simply say that a character reduced to 0 is knocked out until healed. Practically speaking, they won't die unless theres a TPK anyway.

Quote from: Settembrini;911971I just realized I have played much much more OD&D and BECMI than low level AD&D 1e!

I think people underestimate the popularity of OD&D and BECMI. Because who wants to admit they are not playing the ADVANCED version of the game ;-)

Quote from: Ratman_tf;911975Interesting. I'll have to check my AD&D DMG when I get home.

page 82, second column third paragraph. Note also that even if you are healed above zero hit point your character is still in a coma for 1d6 TURNS! That is covered in the next background. So while you didn't die, you are still screwed pretty bad as far as that fight goes.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;911975I tend to chuck the negative whatever rule and simply say that a character reduced to 0 is knocked out until healed. Practically speaking, they won't die unless theres a TPK anyway.

That works, for my part I like to preserve the possibility of instant death. It not likely, especially at higher levels, but it there and players will stop for a second to think before trying something really dangerous.

This came up in an older thread a few months ago.

Once you are at 0 HP, even if revived with a spell or potion, you are out of it to one degree or another.

Page 82.
Even if brought back to positive HP, anyone brought to 0 or less is in a COMA for 1d6 turns! and after that must rest a full week and is just short of bedridden the duration. Unable to even use magical devices or scrolls or research. The Heal spell was the only way to avoid this.

Oh and if you went to -6 or lower HP then there was a chance of scarring or loss of use of a limb. The example was horrible burn scars from a fireball that brought a character to below -9.

I never liked the -10 rule. Want them to have more HP? Give them +10 HP and kill them at zero.

Quote from: Spinachcat;912086I never liked the -10 rule. Want them to have more HP? Give them +10 HP and kill them at zero.

The -10 was to represent where things have reached the critical stage and death is imminent if nothing is done. And its easier to handle as a threshold. Rare will something take you to exactly 0. you tend to go into negative a little or alot right out the gate.

Quote from: Spinachcat;912086I never liked the -10 rule. Want them to have more HP? Give them +10 HP and kill them at zero.

You forgot "have them pass out at 10 HP remaining".

At least part of the point of not dying until some number of negative HP instead of at zero, for me at least, is to insert an intermediate state between "active and fighting at 100% ability" and "dead".

Quote from: estar;911977page 82, second column third paragraph. Note also that even if you are healed above zero hit point your character is still in a coma for 1d6 TURNS! That is covered in the next background. So while you didn't die, you are still screwed pretty bad as far as that fight goes.

After being a sack of potatoes for 1-6 turns you are still weak and unable to anything except rest, move short distances, eat, and so forth for an entire week even if potions or healing spells short of a heal spell are applied.

If this kind of rule existed in 5E you wouldn't see so many instances of waiting till someone is dropped to throw a healing spell.

Well, at least I'm in good company  (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0572.html)in thinking it was an optional rule (actually, that's probably where I got the idea from).

Quote from: Spinachcat;912086I never liked the -10 rule. Want them to have more HP? Give them +10 HP and kill them at zero.

What I dislike isn't so much the negative numbers per se. I have a problem when characters have more hit points "dead" than they do alive. Even with a -3 threshold (the most lenient option), a level 1 mage, for instance, is alive at 0, -1, -2, and -3--that's four hit points, vs the four at most (barring CON bonus) he'll have IF he rolls max hp.

I also find the bit about the coma and the weak week to be not particularly fun and potentially distracting. It's so much cleaner just to say the character dies. There are enough other ways in the game PCs can become KO'd, comatose, or take continuing damage that threatens their very life so that you haven't ruled out all these less-lethal possibilities, and when it's tied to a particular monster, trap, environment, attack form, or magic rather than some generic, omni-present game mechanics, it's a lot more engaging.

That seems like an unavoidable consequence with level-dependent hp (and either 4 hp to -3 or 11 hp to -10 being huge at level 1 and merely notable at upper levels). GURPS has PCs dropped at 0 and dead at -1xhp, but their hp totals are semi-static and much lower than high level D&D.

One alternative (that I have not put enough thought into, so just take it as a rough-hewn outline) is that whenever a character is dropped to 0 hp or less, regardless of damage, their status moves to "dropped." Unless they are CDG'ed or someone drops a fireball on the area where they fall, they retain that status until the end of combat. At that point, some non-hp method is used to determine whether they survived combat and are comatose (a save, system shock, etc.). That eliminates worrying about whether they drop to -1 or -3, whether they bleed past -6 or not, and whether 4 or 11 hp is a little or a lot of negative hp compared to positive hp, and you can still make it as easy or hard as you want it to be.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;912107GURPS has PCs dropped at 0 and dead at -1xhp

Close.

GURPS characters have to start making rolls every round to stay conscious at zero HP, and a death roll at -1xHP and then every 5 hp lost.  Death is not unavoidable until -5xHP, IIRC.  This is mostly based on 3e, so that could have changed in 4e.

FWIW it is actually stupid for any damage/injury/death rules system to have people going from fully or mostly functional to dead as a normal outcome. Unless a building drops on you or your head gets cut off, people and large animals take a while to die in response to injuries. Whatever else you want to say about it, the way HP loss and death works in 1E is more realistic (there, I said the R word!) than a lot of games.

This.  Running at 100% and then dropping dead is the kind of thing you expect from someone at the end of a Berserk.  
Of course Running at 100% and then dropping unconscious to start dying isn't all that much better.  :D

Looking at some old notes I split the difference.
From 0 to -3 the character could make System Shock rolls to stay awake and functional, with a penalty to everything equal to their negative HP bonus.
If you were exactly at 0, you weren't actually dying, just trying to stay conscious.
Once they hit -4, then they dropped and started dying, with final death kicking in at -(10+HP mod).  So it could be sooner than -10 if you had a suckass Constitution or as much as -18 with a Barbarian with an 18 con.

Healing I always thought was just that, healing.  It seemed to be that there was some mechanic under the hood like "Wound" that got checked when you went below 0, and that normal healing healed HPs, but didn't touch that "Wound", which could only be healed through rest or the Heal spell.  I decided I didn't want to deal with it, and healing just healed you.  
I experimented with a tiered system:
Cure Light - Can heal you but Coma rules work as normal.
Cure Serious - Can heal you when you're in that 0-3 range, and you are healed with no special ill effects.  Lower than that, Coma rules kick in.
Cure Critical - Can heal you when you're in that -4 to -10 range, and you are healed with no special ill effects. Lower than that, Coma rules kick in.
Heal - Can heal you when you're in that -10 to death range, and you are healed with no special ill effects.

Then I realized that you were actually kind of getting penalized for having a great Con.  I also realized that what if you were healed up to full with Cure Light Wounds, but still in a Coma, couldn't someone come by and toss on a Cure Serious and remove the Coma?  So then we started keeping track of how wounded you were, basically having a Wound state, based on the healing system.

Sometimes we used it, sometimes we played RAW, sometimes we said fuck it, healing is healing, that's why they call it Magic.

Quote from: Larsdangly;912111FWIW it is actually stupid for any damage/injury/death rules system to have people going from fully or mostly functional to dead as a normal outcome. Unless a building drops on you or your head gets cut off, people and large animals take a while to die in response to injuries. Whatever else you want to say about it, the way HP loss and death works in 1E is more realistic (there, I said the R word!) than a lot of games.

Eh. Don't be so quick to just gloss over your "unless" clause. There really are plenty of instances of going directly from fine to dead. And the game does have plenty of attack forms that incapacitate, cripple, or cause loss of consciousness without causing death. The bases are covered regardless of the status of a negative hit point rule. So of all the reasons pro- and con-, the R-word just ain't one of them.

Quote from: Larsdangly;912111FWIW it is actually stupid for any damage/injury/death rules system to have people going from fully or mostly functional to dead as a normal outcome.

OD&D and later BECMI style of hit points makes sense if you understand how it was developed from a system, Chainmail Man to Man combat, where one hit equal one kill. It worked 'as is' for a lot of people. However it understandable why people would want the hit point mechanic to account for incapacitated as well as alive and dead. In my take on OD&D I use negative hit points as well.

But my preference for more detail in how injuries are handled doesn't mean that the RAW rule of OD&D/BECMI is stupid.  Hit points are an implementation of the statement that a Hero is four times harder to kill than a ordinary Man at Arms. That Super Hero is eight times harder to kill. Each level of "hard to kill" represented by one Hit Dice that you roll for hit points. Chainmail did not make provisions for injured troops during battle. And when the Blackmoor/D&D rules developed out of it neither did they.

If folks want to come up with a different explanation of what actually hit points represents so be it, however the above is what they mean in terms of how D&D was developed.

Quote from: estar;912119OD&D and later BECMI style of hit points makes sense if you understand how it was developed from a system, Chainmail Man to Man combat, where one hit equal one kill.

Similarly, Savage Worlds has three states: up, down, or off the table.  It's a level of abstraction intended to make things run faster.

I know I never saw as many character deaths in either OD&D or AD&D as some people claim is typical. Hell, I had my first TPK a couple years ago. But then, in my experience, what's reducing the lethality is greater caution on the part of PCs + monsters not always attacking immediately and fighting to the death.

I never liked any negative hit point rule and I'm not sure I actually used it when I ran AD&D, although I don't think it ever came up. What I prefer these days in OD&D is to track total damage instead of deducting from hit points. Any time damage equals or exceeds hit points, the victim is dying (assuming the intention of the attack was to kill.) If it was an attack aimed at a vital organ, death is instant if a system shock roll fails. Otherwise, the victim dies at the end of ten minutes unless aided by someone. The result is pretty close to what you'd get in the AD&D system, but without the need for all the fiddly rules about negative hit points and tracking bleedout.

The group I played with in school (wow...a looong time ago!) had very few PC deaths, except for our sessions where we made characters using the strict "method 1" approach to stats--3d6 six times, assign in order.

Those characters were hilariously awful, and very few survived a session.  It was more like a DCC funnel session, but fun once in a while.

HP represent the wearing down of the opponent. Wearing down skill, luck, stamina, and all that.

0 to -10 is the bleeding out and/or shock part. 10 minutes seems a bit long. But as noted, often you start out a little or alot into the negative to begin with.

-6 to -10 is the FUBAR stage.

At low levels this actually balances out to a degree. If all you have is 4 HP total/left when someone whales on you for 10 then you are right out the gate at -5 HP and will be dead in 5 rounds. Take into account possibly being hit more than once when you go down and things can get really messy really fast. At low levels wild animals were more of a terror than the monsters as they more often had multiple attacks.

i have seen the 4e and 5e whack a mole effect in full flight and dislike it greatly. i am much more on board with the zero hp = out of the current fight, preferably with a chance of death, or injury/setback, but without needing a week to recover (which is what i went with in Low Fantasy Gaming, in my sig ;)). you then get a real feeling of danger when getting to low hps, which reminds me of Ad&d, but without the harshness of basic's auto dead at zero.

Sett, I've experienced the opposite.  I've given characters max-at-starting, ignored the "only fighters get extra HP for high CON"* rule and let everyone have the +3 or +4, etc. etc., and have had more TPKs than not.  And it's not through me being a dick ("ha ha!  Huge ancient red dragon for you, first levelers!") or the players being idiots ("black pudding?  Yum!  Let's go up and lick it!"), but rather, it's dice rolls.

I think the "AD&D is more lethal" is a combination of a few things: one, people houseruling or ignoring how the rules (given as options) work for being dropped to zero or below and they just say "zero is dead", two, ignoring the rule on dying just because of bad/dumb luck (which Gary said, give 'em a break - if they played to the hilt and still died because of a shit die roll, you don't have to kill them) and finally, modules like S1 and S2 which would gleefully turn foolish parties into slurry.

Personally, I feel like inasmuch as Gary said "never give a player an even break, and conversely ALWAYS give a monster an even break" it was clear that he was doing more to ensure player character survivability: have two stats of at least 15.  Zero HP needn't equal death, you could drop to maybe as low as -3 before dying in one shot, and then have 7 more rounds until you were stone dead, the DM could adjudicate that you weren't slain but rather lost a limb, or eye, etc., the inclusion of more healing magics, and so on and so forth.  By itself that seems like, wow, yeah that's a step away from making today's adventurers tomorrow's monster poop that can happen in original D&D...but it got "worse" depending on your point of view with post-Gygax 1e and of course 2e.  I seem to recall Dragonlance modules basically telling the DM: "Don't let the player-characters die.  They can't."  Then 3e/3.5 were less lethal than 2e.  4e was positively ridiculous with things like Healing Surges and ... what was that one class that could just YELL your wounds shut, can't recall right now.  HP inflation factors in to that, too.  Consider the baddest dragon in AD&D (well, not unique I mean): the Huge Ancient Red Dragon.  The HARD has 88 hit points, and all other considerations, and is considered pretty damn tough.  Then in 3e, you had dragons with h u n d r e d s of hit points.  But then, characters too could have 50, 60, 70 hp by mid-high levels!

With all respect to Rob Conley, when we playtested 5e a few times with him one of the things that struck me was how nutty the HP and HD curves had gotten (I think they scaled it back a bit?) but we got in a fight with some grey ooze that had ... god, 120, 130 HP?

Taken in that light, it isn't so much that "AD&D is super lethal!" as it is that later editions' power curves are exponential over AD&D's.

Does that make sense?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;912151With all respect to Rob Conley, when we playtested 5e a few times with him one of the things that struck me was how nutty the HP and HD curves had gotten (I think they scaled it back a bit?) but we got in a fight with some grey ooze that had ... god, 120, 130 HP?

What happened in the final 5e release rules is that hit points are still inflated however they tweaked everything so that it works better. It not quite as flat as OD&D but pretty close. The result is that they can build classes with distinct ways of doing damage however it is nothing like D&D 3.X or 4e. In conjunction with bounded accuracy, I don't feel there is much of a difference between OD&D and 5e in the OUTCOME of combats. High level 5e characters are vulnerable in a way that prior edition characters, including AD&D 1st, are not. Excepting OD&D. Of course how that outcome is achieved in 5e and OD&D is very very different.

I haven't switch wholesale over to 5e because there are still a lot of fiddly things to do when you make new classes and creatures. Since the outcome of what I do in D&D 5e and OD&D is the same I rather stick with OD&D as the foundation for the Majestic Wilderlands as making shit up for it is a lot more straightforward. The temptation remains though because of the 5e OGL. However I got most of what is Majestic Wilderlands version 2.0 written up, I probably will just stick to completing that.

Quote from: estar;912172I haven't switch wholesale over to 5e because there are still a lot of fiddly things to do when you make new classes and creatures. Since the outcome of what I do in D&D 5e and OD&D is the same I rather stick with OD&D as the foundation for the Majestic Wilderlands as making shit up for it is a lot more straightforward. The temptation remains though because of the 5e OGL. However I got most of what is Majestic Wilderlands version 2.0 written up, I probably will just stick to completing that.

Ooooooo... just the guy I was looking for. have a couple of things for you real quick;

First, came across this interesting info about the Picts that I never knew before. Could never figure out why the Picts were able to hold off the Romans... until now.

Scottish Brochs (Towers... where the word Brooch originated from?)
http://www.scottishbrochs.com/index.html (http://www.scottishbrochs.com/index.html)

https://senchus.wordpress.com/2015/07/ (https://senchus.wordpress.com/2015/07/)

...and second, had a catastrophic failure of my Windows machine back in January, and it took out all my generator files for Inspiration Pad Pro. I only had a partial backup and lost at least 100 man-hours of generator database builds. Since then I started a Github archive for all my new IPP Generator files, so I don't lose them again if my desktop goes tits-up.

You can find this archive here;
https://github.com/GameDaddy2/IPP-Repository (https://github.com/GameDaddy2/IPP-Repository)

You are welcome to anything there, and I would appreciate it if you happen to still have those IPP files I emailed you a few years back, if you would email them to me, or upload them to the GitHub so I could get them back (and everyone else can use them.)

Cheers!
GameDaddy

Quote from: estar;911972The RAW rule states that unconsciousness is at 0 or lower, death results at -10.

Only in a special case. Here it is again:

Quote from: DMG, p. 82When any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally as low as –3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until –10 is reached and the creature dies.

The first sentence says a creature taken to 0 hit points is unconscious. There's no imprecision here -- it applies to a creature who has brought to exactly 0 hp, no more and no less. (Or 0 to -3 hp, if caused by one blow when using the optional rule.)

This is followed by a rule that covers unconscious creatures with anywhere from -1 to -9 hp, but it's not a general rule. Because the second sentence is predicated on the first, and thus only applies when a creature has been brought unconscious under the conditions in the first sentence.

Now the rules don't say what happens if you're taken to -4 hp in one blow, but they also don't say what happens if you're dropped to -100 hp. Presumably the same thing happens -- you're dead.

So if you're dropped to 0 hp (exactly), you're unconscious and may take 9 rounds to bleed out and die.

If you use the optional rule, then you're unconscious if you're dropped to 0, -1, -2, or -3 hp with a single blow, and may take 6 to 9 rounds to die.

AD&D never granted an extra 10 hit points (with conditions). It's an extra one hit point (or with the optional rule, 4), with a timer.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912112Running at 100% and then dropping dead is the kind of thing you expect from someone at the end of a Berserk.  
Of course Running at 100% and then dropping unconscious to start dying isn't all that much better.  :D

But steadily degrading in effectiveness without being dead or unconscious is a death spiral, which doesn't seem much better either.

That doesnt sound right at all. About 90% of characters then taken down are going to die as I've hardly ever seen anyne get taken to exactly zero. Sure, its happened. But not even once a session. The vast majority of the time someones down and into the negatives at the same time.

Quote from: Omega;912190That doesnt sound right at all. About 90% of characters then taken down are going to die as I've hardly ever seen anyne get taken to exactly zero. Sure, its happened. But not even once a session. The vast majority of the time someones down and into the negatives at the same time.

It's better than dying at 0 hp.

But I think a lot of people felt like you, wanted a bigger buffer, and read what they wanted into the section.

What I like is max HP at level one then roll ALL hit dice when you gain a level and take the new result if it's higher than the old one. Easier at first, more forgiving, more dice rolling and only baaaaaarely from HPs over the long haul.

What I like is reroll all hit dice every time you rest and take the new result if it's higher than the old one.
That way, you also get a recovery mechanic.

Quote from: estar;912172What happened in the final 5e release rules is that hit points are still inflated however they tweaked everything so that it works better. It not quite as flat as OD&D but pretty close. The result is that they can build classes with distinct ways of doing damage however it is nothing like D&D 3.X or 4e. In conjunction with bounded accuracy, I don't feel there is much of a difference between OD&D and 5e in the OUTCOME of combats. High level 5e characters are vulnerable in a way that prior edition characters, including AD&D 1st, are not. Excepting OD&D. Of course how that outcome is achieved in 5e and OD&D is very very different.

I haven't switch wholesale over to 5e because there are still a lot of fiddly things to do when you make new classes and creatures. Since the outcome of what I do in D&D 5e and OD&D is the same I rather stick with OD&D as the foundation for the Majestic Wilderlands as making shit up for it is a lot more straightforward. The temptation remains though because of the 5e OGL. However I got most of what is Majestic Wilderlands version 2.0 written up, I probably will just stick to completing that.

Yeah, 5e has definitely backed down from where it was in terms of HP during the playtest, at least as far as I'm concerned.  But it's still up there.  I have a 9th level wizard in an on-again/off-again game we run that has...I want to say 47 hit points?  While that's not outside of the realm of possibility in AD&D it is high.  Not 4e high though.  And he has a lot more defensive options than a 9th level 1e Magic User would have.

Quote from: Cave Bear;912199What I like is reroll all hit dice every time you rest and take the new result if it's higher than the old one.
That way, you also get a recovery mechanic.

That works too, but I'd probably declare that a "rest" is a week or something punitive like that.

I think 56 hp is bog standard for level 9 Wizard in 5e. You just need a 14 Con and you're set. Toss in an AC 20 (with a 14 Dex, and you'll always have access to Mage Armor and Shield), and uncounterable spells, too, and wizards are surprisingly great at defense. Offense, too. And utility.

Quote from: Doom;912206I think 56 hp is bog standard for level 9 Wizard in 5e. You just need a 14 Con and you're set. Toss in an AC 20 (with a 14 Dex, and you'll always have access to Mage Armor and Shield), and uncounterable spells, too, and wizards are surprisingly great at defense. Offense, too. And utility.

Until they run out of spell slots, of course. Surprisingly :rolleyes:, balance is affected by how often a long rest is possible.

Quote from: GameDaddy;912175You are welcome to anything there, and I would appreciate it if you happen to still have those IPP files I emailed you a few years back, if you would email them to me, or upload them to the GitHub so I could get them back (and everyone else can use them.)

Sure thing I can do that tonight (evening of the 10th). PM me if i forget. I have a handful of new ones to throw in as well. The main being a table where I coded up the AD&D 1st edition NPC personality charts and the Paizo Gamemastery personality chart into a monster Personality Stat Block. Real handy when I am creating a town and need ideas for a mass of NPCs.

It looks like this.

QuoteAlignment: neutral evil, Possessions: average
Age: ancient, General: immaculate, Sanity: normal
General Tendencies: moody, Personality: Introverted: rude, Disposition: unfeeling/insensitive,
Nature: vengeful, Honesty: average, Energy: normal, Morals: virtuous, Intellect: average,
Materialism: greedy, Bravery: fearless, Thrift: average, Piety: reverent, Interests: politics
Background: Criminal who retired after betraying rest of gang, Goal: Find a better job, Physical: Very hairy,
Personality: Ask rude question without realizing they cause offense,
Secrets: Is a member of a secret local cult, Reward: Sabotage a bridge, road, or something equally important

I rarely use the entire thing as is but pick stuff out that inspire me. This one led too.

QuoteFinesmith, Quality Good, Prices: High
Leudast, age 64, was once a pirate on the Bloody Mary captained by Black Edward. His duties as the ship's carpenter including being able to repair all the metal fittings and parts. Forty years ago he secretly betrayed Black Edward to the Kingdom of the Isles in exchange for a pardon and a master's license in the Finesmith guild. Eventually Leudast wound up establishing himself in Mikva. He works hard at presenting a respectable front.

He has continued to maintain his contacts among the pirate community. Currently he operates as a fence and source of information for Moran Lodar of Carra, the leader of Piall's small Thieves Guild. Leudast is careful about keeping the two sides of his business and has murdered a dozen people over the years to keep it that way. He has about a half dozen associates he uses for his criminal activities. He and Ecgric do not like get a long and Leudast is looking for some leverage in order to bring him under his control.

Leudast's distinguishing physical characteristic is his extreme hairiness. Despite his age it has remained mostly black.

Quote from: Pat;912185Only in a special case. Here it is again:

The first sentence says a creature taken to 0 hit points is unconscious. There's no imprecision here -- it applies to a creature who has brought to exactly 0 hp, no more and no less. (Or 0 to -3 hp, if caused by one blow when using the optional rule.)

This is followed by a rule that covers unconscious creatures with anywhere from -1 to -9 hp, but it's not a general rule. Because the second sentence is predicated on the first, and thus only applies when a creature has been brought unconscious under the conditions in the first sentence.

Now the rules don't say what happens if you're taken to -4 hp in one blow, but they also don't say what happens if you're dropped to -100 hp. Presumably the same thing happens -- you're dead.

So if you're dropped to 0 hp (exactly), you're unconscious and may take 9 rounds to bleed out and die.

If you use the optional rule, then you're unconscious if you're dropped to 0, -1, -2, or -3 hp with a single blow, and may take 6 to 9 rounds to die.

AD&D never granted an extra 10 hit points (with conditions). It's an extra one hit point (or with the optional rule, 4), with a timer.

That is definitely one way to read it and makes the -3 comment understandable. However I don't view it as definitive.

One has to keep in mind that the DMG contradicts what the PHB say on the matter. So regardless the Dungeon Master has to make a ruling for his campaign.

From page 105 of the PHB.

QuoteDamage is meted out in hit points. If any creature reaches 0 or negative hit points, it is dead. Certain magical means will prevent actual death, particularly a ring of regeneration

Quote from: rawma;912189But steadily degrading in effectiveness without being dead or unconscious is a death spiral, which doesn't seem much better either.

True, going from 50 to 5 hit points, even without any penalties applied still means you are dramatically reduced in effectiveness, you're basically unable to dodge or shrug off any blows, the next attack might kill you.  It's just the way HP work - with a low AC, you could cleave through 40 orcs without any reduction in offensive capability and as long as they didn't land that one hit, you're basically fine.  Of course in a BRP game if you had 150% weapon skill, you could do the same thing with a 50% penalty.  It's one of those things that doesn't seem odd when you're playing, only when you look at it off the table.

Which kind of goes to what Mearls was saying in the other thread - at the table is key, another thing he's taking from the OSR and other Indie movements which tend to be all about at the table.  (Although carefully edited and acted video performances from people whose retirement plan is making money off Youtube probably isn't the way to do it.)

You shut yer piehole and just play the game, players can usually ignore a lot of stuff that might bother a GM.

Quote from: rawma;912233Until they run out of spell slots, of course. Surprisingly :rolleyes:, balance is affected by how often a long rest is possible.

Agreed, as soon as they run out of cantrips, they're screwed.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;912201Yeah, 5e has definitely backed down from where it was in terms of HP during the playtest, at least as far as I'm concerned.  But it's still up there.  I have a 9th level wizard in an on-again/off-again game we run that has...I want to say 47 hit points?  While that's not outside of the realm of possibility in AD&D it is high.  Not 4e high though.  And he has a lot more defensive options than a 9th level 1e Magic User would have.

Wizards in 5e use a d6 as opposed to pre-3e ones which used a d4. So on average a 9th level AD&D MU will have 22 HP with a max of 36 (not factoring possible CON bonuses) and a 5e Wizard will have 34 and a max of 54.
At that level my Warlock had 56, (average is 44 but with a 12 con that bumps the average up to 53)  My last playtest Wizard had 44 HP at level 9 due to some good rolls and a 12 CON. So not too far off from yours.

The early playtest versions of the Wizard used a d4 though. Not sure when they transitioned to a d6.

Quote from: Omega;912261Wizards in 5e use a d6 as opposed to pre-3e ones which used a d4. So on average a 9th level AD&D MU will have 22 HP with a max of 36 (not factoring possible CON bonuses) and a 5e Wizard will have 34 and a max of 54.
At that level my Warlock had 56, (average is 44 but with a 12 con that bumps the average up to 53)  My last playtest Wizard had 44 HP at level 9 due to some good rolls and a 12 CON. So not too far off from yours.

The early playtest versions of the Wizard used a d4 though. Not sure when they transitioned to a d6.

It was an interesting design choice to up the wizard's hit points. I imagine at some point someone will realize "hit points are magic, so wizards should have the same hit points as fighters." Perhaps in 6th edition?

I was in a Dunning-Kruger echo chamber of game design, and someone suggested for 3E/PF that the wizard should have the same BAB as the fighter. The idea didn't receive nearly the scorn that, admittedly only a biased person could have...and they've rather already done that in 5E anyway.

Quote from: Doom;912277It was an interesting design choice to up the wizard's hit points. I imagine at some point someone will realize "hit points are magic, so wizards should have the same hit points as fighters." Perhaps in 6th edition?

I was in a Dunning-Kruger echo chamber of game design, and someone suggested for 3E/PF that the wizard should have the same BAB as the fighter. The idea didn't receive nearly the scorn that, admittedly only a biased person could have...and they've rather already done that in 5E anyway.

1: Seems going that way... bleah!
Actually I think Mearls just caved to the incessant whinning.

2: To be fair. In BX everyone starts out at the same fighting level. Think OD&D too? But after a point the other classes/races accellerate ahead of the magic user in to-hit progression.

I think flattening of the combat abilities among classes basically destroys the core value of D&D as a game, and no amount of fiddling the to-hit, AC, or saving throw mechanics can hide it. This is why I think 1E is vastly superior to 4E and significantly better than 5E just in terms of rules design. You can make fun of 1E's ridiculous diversity of die rolling mechanics, absurd reliance on tables and all the rest of it, but these are mechanical details that have little to do with the way the game is structured.

Quote from: Larsdangly;912298I think flattening of the combat abilities among classes basically destroys the core value of D&D as a game, and no amount of fiddling the to-hit, AC, or saving throw mechanics can hide it. This is why I think 1E is vastly superior to 4E and significantly better than 5E just in terms of rules design. You can make fun of 1E's ridiculous diversity of die rolling mechanics, absurd reliance on tables and all the rest of it, but these are mechanical details that have little to do with the way the game is structured.

This was actually a brilliant (albeit quite possibly accidental) idea by Gygax. By throwing so many different subsystems together, it made it much more difficult to say "this class is stupid". In later editions, things get so homogenized that we can say "class A has 12.347 DPR, while class B has 11.865 DPR, so class B is inferior, as both classes have the same diplomancy/intimidation mechanic" (note: this is hyperbole), because there really isn't as much to distinguish classes.

Quote from: Larsdangly;912298I think flattening of the combat abilities among classes basically destroys the core value of D&D as a game, and no amount of fiddling the to-hit, AC, or saving throw mechanics can hide it. This is why I think 1E is vastly superior to 4E and significantly better than 5E just in terms of rules design. You can make fun of 1E's ridiculous diversity of die rolling mechanics, absurd reliance on tables and all the rest of it, but these are mechanical details that have little to do with the way the game is structured.

I prefer how OD&D handles it. After playing several campaign with OD&D, I find AD&D values to inflated and PCs rise in power too fast. One reason I review 5e positively is that it returned the progression back to how OD&D handled it as opposed to trying to one up AD&D as 2e, 3e, and 4e did.

Quote from: Doom;912302This was actually a brilliant (albeit quite possibly accidental) idea by Gygax. By throwing so many different subsystems together, it made it much more difficult to say "this class is stupid". In later editions, things get so homogenized that we can say "class A has 12.347 DPR, while class B has 11.865 DPR, so class B is inferior, as both classes have the same diplomancy/intimidation mechanic" (note: this is hyperbole), because there really isn't as much to distinguish classes.

There was never any golden age where players did not optimize, With OD&D/AD&D it was more of a matter of trying to find the right magic items than tweaking in your character abilities. But in the goal was the same, to be the baddest and quickest at killing things. I was personally pretty good at and still own a beautiful hand paint miniature that I won by beating everybody in a AD&D battle tournament. I don't care what era of tabletop roleplaying you pick except perhaps the very beginning in the early 70s. The lion share of the players were focused on optimization by any means they can. The early 70s are an exception because nobody really knew the fuck what they were doing with this new fangled game. From reading the various account the focus was more on one-upping the other players and the referee by clever schemes than rules manipulation. Once rulebooks became common and tournaments became part of the scenes, then everything we see today started up back then.

The trick was to play a 8th level druid with a handful of minor item. The key ability was the healing that resulted from using the shapeshifting ability. Combined with spells like Entangle, I was able to out maneuver and more importantly out last everybody who tried to fight me. I bought a magic scimatar and enough minor magic items that I was doing OK damage every round. The healing was the key tho.

Quote from: Omega;9122962: To be fair. In BX everyone starts out at the same fighting level. Think OD&D too? But after a point the other classes/races accellerate ahead of the magic user in to-hit progression.

In OD&D everybody uses the same to-hit chart the only thing that differ is how fast you progress to the columns with a better to-hit chance. At first level everybody had the same to-hit change. In fact prior the Greyhawk Supplement everybody did the same die of damage too. Fighters would get a strength bonus for damage of course. People forget that in OD&D, the magic-user could contribute a lot more to combat after using his one spell at first level.

People bitch at 5e but from playing both OD&D and 5e, 5e goes further than any subsequent edition to restore the balance between the classes to where it stood with the original three books. Again to stress how 5e does this compared to OD&D is very different. But the results are similar.

Interesting discussion.

Earthdawn uses a count up Damage mechanic, and each character has a Wound Threshold, Unconscious Rating, and Death Rating. Take over Wound Threshold damage in a round and you get a -1 mod to all rolls. These are all based on starting Constitution score, and each level ("Circle") you get slight bump to your KO rating, and a slightly bigger bump to your Death rating (scaled so casters get less then "specialists", who get less then fighter-types). Throw in bleeding wounds (+1 damage per round for each), and you basically have everything, I think.

Oh, waking people up from a KO is much easier, but that's because DEATH (the god/Passion) is trapped under a gigantic lava-sea at the center of the world-map, which allows all sorts of crazy healing-magic in-setting.

Quote from: estar;912355In OD&D everybody uses the same to-hit chart the only thing that differ is how fast you progress to the columns with a better to-hit chance. At first level everybody had the same to-hit change. In fact prior the Greyhawk Supplement everybody did the same die of damage too. Fighters would get a strength bonus for damage of course. People forget that in OD&D, the magic-user could contribute a lot more to combat after using his one spell at first level.

People bitch at 5e but from playing both OD&D and 5e, 5e goes further than any subsequent edition to restore the balance between the classes to where it stood with the original three books. Again to stress how 5e does this compared to OD&D is very different. But the results are similar.

Same with BX. In fact they use the same to hit progression. Though BX's to hits are harder by about 2 points in general. EG: If O need a 15 then BX needs a 17.

Which is why so many compare 5e to BX too as its got that same initial feel of an even start.

Quote from: Omega;912362Which is why so many compare 5e to BX too as its got that same initial feel of an even start.

From playing a couple of campaigns of both, it extends into the higher levels as well. Again how this is achieved is very different. In OD&D, high level characters have one or two unique capabilities and the rest is handled on what the character acquired (knowledge, henchmens, items, etc) throughout the campaign. In 5e, the characters themselves are different as each class have significant customization options.

Quote from: Daztur;912197What I like is max HP at level one then roll ALL hit dice when you gain a level and take the new result if it's higher than the old one. Easier at first, more forgiving, more dice rolling and only baaaaaarely from HPs over the long haul.

Iirc this is the way it was done in 0D&D. Certainly this is how it was done in Empire of the Petal Throne which followed very shortly thereafter. All hit dice were rerolled at each level keeping the better total, starting at max hit points was a common house rule. My 0D&D books are in storage or I would look it up.

I have changed the unconcious at 0, dead at -10, bleeding at -1 per round on occasion to dead at negative CON. This does make Constitution a much more important stat for combat characters. A round of first aid and bandaging will stop the bleeding but not restore any hit points. Healing begins when bedrest begins.

Quote from: DavetheLost;912394Iirc this is the way it was done in 0D&D.

You don't remember correctly.  In original D&D, you rolled your hit dice at first level.  So you could wind up with a fighter with 1 hp and a magic-user with 6.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;912406You don't remember correctly.  In original D&D, you rolled your hit dice at first level.  So you could wind up with a fighter with 1 hp and a magic-user with 6.

How do you get a Magic User with six?  They use a d4 hit die!

Quote from: AaronBrown99;912407How do you get a Magic User with six?  They use a d4 hit die!

Not in the LBB's. Every weapon did 1d6 damage and everybody had d6 hit dice back then (though fighters got d6+1).

And apparently you re-rolled your hits each level? So your level 3 Fighting Man might have 18 hits (3d6) and then at level 4 have only 4 (4d6). Meanwhile the MU at same might have 2 (2d6) at level 3 and then 13 (2d6+1) at level 4.

Least the example in the book seemed to be saying that? Though could be it was just an example of the + and not meant to mean that you re-rolled every level.

The flat to-hit progression in D&D has always bugged the shit out of me. A fighter and a wizard armed with similar weapons and fighting moderately armored foes have very similar offensive firepower in melee combat. The fighter has better HP and access to better armor, so in the end you have to call him/her the more powerful melee character. But it just seems like poor, even weird, game design to given them similar abilities to dole out damage.

Quote from: Larsdangly;912430The flat to-hit progression in D&D has always bugged the shit out of me. A fighter and a wizard armed with similar weapons and fighting moderately armored foes have very similar offensive firepower in melee combat. The fighter has better HP and access to better armor, so in the end you have to call him/her the more powerful melee character. But it just seems like poor, even weird, game design to given them similar abilities to dole out damage.

Which D&D? For Basic, yeah, it was similar, but there were only 3 levels there, a huge bonus to armor class and superior weapons is about you can hope for in such a small range.

By AD&D, the fighters were going up 2 pips on the die every 2 levels (changed to 1 pip every 1 level in 3.0, an obvious improvement), putting them away ahead of wizards in to-hit in fairly short order.

Quote from: DavetheLost;912394Iirc this is the way it was done in 0D&D. Certainly this is how it was done in Empire of the Petal Throne which followed very shortly thereafter. All hit dice were rerolled at each level keeping the better total, starting at max hit points was a common house rule. My 0D&D books are in storage or I would look it up.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;912406You don't remember correctly.  In original D&D, you rolled your hit dice at first level.  So you could wind up with a fighter with 1 hp and a magic-user with 6.

Quote from: Omega;912414And apparently you re-rolled your hits each level? So your level 3 Fighting Man might have 18 hits (3d6) and then at level 4 have only 4 (4d6). Meanwhile the MU at same might have 2 (2d6) at level 3 and then 13 (2d6+1) at level 4.

Least the example in the book seemed to be saying that? Though could be it was just an example of the + and not meant to mean that you re-rolled every level.

Not sure if Dave is saying that OD&D had both max hit points at 1st level and a reroll all hit dice at every level rule, or just the second one.

The first is definitely wrong. The second is open to interpretation. Men & Magic does not say when or how hit dice are rolled. It just gives an example of how the dice + adds for a superhero work.

There is an implication, though, that they are rerolled every time the character levels up. For example, a 9th level Lord is 9+3 hit dice, with 12 hit points as the lowest possible result. A 10th level Lord is 10 +1 hit dice, with a lowest result of 11 hit points. If you were only rolling one extra die each time you leveled up and adding the result to your current total, this would not make sense. Do you subtract two from the die when you roll? Do your hit points go down if you roll badly?

On the other hand, if you read it as "reroll all hit dice every level", there is nothing in the rules to even suggest that you keep the highest result. I actually used that rule at my table. I gave players the option to reroll all hit dice when back at home base and erasing all damage immediately, but they had to keep the new result until the next time they level up or return to heal damage. First player who took that option rolled a 1. He went with it, though, and in a way, the rule helped. It made him extra cautious on the next expedition.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912248True, going from 50 to 5 hit points, even without any penalties applied still means you are dramatically reduced in effectiveness, you're basically unable to dodge or shrug off any blows, the next attack might kill you.  It's just the way HP work - with a low AC, you could cleave through 40 orcs without any reduction in offensive capability and as long as they didn't land that one hit, you're basically fine.

I think I misunderstood your original point; you were talking about having a larger span of time between being taken out of the fight and being dead beyond any help at all? Certainly that should sometimes be very short (Godzilla stepped on you when you were completely healthy, or a critical hit, but those can correspond to high damage in the game) but if you're slowly being whittled down by the same attacks over a long span, then it is sort of weird if there's no in between state, and 0HP alone, say, is a rather narrow range for unconscious. I'm not sure if the width of that range should scale with level, though.

But if you count HP left into effectiveness then it's pretty unusual in an RPG to go from 100% effective to dead just like that. OK, the character with one HP who is very hard to hit, but that's not a common thing even for NPCs.

Quote from: Doom;912253Agreed, as soon as they run out of cantrips, they're screwed.

I was responding to the claim that using mage armor and shield made them great at defense. With only cantrips remaining, they stop being great, surprisingly or otherwise, at defense, which becomes terrible, and are not that special at offense and utility.

Eight hours after the spell slots run out, the level 9 wizard you describe has AC12. That's really squishy. Damage cantrips scale with level and offer two dice with no bonus, where combat classes at that level typically have two attacks, so two dice damage with their best ability added twice, and the same chance to hit for both. Magical weapons with a bonus to hit and damage can be found but I have yet to see one for damage cantrips¹. If cantrips make a character with no armor so awesome, then we'd expect more characters to take a feat or a multiclassed level to get access to some of those all-powerful cantrips.

In OD&D, the ratio of average HP for a level 9 fighter versus level 9 magic-user is pretty similar to the ratio in 5e (whether with high CON versus 14 CON, or average CON versus average CON). The fighter would hit slightly more often (3rd column of the combat chart versus 2nd, so +3) but their weapon damage was the same (dagger did the same d6 as anything else).

¹ Cantrips do have problems in 5e; a few characters can add ability score to their damage, they keep adding dice, there's no ammunition supply like an archer would have to manage, some call for a saving throw instead of an attack roll, and a few do better than d8's of damage. And there are some non damage cantrips that have a lot of potential for abuse, like Guidance [which is not a wizard cantrip]. Even so, my experience is that they don't dominate the game in actual play.

At a guess this was why BX and AD&D clarify or changed it so that that you roll an extra die and add to your previous HP each level.

Agreed, under the assumption they don't have any spells, Wizards are pretty bad.

Realistically, of course, this doesn't happen. The simple fact that Shield is only used when needed, means the wizard could easily be in half a dozen rounds of melee combat before running out of first level spell slots....and then he can just use higher level spell slots.

And, of course, combats don't usually last that long. And, of course, wizards don't usually put themselves into melee for that many rounds. And, of course, the wizard will usually use his spells to help himself in combat. And, of course, the rest of the party will usually help out even such an incompetent wizard. And, of course, "after 8 hours he's squishy" is misleading, since a single short rest is usually enough for a wizard to get some spell slots back. And, of course, there are few scenarios where the adventurers have more than 8 consecutive hours of combat.

But without all these common scenarios, in a white room, under the assumption of the wizard having no spells and especially if he can't move in addition, then, yeah, I agree...he's pretty sucky on defense.

Wizards really suck at defense if they have no arms, legs, or head.

Quote from: Doom;912458Agreed, under the assumption they don't have any spells, Wizards are pretty bad.

Realistically, of course, this doesn't happen. The simple fact that Shield is only used when needed, means the wizard could easily be in half a dozen rounds of melee combat before running out of first level spell slots....and then he can just use higher level spell slots.

You just like having people curb stomp you with facts dont you?

Here we go again.

Lets see. Level 9  Wizard has 14 spells, (not counting cantrips.) That is. After 14 rounds the Wizard is down to just cantrips and guess what. Those work pretty much like a fighters sword.

Shield only lasts one round. Useful if you are being ganged up on. But can end up wasted if no one attacks you the round duration its up. And you cant blow higher slots to cast it so you only get... drumroll please... Yep... 4 of those oh so super powerful Shield. uh-huh. Yeah man Im invincible!
So once you've used all those up. What next? Cloud of daggers can make for a pretty mean barrier between you and someone wanting to hack you into wizard gibs. Lasts up to 10 rounds so good for a whole battle. Only get 3 though. Next up. Lets see. Stinking Cloud makes for a great offensive barrier still. Drop that in front of the party and its bound to fuck up a monster sooner or later and thats a lost action if it does. 3 of those as well. Next up, Stoneskin is a possible option here. Lasts up to an hour and halves most melee damage. Only get three, but pretty good coverage. And lastly theres the 5th level spell. Just one. Sorry. Cloudkill I favoured as its got a long duration.

Why use spells like that? Because we learned the hard way that tactics count. A spell cast poorly is just about useless. find some place to bottleneck or at least restrict movement and all those cloud spells become more effective than a fireball. The main trick though is that you need friends to back you up and cover those areas the spells cant.

Teamwork. Something apparently thrown under the wheels of "modern" players egos.

Quote from: Doom;912458Agreed, under the assumption they don't have any spells, Wizards are pretty bad.

The goalposts you move keep running over your strawmen. I don't claim that Wizards are bad; only that the balance for the awesomeness generated by burning lots of spell slots is ... running out of spell slots. Duh.

And that happens a lot sooner if you imagine that they're burning several spells a round, because we also established that their offense is nothing special if they don't use spell slots to power it, and AC15 and lower hit points is nothing special for defense, if they're not using the Shield spell. That ninth level Wizard has, what, 14 spell slots and already used one for Mage Armor, so 7 rounds of combat if they're getting attacked a lot, or they can accept having a lower AC and then they're not so great on defense, or resort to cantrips and then they're not so great on offense. Arcane Recovery gives that Wizard 4 spell levels back, so they'll be good for a Mage Armor and a Shield and maybe a 2nd level spell after that, a one-time recovery before a long rest.

QuoteRealistically, of course, this doesn't happen. The simple fact that Shield is only used when needed, means the wizard could easily be in half a dozen rounds of melee combat before running out of first level spell slots....and then he can just use higher level spell slots.

And, of course, combats don't usually last that long. And, of course, wizards don't usually put themselves into melee for that many rounds. And, of course, the wizard will usually use his spells to help himself in combat. And, of course, the rest of the party will usually help out even such an incompetent wizard. And, of course, "after 8 hours he's squishy" is misleading, since a single short rest is usually enough for a wizard to get some spell slots back. And, of course, there are few scenarios where the adventurers have more than 8 consecutive hours of combat.

There are numerous scenarios where more than 8 hours is spent traveling through territory where it's not easy to take a long rest, with a succession of battles, in which characters are not given a choice about being in melee. The early part of Out of the Abyss comes to mind. You don't have to have 8 hours of combat; you can burn through all of that Wizard's spell slots by your stated strategy in less than a minute, and then have a tough trek to safe places where you can rest. The 8 hours is when the Mage Armor expires, whether you fight or not.

QuoteBut without all these common scenarios, in a white room, under the assumption of the wizard having no spells and especially if he can't move in addition, then, yeah, I agree...he's pretty sucky on defense.

So I looked at notes from the last adventure we played, last night; 12 opponents against 5 PCs in the last fight, and it lasted 7 rounds. The earlier fight lasted only 5 rounds, but the PCs were outnumbered by even more (but mostly weaker and slower) opponents and the casters chewed up a few spells there. No Wizard in the party, so I don't know how many Shield spells would have been cast; the two Rogues were doing plenty of Uncanny Dodges in the latter fight. Everyone got attacked almost every round in the latter fight, even the Rogue who hid pretty far away. Using Cunning Action to Disengage and retain mobility did not do much for either Rogue in avoiding attacks; Wizards are less mobile than that, unless they use all their spell slots and actions on moving and do no actual attacking, and there's still ranged attacks. A lot of combat but not a particularly challenging adventure; we could have run away before the second fight if the first had gone worse.

I get that you are heavily invested in the idea of caster supremacy, but I'm really beginning to wonder how much you actually play.

In all my thirty years of running D&D (well, OK, as I've played many other games, it's closer to 20 ish?) I've never had a Wizard ever run out of spells. Except at Level 1.  Too much worry about losing the Magic Go Juice, not from the Magic User, but by the rest of the party.

I assume you guys are talking about 3e or later, not 1e or 0e, like the rest of the people in the thread? Because in those games, M-Us don't normally run out of spells because casting during combat is a bad idea. A worse idea than using a bow in combat, because if the spell is interrupted, you lose it, generally.

The typical M-U in combat has a chance of casting one ranged spell or maybe throwing up a defensive spell before pulling out a dagger. Magic items can change this, but even there, you aren't typically going to see someone casting a new spell effect every round. That's something that creatures with innate magic effects do, which is what makes things like basilisks or beholders scary.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912473In all my thirty years of running D&D (well, OK, as I've played many other games, it's closer to 20 ish?) I've never had a Wizard ever run out of spells. Except at Level 1.  Too much worry about losing the Magic Go Juice, not from the Magic User, but by the rest of the party.

Exactly. In some weird white room, Omega and Raw say these things, but...it's not a white room you actually get to see. In actual play, paralyzed wizards with no spells engaging in 9 hour combats with no help from the other players is rather rare, despite what these guys say.

Now off to another Omega-style train wreck.

>>Lets see. Level 9 Wizard has 14 spells, (not counting cantrips.) That is. After 14 rounds the Wizard is down to just cantrips and guess what.<<

OUCH! For a guy that always claims to play this game nearly 24/7, you don't seem to know how wizards play. It's quite possible to cast cantrips even when you have other spells. In fact, wizards in my campaign do that all the time. It's more like 30 rounds of combat before the wizard is down to nothing but cantrips, because more often than not, wizards use cantrips than spells. For example, a Fireball might start the combat, then the wizard uses cantrips to finish off the wounded monsters.

Again, I'm hoping some actual players can chime in with something like "yeah, this guy is full of crap, my wizard often casts a cantrip during combat."

>>Shield only lasts one round. Useful if you are being ganged up on. But can end up wasted if no one attacks you the round duration its up. <<

Ouch, again. For a guy that that claims to play wizards so much, you really don't understand this basic spell, so useful that every class with access to it will take it.

It's not possible for Shield to be "wasted" as it's a Reaction. If you get hit, you can use Shield to cancel the hit. You are guaranteed to get use out of Shield, if you cast it. You might well get extra use if you get attacked multiple times during the round but...it really is just that awesome. It's what makes Shield so great--you only get the big bonus if you want it.


>>And you cant blow higher slots to cast it so you only get... drumroll please... Yep... 4 of those oh so super powerful Shield. uh-huh. Yeah man Im invincible!<<

Ouch, yet again. Even for you, this post is a train wreck. Page 201 of the PHB sure seems to indicate you can cast Shield using a higher level spell slot.

At this point, I guess I should go into the mathematics here. Outside of edge cases, any attack on the Wizard has a 25% chance of being negated by Shield. This doesn't mean the Wizard will only use a shield every 4 rounds, however, as he'll typically use Shield when he's ganged up on (i.e., at least 2 attacks against him). So, if he didn't know the rules like Omega and only used his level 1 spell slots (along with all the other white room assumptions made earlier), he still will take around 6 rounds (assuming 4 level 1 slots, one used for Mage Armor) before running out of slots.

That's 6 rounds of VULNERABILITY, however, not 6 rounds of combat. In actual play, Wizards tend not to put themselves right into the middle of combat, and the other party members will often do what they can to help the wizard.

Again, this is the problem: the wizard has to be extremely vulnerable for a long period of time before there's any actual vulnerability...he gets built-in defenses so that there's no real vulnerability here.

And, of course, if he takes a short rest, he'll have an excellent chance of getting at least one of those slots back. But only if he wants it.


There's no "curb stomping with the facts", just more idiocy of ever increasing purity.

No, Shield doesn't make the Wizard invincible. It's just this weird set up where infinite cantrips means the wizard may as well use his first level spells for utility, combined with "the combo" of mage armor and shield also giving the wizard a higher AC than other characters.

But only if he wants it.

Quote from: Omega;912463Lets see. Level 9  Wizard has 14 spells, (not counting cantrips.) That is. After 14 rounds the Wizard is down to just cantrips and guess what. Those work pretty much like a fighters sword.

This is a non-issue in actual play. It happens only rarely. In two campaigns of 5e, dozens of campaigns with AD&D 1st and OD&D, and numerous one-shots. There only been a handful of times where the wizard ran out of spells. For the most part players are pretty smart at managing their resources and will break off when needed to to replenish.

The few time that it occurred is because the party got itself into a running battle. Either something went badly and they have the fight their way back to safety, or they just wind up in a extended battle where attrition is a major factor.

For example in one 5e session, one player decides he had enough of an "evil" sheriff and shoots hims. This leads to a multi-session battle sequence where a castle is sacked and the players wind up leading a revolution.

http://gamingballistic.blogspot.com/2015/03/majestic-wilderlands-look-squirrel.html
http://gamingballistic.blogspot.com/2015/03/reflections-on-majestic-beat-down.html
http://gamingballistic.blogspot.com/2015/03/majestic-wilderlands-do-you-hear-people.html
http://gamingballistic.blogspot.com/2015/03/majestic-wilderlands.html
http://gamingballistic.blogspot.com/2015/04/majestic-wilderlands-were-all-only-down.html

It was an extraordinary situation that led to people running out of well.. just about everything.

Quote from: estar;912525This is a non-issue in actual play. It happens only rarely.

You missed the part where I point out using longer duration defensive spells instead.

A single Cloud of X lasts up to 10 rounds. IE: about 1 battle.

Quote from: Doom;912515Exactly. In some weird white room, Omega and Raw say these things, but...it's not a white room you actually get to see. In actual play, paralyzed wizards with no spells engaging in 9 hour combats with no help from the other players is rather rare, despite what these guys say.

You totally missed the point. As usual.

Note where I point out using longer duration spells defensively? That is from actual play.

Try again please.

Quote from: Doom;912515Exactly. In some weird white room, Omega and Raw say these things, but...it's not a white room you actually get to see. In actual play, paralyzed wizards with no spells engaging in 9 hour combats with no help from the other players is rather rare, despite what these guys say.

(It's rawma, not Raw.)

I'm describing my actual experience playing, not any white room. You, in contrast, seem to be making a lot of assumptions about how the course of every D&D game has to go.

Whether Wizards run out of spell slots because they cast them all or whether they stop using them because they're saving them for later doesn't really matter; they stop being as great as you describe them if they're not using the spell slots. If you're going to claim they're great because of spell slots they use, then ... they have to use up the spell slots, either until they decide not to be great to save spell slots or the decision is made for them by running out.

Quotecombined with "the combo" of mage armor and shield also giving the wizard a higher AC than other characters.

You really have nobody in plate armor and a shield, let alone with +1AC from fighting style or with a magic shield? I guess maybe I was right about the lack of playing experience.

But I see you're the guy who couldn't read the scale on maps in Rise of Tiamat (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?32436-5E-DMs-Players-status-check-Still-liking-it&p=837482&viewfull=1#post837482). So maybe it's not lack of playing experience causing comprehension difficulties.

Quote from: rawma;912601(It's rawma, not Raw.)



You really have nobody in plate armor and a shield, let alone with +1AC from fighting style or with a magic shield? I guess maybe I was right about the lack of playing experience.

Wow, you're including magic shields for other characters now to make your point? You don't even  know there are magic items to increase a wizard's armor class. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH.

Shush already, you're embarrassing yourself to much.

Gee whiz, I missed a line in gothic script on a map page, and you're still in tears over it. Is THAT what all your butthurt is about? Well, at least now we know. Mea culpa already, get over it.

Geez.

Quote from: Doom;912603Wow, you're including magic shields for other characters now to make your point? You don't even  know there are magic items to increase a wizard's armor class.

None of them appear to be on the "Uncommon" magic item list, though. And, again, actual playing experience; in more than two years, I've only seen one such item (an Ioun Stone) but many more armor or shield +1 or better. But plate armor, shield and fighting style give AC21 without any magic items, so you're as mistaken as you were misreading maps in Rise of Tiamat. And that AC is all the time, without using any spell slots or worrying about having reaction available.

>>you're as mistaken as you were misreading maps in Rise of Tiamat.<<

Yes, I didn't see a line of gothic font on a map. My eyes aren't so good anymore, but feel free to harp on this irrelevancy. I still maintain fireball has a 20' radius, I still maintain most parties do not assume a marching formation that exceeds the area effect of a fireball. We can agree to disagree on this, though.

So, um, are you sure plate armor costs 0 gp? I maintain that in most campaigns it costs significantly more than what a character starts the game with; I also maintain that wizards can get first level spells at very low level.

>>None of them appear to be on the "Uncommon" magic item list, though<<

Also, Cloak of Protection is uncommon, so you're wrong, yet again. Give it up, already.

Quote from: Doom;912623>>you're as mistaken as you were misreading maps in Rise of Tiamat.<<

Yes, I didn't see a line of gothic font on a map. My eyes aren't so good anymore, but feel free to harp on this irrelevancy.

It's pretty big type on three of three (fairly uncluttered) maps you mentioned, and absolutely crucial to running that portion of the adventure, and completely negated your point. And we know you didn't actually play it or you should have noticed that 5 foot wide spaces are too narrow for an adult white dragon's lair (they're huge creatures).

QuoteSo, um, are you sure plate armor costs 0 gp? I maintain that in most campaigns it costs significantly more than what a character starts the game with; I also maintain that wizards can get first level spells at very low level.

Adventure League is notoriously stingy with monetary treasure (wandering monsters never have any), and yet it hasn't been hard to get 1500GP by 6th level or so (that is, my characters have managed it consistently, although more for possible need for spellcasting services than buying plate armor). Splint is one AC less and only costs 200GP (still not starting equipment, but not hard to acquire by second level) and with the Defense fighting style still makes your statement wrong.

Your strategy of using Shield and Mage Armor? Exhausts all spell slots for a first level Wizard after the first attack on the Wizard, with no effect except to protect the Wizard. And you expect the other party members to help such a freeloader?
:confused:

QuoteAlso, Cloak of Protection is uncommon, so you're wrong, yet again. Give it up, already.

Yes, I missed that one on a quick read-through. Usable by all character classes, requires attunement. +1 shield doesn't require attunement, and it comes up on one of the random tables 3 times out of 100, with the cloak coming up only 2 of 100 on the same table. So it is less common than +1 shield. But I demonstrated that you were wrong with no magic items at all, so this actually is irrelevant.

Fighter: Plate + Shield = AC 20
Wizard: Mage Armor + DEX 20 bonus = AC 18. IF you rolled an 18 and took an elf or halfling for example. (Not counting Shield as its a 1 round effect.)
Monk & Barbarian: Unarmored AC of max 19  (Wood Elf and Halfling respectively with absurdly lucky rolls of two 18s for stats.) 20 at level 4.
)
The fighter can potentially hit around AC 26, possibly as high as 29 or more with magic items. The wizard? Not so high. Though still impressive. Chances of either happening are not great. But it is possible to some degree.

All of which is totally pointless because the likelyhood of it happening for the non-Fighters are either so low, it requires possibly diverting stats from your primary, or isnt attainable till late in the game where you are, oh I dont know, SUPPOSED TO BE POWERFUL? At the low levels sure you might be able to hit a good AC on a lucky chargen day. But thats true of any game where you roll random stats. And even in 5e AC isnt the be-all end-all game breaker.

Quote.And we know you didn't actually play it or you should have noticed that 5 foot wide spaces are too narrow for an adult white dragon's lair (they're huge creatures).

Holy shit, you're STILL butthurt over that? For those that don't remember, my issue was the CR 3 wizard can cast two fireballs, dealing out more damage than a typical level 3 character can possibly take...and there's basically no reliable way the party can stop it. We spend ten pages or so, and nothing worked. And you're STILL butthurt over this, to the point that you think a dungeon for level 9ish characters somehow negates that thesis. Damn. Just...damn.

I 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.

But 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. You won't, of course, being a nutless bastard.

Quote from: rawma;912630It's pretty big type on three of three (fairly uncluttered) maps you mentioned, and absolutely crucial to running that portion of the adventure, and completely negated your point.

Cloak of Protection is in very clear type, alphabetically listed, been in D&D for ages. I could pick about your shrill defense of your error (attunement, really?), but no point.

You missing it negates your point every bit as someone with poor eyesight missing a line of text in an unusual place on a map. You actually bullying someone for having poor eyesight for what, a year, is truly, truly low.

Using your logic, you've just admitted you have no idea how to play the game, so at this point you're just trolling some more, right? This is idiocy of course, but that's the result if we assume you're intellectually honest.

Look, I'm trying to match you for stupid jackassery here. Apologies if I'm not even close.

Seriously. You're that guy who buys tickets to the Special Olympics just so you can sit in the stands and call all the kids retards.

QuoteYour strategy of using Shield and Mage Armor? Exhausts all spell slots for a first level Wizard after the first attack on the Wizard, with no effect except to protect the Wizard. And you expect the other party members to help such a freeloader?
:confused:

How do you not even know that "level 1" is a fairly brief period for a character, and that cantrips are fine against very low level monsters? I'm starting to wonder just how much you're faking it here.

Anyway, I've already addressed this in detail there's no reason to go over it all again. You missed it. Again. Go back and read...or not. The only reason I continue to engage with you is to cut into the time you go down to the pediatric burn unit and point at all the "ugly" children and smugly laugh.

Speaking of intellectual honesty, when will you be flinging poo at Omega for not even knowing about using Shield as a higher spell slot? If it helps, picture him as physically smaller and weaker than you, wearing thick glasses. Got nothing? Seriously? I predict as much.

The only question is how long until the idiot brigade finally stops shitting the thread. I'm out, you're a liar...will the Feckless Wonder stop? I doubt it.

EDIT: I do apologize for the insults here, especially "nutless"; your genitals, much like your posts, are irrelevant. However, "liar" is objectively demonstrated by you, as is "intellectually dishonest" and "butthurt." These are simply statements of your demonstrated poor character. If you'd like, I'd be happy to suggest links and books to help you out.

You three should get a room.  Or at least say something instead of back and forth arguing about what may or may not have been said 5 pages ago.  When you spend more sentences on the personal attack, then you do on your actual argument, time to go.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912808You three should get a room.  Or at least say something instead of back and forth arguing about what may or may not have been said 5 pages ago.  When you spend more sentences on the personal attack, then you do on your actual argument, time to go.

We tried. But the idiot brigade needed more punting. :cool:

Is low level AD&D or even BX lethal? Depends on the group. Im pretty sure even 4e can be utterly lethal for the PCs if they are playing poorly.

Look at the Tomb of Horrors thread here. Look at the absolute variety in how players approached it and just how dismayed Gary was at how some players just marched their characters to their deaths. While others breeze through it because they thought things through.

Keep on the Borderlands is one of my favourite examples. It can be a real meatgrinder of a module. That is until you learn to think and take precautions, learn caution and learn that not every encounter is solved with sword and spell. Or more recently all the bitching about Hoard of the Dragon Queen by players who just charged everything and got wiped out. While the group I DMed for walked through the first section unscathed due to stealth and bluffing.

Gygax was dismayed at players for playing his game 'wrong' because of one module.  Because players treated their characters as what?  Monopoly pieces? Or not like a wargame, which D&D's ancestor was?

I always thought the strength of this hobby was it's ability to adapt to the play style of it's player base.  Silly me.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912819Gygax was dismayed at players for playing his game 'wrong' because of one module.  Because players treated their characters as what?  Monopoly pieces? Or not like a wargame, which D&D's ancestor was?

I always thought the strength of this hobby was it's ability to adapt to the play style of it's player base.  Silly me.

There is a game you actually do play right?  You ever want to post about that instead of showing what an obsessed idiot you are about D&D gaming in a era in which you were demonstrably absent, ie. pre-2e?

In answer to your ignorant attack posed as a question, "how dismayed Gary was at how some players just marched their characters to their deaths" is the dismay every GM has when they see characters die due to no good reason at all other than players being stupid and not taking the simplest precautions.  Granted Tomb of Horrors is meant to be a death trap, specifically designed that way by a powerful undead wizard who wanted to be left alone, forever.  So, as a result, you may very well die anyway, but that's different than walking down a hall not even looking for traps, or just diving headfirst into anything your character will fit into.

If to you, "intelligence" is a playstyle, and games need to adapt to the "dumbass" playstyle, that explains oh so very much.

See Omega, balance. :D

Off 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.

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.

That's closer to the topic than what you and the other two have been yammering about, so let's focus on that, instead.

The thing about the original hit die progressions is that fighters get a d6 hit die every level, while M-Us get one every other level (to a point.) So, basically, M-Us have half as many hit dice as fighters. When Greyhawk switched to d8 for fighters and d4 for M-Us, it's basically just an easier way of getting the same result. It even removes the exceptions on the M-U HD progression, making it more regular, but at the cost of lowering max hit points at first level.

Clerics have an irregular progression, but it basically looks like it's trying for something halfway between the other two. When I was fiddling with the progressions to make them regular while still sticking to a d6 for everyone, I set clerics as +3/4 of a hit die per level. Again, Greyhawk's dice changes get the same result: 1d6 per level for clerics is 3/4ths of the hit dice of a fighter (1d8 per level) and between that and the M-U (1d4 per level.)

There is a copy of the pre-Greyhawk thief class floating around on the internet. They use the same progression as pre-Greyhawk M-Us, but without the quirks for higher-level M-Us. It's a straight 1d6 every other level. So, the Greyhawk thief uses the same progression as the Greyhawk M-U, 1d4 per level.

Later changes seem to be about upping combat effectiveness, but a side effect seems to be that for a while, there was less "clumping" (MUs, thieves, clerics and fighters each get a unique hit die type.) Eventually, rogues and clerics are made equivalent to one another, one step below fighters in terms of max hit points. The change in thieves/rogues, in my opinion, is because of the change in their combat role, from "non-combatant support personel" to "primary damage dealer". Not a change I support, though.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912833There is a game you actually do play right?  You ever want to post about that instead of showing what an obsessed idiot you are about D&D gaming in a era in which you were demonstrably absent, ie. pre-2e?

Assumption, because my play experience is nothing like your little special snowflake bubble?  Really?  Wow...  And a personal attack too.  Very nice. I've already detailed my experiences, which if you want to believe or not is not my problem.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912833In answer to your ignorant attack posed as a question, "how dismayed Gary was at how some players just marched their characters to their deaths" is the dismay every GM has when they see characters die due to no good reason at all other than players being stupid and not taking the simplest precautions.

That's not what was said.  Sounds to me like you're projecting...  Also, your next statement invalidates the entire above.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912833Granted Tomb of Horrors is meant to be a death trap, specifically designed that way by a powerful undead wizard who wanted to be left alone, forever.

Story-wise that's absolutely true, but people on this very site have said it was meant to punish players who used to brag about how they 'won' at D&D or had some obscenely high level character.  Which to me, and this is just a personal opinion, sounds like a giant 'Fuck You' to people who played the game differently than expected.  After all, most of the encounters were instant death ones.  It didn't matter ow many hit points, or how skilled the character was.  One screw up, one wrong choice, in a dungeon that did not warn you of this, time to roll up a new character/playing piece.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912833So, as a result, you may very well die anyway, but that's different than walking down a hall not even looking for traps, or just diving headfirst into anything your character will fit into.

But as I understood it, the best way to play it was to treat your characters as playing pieces, sacrifice a few to get to the end, map out and remember where X died.

Because if they 'roleplayed' which is how I would have done it way back when, due to how I was taught the game, using that sort of knowledge was considered metagaming and frowned on.  Worse, the next group of victims (and yes, that's pretty much what they are) could easily die the same way, over and over again, because this is a dungeon you can't 'trial and error'.  You screw up, done.  Make a new character.

Quote from: CRKrueger;912833If to you, "intelligence" is a playstyle, and games need to adapt to the "dumbass" playstyle, that explains oh so very much.

Seriously, I'm honestly a little confused.  I always considered Tomb of Horrors a 'bad' adventure (personal opinion, get those panties unbunched) because it ignored three main stats, Int, Wis and Cha (And your hit points see above.)  All three are not actually used, because the module tests it's players, not the characters.  Which again, to me (personal opinion), is something best left to board games (which they do very well), and frankly the best way to beat the Tomb is actually not go in.  The amount of risk involved for the amount of reward you can potentially get is, frankly, not worth it.

Now, I have no idea what you're wanking off about between 'Intelligence' and 'Dumbass', but, if I'm reading right, 'Intelligence' is about playing the game mechanically, like a board game (which frankly is the only way to beat Tomb of Horrors, assuming you even go into it), and 'Dumbass' is playing Elfric the Elf Cleric and this character, this 'role' a player is taking on to explore the Tomb...  Then, yeah, total dumbass here.  Because I'm an idiot who believes what the game is, because it says so on the tin:  A Roleplaying Game.

To be fair, the ranger used to start with 2d8 (the best starting HP, pre-barbarian) in AD&D.

Thing is, in the "everyone gets a d6" era, there was a huge difference in starting armor class, a 5 point difference being fairly common between The Class That Shall Not Be Commented On In A Negative Way and, say fighters and clerics (thieves being very dependent upon Dex to get that same spread, while The Class had a harder time having a high Dex, since a different stat was important). This effectively meant that everyone's staying power in melee varied quite a bit.

The Class having 3 hp, but a better than 50% chance of being hit, really was more vulnerable than, say, a fighter with 3 hit points, but only a 25% chance of being hit. The was arguably mathematically equivalent to having 6 hit points and no armor, especially in a system where it was very possible to take 1 point of damage in a melee attack.

By 5e, there's been a strong flattening of all this, where even kobolds (in a pack) have a very credible chance of hitting a heavily armored character, and hitting for less than 3 points of damage in melee is a fairly rare event against most monsters.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912819I always thought the strength of this hobby was it's ability to adapt to the play style of it's player base.  Silly me.

Wait. How does a hobby adapt? I'm assuming you're not suggesting thousands of hobbyists must change and adapt what they love and are doing just because some people with different tastes comes along. I mean, if the hobby was building model airplanes, and some new model kits came along that do all the work for you, or are designs for planes that don't even exist, or are off in their proportions, that doesn't mean the old guard who enjoys building WWII era models from scratch has to stop what they're doing.

I want to believe you're not suggesting that. But in your bashing of Tomb of Horrors, no matter how many parenthetical notes you make about your personal taste, it's like kicking down the door to someone else's clubhouse, telling them they're doing everything wrong, then crying like a baby at their audacity to even exist and not accommodate YOUR preferences. Talk about projection! I mean, at the end of the day, if you don't like ToH, you don't have to play it. Nobody's forcing you. It's not like elves are coming in the night turning all your other game books into ToH. They're not easy to come by. I had to fork over $35 to get my copy.

I'm also not sure, why can't the player adapt to the game? You know, like it's a two-way street? When I think of the narcissism bred by the RPG form being so adaptable, I begin to question if on balance that hasn't proven to be weakness of the hobby rather than the strength. Speaking for myself, when I buy a module, I expect it to challenge what I'm doing and show me something new. Otherwise, why waste the money? I could have just kept on serving up more of the same of what we've been doing in my group. I also know Gary had said on more than one occasion that when it came to module writing, he tried to avoid repeating previous efforts. He was always trying to do something he'd never done before.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912848Gygax was dismayed at players for playing his game 'wrong' because of one module.  Because players treated their characters as what?  Monopoly pieces? Or not like a wargame, which D&D's ancestor was?

QuoteStory-wise that's absolutely true, but people on this very site have said it was meant to punish players who used to brag about how they 'won' at D&D or had some obscenely high level character.  Which to me, and this is just a personal opinion, sounds like a giant 'Fuck You' to people who played the game differently than expected.  After all, most of the encounters were instant death ones.  It didn't matter ow many hit points, or how skilled the character was.  One screw up, one wrong choice, in a dungeon that did not warn you of this, time to roll up a new character/playing piece.

QuoteBut as I understood it, the best way to play it was to treat your characters as playing pieces, sacrifice a few to get to the end, map out and remember where X died.

QuoteBecause if they 'roleplayed' which is how I would have done it way back when, due to how I was taught the game, using that sort of knowledge was considered metagaming and frowned on.  Worse, the next group of victims (and yes, that's pretty much what they are) could easily die the same way, over and over again, because this is a dungeon you can't 'trial and error'.  You screw up, done.  Make a new character.

QuoteSeriously, I'm honestly a little confused.  I always considered Tomb of Horrors a 'bad' adventure (personal opinion, get those panties unbunched) because it ignored three main stats, Int, Wis and Cha (And your hit points see above.)  All three are not actually used, because the module tests it's players, not the characters.  Which again, to me (personal opinion), is something best left to board games (which they do very well), and frankly the best way to beat the Tomb is actually not go in.  The amount of risk involved for the amount of reward you can potentially get is, frankly, not worth it.

QuoteNow, I have no idea what you're wanking off about between 'Intelligence' and 'Dumbass', but, if I'm reading right, 'Intelligence' is about playing the game mechanically, like a board game (which frankly is the only way to beat Tomb of Horrors, assuming you even go into it), and 'Dumbass' is playing Elfric the Elf Cleric and this character, this 'role' a player is taking on to explore the Tomb...  Then, yeah, total dumbass here.  Because I'm an idiot who believes what the game is, because it says so on the tin:  A Roleplaying Game.

All of these comments indicate quite clearly that you literally know nothing about Tomb of Horrors. You're merely regurgitating, in telephone game-like fashion, what you've heard said about ToH.

Quote from: Lunamancer;912878All of these comments indicate quite clearly that you literally know nothing about Tomb of Horrors. You're merely regurgitating, in telephone game-like fashion, what you've heard said about ToH.

Welcome to the latest episode of "Brady Makes Himself Look Like An Idiot When He Talks About 1e D&D."

Quote from: talysman;912845The thing about the original hit die progressions is that fighters get a d6 hit die every level, while M-Us get one every other level (to a point.) So, basically, M-Us have half as many hit dice as fighters. When Greyhawk switched to d8 for fighters and d4 for M-Us, it's basically just an easier way of getting the same result. It even removes the exceptions on the M-U HD progression, making it more regular, but at the cost of lowering max hit points at first level.

Right. 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.

In AD&D a MU caps at level 11. Thats an average of 27 HP. Then +1/level thereafter. So a level 20 MU averages 36 HP. Compared to a 5e Wizard with an average of 72 hp. Even if you knocked it back to a d4 thats still 51 HP.
The AD&D Fighter meanwhile caps at 9. Average of 49 HP and at level 20 something like 82 HP. While the 5e one has 114 on average.
Neither of course factoring in any CON bonuses.

Meanwhile a huge ancient red dragon in AD&D has 11d8 HD and a total HP of 88 since age determines HP per die instead of rolling. A single AD&D fighter without any STR bonus might be able to kill it in 5-6 rounds. While the 5e red has 28d20+252 freaking HP! (average given is 546) A single fighter with a pumped up STR can kill it in about 10-12 rounds with a little luck. Two fighters can do the deed in 5 or so.

The real difference here is that the AD&D red dragon can kill the fighter in just one blast of flame breath. Two if he makes both saves. The 5e version can do about the same. But even on a failed save might not kill the 5e fighter in one shot. Or might.

At low levels is where you really see the differences. In AD&D theres no starting max HP and every possibility your CON isnt enough to rate. The fighter killed by a wizards familliar cat. how embarassing! :cool:

But even so you can mitigate the chances of being offed by pets or a stiff breeze with some prep and planning and maybe a ton of stealth and negotiation.

Quote from: Lunamancer;912878All of these comments indicate quite clearly that you literally know nothing about Tomb of Horrors. You're merely regurgitating, in telephone game-like fashion, what you've heard said about ToH.

I've read it, that's as far as I've gotten, I've never had the displeasure of playing it, or running it.

Quote from: talysman;912845Later changes seem to be about upping combat effectiveness, but a side effect seems to be that for a while, there was less "clumping" (MUs, thieves, clerics and fighters each get a unique hit die type.) Eventually, rogues and clerics are made equivalent to one another, one step below fighters in terms of max hit points. The change in thieves/rogues, in my opinion, is because of the change in their combat role, from "non-combatant support personel" to "primary damage dealer". Not a change I support, though.

Once the designers in their infinite lack of wisdom, decided that every class had to be roughly equal at combat, and said combat would be the focus of play then the whole reason for different classes went out the window. Every class became a fighter with a fighting style of (specialty here).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912848Seriously, I'm honestly a little confused.  I always considered Tomb of Horrors a 'bad' adventure (personal opinion, get those panties unbunched) because it ignored three main stats, Int, Wis and Cha (And your hit points see above.)  All three are not actually used, because the module tests it's players, not the characters.  Which again, to me (personal opinion), is something best left to board games (which they do very well), and frankly the best way to beat the Tomb is actually not go in.  The amount of risk involved for the amount of reward you can potentially get is, frankly, not worth it.

[Yoda]  That is why you fail. [/end Yoda]

ALL games are for the benefit/challenge of the players. A character is not real, cannot think or reason, and thus cannot be challenged. Attempting to do so is a brain dead exercise in futility. What challenge is there to be had in and endless comparison of numerical values? Games are for the entertainment of the players. Any challenge that is experienced is likewise for the players.

Sitting around comparing numerical values might be amusing as an exercise in probability but its not much of a way to run an engaging role playing game.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912913I've read it, that's as far as I've gotten, I've never had the displeasure of playing it, or running it.

Perhaps you should do so before yapping endlessly about it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;912913I've read it, that's as far as I've gotten, I've never had the displeasure of playing it, or running it.

Define "read it". Your comment about "playing the game mechanically" indicates you have zero familiarity with the module. Now if you equate glossing over it with your obviously shitty attitude towards the thing with reading, then yeah, I guess it's possible to read it and still be that clueless about what's in there. But for me, "read it" means actually reading the thing with the goal of understanding what's being communicated and doing so with at least a modest level of success.

As I mean the word "read" you clearly have not read it.

Chris 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.

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.

I agree while i disagree with him regularly at time he strikes the nail on the head.

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. :D

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.

Quote from: RPGPundit;915311I 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.

Carefully crafted? No. But there was some sort of pattern being loosely worked from. And the math was at least being payed a little attention to. Least at first.

Havent looked at the demi-humans for AD&D but I suspect its going to break down.

Quote from: RPGPundit;915311I 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.

Bullshit Nobody says that about OD&D or AD&D on any of the places where they dissect the rules. Your run in with the "Taliban" of the OSR was a passing match between you and Stuart Marshall and enflamed by the fact you insulted his work on OSRIC and he insulted you over your work on Foward to Adeventure.

Don't get me wrong there are fanatical assholes in the OSR. But even they are annoying to the other forum posters and invariably get banned. Finally on the last couple of years deep discussion of classic edition has more onto firmer grounded due to the research that has come out. There is a lot less wild ass speculation and the like because we have stuff like Playing at the World and Hawk & Moor where the authors not only talked to people but also read original notes, drafts, and newsletters.

Well, we had our first actual death in my AD&D campaign last night. The PCs were exploring the secret caverns beneath the burnt out guard house in Restenford. They opened a door and were face to face with a pair of zombies and a pair of ghouls. The human fighter pulled out a potion of speed that been found on an earlier adventure and drank it. He was infused with the rush of speed but sadly hit by a ghoul claw attack and then paralyzed. When the potion had run its course and aged him a year, he failed his system shock roll and died.

The life of an adventurer is a hard one.

And then a cat ate the magic user... :cool:

Quote from: Ghost;915426I think the fact that they weren't is one of the things I like best about them.

Me too!

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."

"Decent instincts" I'll certainly buy. Same with your other point, because those are things that I still tell my players.

Quote from: estar;915670Bullshit Nobody says that about OD&D or AD&D on any of the places where they dissect the rules. Your run in with the "Taliban" of the OSR was a passing match between you and Stuart Marshall and enflamed by the fact you insulted his work on OSRIC and he insulted you over your work on Foward to Adeventure.

Don't get me wrong there are fanatical assholes in the OSR. But even they are annoying to the other forum posters and invariably get banned. Finally on the last couple of years deep discussion of classic edition has more onto firmer grounded due to the research that has come out. There is a lot less wild ass speculation and the like because we have stuff like Playing at the World and Hawk & Moor where the authors not only talked to people but also read original notes, drafts, and newsletters.

I have seen old-school gamers arguing (on this site, for one) that things in OD&D were all very carefully planned, perfect design, etc etc.

It's an essential part of the "purity" argument, after all.

Quote from: RPGPundit;916150I have seen old-school gamers arguing (on this site, for one) that things in OD&D were all very carefully planned, perfect design, etc etc.

It's an essential part of the "purity" argument, after all.

Then post some links, because I don't remember posts like that. What I do remember are plenty of posts of people who like OD&D, warts and all, and say that it is a playable game, myself among them. I also remember a lot of testy reaction when people basically said the equivalent of "Why you are playing such a badly written, broken RPG?"

And for what it worth I do agree that OD&D needed better organization and a rewrite. But with good advice from people who successfully used OD&D in a campaign it work well pretty 'as is'. Most of the problem stems from the fact that it spread outside of Gygax's target audience of the miniature wargame community of the early 70s. An audience than didn't have the common experience of trying to run campaigns with referees. OD&D didn't explain that in detail. Since the default assumption in games that you use the rules as written in order to play. It lead to confusion.

Quote from: estar;916233And for what it worth I do agree that OD&D needed better organization and a rewrite. But with good advice from people who successfully used OD&D in a campaign it work well pretty 'as is'.

They did. With B and then BX D&D. Even as late as BX it was still using many of OD&D's rules sometimes updated a little or alot. Mixed in with bits of Greyhawk and Blackmoor.

Quote from: estar;916233Then post some links, because I don't remember posts like that.

Well, from the Mike Mearls thread, our own lovable curmudgeon has:

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;911784Back in the day (hack kaf wheeze) there was this thing called PLAYTESTING.

Arneson ran BLACKMOOR for 2 years before showing it to Gygax, and we KNOW the rules were not static.  Gygax ran GREYHAWK for over a year before D&D was published, sometimes seven days a week, and we know THOSE rules were not static.

He's not addressing balance, but it is an argument for carefully planned.

QuoteWhat I do remember are plenty of posts of people who like OD&D, warts and all, and say that it is a playable game, myself among them. I also remember a lot of testy reaction when people basically said the equivalent of "Why you are playing such a badly written, broken RPG?"

Definitely true. There have definitely been people who have said that. But that's a reason to feel hurt by the comments of people who are judging OD&D for not being good at or set up for purposes for which it was never intended (a ridiculous proposition). It is not, however, an argument for or against the proposition that the mechanics of OD&D "were all carefully crafted and planned out for ideal balance or something like that. "

Frankly, it would be odd if they were if that was not a design goal, and I don't think EGG ever stated (for OD&D at least, although looking back I see that the quote Pundit was referencing was actually about AD&D) that it was. Looking at the weapon vs. AC tables, they seem to be designed to reflect an interpretation of realism in which weapon was better or worse vs. which armor, not making the different weapons equally balanced. Looking at the spell divisions, they seem divided based on which class would most appropriately have that ability, not a sense of balance between them. For where hp ending up being (between rangers vs. paladins/fighter or druids vs. clerics) to be "someone was paying some sort of attention to where everyone would end up in the HP progression." (which is what Pundit was responding to) would seem to be an outlier. The game wasn't balanced because balance was not a design goal.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;916350Well, from the Mike Mearls thread, our own lovable curmudgeon has:

...

He's not addressing balance, but it is an argument for carefully planned.

That looks to me like the exact opposite of "carefully planned." To me, that's just saying, hey, fuck it, let's just play, and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

His is not an argument for carefully planned, or the game isn't really carefully planned?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;916373His is not an argument for carefully planned, or the game isn't really carefully planned?

I have no idea what Gronan's intent was. But to me, rules changing under extensive playtesting suggests that much of the game was not planned by the author(s) but rather evolved through trial-and-error and actual play. Of course, extensive playtesting doesn't exclude the possibility that there was ALSO careful planning. But extensive playtesting in and of itself is the opposite. If you want to make the case that someone was making the case that there was careful planning, this is not valid evidence in support of that thesis.

Quote from: Lunamancer;916389I have no idea what Gronan's intent was. But to me, rules changing under extensive playtesting suggests that much of the game was not planned by the author(s) but rather evolved through trial-and-error and actual play. Of course, extensive playtesting doesn't exclude the possibility that there was ALSO careful planning. But extensive playtesting in and of itself is the opposite. If you want to make the case that someone was making the case that there was careful planning, this is not valid evidence in support of that thesis.

Um... you know nothing of game design and playtesting then.

Many are the games that started out as very planned. Playtesting is where by trial and error you find what parts work and what dont, if any. Hammer out the bugs. Some games change allmost none at all from inception to publication. Others change so much as to be nigh unrecognizable. Lots of reasons. Feedback from playtesters, playtester suggestions, new ideas developed in the interim.

Some games start out as just an "idea" or even just a theme and from that framework something grows. Some games start off as just one mechanic idea and then you puzzle out what to do with it or what other parts are needed to make a running engine.

I have the solution to the OP's problem.

(http://irontavern.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/grimtooths_traps.jpg)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;916543I have the solution to the OP's problem.

(http://irontavern.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/grimtooths_traps.jpg)

Fair enough, JimBob. But as I said, I was surprised but not dismayed. It is not actually a problem, I just roll with it. Centipedes are still super deadly, as are most traps already in the modules...
..it is a good book series, that is true.

Quote from: Omega;916538Um... you know nothing of game design and playtesting then.

Bullshit. By which I mean, not only is your statement here false. It's not even plausible. Being a GM for any appreciable amount of time requires a bit of a hand at design. So if this is going to be your basis for disagreement, I can save us both a lot of times. You're wrong. Go find something else.

QuoteMany are the games that started out as very planned.

We're not talking about "many" games. We're talking about one game in particular. Note (by which I mean read the fucking quote you're responding to before you write your reply) I said that playtesting does not exclude the possibility that there was also careful planning. But extensive playtesting does nothing to suggest there was careful planning. In fact, if anything, the more extensive the playtesting, the more the game will tend to be informed by playtesting rather than planning. So in that sense, it's the opposite. Not saying the two are mutual exclusive. Just that what's quoted fails miserably as any evidence to the thesis that people claim D&D was carefully planned, and in fact carries a soft (tendency, not conclusive) implication to the contrary.

The whole "thesis" is actually stupid on its face (by which I mean meaningless). There are a lot of people in the world. I don't doubt that if you look hard enough you can find someone somewhere who actually did say just about anything, including insisting OD&D was carefully planned out. That you can find such a person is meaningless. So when someone points to a quote that doesn't say that at all in in fact softly implies the exact opposite is a pretty strong indicator that the thesis is dead from the neck up.

Quote from: estar;916233What I do remember are plenty of posts of people who like OD&D, warts and all, and say that it is a playable game, myself among them. I also remember a lot of testy reaction when people basically said the equivalent of "Why you are playing such a badly written, broken RPG?"

For the record, my position is very much that not being 'carefully planned' or 'thoughtfully balanced' is part of what makes old-school D&D awesome.

Back on topic.

Was just re-reading the optional Vitality rule from the UA articles and that has some potential for adding in the sort of wearing down some want. Vitality being tied to a characters CON score and every 10 damage you take from an attack reduces the vitality by one. Which reduces your max HP. Crits cause a double reduction. Vitality recovers 1 point per long rest + CON mod.

Quote from: RPGPundit;917206For the record, my position is very much that not being 'carefully planned' or 'thoughtfully balanced' is part of what makes old-school D&D awesome.

I partially agree, however there was a plan. The plan was to play things, to see how it worked, change was doesn't and keep what does. Rinse and repeat. Over and over again with multiple groups of people. At some point Gygax felt he had enough and worked with Dave Arneson to produce the final version of what was published.

And then went back to continue his campaigns and evolving the rules.

In one sense you are right but not informative. Did Gygax and Arneson make up shit one day and spent a few weeks polishing? Did they come up with the whole thing in rough form, did some playtesting and then publish it? As it turns out it was a dynamic evolution from a small set of rules (I think 10 to 14 pages).

And for everybody reading this, one thing you have to remember about Arneson's Blackmoor and Gygax's Greyhawk is that they a lot of more players playing the campaign at the same time. Not always the same sessions. I believe Greyhawk had 20 people at one time crowded in Gygax's basement. From the stories and antedotes that didn't happen often but the total roster of the campaign was huge compared to how people run campaign today. Then there was the fact that games were run four or five nights a week.

The implication this that Gygax's Greyhawk and Arneson's Blackmoor were able to get a lot of feedback quickly from dozens of people.

Quote from: estar;917910I partially agree, however there was a plan. The plan was to play things, to see how it worked, change was doesn't and keep what does. Rinse and repeat. Over and over again with multiple groups of people. At some point Gygax felt he had enough and worked with Dave Arneson to produce the final version of what was published.

And then went back to continue his campaigns and evolving the rules.

In one sense you are right but not informative. Did Gygax and Arneson make up shit one day and spent a few weeks polishing? Did they come up with the whole thing in rough form, did some playtesting and then publish it? As it turns out it was a dynamic evolution from a small set of rules (I think 10 to 14 pages).

And for everybody reading this, one thing you have to remember about Arneson's Blackmoor and Gygax's Greyhawk is that they a lot of more players playing the campaign at the same time. Not always the same sessions. I believe Greyhawk had 20 people at one time crowded in Gygax's basement. From the stories and antedotes that didn't happen often but the total roster of the campaign was huge compared to how people run campaign today. Then there was the fact that games were run four or five nights a week.

The implication this that Gygax's Greyhawk and Arneson's Blackmoor were able to get a lot of feedback quickly from dozens of people.

Yah that defiantly had a big impact on the way the rules developed.

By today's standards, though, that would not fit the typical process for either 'careful planning' or (definitely not) 'thoughtful balance'.

Quote from: Settembrini;911701Hi there!

I am DMing a bit of 1e again (Vs Cult of Reptile God atm), and I found that low level lethality is so far comparable (just a bit higher) to 3e! Why? Because of the very same minus-10-HP-till-proper-death rule.

Unless a total party kill comes about, the survivors drag the uncunscious away and restore them. Which I have no problem with, but Basic D&D has more insta-death when we played KotB and the likes.

So, instead of the wanton slaughter of RC/BECMI (or OD&D) low levels, so far low level AD&D is much more forgiving (except with poison etc., that's still scary as shit).

I am a bit suprised as I had expected more random death and prepared the players to not get too attached to any character.

I like it both ways but find it interesting that AD&D 1e is not as grindy for us as it sounds in many AARs online:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?26290-The-Temple-of-Elemental-Evil-ate-my-Game-Group&highlight=temple+elemental+evil

Opinions?

Players almost always play to keep their characters. The good ones are successful at it almost regardless of the system, my experience confirms:).
So, I'd like to suggest that maybe it's not the change from OD&D to 1e that's the reason behind the lower bodycount, but that the players now have more experience;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;924545By today's standards, though, that would not fit the typical process for either 'careful planning' or (definitely not) 'thoughtful balance'.

Not it wouldn't considered as careful planning.  I do consider that the cycle of try it in actual play, reflection, and add/modify rules accordingly, repeat is a superior method of developing RPGs than top down design followed by limited playtesting.


The modern example of this is the DCC RPG. Goodman Games spent a year and dozens of games across the United States along with at least two dozen referee playtesting this, including me.

The downside is that it is time and labor intensive. And that you need the inclination, experience, and skill to self-evaluate how things are going. If you don't have that much time, labor or not good at self-evaluation then the process isn't going to work.

Note this is similar to the philosophy behind the idea of release early, release often for software development.

Quote from: estar;924573Not it wouldn't considered as careful planning.  I do consider that the cycle of try it in actual play, reflection, and add/modify rules accordingly, repeat is a superior method of developing RPGs than top down design followed by limited playtesting.


The modern example of this is the DCC RPG. Goodman Games spent a year and dozens of games across the United States along with at least two dozen referee playtesting this, including me.

The downside is that it is time and labor intensive. And that you need the inclination, experience, and skill to self-evaluate how things are going. If you don't have that much time, labor or not good at self-evaluation then the process isn't going to work.

Note this is similar to the philosophy behind the idea of release early, release often for software development.

Sure, I think a bit of both can be useful. Like I said, on the whole some kind of careful crafting isn't always going to make the best game.  Look at a lot of the world's most popular board games: they often are, from a perspective of the people who make modern geek-games, terrible design. But they work for other reasons.

Of course, D&D itself was called "incoherent" by the Forge crowd, and yet they never managed to produce anything nearly as successful as D&D, and the edition most influenced by their dominant GNS theory, 4e, was the least successful edition ever.

Quote from: RPGPundit;925271Sure, I think a bit of both can be useful. Like I said, on the whole some kind of careful crafting isn't always going to make the best game.  Look at a lot of the world's most popular board games: they often are, from a perspective of the people who make modern geek-games, terrible design. But they work for other reasons.

Sure, it helps to have a good foundation from which to start the process with.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;925271Of course, D&D itself was called "incoherent" by the Forge crowd, and yet they never managed to produce anything nearly as successful as D&D, and the edition most influenced by their dominant GNS theory, 4e, was the least successful edition ever.

Agreed. One point you should hammer on is that as a general rule they appear to be are more rules obsessed than the traditional tabletop roleplayers. I look at the various story-game forums, like this one (http://www.story-games.com/forums/), and the amount of focus on rules remind strongly of the old d20 related forums on Wizard's site,  or the GURPS grognards on the SJ Games forums. All the talk of being Roleplaying 2.0 amounts to being another another form of rule munchkinism.

If you want to start a shit storm just try giving a answer to some roleplaying (as in acting) or narrative question without resorting to mechanics.

That characteristic of Storygames is tied in closely to their anti-GM bias.  They pretend that Forge-gaming is all about empowering the players against the authoritarian GM, but in fact, their real motive is to propel the GAME DESIGNER into the central position of authority. That's why they not only insist on the GM being unable to adjudicate, but also that the rules cannot be changed from how they are written. They overcome the "tyranny" of the group being run by one guy they all know for the tyranny of the group being run by some pretentious asshole thousands of miles away who's never even met them.