Quote from: Mr. GC
The ones that don't have explicit save or dies just kill you with normal attacks, especially since encounter sizes were significantly larger in the older editions... if you would fight 1-3 Frost Giants at once in 3.5 you'd fight several times this number as an old edition party of the same level. You either kill them all in one round before they can take an action or they start killing character after character at a very rapid rate.

...You did get high Initiative on that Fireball... right?

Right?

...OHYEGODSITHURTS![/QUOTEI have dm'd Against the Giants at least five times, usually with the decend into the depths/shrine, and vault of the drow/demonweb pits as well.

Epic campaigns of awesome!

The clever players were able to win with good strategy. The players that were idiots did sometimes get themselves killed.

Also, I don't use challenge ratings, or useless rules like that.

The number of frost giants you fight will be set by me, based on setting integrity and what will make a challenge for the characters.

Works for me.

Quote from: Bill;586364It's not 35% unless the dm is bad, and you automatically fall in the pit.
I would generally have a dex roll or a save involved.

Besides, I use the rule in the dm's guide for death at -10  (or houserule it to -CON)

If that poor fighter did get reduced to 0 or lower, there is a fair chance a cleric could heal him.

In most games I have dm'd and played, characters get to level 2 fairly quickly.

Its about the dm being an idiot or not.

It's also explicitly called out in the AD&D DMG, as RAW that if players are trying to be careful, you can adjust things to keep them from dying easily.  Only the players who aren't being careful should not have intervention.  That's not a DM ignoring rules to make the game easier.  That's in the rules.

But of course, just to get that far you have to ignore the bad math he's using again.  In the rules, pit traps are typically only triggered on a 1 or 2 on a d6 if the players aren't searching for it (and honestly, what player worth his d20 doesn't look for traps?).  So that's only a 33% chance of triggering the trap to begin with.

Assuming no Con bonus (again, a rarity for a fighter):

10% chance of having 1 hp, pit trap has 100% chance of killing
10% chance of 2 hp, pit trap has 83% chance of killing (1 or 2 on a d6)
10% chance of 3 hp, pit trap has 67% chance of killing
10% chance of 4 hp, pit trap has 50% chance of killing
10% chance of 5 hp, pit trap has 33% chance of killing
10% chance of 6 hp, pit trap has 17% chance of killing
10% chance of 7 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing
10% chance of 8 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing
10% chance of 9 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing
10% chance of 10 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing

So that's a 35% chance of killing a level 1 fighter with no Con bonus.  Factor in the 33% chance of triggering the trap in the first place, and it comes down to 11.5% that a first level fighter without a con bonus will die stumbling over a pit trap.

When you factor in most fighters will have a Con bonus, and most players will be looking for traps, that % gets even smaller.

Math.  The Kryptonite of GC

Quote from: Bill;586364It's not 35% unless the dm is bad, and you automatically fall in the pit.
I would generally have a dex roll or a save involved.

Besides, I use the rule in the dm's guide for death at -10  (or houserule it to -CON)

If that poor fighter did get reduced to 0 or lower, there is a fair chance a cleric could heal him.

In most games I have dm'd and played, characters get to level 2 fairly quickly.

Its about the dm being an idiot or not.

I think this is a lot of his point.  The game as written tends to be unplayable for a lot of groups.  

In my experience most groups make changes to the 'printed rules' to make the game more fun.  

Death a -CON, maximum hit points at 1st level, certain guaranteed 'minimum' stats for a playable character - these are all things that make the game less swingy and/or random.  If the game is too random, it can be hard for a lot of people to be attached to their character and/or stick with the game.  

But let's recognize this for what it is - changing the rules to make the game easier on the PC is changing the rules to make things easier.  If you don't change the rules, you probably need to 'go soft' at least at first because fights that would be 'consistent with the world logic' are simply unwinnable.  Why did you find a group of 4 goblins and not 15?  Wouldn't either be just as plausible?  In the second case, though, you're almost assured of a TPK at 1st level (without fudging), so a good DM wouldn't do it...  

Now, as far as play preferences go, I prefer the game to be built around the idea of a 'fair challenge' if the players play smart.  I don't like 'random death' - and if a PC has to bite it, I want it to be heroic and memorable.  Sometimes that won't happen - luck can't be taken out of the picture completely, but some of the worst parts of it can be removed or minimized and the game improves.  

Removing System Shock for Haste is a good example as well.  It makes the game less 'fuck you' and increases survivability.  Even among old-school gamers, Gygaxian tends to mean very arbitrary death...  That's not usually a good thing.

Quote from: Benoist;586370Hm. I just checked Haste in the 1st ed PH. It doesn't mention the System Shock roll but does mention the use of the spell "ages the recipient due to speeded metabolic processes." When you look at the System Shock Survival (under the Constitution description), it clearly states that "[SSS] states the percentage chance the character has of surviving the following forms of magical attacks (or simple application of the magic): aging, petrification (including flesh to stone spell), ..."

I'd say that, strictly by RAW, you are supposed to make people roll System Shock when they are targeted by Haste, since not only forms of attack, but the mere application of magical effects that create these conditions, triggers it.

That sounds right, but I would hope that people adjust the RAW to what will make the game fun.

To me, RAW is a starting point that is by definition imperfect.

If the players enjoy systemshock from haste spells, I would use it.

If the players find that lame, I would either ignore it, or make it 0 HP instead of death.

I'm going to say that I also don't agree with the assessment of 3.5. There are a lot of ways you can die in 3.5 as you go higher in level if you're not really careful and at lower level (as I mentioned before) you are seriously one or two hits away from death all the time. Intelligent class and ability selection along with a  decent amount of team work is integral to surviving 3rd and I wouldn't expect (as proven in experience) most casual players to understand how the game works. This is important for 3rd because being a mundane guy,for most people, is a cool thing and the rules do tell you that the mundane people should be just as good as the magic people.

While I like 3rd bestest we shouldn't ignore the many many problems it has as one of my biggest issues with it is Rocket Launcher Tag. I understand that it may be more fun to downplay the issues with 3rd so there can be an edition war or because you might feel that since they are ignoring their favored game's failures then we might as well do it ourselves. I say, let's not do that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;586373It's also explicitly called out in the AD&D DMG, as RAW that if players are trying to be careful, you can adjust things to keep them from dying easily.  Only the players who aren't being careful should not have intervention.  That's not a DM ignoring rules to make the game easier.  That's in the rules.

But of course, just to get that far you have to ignore the bad math he's using again.  In the rules, pit traps are typically only triggered on a 1 or 2 on a d6 if the players aren't searching for it (and honestly, what player worth his d20 doesn't look for traps?).  So that's only a 33% chance of triggering the trap to begin with.

Assuming no Con bonus (again, a rarity for a fighter):

10% chance of having 1 hp, pit trap has 100% chance of killing
10% chance of 2 hp, pit trap has 83% chance of killing (1 or 2 on a d6)
10% chance of 3 hp, pit trap has 67% chance of killing
10% chance of 4 hp, pit trap has 50% chance of killing
10% chance of 5 hp, pit trap has 33% chance of killing
10% chance of 6 hp, pit trap has 17% chance of killing
10% chance of 7 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing
10% chance of 8 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing
10% chance of 9 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing
10% chance of 10 hp, pit trap has 0% chance of killing

So that's a 25% chance of killing a level 1 fighter with no Con bonus, not 35%.  Factor in the 33% chance of triggering the trap in the first place, and it comes down to 11.5% that a first level fighter without a con bonus will die stumbling over a pit trap.

When you factor in most fighters will have a Con bonus, and most players will be looking for traps, that % gets even smaller.

Math.  The Kryptonite of GC

His math must be perfect, because he hates stupid people.

Quote from: Bill;586378His math must be perfect, because he hates stupid people.

To be fair, see my edit as soon as you typed this. I had a typo.  I typed 25% instead of 35%, but quickly fixed it.  The important thing though is that my 11.5% was there from the beginning, which clearly shows I was using 35% and not 25% in my calculation.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;586369It's funny, because I don't think you did.  And BedrockBrendan clearly acknowledge that by RAW, that appears to be correct (though in the books it was vague).  He also has explained that while it may be RAW, it's a stupid rule and he doesn't use it.  

Actually not everyone considers Sage Advice to be RAW. Frankly its just TSR/WOTC employees taking the piss and laughing at idiots like you who can't make their own decisions about how to play an elf.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;586382Actually not everyone considers Sage Advice to be RAW. Frankly its just TSR/WOTC employees taking the piss and laughing at idiots like you who can't make their own decisions about how to play an elf.

All Sage Advice is, is "How does your particular group play?"

Quote from: Bill;586376That sounds right, but I would hope that people adjust the RAW to what will make the game fun.

To me, RAW is a starting point that is by definition imperfect.

Well you basically have the right frame of mind, the mind of a wargames' referee. That's how you're supposed to treat the rules, and modify them if you see something fundamentally wrong for the campaign at hand, all the while considering that there is an integrity and cross-influences of various moving parts in the system that makes it "AD&D", and that past a certain point your campaign could cease to be such.

Quote from: Bill;586376If the players enjoy systemshock from haste spells, I would use it.

If the players find that lame, I would either ignore it, or make it 0 HP instead of death.

Personally, I think the SSS check on Haste makes sense, and I don't think it's automatically 'unfun' and 'wrong'. If you look at the bigger picture of the game in play, instead of just fixating on each particular point of rules isolated from each other, you can easily see that it's not that much of a big deal, for one thing, that the spell (assuming the SSS check is implied) is intended for high constitution characters, second (i.e. fighters and fighting types who might easily have 90+% chance of survival with a Constitution of 14 or better on Method I of stat gen - oh-ho! ), and that third the possibility of dying from the spell actually makes it not an autowin button where you'd haste characters in every single fight "because", but actually would reserve this spell for situations where it would make a difference between life or TPK.

All is well in my book. It's just that the morons on the other side are not seeing the game straight, so much of the charop rules twinkery bullshit is obscuring their visions. It's cool. Let them keep at it.

Quote from: Benoist;586370Hm. I just checked Haste in the 1st ed PH. It doesn't mention the System Shock roll but does mention the use of the spell "ages the recipient due to speeded metabolic processes." When you look at the System Shock Survival (under the Constitution description), it clearly states that "[SSS] states the percentage chance the character has of surviving the following forms of magical attacks (or simple application of the magic): aging, petrification (including flesh to stone spell), ..."

I see it, but I think the accelerated lifespan is due to the target living quicker, rather than magically having their age increased as such. On the other hand, Haste isn't a year's worth of life, so something funny is going on.

I could see it either way, but I think the spell is more interesting if it could kill you, and you have to think before use.

Hmm. A spell that just aged the target would be very powerful.

I am generically against random death from buffs. I'm also against random death from using your class abilities in general. I know that there are people who get off on it but I can't understand the appeal. I feel pretty much the same for rolled stats but at least those don't force you to write up a new character just for using your own abilities.

Right.  And if you think your interpretation is right, and someone else thinks their interpretation is right, both sides are fine to use their interpretation at their table.  Even if one is wrong and one is right, they can both use them.

But in a discussion that includes the rules, understanding the 'baseline' can be important.  Sometimes if you ignore a particular rule, the consequences can be pretty extreme.  

For example, if a group doesn't use 'spell casting disruption', it's pretty clear that they're 'not playing by the rules'.  That's their right, but if they find out that casters are totally dominating, you'd be right to point out that removing an important limitation on wizards is the root cause.  

As far as discussion goes, if one side provides a preponderence of evidence to support their position (even if it includes appeals to authority that others don't recognize, like Ask the Sage or Wikipedia) it isn't fair to dismiss their claim because you don't trust the authority.  Their claim may be right, even if the authority is unreliable.  Finding a counter-claim or a more reliable authority would be the appropriate response.  Or to acknowledge the point and move the conversation on.  

There's a certain intractability here that I find irritating from most posters.  Of course, the same accusation has been leveled at me.  But usually it happens after someone claims to have made a bunch of 'objective data points' available to support their argument, but they don't even seem to apply.  

If you state that 'something exists' and the other side claims 'it doesn't', you only have to show that it exists once to prove the other side wrong.  A 1st level Orc Warrior (3.5) has an attack bonus of +4.  Interestingly, that is only a CR 1/2 creature.  A Wolf represents a good CR 1 creature.  They can make a Touch Attack (ignoring armor) to pull an opponent down (trip).  If they succeed, they are at +4 to attack.  So, if the wolf is successful at tripping an opponent, their attack bonus (including the +4 for the opponent being prone) is +7.  

Combat can be swingy and deadly at 1st level.  Surviving to higher levels can rely on a fair amount of luck if the game is played 'as written' - ie, without 'DM Pity'.  I prefer a game that isn't quite so lethal but the DM doesn't have to pull punches.

Quote from: Ladybird;586386I see it, but I think the accelerated lifespan is due to the target living quicker, rather than magically having their age increased as such. On the other hand, Haste isn't a year's worth of life, so something funny is going on.

I could see it either way, but I think the spell is more interesting if it could kill you, and you have to think before use.

Hmm. A spell that just aged the target would be very powerful.

Flavor-wise, I like the explanation that the Haste spell drains lifeforce to power itself.

Quote from: Ladybird;586386I see it, but I think the accelerated lifespan is due to the target living quicker, rather than magically having their age increased as such. On the other hand, Haste isn't a year's worth of life, so something funny is going on.

I could see it either way, but I think the spell is more interesting if it could kill you, and you have to think before use.

Hmm. A spell that just aged the target would be very powerful.

Yeah I can see how you could interpret it that way. And yes. A spell that would age the target would in fact be extremely powerful, maybe TOO powerful (since for instance aging effects could allow you to relearn spells you failed to understand by changing your age category to Middle Aged or Venerable and therefore modifying your Intelligence score - so aging yourself artificially to allow yourself to relearn and reroll spells not understood before having made it through the whole spell level list could definitely be a "thing", there). I wouldn't create that if I were you, assuming you use those rules of course.