TheRPGSite

It says levels 1-20 on the tin, but rarely have I seen a game that went over 10th without starting to show it's seams ripping.

So deities have been statted-out since 1e. There must be a reason. I've never played Godbound or ACKS, but supposedly they embrace high level play. 4e tried to make it "balanced", but it just doesn't make sense to me that DCs just increase as PCs level up. Mythic Pathfinder is just more fiddliness on top of crunchy accounting.

We all know the "sweet spot" in D&D (or retroclones) is 1-6 or so. But what about high level?

We played a campaign of 5e that ran from 4th to 18th level and the game worked fine throughout. Now, we aren't people who try to break the system, but neither are we walking on eggshells to avoid it.

The changes to magic in 5e (power based on slot rather than caster level, fewer high-level slots, the Concentration mechanism) really help to reign magic in. The non-casters were all contributing and enjoying their characters. The Bonus action rules mean you have round-by-round tactical choices to make for characters like rogues.

The most 'meh' character was probably a Druid / Barbarian multiclass build who majored in having huge numbers of HP to act as a damage sink and not much else.

I've been through three 5e campaigns that went to level 18 for most of us. And went pretty well.
Ive been in an ongoing Spelljammer campaign thats hit 18+ on the levels and still chugging along.
Ive been in BX campaigns that topped out at 14 and no trouble.

Its not a matter of the system as it is a problem of players and more often a DM. If you have players out to break the system or DMs who are too generous with magic items and spells then challenging such PCs will get harder.

Not that I've played. Though 5E sucks somewhat less at high level than other editions. Still, one of the things that irks me about 5E is that many of the iconic monsters only come into play at extremely high levels.

I honestly don't get the system support in every edition for high-level play, when so few campaigns ever reach those levels. There's a reason why so few adventures above 12th level are ever published - the market for them is so small that they're not commercially viable.

The basic problem is that most actions are resolved using a d20, so either (1) you have to limit how fast a character can get bonuses, or (2) the system will break somewhat at high levels. This isn't just a function of D&D, but is a byproduct of the mathematics. I remember tinkering with Decipher's Lord of the Rings RPG, which I thought was cool until I realized how fast a 2d6 dice rolling range gets "broken" and that kind of took the fun out of it for me. Games based on a d20 die roll have the same philosophical issue, but it doesn't come into play quite as quickly because the number range is larger.

I think that 5E has done a nice job of limiting the bonuses, but I have to confess that I've only played a couple of sessions at levels 10+.

I think all of the pre 3E editions (which I know better in this respect) are good at high level, IF (and only if) you keep the magic items down to a dull roar. It isn't level based powers that trash D&D campaigns, it is items.

You don't know hard it was to resist inverting that thread title question...:D

I wouldn't say 4e "sucks" at high level so much as it's started to get kind of monotonous at that point.

5e published campaigns run to about level 15 and are quite playable all the way through. I haven't played past level 16, but I don't see anything in the books that would make 17-20 broken. As someone else said, the limits on casters do a pretty effective job of keeping things in a nice place, and the martials really do a lot of damage.

B/X-BECMI was very playable at the Companion Level 15+, with the Test of the Warlords series of adventures.

AD&D was also very playable in the teens.  It took forever to get there but was worth it.

With all the widgets in WotC D&D, it's much harder to play at highest levels, but like anything else, once you get proficient with the sheer number of options and have internalized the rules, 3.5 was manageable.

My honest answer is I don't know whether D&D sucks at higher levels any more than it sucks at lower levels, it really probably depends in how well you like D&D to begin with. My friends and I never found epic high-level games very exciting and usually retired a PC if he managed to obtain a castle and retinue and such lordly trappings. I've always found games are the most fun in the earlier stages where the PCs are just starting their way in the world. Obviously other people like playing the king and his court and affairs of state.

I am curious about that comment about certain monsters not being used at lower levels...says who and since when? I can drop a red dragon on a 1st-level party if I want to...:D

Quote from: Dumarest;967777My honest answer is I don't know whether D&D sucks at higher levels any more than it sucks at lower levels, it really probably depends in how well you like D&D to begin with. My friends and I never found epic high-level games very exciting and usually retired a PC if he managed to obtain a castle and retinue and such lordly trappings. I've always found games are the most fun in the earlier stages where the PCs are just starting their way in the world. Obviously other people like playing the king and his court and affairs of state.

I am curious about that comment about certain monsters not being used at lower levels...says who and since when? I can drop a red dragon on a 1st-level party if I want to...:D

Ideally, the PCs should at least get their orientation gameplay before being charred to ashes by a god-monster. I mean, ideally, right?

I've played and run 5e up to around 13th level, and it seems to hold up fairly well. I would say that increasing class abilities tend to overwhelm things like background, which was a little disappointing for me. I still have my doubts about 4th tier (levels 17+).

As finarvyn notes, you have to limit the bonuses to avoid breaking things, and 5e did that.

Quote from: Robyo;967721It says levels 1-20 on the tin, but rarely have I seen a game that went over 10th without starting to show it's seams ripping.

So deities have been statted-out since 1e. There must be a reason. I've never played Godbound or ACKS, but supposedly they embrace high level play. 4e tried to make it "balanced", but it just doesn't make sense to me that DCs just increase as PCs level up. Mythic Pathfinder is just more fiddliness on top of crunchy accounting.

We all know the "sweet spot" in D&D (or retroclones) is 1-6 or so. But what about high level?

5e seems fine at high level; I have one group 12th-14th and another goes up to 18th, game works fine. Mind you I think 4e can work fine to about 20th (I ran one 4e game 1st-29th), but it needs a bit of tweaking on the monster stats. I just ran a BECM game to ca 19th and it works fine, Mentzer includes plenty for high level PCs to do. I ran super high 1e BiTD, god-killing stuff, it still worked if you threw in enough Pit Fiends...

Really only 3e/PF breaks down at high level. My double digit 3e & PF games (to ca 19th & 14th respectively) are the only ones I've said "This game system sucks, I don't want to run it anymore".

Quote from: dbm;967730We played a campaign of 5e that ran from 4th to 18th level and the game worked fine throughout. Now, we aren't people who try to break the system, but neither are we walking on eggshells to avoid it.

The changes to magic in 5e (power based on slot rather than caster level, fewer high-level slots, the Concentration mechanism) really help to reign magic in. The non-casters were all contributing and enjoying their characters. The Bonus action rules mean you have round-by-round tactical choices to make for characters like rogues.

The most 'meh' character was probably a Druid / Barbarian multiclass build who majored in having huge numbers of HP to act as a damage sink and not much else.

We went from 1st to 19th in 5e and it worked great. That was with Rogue, Barbarian and Ranger PCs. And similar: No one was trying to break anything, but no one was avoiding things to prevent "problems", either.

Actually, D&D's sweet spot has always been around level 7.  Lower and it's fun, if somewhat brutal but a fair amount of games try and get out of that as fast as possible, however any higher and it slowly becomes a slog and a grind.

5e probably runs the best at high level among all editions. Granted, I don't think I've played past 16, and the powers do stack and stack. There are some significant issues with spell balance and brokenness to watch out for, but that's hardly unusual for D&D.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;967876We went from 1st to 19th in 5e and it worked great. That was with Rogue, Barbarian and Ranger PCs. And similar: No one was trying to break anything, but no one was avoiding things to prevent "problems", either.

I would say that non-spellcaster high level 5e is a thing of beauty. It does "swords against sorcery" far better than any other edition.
High level spellcasters do present some issues if you're hoping to run 4e-style dramatic cinematic combat, they do have spells like Banishment that can immediately shut down any* individual opponent , and unlike high level 1e-2e those spells usually work.

*except maybe Legendaries, but even there there are some spells that don't allow a save so Legendary Resistance is ineffective. There's a Cleric-5 touch attack 'Contagion' which can inflict 'Slimy Doom', causing a foe who takes damage to be Stunned for 1 turn. With Cleric + combat PC that's an unbeatable lockdown. Even a Legendary will take 3 rounds to blow it off, and then only by spending all their 3 Legendary Resistances on it. Then the Cleric can just do it again.

Quote from: S'mon;967920I would say that non-spellcaster high level 5e is a thing of beauty. It does "swords against sorcery" far better than any other edition.
High level spellcasters do present some issues if you're hoping to run 4e-style dramatic cinematic combat, they do have spells like Banishment that can immediately shut down any* individual opponent , and unlike high level 1e-2e those spells usually work.

*except maybe Legendaries, but even there there are some spells that don't allow a save so Legendary Resistance is ineffective. There's a Cleric-5 touch attack 'Contagion' which can inflict 'Slimy Doom', causing a foe who takes damage to be Stunned for 1 turn. With Cleric + combat PC that's an unbeatable lockdown. Even a Legendary will take 3 rounds to blow it off, and then only by spending all their 3 Legendary Resistances on it. Then the Cleric can just do it again.

Depends. Ancient dragons have between +14 and +16 to CON saves, so even with disadvantage imposed by the effect, they still have a pretty good chance of making the DC 19 throw. But still, three rounds locked down by Stun, taking martial auto-crits is brutal.

Quote from: Robyo;967721It says levels 1-20 on the tin, but rarely have I seen a game that went over 10th without starting to show it's seams ripping.

So deities have been statted-out since 1e. There must be a reason. I've never played Godbound or ACKS, but supposedly they embrace high level play. 4e tried to make it "balanced", but it just doesn't make sense to me that DCs just increase as PCs level up. Mythic Pathfinder is just more fiddliness on top of crunchy accounting.

We all know the "sweet spot" in D&D (or retroclones) is 1-6 or so. But what about high level?

There's a lot to unpack there. First, the gods were statted out in oD&D as well, but that's really beside the point. Second, I don't know that "we all know" that the sweet spot is level 1-6. There's lots of complaints about levels 1-3 or so. And levels 5+, and probably level 4 as well. Frankly, gamers really like to complain :D. But my point is, if you ask 4 gamers, you'll get 5 or more mutually incompatible opinions about where the sweet spot of any given edition (much less the game as a whole) is.

Quote from: S'mon;967920I would say that non-spellcaster high level 5e is a thing of beauty. It does "swords against sorcery" far better than any other edition.
High level spellcasters do present some issues if you're hoping to run 4e-style dramatic cinematic combat, they do have spells like Banishment that can immediately shut down any* individual opponent , and unlike high level 1e-2e those spells usually work.

 *except maybe Legendaries, but even there there are some spells that don't allow a save so Legendary Resistance is ineffective. There's a Cleric-5 touch attack 'Contagion' which can inflict 'Slimy Doom', causing a foe who takes damage to be Stunned for 1 turn. With Cleric + combat PC that's an unbeatable lockdown. Even a Legendary will take 3 rounds to blow it off, and then only by spending all their 3 Legendary Resistances on it. Then the Cleric can just do it again.

5e has a couple of broke-right-out-of-the-gate issues ('slimy doom' contagion, simulacrum-wish -spam, and whatever 3rd example I'm not thinking of right now) that are absolutely there, are undoubtedly unintentional, and easily fixable by DM decree. When it comes to judging a system, I'm much more likely to criticize an edition for a systematic didn't-think-this-through in the system than a highly specific unfortunate-implication-wording in a spell or two.

To the OP's main point -- I think the editions and/or editions+playstyle that have issues with high level are as such:

• In all the TSR editions, there is an assumption in the rules that while the spellcasters move from being able to put a room of orcs to sleep to being able to travel between dimensions and kill with a word, fighters start leading armies. But..., lots of people decide that they don't want to play that way. So fighters (and thieves, plus whatever other martials are in the edition of discussion) lose a benefit. In 1e AD&D, of course, there's another stop on high level casters: the initiative system makes it hard to get off high level spells. So the MUs are busy watching the segments tick off, waiting for their spell to get off, hoping that no one breaks through the hopefully-there spear-line of henchmen, and that no stray arrow turns their carefully memorized earth-shattering spell into a puff of smoke. But...[/b] lots of people choose not to use the 1e initiative system. So while the system as written in the books seems to have plenty of inter-class balance, the game as many people played it seems to have some real problems for fighters at higher levels.
  And yet...[/b] I really don't remember a lot of people complaining about fighter-spellcaster imbalance until 3e came out. I don't know if that was because inter-class balance was not a priority, or the imbalance just didn't show up as much as white-room analysis would suggest. I know my original TSR A/D&D experience (mostly BECM and 2e) we didn't really complain about it, but 1) we did do a bunch of rulership stuff post name-level, 2) we played with plenty of house rules, and 3) played multiple characters apiece.
  
  
  
• 3e (especially 3.5). There are lots of complaints about 3e that I just don't care about (see systematic-to-highly-specific above). Oh, yes, if you fall into water with negative hp, you can heal yourself before you drown. That proves so much. The monk isn't proficient in their own unarmed attacks? Great, you've successfully proven that they needed a better editor. You can combine the exact right race+3 prestige classes with the exact right feats and magic items (purchased) to make a build which can toss great wyrms about willy nilly? Fine, dude, all hail your white-room fu. Etc. Etc. But the argument that high level play becomes a game of rocket tag where spellcasters see who can get up the right immunity spells up and lob the right save-or-dies/sucks at their opposition? Yeah, that really seems to play out, and seems to be a lot harder to cut out of the system through house rules or simple DM fiat.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;967937Depends. Ancient dragons have between +14 and +16 to CON saves, so even with disadvantage imposed by the effect, they still have a pretty good chance of making the DC 19 throw. But still, three rounds locked down by Stun, taking martial auto-crits is brutal.

At first I thought "But Stun doesn't Incapacitate?!" - but checking the SRD I see it does Incapacitate, but SRD-Incapacitate just says that means no Action/Reaction. Stunned grants advantage, but no auto-crits vs Stunned.

Re fixing Slimy Doom, maybe allow a DC 15 CON save against being stunned, each hit? Or a Concentration check (DC = half dmg, min 10)? With Disadvantage that's still nasty, but legendary dragons should probably be ok.

Quote from: finarvyn;967753The basic problem is that most actions are resolved using a d20, so either (1) you have to limit how fast a character can get bonuses, or (2) the system will break somewhat at high levels. This isn't just a function of D&D, but is a byproduct of the mathematics. I remember tinkering with Decipher's Lord of the Rings RPG, which I thought was cool until I realized how fast a 2d6 dice rolling range gets "broken" and that kind of took the fun out of it for me. Games based on a d20 die roll have the same philosophical issue, but it doesn't come into play quite as quickly because the number range is larger.

I think that 5E has done a nice job of limiting the bonuses, but I have to confess that I've only played a couple of sessions at levels 10+.

As an interesting thought experiment, I wonder what a D30 based D&D might look like.

I think dice pools are the way to go if you want a basically unlimited range of probabilities.


Don't overthink this example, because I'm just spitballing, but something like the current Bounded Accuracy system, except instead of increasing Proficiency Bonus, you increase the number of dice you roll on an attack. And on the flip side, you might also want to introduce defenses/DCs that require multiple successes.

For example, instead of a +3 Proficiency bonus at Level 5, the Fighter always rolls 2d20 on an attack. Tough monsters will require both rolls to hit. Similarly, now a monster must hit with 2d20 vs the Fighter's AC.

I suppose you'd want to have a mechanic to do simultaneous attacks, e.g. three goblins can pool their d20s together on an attack, and if at least 2 of the 3 rolls beat the fighter AC, one attack hits. Similarly, perhaps you might allow the Fighter to pool all the dice of his Extra Attack together to do a 4d20 attack.

Obviously this is not something you could simply substitute into the current system, but I think you can see the general contour of the thing.

How well does 5e replicate action movies? One of the problems with 3e was that martials could not pull off cool stunts (without a panoply of magic items) despite being one man-armies at higher levels.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;967958How well does 5e replicate action movies? One of the problems with 3e was that martials could not pull off cool stunts (without a panoply of magic items) despite being one man-armies at higher levels.

Better than 3e, not as good as 4e (if you didn't mind that 4e combat is so slow it often felt more like scripting an action movie than inhabiting one...)

Quote from: Willie the Duck;967943There's a lot to unpack there. First, the gods were statted out in oD&D as well, but that's really beside the point. Second, I don't know that "we all know" that the sweet spot is level 1-6. There's lots of complaints about levels 1-3 or so. And levels 5+, and probably level 4 as well. Frankly, gamers really like to complain :D. But my point is, if you ask 4 gamers, you'll get 5 or more mutually incompatible opinions about where the sweet spot of any given edition (much less the game as a whole) is.

WotC conducted the most thorough user feedback campaign in RPG history for D&D Next (5E). One of their conclusions was that the sweet spot for most players was Lvl 4-8. So one of their design goals was to stretch out that power level for as long as possible, by making lvl 1-3 PCs somewhat stronger, and lvl 9+ PC somewhat weaker, than in previous editions.

Quote from: Robyo;967721We all know the "sweet spot" in D&D (or retroclones) is 1-6 or so. But what about high level?

Actually, no, we don't.

I find the sweet spot to be 3-9 and then 12-18. But, that's me.

I'll provide more detail when I have a moment.

The idea I came up with was to cap out class levels around where certain class features / spells were introduced that could "break the game". While I initially looked at it as a thought experiment for simulating a Middle Earth style world in D&D, it also answered some of my complaints in general about high level play in more modern D&D versions. When characters hit that level cap, they multi-class, and begin to gather levels in another class. This also has experience decoupled entirely from defeating monsters.

But personally I don't find the older versions of D&D to have a problem at high levels. Why should a high level fighter eschew becoming a lord? And if you don't want to become a lord, don't. But if you start counting travel times between dungeons, and rest periods, that Age slot on your character sheet might start creeping up, and suddenly having a comfy keep, a spouse, some guards to take care of that kobold when your back goes out.... well, it doesn't look so bad.

The problem with higher level 11+ dnd for me has always been magic is too strong - teleports, raise dead, passwall, big summons etc - it changes the whole game. I generally prefer a grittier, less magical game.

Quote from: Psikerlord;968045The problem with higher level 11+ dnd for me has always been magic is too strong - teleports, raise dead, passwall, big summons etc - it changes the whole game. I generally prefer a grittier, less magical game.

Me too. However, although I'm not a D&D fan in general, I would argue that in that case it is the DM's fault for making those spells available. There is nothing in the rules (at least not in the versions I have) that says every spell and magic item has to be available in your campaign world. You can make D&D grittier and its magic less potent at will. It reminds me of complaints about all the "Tolkien races banding together to fight evil!" There's no reason you can't just decree a Howardesque campaign world where all the PCs will be human. [End of Devil's Advocate role.]

Quote from: Dumarest;968056Me too. However, although I'm not a D&D fan in general, I would argue that in that case it is the DM's fault for making those spells available. There is nothing in the rules (at least not in the versions I have) that says every spell and magic item has to be available in your campaign world. You can make D&D grittier and its magic less potent at will. It reminds me of complaints about all the "Tolkien races banding together to fight evil!" There's no reason you can't just decree a Howardesque campaign world where all the PCs will be human. [End of Devil's Advocate role.]

Yes true enough (and I did something similar with LFG)

The issue, for me, when it comes to the high level spells is that by banning them, but not limiting the other caster type (healer) is not fair to the Wizard player.  Thing is, healing/recovery spells are mandatory at that high a level, there are too many monsters that suddenly have abilities that bypass hit points completely.

I've met a few different types of DMs who took issues with the capabilities of higher level magic.  Some simply preferred grittier settings, and some very much disliked that higher level play made it more difficult for a DM to have their arms around the possibilities of what a player did.

I like high level AD&D play - 14+.  I haven't been able to play high level characters developed organically nearly as much as low level play simply by virtue of the time investment.  I also like to DM high level play, but I think it requires an improvisational style.  

The higher level the campaign, the looser the prep must be for a particular session.  Because tremendous changes to the status quo - character, geographical, or otherwise - can happen in a single roll (or be negated just as easily).  That takes a certain personality type to enjoy, on the part of both DM and player.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968071The issue, for me, when it comes to the high level spells is that by banning them, but not limiting the other caster type (healer) is not fair to the Wizard player.  

I must have missed the part that said you have to only limit the magic-user or else the Ghost of Gygax will drain your levels.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968071Thing is, healing/recovery spells are mandatory at that high a level, there are too many monsters that suddenly have abilities that bypass hit points completely.

I must have also missed the part that required you to use those monsters or else the Ghost of Arneson will scatter four-sided dice like caltrops across your carpet.

All your comments indicate you are or play with a Dungeon Master who lacks the confidence to make the game his own.

Quote from: Dumarest;968094I must have missed the part that said you have to only limit the magic-user or else the Ghost of Gygax will drain your levels.

Are you for real?  Didn't you say you haven't played D&D in a while?  Why are you even posting something you clearly don't understand.

Quote from: Dumarest;968094I must have also missed the part that required you to use those monsters or else the Ghost of Arneson will scatter four-sided dice like caltrops across your carpet.

All your comments indicate you are or play with a Dungeon Master who lacks the confidence to make the game his own.

Yeah, this tells me you have no clue what you're talking about.  You have less relevance than Gronan and his dick swinging.

Quote from: Dumarest;968094All your comments indicate you are or play with a Dungeon Master who lacks the confidence to make the game his own.

Here's the thing about Brady.   He's never played any version of D&D earlier than 2e, and even then not that much, so he has absolutely no clue how all these 3e problems mean absolutely nothing in earlier editions.  Basically when he talks about older editions, he starts spewing stuff he's heard thirdhand from teh intarwebz all over the forum and people eventually come in to point and laugh at him.

Feel free to use logic, common sense, facts, quotes - it won't matter.  You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, and no opinion Brady has about anything "Old School", games, playstyles, players, etc was reached by reason.

Other than that, he's alright. :D

BTW had a fight last night in my 5e Wilderlands game where an 18th level Barbarian (& Wizard 8 sidekick) was quite seriously challenged by one CR 5 Shambling Mound. On Sunday in my 5e Varisia game two CR 5 Shambling Mounds likewise put up a strong fight against a Barbarian-13, Wiz-12/Rog-1, Druid-14 and Warlock-11.

I can't imagine that in any earlier edition, and it really brought home how well designed 5e is for ease of GMing at high level. I could challenge high level PCs ca 18th in my Classic D&D game, but that was with multiple high level NPCs or super-powerful monsters like Nightwalkers, Shambling Mounds would be a speed bump. Same in 3e. In 4e a 10+ level disparity makes a monster unusable and I'd have had to use a horde of shambling minions or Super Mound the Level 18 Solo Ultimate Shambler.

I hear that D&D 4e played as well at high levels as it played at low ones, though that didn't help much if you don't like how it plays;).

Quote from: S'mon;968146BTW had a fight last night in my 5e Wilderlands game where an 18th level Barbarian (& Wizard 8 sidekick) was quite seriously challenged by one CR 5 Shambling Mound. On Sunday in my 5e Varisia game two CR 5 Shambling Mounds likewise put up a strong fight against a Barbarian-13, Wiz-12/Rog-1, Druid-14 and Warlock-11.

I can't imagine that in any earlier edition, and it really brought home how well designed 5e is for ease of GMing at high level. I could challenge high level PCs ca 18th in my Classic D&D game, but that was with multiple high level NPCs or super-powerful monsters like Nightwalkers, Shambling Mounds would be a speed bump. Same in 3e. In 4e a 10+ level disparity makes a monster unusable and I'd have had to use a horde of shambling minions or Super Mound the Level 18 Solo Ultimate Shambler.

5e's math definitely makes monsters have a longer time on the shelf as truly dangerous, but original shamblers were bad too.  If they hit twice, bam you're engulfed.  No save, no way out until the Shambler is killed and you die in 2d4 rounds.

Quote from: AsenRG;968160I hear that D&D 4e played as well at high levels as it played at low ones, though that didn't help much if you don't like how it plays;).

It slows down at each Tier. My current level 2 4e game has 30 minute battles. The Epic Tier battles in my last 4e campaign took 2-3 hours.

Quote from: Dumarest;968056There's no reason you can't just decree a Howardesque campaign world where all the PCs will be human. [End of Devil's Advocate role.]

This is exactly what the AD&D Conan module/Settings do. Human only. No clerics. Magic user PCs are rare to none and magic items are few and far between.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968071The issue, for me, when it comes to the high level spells is that by banning them, but not limiting the other caster type (healer) is not fair to the Wizard player.  Thing is, healing/recovery spells are mandatory at that high a level, there are too many monsters that suddenly have abilities that bypass hit points completely.

But this is the same problem as limiting magic weapons. If the PCs dont have something to counter a monster with then why the hell are you throwing monsters they cant even harm at them? If theres no recovery magic then level draining monsters and instakill effects should be few and far between too. Or at least alternatives on hand. Even if thats just negotiation or running.

Its alot like Gurps in that the things you prune can have an impact on the things you should be tossing at the PCs.

And no. "The Wandering monster table told me to kill them!" is never an excuse.

So again its more a problem of the DM than the system. Enough people have been doing just fine at high levels to show that yes it does work.

Quote from: Dumarest;968094I must have also missed the part that required you to use those monsters or else the Ghost of Arneson will scatter four-sided dice like caltrops across your carpet.

There have been documented cases of this happening... :eek:

Quote from: S'mon;968146BTW had a fight last night in my 5e Wilderlands game where an 18th level Barbarian (& Wizard 8 sidekick) was quite seriously challenged by one CR 5 Shambling Mound. On Sunday in my 5e Varisia game two CR 5 Shambling Mounds likewise put up a strong fight against a Barbarian-13, Wiz-12/Rog-1, Druid-14 and Warlock-11..

The engulf ability of Shambling mounds made them a danger even in AD&D to fairly well off PCs if the things can get in reach. Thats a big if sometimes but oy do those things put the fear into players.

And theres nothing more ignominious than having your 9th level PC eaten by a giant frog.

Very much a situational thing. And it goes the other way round too. Sometimes what should be a threat somehow fails to be.

6th level and higher MU/Wizard spells fundamentally change the style of play. D&D becomes rocket-tag. Some people enjoy that style. Many - especially DMs - don't.

Quote from: Omega;968172But this is the same problem as limiting magic weapons. If the PCs dont have something to counter a monster with then why the hell are you throwing monsters they cant even harm at them? If theres no recovery magic then level draining monsters and instakill effects should be few and far between too. Or at least alternatives on hand. Even if thats just negotiation or running.

Its alot like Gurps in that the things you prune can have an impact on the things you should be tossing at the PCs.

And no. "The Wandering monster table told me to kill them!" is never an excuse.

So again its more a problem of the DM than the system. Enough people have been doing just fine at high levels to show that yes it does work.

A lot of monsters don't have a resistance, but have an insta-'kill' power.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968234A lot of monsters don't have a resistance, but have an insta-'kill' power.

Which one of those require high level cleric spells? Medusas and stone to flesh (actually that's a wizard spell)? Just general insta-kills and raise dead?

I think that there is something of a an argument behind what you are saying, I just don't think it has emerged (and you're going to go off into the weeds with your usual punching buddies instead of making it). Something along the lines of: If you want to remove the "teleports, raise dead, passwall, big summons etc" of high level wizards, then in all fairness, you remove the high level cleric spells. If you do that, you remove (or modify) the monsters which you need those high-level cleric spells to remedy/revive. If you do that, are you really playing high level D&D, and even if you are, have you really removed the high-level-ness of it, and you're just playing with more hp and a better to-hit chance. Something like that?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;968254Which one of those require high level cleric spells? Medusas and stone to flesh (actually that's a wizard spell)? Just general insta-kills and raise dead?

I think that there is something of a an argument behind what you are saying, I just don't think it has emerged (and you're going to go off into the weeds with your usual punching buddies instead of making it). Something along the lines of: If you want to remove the "teleports, raise dead, passwall, big summons etc" of high level wizards, then in all fairness, you remove the high level cleric spells. If you do that, you remove (or modify) the monsters which you need those high-level cleric spells to remedy/revive. If you do that, are you really playing high level D&D, and even if you are, have you really removed the high-level-ness of it, and you're just playing with more hp and a better to-hit chance. Something like that?

Why are you converting his incoherent, poorly worded rambling into something that actually makes sense?

Quote from: Omega;968172If the PCs dont have something to counter a monster with then why the hell are you throwing monsters they cant even harm at them?



And no. "The Wandering monster table told me to kill them!" is never an excuse.

If those monsters exist in the world, you're bound to encounter them. Possibly even before you're ready for them. Nobody said you had to stand toe-to-toe and fight it out. If you can't hurt it, run.


It seems like people don't understand that monsters with immunity exist so you encounter them when you can't hurt them. Those monsters are far more interesting if you run into them when you can't hurt than when you can.

A monster that can only be hit with +2 weapons (or whatever) is no different than any other if you only introduce them when your group has +2 weapons.

You encounter them when you can't hurt them, you run away, and then you figure out how to overcome them another way.

Those encounters are essentially puzzles, not bigger orcs.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;968267If those monsters exist in the world, you're bound to encounter them. Possibly even before you're ready for them. Nobody said you had to stand toe-to-toe and fight it out. If you can't hurt it, run.


It seems like people don't understand that monsters with immunity exist so you encounter them when you can't hurt them. Those monsters are far more interesting if you run into them when you can't hurt than when you can.

A monster that can only be hit with +2 weapons (or whatever) is no different than any other if you only introduce them when your group has +2 weapons.

You encounter them when you can't hurt them, you run away, and then you figure out how to overcome them another way.

Those encounters are essentially puzzles, not bigger orcs.

There seems to be a type of player and DM group that believes every encounter should be winnable and as a result it never occurs to the players that their PCs should avoid combat or flee. I'm not sure where that started; it may just be different personality types and game preferences. But they just don't seem to understand the "random" part of random encounters means it may be a crippled gnome begging for alms or it may be a level-sucking undead horde and you can't win them all and shouldn't expect to be able to.

Quote from: Dumarest;968266Why are you converting his incoherent, poorly worded rambling into something that actually makes sense?

Because, regardless of what you think of Christopher, he isn't just a troll out to pick a fight. There's some point he's trying to make, and I find it more fruitful find out what that point is and then discuss the merits of said concept, rather than the usual battle royale and calling of names.

Quote from: CRKrueger;967776B/X-BECMI was very playable at the Companion Level 15+, with the Test of the Warlords series of adventures.

AD&D was also very playable in the teens.  It took forever to get there but was worth it.

With all the widgets in WotC D&D, it's much harder to play at highest levels, but like anything else, once you get proficient with the sheer number of options and have internalized the rules, 3.5 was manageable.

Let me be another voice to recommend B/X-BECMI. Good news! The Rules Cyclopedia is still easily available, and the Adventurer Conqueror King System is doing great things with this framework, and specifically goes into cool domain management play if you're figuring that your characters would be leaving the dungeons by the time that they're getting powerful.

Quote from: S'mon;968167It slows down at each Tier. My current level 2 4e game has 30 minute battles. The Epic Tier battles in my last 4e campaign took 2-3 hours.

Yeah 4e was great up to about 10th time wise. We found it slowed down a lot 11th - 20th. didnt get past that

I've played up to the high 20's just fine with AD&D.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;968254Which one of those require high level cleric spells? Medusas and stone to flesh (actually that's a wizard spell)? Just general insta-kills and raise dead?

I was thinking of level drain (Wraiths and Vampires in AD&D), or in later editions, creatures that attack a stat directly (3.x's woefully miscalculated Shadows.)  And apologies, when I speak of insta-kill, I mostly mean abilities that bypass HP, which if unlucky CAN badly hurt PC's.

A lot of those types of abilities hit things that don't scale as fast as HP, or don't scale at all for the most part.  Remove Curse, Regeneration, Lesser and Greater Restoration all these are high level clerical spells.

Quote from: CRKrueger;967776B/X-BECMI was very playable at the Companion Level 15+, with the Test of the Warlords series of adventures.

AD&D was also very playable in the teens.  It took forever to get there but was worth it.

With all the widgets in WotC D&D, it's much harder to play at highest levels, but like anything else, once you get proficient with the sheer number of options and have internalized the rules, 3.5 was manageable.

Agreed In my experience keeping track of every thing that's possible is the big trick with 3.5 if you can do it the game functions fine but it can be hard I fully think limiting some spells can be smart though.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;967954As an interesting thought experiment, I wonder what a D30 based D&D might look like.

It would probably break at about 1.5 to 1.7 ish if you did a good job as big numbers with out any major changes if you make to big a change to the basic formula well we are probably talking a different game.

Quote from: Dumarest;968266Why are you converting his incoherent, poorly worded rambling into something that actually makes sense?

Well my sister once said and I quote "would it kill him to elaborate on any thing" take that for what you will.

Quote from: Dumarest;968281There seems to be a type of player and DM group that believes every encounter should be winnable and as a result it never occurs to the players that their PCs should avoid combat or flee. I'm not sure where that started; it may just be different personality types and game preferences. But they just don't seem to understand the "random" part of random encounters means it may be a crippled gnome begging for alms or it may be a level-sucking undead horde and you can't win them all and shouldn't expect to be able to.

It depends there is a middle ground there just because I can win doesn't mean that I want to fight it if for no other reason because I don't what to expend the resources and leave my self that vulnerable.
Or even if I can win  is fighting this fight practical.

Quote from: S'mon;967920I would say that non-spellcaster high level 5e is a thing of beauty. It does "swords against sorcery" far better than any other edition.
High level spellcasters do present some issues if you're hoping to run 4e-style dramatic cinematic combat, they do have spells like Banishment that can immediately shut down any* individual opponent , and unlike high level 1e-2e those spells usually work.

*except maybe Legendaries, but even there there are some spells that don't allow a save so Legendary Resistance is ineffective. There's a Cleric-5 touch attack 'Contagion' which can inflict 'Slimy Doom', causing a foe who takes damage to be Stunned for 1 turn. With Cleric + combat PC that's an unbeatable lockdown. Even a Legendary will take 3 rounds to blow it off, and then only by spending all their 3 Legendary Resistances on it. Then the Cleric can just do it again.

My next campaign is going to have something akin to DCC magic corruption and (probably) backfire. I want magic to be rarer and scarier. Clerics may be out altogether, as I want a setting without direct interference from Gods.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;968353My next campaign is going to have something akin to DCC magic corruption and (probably) backfire. I want magic to be rarer and scarier. Clerics may be out altogether, as I want a setting without direct interference from Gods.

Maybe something like this... https://lowfantasygaming.com/2016/05/29/dark-dangerous-magic/

Quote from: Psikerlord;968354Maybe something like this... https://lowfantasygaming.com/2016/05/29/dark-dangerous-magic/

Cool. Checking it out now!

Quote from: Willie the Duck;968284Because, regardless of what you think of Christopher, he isn't just a troll out to pick a fight. There's some point he's trying to make, and I find it more fruitful find out what that point is and then discuss the merits of said concept, rather than the usual battle royale and calling of names.

He's not just a troll, and sometimes when anything remotely connected to Old School crosses his path, he might have a point he's trying to make, but don't kid yourself...if it's anything remotely connected to early forms of D&D, he's definitely trying to pick a fight.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968333(3.x's woefully miscalculated Shadows.)

I think they assumed that you'd have a cleric.  With the cleric they're a bit tough for their CR, without a cleric they're freakin' crazy for their CR.  (you might be okay if you have bunches of holy water)

Quote from: Psikerlord;968325Yeah 4e was great up to about 10th time wise. We found it slowed down a lot 11th - 20th. didnt get past that

Yes, I found Epic Tier was playable but wasn't really worth it, so my new 4e campaign is designed to go for the BX levels, 1-14, with 15-20 existing in the setting but a hard cap at 20.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;968363I think they assumed that you'd have a cleric.  With the cleric they're a bit tough for their CR, without a cleric they're freakin' crazy for their CR.  (you might be okay if you have bunches of holy water)

5e Shadows are insanely dangerous for their CR too; in fact 5e 'drainer' undead in general seem heavily under-CR'd especially considering Turn Undead is 1 per SR and many groups these days have no Cleric.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968234A lot of monsters don't have a resistance, but have an insta-'kill' power.

In what edition? Pre-3e that was not as many as some make out. Many poisonous types had an instakill on a failed save. Think at least one of the undead had a save or die of fright. Pretty sure beholders disintegrate ray was instakill on a failed save? I dont count medusas and other petrification types as that can be reversed. Traps were a bigger threat.

I'll go through the AD&D MM and check later. I know the giant spiders, Centipedes and scorpions poison is fatal as it came up alot DMing Queen of the Demonweb Pits. Pretty sure the giant Poison Frog, Sting Ray and Wyvern are too. Catoblepas and Beholders had a death ray.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;968267If those monsters exist in the world, you're bound to encounter them. Possibly even before you're ready for them. Nobody said you had to stand toe-to-toe and fight it out. If you can't hurt it, run.

It seems like people don't understand that monsters with immunity exist so you encounter them when you can't hurt them. Those monsters are far more interesting if you run into them when you can't hurt than when you can.

That goes wayyyy back too. TSR staff had some stories of GenCon sessions and players just not freaking understanding things other than attack. They never tried to run away, surrender, bribe, or just say "Just wandering through." Others made no effort to check for traps or test things first.

My irks is with DMs who drop some TPK capable monster on the group "because the table told me to!" and dont give the group any options. If I rolled up a red dragon on some 1st level PCs then Im sure as hell not just going to have it vaporize them. Check surprise. Maybee it didnt see them? Maybee it lands and talks or extorts money from them, or asks directions to the nearest princess.

Or, one of my favorite uses one... It was a dead dragon. The players spent alot of time afterwards worrying about what killed the dragon and trying not to get its attention.

Of course if the players screw up and attract the dragons attention, insult it, fail to freaking hide before it spots them, etc, then that is their own choice and roll new character when the smoke clears.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968333I was thinking of level drain (Wraiths and Vampires in AD&D), or in later editions, creatures that attack a stat directly (3.x's woefully miscalculated Shadows.)  And apologies, when I speak of insta-kill, I mostly mean abilities that bypass HP, which if unlucky CAN badly hurt PC's.

A lot of those types of abilities hit things that don't scale as fast as HP, or don't scale at all for the most part.  Remove Curse, Regeneration, Lesser and Greater Restoration all these are high level clerical spells.

Level drains allways been an issue with D&D. But there are some options and its not like theres no disparity in levels allready in AD&D classes. Or due to starting over.

But the real problem is when you get undead repeatedly drain levels. And most can. A single wraith is annoying. But a Vampire or Specter can drain 2 levels a hit. And depending on where you run into them then that could be a whole bunch at once if the DM isnt paying attention to how #appearing works. Still though... even a few can wreak havoc on a party.

I suppose if you wanted high-level play, but without high-level spells, you might want to make an alternate source of remedy for curses, level drains, and petrification.

I like the concept of level drain, much like saving throw for items--a tension between accumulating advantage and it being taken away. Hopefully that harsh situation where someone gets caught against a couple of specters and loses 4-6 levels in an instant is a rare as finally getting that holy avenger (intelligent, that you've named and such) and losing it to a bad roll on the next fireball you're hit with.

The problem I had with the epic rules, mythic rules, whatever... they do not feel any more epic than the regular rules.

I think that is an artifact of having levels. The gritty tone of typical dungeon crawls feels, IMO, totally at odds with having character levels. In 2e NPCs were generally 0th-level, making the PCs superhuman in comparison. 3e/5e forces everything to have hit dice and/or classes, resulting in things like the king of a nation being a 10th level noble and having the resulting combat capabilities. The fiction that inspires D&D was not written with levels in mind, so we end up with Aragorn, Conan and Gandalf being under 6th level if you take articles like "calibrating your expectations" seriously.

Martial classes seem limited to just standing and whacking stuff; the rules do not seem to support cool action movie stunts, much less genuinely mythic stunts like swallowing rivers and chopping mountains in half. Even something as simple as a great big red dragon throwing houses at the party requires thinking outside the rules. I think something like Risus would support epic level play better than any variation of d20, since it doesn't segregate character capabilities into neat little boxes. If the fighter wants to chop a mountain in half or whatever else they can think of, then their roll needs to meet a target number beyond mundane limits.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Potions and scrolls can help for those high level non-magic groups.

The main thing people forget is that lost levels are just... lost levels... And as noted above AD&D had a fair amount of disparity in PC levels.

Quick example. The Cleric and Druid just hit level 10. The Fighter and Monk are still level 9, but just 50k EXP from 10. The Paladin is 250k from 10. The Ranger 200k. The Magic User is about half way into level 11. The Illusionist and Thief and Assassin just hit 11.
So you have a 9th level Fighter, a 10th level Cleric and an 11th level Magic user and Thief in the same party.

Lets say the MU gets level drained down to 9. In the time it takes the Fighter to get to 11 the MU will have caught up and hit 11 as well.

Quote from: S'mon;968394Yes, I found Epic Tier was playable but wasn't really worth it, so my new 4e campaign is designed to go for the BX levels, 1-14, with 15-20 existing in the setting but a hard cap at 20.

I only had 1 campaign with 4e at the Epic tier and well....it was pretty damn epic. That said the PCs were all taken from various cartoons and video games in a mash up world where the enemies of their worlds come together and try to take over the Cartoon-Cosmos. We had Snake Eyes from GI Joe, She-Ra from her cartoon, and Link from Zelda. Was it pretty crazy and insane? Yes. But it was a lot of fun and didn't totally get bogged down in rules and combat either.

Quote from: Omega;968446In what edition? Pre-3e that was not as many as some make out. Many poisonous types had an instakill on a failed save. Think at least one of the undead had a save or die of fright. Pretty sure beholders disintegrate ray was instakill on a failed save? I dont count medusas and other petrification types as that can be reversed. Traps were a bigger threat.

I'll go through the AD&D MM and check later. I know the giant spiders, Centipedes and scorpions poison is fatal as it came up alot DMing Queen of the Demonweb Pits. Pretty sure the giant Poison Frog, Sting Ray and Wyvern are too. Catoblepas and Beholders had a death ray.

I'm confused as to why these things are even seen as problems in the first place.

Inevitably "not sucking at high levels" to me means "How can you continue to challenge PCs as they grow ever more powerful?"

An asp with a bite that does 1 hp of damage but with a save or die poison is not so ridiculously powerful for 1st level characters. In fact, they're probably even a lesser threat than a creature that just deals a good amount of straight-up damage. Yet even a 50th level character has a 5% chance of being killed by one bad roll, meaning the creature still poses a significant threat. Level drains are a pain no matter how high your level is--perhaps even more of a pain as it represents greater XP loss the higher level you are. This means certain undead provide a good, healthy fear of the living dead for parties of all levels.

These are the things that make the game work at high levels.

Quote from: Batman;968598I only had 1 campaign with 4e at the Epic tier and well....it was pretty damn epic. That said the PCs were all taken from various cartoons and video games in a mash up world where the enemies of their worlds come together and try to take over the Cartoon-Cosmos. We had Snake Eyes from GI Joe, She-Ra from her cartoon, and Link from Zelda. Was it pretty crazy and insane? Yes. But it was a lot of fun and didn't totally get bogged down in rules and combat either.

How did you avoid the 3 hour combats? I tried reducing enemy hp but still anything that could remotely challenge level 24-29 PCs was easily 2-3 hours.

Quote from: Lunamancer;968613I'm confused as to why these things are even seen as problems in the first place.

Its not to me and most others. But there is a vocal faction in D&D and some other RPGs that flip their wheels at the idea of "save or die" elements. Hence the derogatory "save or suck" phrase some use.

Different viewpoints and play styles. Which is perfectly fine until someone starts trying to force their "one true way" on others.

Quote from: S'mon;968614How did you avoid the 3 hour combats? I tried reducing enemy hp but still anything that could remotely challenge level 24-29 PCs was easily 2-3 hours.

Having never seen 4e combat in action. What is it about 4e's combat that could possibly be dragging the battles out like that?

Quote from: Omega;968624Having never seen 4e combat in action. What is it about 4e's combat that could possibly be dragging the battles out like that?

Did you ever play Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics? 4e combat is that, but on a tabletop. Biggest killers:

1. Enemies have a fuckton of hp
2. Players have a fuckton of healing
3. Hardly anyone does a lot of damage on a round without stacking auras, bonuses, and other effects
4. Player powers are significantly more effective when the players optimize their positioning, combat advantage, and even turn sequence, leading to every round generating tedious analysis and discussion of the board position, not unlike Risk, Axis & Allies, and other complex board games.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;968363I think they assumed that you'd have a cleric.  With the cleric they're a bit tough for their CR, without a cleric they're freakin' crazy for their CR.  (you might be okay if you have bunches of holy water)

A lot of adventures and game material assume that there's A cleric in the party and usually a thief the difference is that A good fighter can often do what the thief would in those situations the cleric not so much.

Quote from: S'mon;9683985e Shadows are insanely dangerous for their CR too; in fact 5e 'drainer' undead in general seem heavily under-CR'd especially considering Turn Undead is 1 per SR and many groups these days have no Cleric.

I'd say its monsters lagging behind party composition changes.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;968494I suppose if you wanted high-level play, but without high-level spells, you might want to make an alternate source of remedy for curses, level drains, and petrification.

I like the concept of level drain, much like saving throw for items--a tension between accumulating advantage and it being taken away. Hopefully that harsh situation where someone gets caught against a couple of specters and loses 4-6 levels in an instant is a rare as finally getting that holy avenger (intelligent, that you've named and such) and losing it to a bad roll on the next fireball you're hit with.

It depends on the group most of the people I've ever played with level drain as in actually loosing levels did nothing but piss people off and cause drama.
That why I rather prefer the level drain as A permanent hard to remove negative level concept you get 99% of the effect at the moment with out screwing up the way the party adventure for the next 12 sessions(exaggerated for effect).
Item saving throws it gets more complex.

Quote from: Batman;968598I only had 1 campaign with 4e at the Epic tier and well....it was pretty damn epic. That said the PCs were all taken from various cartoons and video games in a mash up world where the enemies of their worlds come together and try to take over the Cartoon-Cosmos. We had Snake Eyes from GI Joe, She-Ra from her cartoon, and Link from Zelda. Was it pretty crazy and insane? Yes. But it was a lot of fun and didn't totally get bogged down in rules and combat either.

That sounds super cool bats.

Quote from: Lunamancer;968613I'm confused as to why these things are even seen as problems in the first place.

There are a couple of reasons why some of us consider save-or-lose effects as problematic:

1. Being effectively removed from an entire encounter due to a single die roll can be anticlamactic and pretty boring. As a DM, I particularly don't want to get a brand new player interested in the game, go thru the process of matching everyone's schedules to a single game day, run the player thru even the barebones basics of chargen and roleplaying, and then have then have them effectively KOed as part of their first ttrpg experience. Generally speaking, this is not good for making return players.

2. Save-or-die effects add insult to injury, because not only do you get removed from an entire encounter due to a single roll, you may lose a cherished character depending on circumstance and access to resurrection magic. Note that many D&D gamers, even those who play a sandbox style, do get attached to their characters, rather than playing by the 'life is cheap, don't even name your PC until he hits 3rd level' style.

Quote from: Lunamancer;968613An asp with a bite that does 1 hp of damage but with a save or die poison is not so ridiculously powerful for 1st level characters. In fact, they're probably even a lesser threat than a creature that just deals a good amount of straight-up damage. Yet even a 50th level character has a 5% chance of being killed by one bad roll, meaning the creature still poses a significant threat. Level drains are a pain no matter how high your level is--perhaps even more of a pain as it represents greater XP loss the higher level you are. This means certain undead provide a good, healthy fear of the living dead for parties of all levels.

These are the things that make the game work at high levels.

If you like level-drain effects more power to you, but including level reduction effects in a list of things that makes high levels work seems contradictory.

Quote from: Omega;968623Its not to me and most others. But there is a vocal faction in D&D and some other RPGs that flip their wheels at the idea of "save or die" elements. Hence the derogatory "save or suck" phrase some use.
Different viewpoints and play styles. Which is perfectly fine until someone starts trying to force their "one true way" on others.

Depends on the usage most of the times i've heard it it's in A discussion of mage issues.
As A whole I don't think save or suck is the issue spells that say make A save or bad shit happens are fine where I tend to find issues pop up is with spells that say save or suck and if you don't suck blow.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;968625Did you ever play Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics? 4e combat is that, but on a tabletop. Biggest killers:

1. Enemies have a fuckton of hp
2. Players have a fuckton of healing
3. Hardly anyone does a lot of damage on a round without stacking auras, bonuses, and other effects
4. Player powers are significantly more effective when the players optimize their positioning, combat advantage, and even turn sequence, leading to every round generating tedious analysis and discussion of the board position, not unlike Risk, Axis & Allies, and other complex board games.

FE isn't the best example FFT is though.
The biggest offenders on your list are number 3 and 4.
With 1 I will point out it is hugely dependent on 3 to say it another way the amount of hp something has is irreverent if the party can do enough damage to make the fight reasonable.

Quote from: Omega;968623Its not to me and most others. But there is a vocal faction in D&D and some other RPGs that flip their wheels at the idea of "save or die" elements. Hence the derogatory "save or suck" phrase some use.

Different viewpoints and play styles. Which is perfectly fine until someone starts trying to force their "one true way" on others.

Force their one true way on others? I have yet to experience or even so much as hear of someone being raided by the game police. If people aren't having fun at high level D&D, or anything they're not having fun at, it's not because someone forced their one true way on them. They only have their own play styles to blame.

It's not a question of IF a group is playing wrong--if they're not having fun, they clearly are. It's a matter of hey, let's address the elephant in the room, get to it's core, and find a solution.

Elephant in the room: The game once worked at high levels. Then it got improved. Then it started working not so good at high levels. Obviously someone's idea of what "improved" means isn't quite what Websters had in mind.

It's core: I can't say with absolute certainty that it's level drains and save-or-dies that made old D&D fun. But it does seem to serve a function that relates directly to the topic at hand, which was the meat of my expressed confusion of why treat that as a problem.

Solution: Bring it back. Stop hating it. Embrace it. See if it works. It's worth a try. What do you really have to lose?

Quote from: kosmos1214;968639With 1 I will point out it is hugely dependent on 3 to say it another way the amount of hp something has is irreverent if the party can do enough damage to make the fight reasonable.

The point is that 1. means without engaging hard on 3. means you are pissing in the wind. Lemme put it in concrete terms. Let's take everyone's most favoritest pal ever, the Ancient Red Dragon. The 4e dragon is a Level 30 solo with 1,390 hit points.

A level 30 rogue's sneak attack does +5d6. His daily powers do 6[w] to 7[w] damage. At-will is a piddly 2[w]. Without any other tricks, rogue dailies are doing like 60 damage on a hit. You're thinking, "Okay, not so bad...I guess that's 5 or 6 rounds to take down the dragon if 4 people can hit that hard, like maybe if you've got a Fighter, a Warlock, and a Warlord." Except now here's where 4e gets really terrible: monster defenses scale more rapidly than player attacks. So if you're not doing anything fancy and didn't take the right feats, your hit chance is a good clip below 50%. So think 15 rounds or more.

Thus all the haggling, debating, and discussion ever round over how to properly trigger your powers to max damage. Because if you don't take all night studying the board to kill the dragon...it'll take all night rolling piddly damage to kill the dragon.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;968660The point is that 1. means without engaging hard on 3. means you are pissing in the wind. Lemme put it in concrete terms. Let's take everyone's most favoritest pal ever, the Ancient Red Dragon. The 4e dragon is a Level 30 solo with 1,390 hit points.

A level 30 rogue's sneak attack does +5d6. His daily powers do 6[w] to 7[w] damage. At-will is a piddly 2[w]. Without any other tricks, rogue dailies are doing like 60 damage on a hit. You're thinking, "Okay, not so bad...I guess that's 5 or 6 rounds to take down the dragon if 4 people can hit that hard, like maybe if you've got a Fighter, a Warlock, and a Warlord." Except now here's where 4e gets really terrible: monster defenses scale more rapidly than player attacks. So if you're not doing anything fancy and didn't take the right feats, your hit chance is a good clip below 50%. So think 15 rounds or more.

Thus all the haggling, debating, and discussion ever round over how to properly trigger your powers to max damage. Because if you don't take all night studying the board to kill the dragon...it'll take all night rolling piddly damage to kill the dragon.

Sorry that post was hurried let me explain I was agreeing with you.

I also should have made my self clear I was looking at your points from A design stand point with some caveats thrown on to your points.
hence your 3rd and 4th points are the biggest issues with 4e and point 1 is very much relays on point 3 being true.
For example if that rouge was doing more like 5d12 (32.20 avg vs 17.50) and could hit reasonably say 65 to 70% of the time (ie A reasonably good hit rate) that 1390 wont last long even though it looks big.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;968660The point is that 1. means without engaging hard on 3. means you are pissing in the wind. Lemme put it in concrete terms. Let's take everyone's most favoritest pal ever, the Ancient Red Dragon. The 4e dragon is a Level 30 solo with 1,390 hit points.

A level 30 rogue's sneak attack does +5d6. His daily powers do 6[w] to 7[w] damage. At-will is a piddly 2[w]. Without any other tricks, rogue dailies are doing like 60 damage on a hit. You're thinking, "Okay, not so bad...I guess that's 5 or 6 rounds to take down the dragon if 4 people can hit that hard, like maybe if you've got a Fighter, a Warlock, and a Warlord." Except now here's where 4e gets really terrible: monster defenses scale more rapidly than player attacks. So if you're not doing anything fancy and didn't take the right feats, your hit chance is a good clip below 50%. So think 15 rounds or more.

Thus all the haggling, debating, and discussion ever round over how to properly trigger your powers to max damage. Because if you don't take all night studying the board to kill the dragon...it'll take all night rolling piddly damage to kill the dragon.

Did you play after Essentials fixed the monster math by substantially increasing monster damage and reducing monster HP?

Quote from: Haffrung;968691Did you play after Essentials fixed the monster math by substantially increasing monster damage and reducing monster HP?

Now I get to innocently ask "What is Essentials"? I assume from various mentions that its something like a Basic set for 4e?

Quote from: Omega;968699Now I get to innocently ask "What is Essentials"? I assume from various mentions that its something like a Basic set for 4e?

More like "Holy Fuck, Paizo is killing us, how can we make this shit remotely resemble D&D again?"

Quote from: CRKrueger;968700More like "Holy Fuck, Paizo is killing us, how can we make this shit remotely resemble D&D again?"

So 4e D&D GW, without the slapstick and circus freaks?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;968625Did you ever play Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics? 4e combat is that, but on a tabletop. Biggest killers:

1. Enemies have a fuckton of hp
2. Players have a fuckton of healing
3. Hardly anyone does a lot of damage on a round without stacking auras, bonuses, and other effects
4. Player powers are significantly more effective when the players optimize their positioning, combat advantage, and even turn sequence, leading to every round generating tedious analysis and discussion of the board position, not unlike Risk, Axis & Allies, and other complex board games.

I found the big offender was players taking ages over their turns, so #4. I halved elite & solo hp and reduced standard hp so the actual number of combat rounds per battle wasn't so bad, but each player could take several minutes per turn. 5 players & GM at 5 minutes each and you're looking at 30 minutes per combat round.... I don't think it was always quite that bad as some players were faster, but generally my group was fairly rules-weak which did not help for Epic 4e - one guy who now plays in my level 2 game still doesn't grok the 4e action economy even after 5 years! So a big fight could be 6 rounds at 30 minutes/round = 180 minutes, 3 hours. We were averaging 2 hours even on quite routine fights. When I ran uplevelled 'Assault on Nightwym Fortress' as the final assault on the Orcus-occupied Towers of Night, I cut the 30 book encounters down to 9, started with
http://frloudwater.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/session-95-3-641485-dr-against-carrion.html in April 2016 and ended with http://frloudwater.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/session-103-941485-orcus.html in August 2016. 9 fights, 9 sessions, 4.5 months of fortnightly play at levels 26-29. It's doable, but definitely sloggy, and coming out of that I have no desire to run Epic 4e again.

Edit: Actually looks like in this session http://frloudwater.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/session-97-741485-in-tomb-of-sartine.html we actually got through 2 fights in 3 hours! So 10 fights in 9 sessions.

Quote from: Omega;968707So 4e D&D GW, without the slapstick and circus freaks?

TL;DR version: they switched out the AEDU model for more At-Wills, especially for the non-casters, which cut down on a lot of the dissociation since 1/day powers went back to being more supernatural powers as opposed to, say an Uppercut or Lunge.  Combat moved faster, but was less complex, also without the wtfpwnbbq powers they had to reduce monster HPs, so to keep them competitive, they did more damage.  So faster, cleaner, and tactics closer to D&D than WoW.

Quote from: Robyo;967721It says levels 1-20 on the tin, but rarely have I seen a game that went over 10th without starting to show it's seams ripping.

And I've honestly never had a campaign last long enough for it to matter. If you start at 1st level, stacks of the PCs die before you get one that lasts, and then it's up to 5th or so. I think the best I've done was 7th, and that was in ToEE which is a total hackfest, and the DM was being soft. A campaign with a soft DM has more problems than what things are like at 26th level.

Aside from that it's making high-level characters for a particular module like ToH, and then it's just a one-off so who cares if it's all mental.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;968634There are a couple of reasons why some of us consider save-or-lose effects as problematic:

1. Being effectively removed from an entire encounter due to a single die roll can be anticlamactic and pretty boring. As a DM, I particularly don't want to get a brand new player interested in the game, go thru the process of matching everyone's schedules to a single game day, run the player thru even the barebones basics of chargen and roleplaying, and then have then have them effectively KOed as part of their first ttrpg experience. Generally speaking, this is not good for making return players.

Well, I don't know that anything happens "due to a single die roll." The asp poisoning the high level fighter, for instance, takes no fewer than three die rolls--the asp must first either gain first strike or else avoid the fighter's attack (die roll), then the asp must then score a hit against the fighter with all of his defenses (die roll), then the fighter must fail the saving throw (die roll). I'm not seeing how this is different from an orc winning initiative against a newb (die roll), scoring a hit (die roll), then rolling damage high enough to deplete all his first level hit points (die roll).

It seems like the real* gripes are:
1) That a single party member can die without taking the entire party with him,
2) Coordinating a new person's schedules with everyone in the regular group is a drag,
3) Character creation needs to be less involved for new players.

When I was first introduced to the game, all I was allowed to play was a human fighter. So character creation consisted of just rolling 3d6 six times and then rolling for hit points. Nothing could be easier. It was also just me and the DM, so there was no trouble working out different peoples schedules. That also meant if my character died, that was it. The game was over, and I wasn't left out of anything. And yes, my character did die my first time playing. I fought an orc, fought a skeleton, rested by a stream, found a pegasus, lassoed it, took to the skies, met a dragon, it breathed fire at me. Failed my save. Died. Of course, fire breath is not actually a save or die effect, it's straight up damage, save for half. So the whole "due to a single die roll" thing is really rhetoric than reality.


* I've deliberately left out "Extreme luck is somehow anti-climactic and boring" and "Bad stuff might happen your first time out" because I'm assuming if you really meant that, D&D probably isn't the game for you at all. No sense in trying to tweak it.

QuoteIf you like level-drain effects more power to you, but including level reduction effects in a list of things that makes high levels work seems contradictory.

What makes you say that?

Quote from: Omega;968447That goes wayyyy back too. TSR staff had some stories of GenCon sessions and players just not freaking understanding things other than attack. They never tried to run away, surrender, bribe, or just say "Just wandering through." Others made no effort to check for traps or test things first.

My irks is with DMs who drop some TPK capable monster on the group "because the table told me to!" and dont give the group any options. If I rolled up a red dragon on some 1st level PCs then Im sure as hell not just going to have it vaporize them. Check surprise. Maybee it didnt see them? Maybee it lands and talks or extorts money from them, or asks directions to the nearest princess.

Or, one of my favorite uses one... It was a dead dragon. The players spent alot of time afterwards worrying about what killed the dragon and trying not to get its attention.

Of course if the players screw up and attract the dragons attention, insult it, fail to freaking hide before it spots them, etc, then that is their own choice and roll new character when the smoke clears.

All good points.

This brings up another problem TSR/WotC introduced in later editions when they dropped reaction rolls from monsters.

Wandering dragon? Roll 2d6 and add your Charisma bonus. 11? Guess what - he's bored, looking for someone to talk with, and takes a liking to you. Roleplay!

Eliminating the reaction roll was another de facto endorsement of the "kick open the door, kill the monster" style of play that players will default to without clear steering otherwise.

It also means that at high level, the challenges become "same but with more hit points".

Quote from: fearsomepirate;968625Did you ever play Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics? 4e combat is that, but on a tabletop. Biggest killers:

1. Enemies have a fuckton of hp
2. Players have a fuckton of healing
3. Hardly anyone does a lot of damage on a round without stacking auras, bonuses, and other effects
4. Player powers are significantly more effective when the players optimize their positioning, combat advantage, and even turn sequence, leading to every round generating tedious analysis and discussion of the board position, not unlike Risk, Axis & Allies, and other complex board games.

All true.

Also add to it that many MANY monster and player powers are about stunning/immobilizing, which ends up prolonging fights.

Ironic, given that they started out with a good idea by giving PCs and monsters abilities to maneuver themselves and their opponents on the grid to make combat seem more dynamic. Then they added twice as many abilities that prevent that movement. :(

Quote from: Lunamancer;968768Well, I don't know that anything happens "due to a single die roll." ...

It seems like the real* gripes are:
1) That a single party member can die without taking the entire party with him,

Hold Person, Fear, and Disintegrate come to mind in the single die roll category.

It's not that they die or are incapacitated and no one else is, but that the one character dies or is incapacitated and they have nothing to do for the next couple of hours. Now, I would say that exercising proper teamwork and foresight should address most of these concerns. For a lot of things there are counter-measures. If there aren't, it might be to the DM's advantage to consider what those counter-measures are so that the PCs can pursue them.

Quote from: Baron Opal;968788Hold Person, Fear, and Disintegrate come to mind in the single die roll category.

I'm still not sure why the number of die rolls is the end-all-be-all measuring stick here. In the asp example, it was shown there are a minimum of two additional die rolls involved, one of which would give the character the *chance* to act pre-emptively. The casting times for the above spells are 5, 4, and 6 segments respectively. That virtually guarantees some intervening act is possible IF the player chooses it. If anything that gives more of an opportunity to play the encounter, despite calling for fewer dice rolls, than the asp.

Quotebut that the one character dies or is incapacitated and they have nothing to do for the next couple of hours.

Next couple of hours? If combat is really taking that long, it sounds like the problem is too many dice are being rolled to resolve things, not too few.

Quote from: Lunamancer;968809Next couple of hours? If combat is really taking that long, it sounds like the problem is too many dice are being rolled to resolve things, not too few.

I think that was in reference to dying because of a single roll, and then waiting until the party gets back to civilization such that their character is raised or replaced.

Quote from: Lunamancer;968809I'm still not sure why the number of die rolls is the end-all-be-all measuring stick here. In the asp example, it was shown there are a minimum of two additional die rolls involved, one of which would give the character the *chance* to act pre-emptively.

I think that's the key thing. It is easier to accept a forced, protracted downtime, regardless of what it is, when you had some chance to mitigate the result. I actually find this to be a greater issue at lower levels than higher ones. When you get to high level, those issues can often be addressed within the party so the adventure doesn't have to end there.

The only time I had an issue with save-or-die is when my character, in a level 5-7 party, picked up some treasure with contact poison on it. He failed his save and died. It took 3-4 weeks in a weekly game for there to be an opportunity for me to bring another character in. I didn't wait that long, and found another game. This was also a group I didn't have strong personal ties to, and had only gamed with them 2-3 times before. Still, facing sitting out a real month sucked.

I can handle chilling for a couple hours, as long as it wasn't a regular thing.

Quote from: Haffrung;968691Did you play after Essentials fixed the monster math by substantially increasing monster damage and reducing monster HP?

I never bought Essentials. I ended up cutting all HP (player and monster) by 1/3, but it didn't really fix the issue of players analyzing every turn to death. TBH everyone I know who started with 4e, myself included, has a tendency to overanalyze. You know you're dealing with ex-4e players when they spend 10 minutes arguing over whether it's time for the fighter to use Action Surge or not.

Quote from: OmegaNow I get to innocently ask "What is Essentials"? I assume from various mentions that its something like a Basic set for 4e?

Essentials was an attempt to reboot 4e while pretending it was really a 100% compatible Basic Set. I thought it was a Reader's Digest version of 4e and saw no reason to get it, as I already had most of the 4e material. It was a poorly-timed, badly-advertised, ill-conceived product, but apparently it was a better game than 4e if you understood it really wasn't the same game any more.

Quote from: Baron Opal;968820It took 3-4 weeks in a weekly game for there to be an opportunity for me to bring another character in.

Who the hell runs D&D and doesn't do the classic, "Oh look who's just around the corner! It's some guy with a sword looking for an adventuring party just like yours! Mr Opal, please introduce your new character."

Even if the party has no spearholders to be promoted, and the DM doesn't want to break some conception of believability, in all but the most contrived scenarios, there could be something like the opponents' prisoner cells can house one extra fellow who's fit enough to hold a sword and adventure alongside the heroes. So yeah, there's a level of 'lack of DM helping out' factor in this example.

Yeah, there was a failure of imagination there. The DM was really disappointed that I didn't just come to hang out and watch.

Seriously?

I was a bit surprised the cleric didn't have some kind of slow poison or something. He was a member of a snake cult, and all. Ah, well.

Quote from: Baron Opal;968820It took 3-4 weeks in a weekly game for there to be an opportunity for me to bring another character in.

That's just crazy. What does it take to bring a replacement character in? It's incredibly easy to rationalize.  Tell me there weren't players who showed up for weeks just to watch everybody else play the game while waiting for the party to get somewhere the DM would allow a new PC to join up.

Quote from: Lunamancer;968809Next couple of hours? If combat is really taking that long, it sounds like the problem is too many dice are being rolled to resolve things, not too few.

Last night, in the AL D&D 5e game, I had a character fully die (she was level 2) due to a bad die roll (singular) and the players, being in the middle of a dungeon, took several hours to get out, due to random monsters, a couple of triggered events, which kept the dead player out of the game for about 1 and half, because there was no way to bring them back until they got back into town.

Quote from: Robyo;967721We all know the "sweet spot" in D&D (or retroclones) is 1-6 or so. But what about high level?

S&W:WB and OD&D work fine at 9th-12th. I max campaigns at 10th though.

I'd argue the OD&D "sweet spot" is 4th to 7th.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;968832Who the hell runs D&D and doesn't do the classic, "Oh look who's just around the corner! It's some guy with a sword looking for an adventuring party just like yours! Mr Opal, please introduce your new character."

Agreed.

Back in the day, we usually ran 2 PCs each in AD&D for exactly this reason. It was your damn job to keep one of your clowns alive for the game session, and even then we regularly "found" wandering new heroes in the dungeons as needed. Or you played a monster who allies with  the party.

Not. Rocket. Science.

My comment about levels 1-6 being the sweet spot was mainly because of the popularity of hacks like E6 and E8. And in my experience it has been lower level D&D which seemed most thrilling. At those levels the PCs can still be challenged without too much DM work, and character death is quite possible. Honestly, in 30+ years of my D&D experience I've never caused or been a part of a TPK. I really don't know how those happen, except for blind stupidity on the part of players, or maybe sadistic DMs.

I admit I'm surprised at the love showered for 5e in this thread. Been playing OSR stuff most recently, but I ran a 5e campaign up to 17th level (before the group fell apart) and I admit it was fun. But I would not consider the powers and abilities of the PCs to be particularly epic. I thought 4e had a good grasp on that with Epic Destinies. Players that turn into avatars? Yes please.

However, the party in my 5e game did manage to steamroll most of my encounters, including a one-round kill of Darth Vader (they had wondered into a tech dungeon inside the astral plane). So I had to ratchet up the HP and damage of my encounters, while previously having tailored monsters according to the guidelines in the DMG. I've read elsewhere that those rules really aren't adequate, at any level.

When I run 5e again, it will be a low-magic version utilizing the classes in the the Adventures in Middle Earth Player's Guide. I think that system will add quite a bit of grittiness to the normal D&D tropes.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968869Last night, in the AL D&D 5e game, I had a character fully die (she was level 2) due to a bad die roll (singular) and the players, being in the middle of a dungeon, took several hours to get out, due to random monsters, a couple of triggered events, which kept the dead player out of the game for about 1 and half, because there was no way to bring them back until they got back into town.

This is usually where as a DM I have the player help me with dice rolls or other stuff on those occasions where there isnt a good excuse to introduce a new PC. Or the player is waiting for the group to drag the body back to someone who can raise them. As a player I've had to do that a few times for others when my character ended up one of the last standing. Ive spent time with my PC down too. Especially in BX and AD&D.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;968869Last night, in the AL D&D 5e game, I had a character fully die (she was level 2) due to a bad die roll (singular) and the players, being in the middle of a dungeon, took several hours to get out, due to random monsters, a couple of triggered events, which kept the dead player out of the game for about 1 and half, because there was no way to bring them back until they got back into town.

If you insist on waiting until they get back so your character can be revived, that's on the player.
If the DM insists on you waiting to introduce a new character in the dungeon, that's on the DM.
If you're all ok with it either way, there isn't an issue.

In the current campaign it was easy for new characters to come in, because BtB in AD&D1e if you're taken below 0HP then you take a week to recover no matter what, so they kept going into the dungeon and then leaving it for a week and a bit (travel time). It was all taking weeks and months, and the guy who sent them there just sent any adventurers who came his way up to them to ask what the fuck they were doing and why it was taking so long.

I just assumed the new character followed their tracks and the trail of dead monsters, blood, viscera and dropped coins.
"Hi guys! Barnacle sent me to... say, what happened to that guy?"

The exception was the PC who appeared in a room where they'd killed owlbears and orcs, he was hogtied, naked but for a gimp mask, smeared in pig fat. Was it to braise him for dinner, or something more disturbing? Nobody wanted to know. They freed him and he charged into the next room and was cut down by orcs.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;968814I think that was in reference to dying because of a single roll, and then waiting until the party gets back to civilization such that their character is raised or replaced.

The funny thing about that is I was responding to three specific spells, two of which only put you out until the end of combat--if even that--and the third leaves nothing to raise. That third one also has the longest casting time so is the easiest to stop--it will get trumped by a Silence 15' Radius which has a shorter casting time.

So my head went more to the first two. And it's interesting because one of my campaigns has a bad guy NPC that targets adventurers. He's an evil wizard, and his M.O. is typically to begin by casting Fear so he only has to contend with one-half to one-third of the party, then follows that up with hold person, and his orc minions attack any who are still fighting after that, meanwhile the wizard casts Detect Magic then goes up to one of the held characters, steals a magic item, then him and his band break off, and that's the end of that. Nobody is sitting out for very long at all. And nobody loses their character.

But all the responses since really say it quite well. It seems like the reasons given for disliking save-or-die have more to do with other aspects of play styles being weak at keeping players involved than anything else. And there are plenty of known solutions.

Quote from: Lunamancer;968768Well, I don't know that anything happens "due to a single die roll."

Sleep, 1st level spell, every 1st level PC is one die roll away from a nap. Possibly a dirt nap, depending on the foes involved. I don't remember how long sleep takes to cast in TSR D&D, maybe it provides the targets a round or two to interrupt the caster. If so, the caster player is now twiddling his thumbs for however many rounds -- which you perhaps don't see as a problem, but there are better ways to implement effects that effectively remove opponents from the field.

If we go back to your asp scenario, yes, death-by-asp involves a similar number of die rolls than death-by-orc for a 1st level PC. And both of those things are problematic for some of us for the same reasons.

Quote from: Lunamancer;968768* I've deliberately left out "Extreme luck is somehow anti-climactic and boring" and "Bad stuff might happen your first time out" because I'm assuming if you really meant that, D&D probably isn't the game for you at all. No sense in trying to tweak it.

Not at all, just start at 3rd level or so. Or play 4e, which is great about making PC death climactic, and despite all the myths others would have you believe -- one of which appears in the OP -- is damned good D&D. It's certainly the only D&D I'll run at any level any more.

I'll also note that D&D could have gone the way of some other rpgs, where PCs gain skill as they advance but no more survivability. Instead though, we have a D&D where PCs quickly acquire enough damage-cushion so that many die rolls are required to be KOed-by-sword-or-claw, and I don't think this fact is just happenstance. I think Gygax (& Arneson?) realized that most players want a cushion between their PCs and KO status -- it's just that most editions are inconsistent about this. Despite 1st level fragility and various save-or-lose effects, I think it's pretty backward to think that the desire for climactic encounters is somehow contrary to D&D.

Quote from: Lunamancer;968768What makes you say that?

It's a bit ironic, don't you think? "High level D&D works in part because undead critters can make the PCs less high level, possibly even low level again..." ;)

Quote from: Spinachcat;968882I'd argue the OD&D "sweet spot" is 4th to 7th.

Agreed.

OD&D, BXCMI, AD&D can all handle higher level play OK.  I still don't like it.

Even in older editions though, high level play is just not as fun as mid or low level.  Once players get over the "ooh, ahh, look at my shiny 14th level MU" thing, it just gets dull.  Perhaps because it is less of a challenge. I understand the impulse for dungeons like Tomb of Horrors - lets give them a real challenge and kill them off at the same time! Perhaps it's because character growth is less exciting at high levels.  Gaining 4th level is is cool, gaining 15th is sort of..meh. There is less motivation for the acquisition of gold and power.  It loses its luster. As a concern for some, game balance gets weird at high levels.  Spell users dominate.  For me though, high level play seems less grounded.  Things like torches, rope, shieldwalls, ambushes, setting watch, building solid base camps and tactics in general get replaced cool abilities, magical powers, and game widgets.  Tons of monsters lose their usefulness. Dragons become ho-hum, and city watchmen are just pointless.  It's just not that fun.

Point is, high level play kinda sucks, even in versions of the game that can handle it mechanically.

..and forget high level play in 3rd or Pathfinder which show signs of strain at 7th and begin to breakdown at 9th - at least in my experience.  Any more I won't touch a d20 system after about 6th.

Quote from: Madprofessor;969056OD&D, BXCMI, AD&D can all handle higher level play OK.  I still don't like it.

Point is, high level play kinda sucks, even in versions of the game that can handle it mechanically.

See, I love it. We're just getting started once the group hits 12th level. There is definitely a shift in play style, but the opportunities it provides are awesome. But, yes, it's not everyone's cup of tea.

Quote from: Madprofessor;969056Even in older editions though, high level play is just not as fun as mid or low level.  Once players get over the "ooh, ahh, look at my shiny 14th level MU" thing, it just gets dull.  Perhaps because it is less of a challenge.

But there's no particular reason that high level play is less of a challenges. If you increase the challenge the PCs are up against, the difficulty should stay the same.

I would phrase it slightly differently.  The challenges the PCs are up against should largely change in their base nature.  Too many DMs try to treadmill the same types of activities the players did at lower levels into having the same math to maintain "challenge".  I wouldn't do that.  (And I'm not saying you said that.)

What is more challenging is that high level play starts to move into other planes of existence, political maneuver, and such.  But not that the local monster population seems to get tougher as the PCs do.   It can be very satisfying for the players to dip down into the sorts of activities that they used to and blow through them with ease.  It's a practical demonstration of their growth relative to the more fixed environment.

Correct, I meant the level of challenge should not change, not that the challenges shouldn't.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;969021Sleep, 1st level spell, every 1st level PC is one die roll away from a nap. Possibly a dirt nap, depending on the foes involved. I don't remember how long sleep takes to cast in TSR D&D, maybe it provides the targets a round or two to interrupt the caster. If so, the caster player is now twiddling his thumbs for however many rounds -- which you perhaps don't see as a problem, but there are better ways to implement effects that effectively remove opponents from the field.

AD&D sleep spell casting time was... 1 segment. No save. How many it effected was random and based on the HD of those in the radius. Effecting up to 4HD creatures, but there was only a 50% chance to drop one of those. It allowed insta-killing.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;969021Sleep, 1st level spell, every 1st level PC is one die roll away from a nap. Possibly a dirt nap, depending on the foes involved. I don't remember how long sleep takes to cast in TSR D&D, maybe it provides the targets a round or two to interrupt the caster. If so, the caster player is now twiddling his thumbs for however many rounds -- which you perhaps don't see as a problem, but there are better ways to implement effects that effectively remove opponents from the field.

Since Omega's already handled the fact checking, I'm going straight to to the heart of the matter. This is no different from the example of the asp. Like the asp, if the mage is slain or incapacitated before he can act, then this ability is rendered moot. Spell casting has an additional difficulty, that there is time between the start of the casting and its completion in which the spell can be disrupted. Presumably all those intervening actions involve several dice rolls. These are the dice rolls that aren't being accounted for when you say "due to a single die roll." It's not due to a single die roll.

QuoteIf we go back to your asp scenario, yes, death-by-asp involves a similar number of die rolls than death-by-orc for a 1st level PC. And both of those things are problematic for some of us for the same reasons.

Not at all, just start at 3rd level or so. Or play 4e, which is great about making PC death climactic, and despite all the myths others would have you believe -- one of which appears in the OP -- is damned good D&D. It's certainly the only D&D I'll run at any level any more.

So, in other words, D&D just wasn't the game for you. :D

QuoteI'll also note that D&D could have gone the way of some other rpgs, where PCs gain skill as they advance but no more survivability.

Sure. And I would enjoy that. But it's the same underlying theme. As characters grow, not every characteristic scales uniformly. Not that uniform scaling would solve the high level suck problem--it doesn't. At its very best, uniform scaling leads to a treadmill of tedium. The point is we are stuck non-uniform scaling, so expectations of uniformity aren't exactly reasonable.

QuoteInstead though, we have a D&D where PCs quickly acquire enough damage-cushion so that many die rolls are required to be KOed-by-sword-or-claw, and I don't think this fact is just happenstance. I think Gygax (& Arneson?) realized that most players want a cushion between their PCs and KO status

I'm pretty sure that was just the easiest, most obvious way to be able to stat the hero as being worth four men. You can find plenty of examples of Gygax having to defend hit points because if taken literally as physical toughness they didn't make a lot of sense. They represent skill in avoiding fatal blows. Actually, weren't you just saying that you wish advancement was in skills rather than becoming super-human? Well, that's what this is.

As to whether players want a cushion? It's a complex question, isn't it? At some level, we want the game to be interesting, so we want things to work against us. At a baser level, we want anything and everything that stacks the odds in our favor. Yeah, I want a hit point buffer. And a million gold pieces, a magical version of every piece of my equipment, and I want to begin the game with three wishes. Real wishes. Not those pussy wishes that don't let me wish for more wishes. Oh, but part of that is they don't want their blade to have to cut through thousands of hit points to slit someone else's throat. They expect their enemies to die instantly.

Whether intended or not, that is what the D&D system seems to deliver. A growing cushion against harm in general without negating the various Achilles' heels.

Quote-- it's just that most editions are inconsistent about this. Despite 1st level fragility and various save-or-lose effects, I think it's pretty backward to think that the desire for climactic encounters is somehow contrary to D&D.

Climactic encounters?

QuoteIt's a bit ironic, don't you think? "High level D&D works in part because undead critters can make the PCs less high level, possibly even low level again..." ;)

Yeah, it would be ironic if someone actually said that. What I said, and I was extremely specific about it, is losing a level is a greater XP loss to a higher level character. Most obstacles become less and less of an inconvenience as characters level. You go from getting hit for 10 damage being insta-kill, to it being a hefty wound, to it being a minor scratch. Even the asp's deadly venom is easier to save against for higher level characters. But earning back XP for a level lost? It's a rare thing that actually becomes harder at higher levels.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969157Since Omega's already handled the fact checking, I'm going straight to to the heart of the matter.

Yes, lets. Do you really not understand the difference between effects which hang the victim's entire participation in an encounter, if not the victim's very life, on a single die roll (or none, in the case of sleep); and the otherwise back-and-forth of attack rolls, damage rolls, and other tactical spells, after PCs have enough hit points to survive a damage roll or two?

Or are you just trolling my assumption that as D&D gamers, we both implicitly understand that there will always be initiative rolls at the start of combat?

Quote from: Lunamancer;969157So, in other words, D&D just wasn't the game for you. :D

So in other words, your only interest here is viking hatting and edition warring. :D

Quote from: Omega;969111AD&D sleep spell casting time was... 1 segment. No save. How many it effected was random and based on the HD of those in the radius. Effecting up to 4HD creatures, but there was only a 50% chance to drop one of those. It allowed insta-killing.

Thanks, should have checked my 2e PHB. So sleep doesn't even allow a save. Never played an edition that uses segments, but I'm guessing segment = round.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;969409Thanks, should have checked my 2e PHB. So sleep doesn't even allow a save. Never played an edition that uses segments, but I'm guessing segment = round.

Segment is a 10th of a round. 10 segments in a round.

In 2e they kept segments as an optional. It added to the wizards initiative roll so they acted later in the round. Initiative was a d10. I'll have to look up what it is in AD&D.

2e Sleep is much the same as 1e. Casting time 1. That is +1 on the casters initiative. No save. But now it only drops 2d4 HD worth of monsters and doesnt effect any over 4+3. Effecting the lowest HD first. Way down from the AD&D version which can take down upwards of 7d4 individuals. Looks like you could no longer insta-kill them while sleeping though.

Quote from: Omega;969438Segment is a 10th of a round. 10 segments in a round.

In 2e they kept segments as an optional. It added to the wizards initiative roll so they acted later in the round. Initiative was a d10. I'll have to look up what it is in AD&D.

2e Sleep is much the same as 1e. Casting time 1. That is +1 on the casters initiative. No save. But now it only drops 2d4 HD worth of monsters and doesnt effect any over 4+3. Effecting the lowest HD first. Way down from the AD&D version which can take down upwards of 7d4 individuals. Looks like you could no longer insta-kill them while sleeping though.

Interestingly By 3.5 you could insta kill things again with the coup de grâce rules.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;969402Yes, lets. Do you really not understand the difference between effects which hang the victim's entire participation in an encounter, if not the victim's very life, on a single die roll (or none, in the case of sleep); and the otherwise back-and-forth of attack rolls, damage rolls, and other tactical spells, after PCs have enough hit points to survive a damage roll or two?

It seems like you're assuming the mage getting the spell off is a sure thing. Spells can be disrupted by damaging the mage prior to completion of the spell. And it generally seems like the older the version of the game, the bigger deal is made of spell disruption. So I understand why someone used to newer versions of the game could underestimate the importance of this, or even ignore it. You need to understand that your assessment isn't accurate if you don't account for spell disruption.

To put it another way, I think we both agree that death by hit point depletion is generally not "due to a single die roll" because even if my max 100 hit point fighter had only 6 hit points left when that last damage die turned up a 6, I would never say "Woe is me; my fate was sealed by a single die roll." That would be silly because it ignores all the other dice rolls that got my fighter down to 6 hit points from 100 in the first place. The actions that transpired to get my fighter into a position where he could get killed count.

Well, all the actions that transpired to bring us to the point where a save-or-die spell is actually successfully completed count as well. It would be equally silly to point only at the very last die roll before my character dies (in this case, the saving throw) and say "See! Due to a single die roll."

QuoteOr are you just trolling my assumption that as D&D gamers, we both implicitly understand that there will always be initiative rolls at the start of combat?

This is neither here nor there, but you do seem laden with a lot of assumptions borne out of newer D&D that do not apply to old D&D. Pre 3E, we generally roll initiative not at the start of combat but each round. And it's not even necessarily at the beginning of the round. The rules call first for declaration of intent and pre-initiative actions before initiative is rolled (my own house rules due away with pre-declaration of intent entirely, but a lot more happens as pre-initiative actions).

QuoteSo in other words, your only interest here is viking hatting and edition warring. :D

In case you weren't aware, popular sentiment is that 4E is a mighty fine RPG and it would have been well received if it was called anything but D&D because it's just too much of a departure from D&D to be called D&D. The people who are saying that aren't trashing the system, and they certainly aren't edition warring. Saying "Well I like 4E just fine" in response to "Maybe D&D isn't the game for you" just lends more credibility to the idea that 4E really just isn't D&D.

My personal opinion of 4E is exactly the same as my personal opinion of 3E. And that is, look, I played my first game of D&D when I was 6. I'm 40 years old. If they're going to go and change the game so much that I essentially have to learn the whole damn system from scratch anyway, I may as well just go and find an RPG that better suits how my tastes have changed over the years. And I've done just that. But I do still find good old fashioned D&D enjoyable in its own right. I mean it's just a fucking game. Not a religion. So if any of this constitutes "viking hatting" and "edition warring" then I guess those terms track just as well as "due to a single die roll"--a complete perversion of language.

Going back over spellcasting in AD&D its notable that its actually rather hard to disrupt a spell. This was due to the initiative system which was per side, not per individual.

The twist was that casters had to declare their spells before round initiative was rolled. The only way to disrupt a spell was if you got your initiative within the casting window. The example given was the caster is going on initiative 5. So any attempts to disrupt have to come on segments 5+.

So Im casting Fireball. Our side rolls init 4 their side rolls initiative 2. I start casting on 4 and wont finish till 2. So the enemy might be able to disrupt casting just as Im about to launch. Something like Reverse Gravity that tales 7 segments wouldn't finish till next round on initiative 7.

And casters got NO DEX bonus to AC on any round/s they are casting. Any hit would disrupt the spell. So would trying to move during casting.

Added note: In BX there was no spell interruption except to win initiative and kill the caster.

Quote from: Omega;969570Added note: In BX there was no spell interruption except to win initiative and kill the caster.

I thought if you won init you always attacked while they were casting, & any hit disrupted? Since they start casting before init is rolled at top of round. Caster also can't move in a round they cast.

The way I actually run BX/RC is cyclic init so I give a free attack vs a caster who starts casting while adjacent to you, hit disrupts . This means casters are fairly safe as long as no one gets into melee with them, dead meat thereafter. They can't move and cast, they can't use most spells while on a moving mount (inc fliers). Tough game compared to 3e/4e/5e, always impressed how well my son handled it playing an MU at age 6-9.

Quote from: S'mon;969574I thought if you won init you always attacked while they were casting, & any hit disrupted? Since they start casting before init is rolled at top of round. Caster also can't move in a round they cast.

oops. You are correct. In X it states that if a caster is hit on the round they cast by someone with better initiative then the casting is interrupted. That isnt in B as far as I can tell. My fault for not checking X too. I thought for sure it was in BX but was perplexed that B didnt have the rule.

So yes. You can wack the caster and stop ANY spell if you are faster in BX.

This or AD&Ds slightly more detailed system could be ported over to 5e.

Make spell casting need to be announced before initiative.
If hit before can cast then check for interrupt.

Quote from: Omega;969570Going back over spellcasting in AD&D its notable that its actually rather hard to disrupt a spell.

I don't know that I can agree with that. There's a line in the book that makes clear the intent, "Because spell casting will be so difficult, most magic-users and clerics will opt to use magical devices whenever possible in melee." If you're thinking spell disruption is hard, you might be misinterpreting the rules. I'll get into the weeds of it a bit.

QuoteThis was due to the initiative system which was per side, not per individual.

This is not a strict rule. As I often say, the term "group initiative" does not come with a dictate as two what constitutes a group. A PC party of just three characters could be three groups of 1. The DMG specifically mentions allowing initiative for each individual when the groups are small. And when groups are very large, I also often break things down into sub-groups (for example, a PC party with a bunch of NPC retainers I might have one initiative roll for the PCs, a separate for friendly NPCs, and then one or possibly more for the enemies).

QuoteThe twist was that casters had to declare their spells before round initiative was rolled. The only way to disrupt a spell was if you got your initiative within the casting window. The example given was the caster is going on initiative 5. So any attempts to disrupt have to come on segments 5+.

So Im casting Fireball. Our side rolls init 4 their side rolls initiative 2. I start casting on 4 and wont finish till 2. So the enemy might be able to disrupt casting just as Im about to launch. Something like Reverse Gravity that tales 7 segments wouldn't finish till next round on initiative 7.

The way it works is, in the case of simultaneous action (tied initiative), the attacker always gets an opportunity to disrupt the spell. If the attacker loses initiative, the losing initiative die is subtracted from weapon speed, counting negatives as positives, and that is compared to casting time. So if the losing initiative is 2, any weapon with a speed of 5 or less gets a chance to disrupt a fireball. If initiative is won, presumably the attacker can delay his attack if he suspects the mage is going to cast a spell. Failing that, I think there are a couple different interpretations for a winning initiative--subtract losing initiative same as lost initiative, or subtract difference between winning and losing initiative to compare with casting time. In any case, all in all, there is generally plenty of opportunity to try and disrupt spells. Less so for quicker spells like Sleep. Also, this is in terms of relative timing between attacker and caster. In terms of absolute timing and position in the round sequence, the attacker always uses either his own group's initiative or that of the caster, whichever is better, and the attack always falls between segments 1 and 6. Meaning anything with a casting time 6 segments or more can definitely be disrupted.

Gary was a great lover of chess. It's a chess-like game of positioning to protect your mage, or to get to your enemy's spellcaster.

AD&D also has stipulations in the case of lost or tied initiative.

In the case of tied initiative, there's opportunity to disrupt even a one-segment spell since an attack with a weapon is certainly quicker than 6 seconds. I suppose I'd let less-than-one-segment spells slide (Feather Fall is one-tenth of a segment--it wouldn't be very useful otherwise!).

In the case of lost initiative, the losing initiative die is subtracted from the attacker's weapon speed (negatives counted as positives), and if this is less than or equal to the casting time, then there is the opportunity to disrupt the spell. As an aside, it might be interesting to note that a dagger will be able to interrupt a 1 segment spell if the losing initiative is 1, 2, or 3, but not 4 or 5. A longsword will be able to interrupt a 1 segment spell if the losing initiative is 4 or 5 but not 1, 2, or 3. So if a fighter dual wields longsword and dagger, he can interrupt any spell in any circumstance (except maybe Feather Fall).

All in all, if you're within striking distance and can make your hit roll, it's pretty easy to disrupt spells in AD&D.

Is that AD&D or 2e because I am not seeing that in the AD&D DMG section on combat and spell interruption? (I assume its buried in there under weapon speeds somewhere?) The rule just says you have to beat the casters initiative or act before they finish casting if after.

1st Ed DMG pg 66-67

QuoteOther Weapon Factor Determinants: The speed factor of a weapon also determines when the weapon strikes during the course of the round with respect to opponents who are engaged in activity other than striking blows. Thus, suppose side A, which has achieved initiative (action) for the round, has a magic-user engaged in casting a spell. Compare the speed factor of the weapon with the number of segments which the spell will require to cast to determine if the spell or the weapon will be cast/strike first, subtracting the losing die roll on the initiative die roll from the weapon factor and treating negative results as positive. Example: A sword with a factor of 5 (broad or long) is being used by an opponent of a magic-user attempting to cast a fireball spell (3 segment casting time). If the sword-wielding attacker was represented by a losing initiative die roll of 1, the spell will be cast prior to the sword's blow. A 2 will indicate that the spell and the blow are completed simultaneously. A 3-5 will indicate that the blow has a chance of striking (if a successful "to hit" roll is made) before the spell is cast, arriving either as the spell is begun or during the first segment of its casting. Suppose instead that a dagger were being employed. It has a speed factor of only 2, so it will strike prior to spell completion if the initiative roll which lost was 1-4 (the adjusted segment indicator being 1, 0, 1, 2 respectively) and simultaneously if the die score was a 5. If the weapon being employed was a two-handed sword (or any other weapon with a speed factor of 10, or 9 for that matter) there would be no chance for the reacting side to strike the spell caster prior to completion of the fireball. Note that even though a spell takes but 1 segment to complete, this is 6 seconds, and during that period a reacting attacker might be able to attack the magic-user or other spell caster prior to actual completion of the spell! If combat is simultaneous, there is no modification of the weapon speed factor.

Perhaps also noteworthy, from DMG pg 65:

Quote2. Attacks directed at spell casters will come on that segment of the round shown on the opponent's or on their own side's initiative die, whichever is applicable. (If the spell caster's side won the initiative with a roll of 5, the attack must come then, not on the opponent's losing roll of 4 or less.) Thus, all such attacks will occur on the 1st-6th segments of the round.

To me, the implication here is that any spell with casting time 6 segments or more is always subject to interrupt, regardless of initiative.

Also, Silence 15' Radius is a 5 segment casting, giving a sure-fire way to block most spells above the 5th level.

In practicality, disruption in 1E is very easy as I interpret the initiative rules.

If the M-U is trying to cast in a mass melee (i.e., the M-U is not very smart), any attack made may randomly target them.

Quote from: DMG pg 70As with missile fire, it is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee. If this is the case, simply use some random number generation to find out which attacks are upon which opponents

If the M-U is apart from melee they can be specifically targeted by missiles.  Many M-Us don't bother to learn the 3rd level protection from missiles spell because they want flashier attack options

If the M-U is closed with, then all sorts of the bits and bobs of AD&D start to work against them.  What I'm writing below is based on adding the segments of casting time to their segment of initiative (I.e., the number on the initiative die rolled by their opponent).  

1) If you have multiple attacks by level, or by specialization (if used) then you get your first attack before anyone else gets to do anything.  This means a higher-level or specialized opponent automatically has a state of winning initiative on any round with multiple attacks.  Note that in 1E the round of multiple attacks starts with the first round (i.e., 3/2 attacks means you get two attacks on round 1 and every odd round after, not round 2 and every even round thereafter)

2) As noted, attacks will always come on segments 1-6, but casting completes anytime from segment 1 (if a one segment spell cast by a M-U whose opponent rolled a "1" for initiative), into the next round (say the caster starting casting on segment 4 and was casting a higher level spell with a casting time of 8 segments - they start at the beginning of segment 4 so complete at the very end of segment 1 of the next round).

3) If the players act on a segment before the M-U finishes casting the spell they can automatically attempt to disrupt.  While it's technically true that the attack has to come during the casting, for practical purposes the attack almost always will.  One of the options available to the initiative winner is to delay their action.  This is probably the most overlooked aspect of AD&D combat.  So if I know that a M-U isn't pointing a wand at me but is instead trying to fish out material components from their pockets, or at least doesn't seem to be doing anything else, I'm likely going to hold my attack until I see him start dancing the funky chicken or speaking gibberish at me.  Sometimes I might want to take my attack before then, but that's the option available to the initiative winner.  The attacker can opt to take his attack at the first instant the M-U starts casting, before it's possible to complete the spell (provided the attacker won initiative, of course!)

4) Single class magic-users can't use armor, so they are always AC type 10 regardless of whether dexterity, shield, or magic item gives them a lower adjusted armor class.  If you look on the WvAC mods, almost every weapon commonly used by players has a bonus to hit AC type 10.  Most of the medium hand-to-hand weapons like the common swords and battle ax are +2; the dagger is +3.  (And a thief backstabbing a low hit point M-U can easily kill).

5) As mentioned, even if initiative is lost the weapon speed of the attacker may result in an attack during casting.  Smart tactical play is to switch to daggers or other small, fast weapons when attacking magic-users.

6) Even more smart tactical play is to switch to your fists and pummel the magic user, or wrestle/overbear them.  Unlike attacking with weapons, success using non-lethal combat is not primarily based on the attackers level (because the chance "to hit" starts out extremely high), but instead on the various characteristics of the opponent which may reduce the high chance to hit.  A M-U has almost none of the characteristics which would reduce the very good odds of being smacked around.

Quote from: DMG pg 72It is not uncommon for players to be weaponless at some stage of a game - or for better players to wish to attack on opponent bare-handed in order to most effectively neutralize that opponent’s potential

A M-U can't cast if they don't have freedom of movement or get cold-clocked during the process.  To select (of the three modes) pummeling for use in an example:

Quote from: DMG pg 72The base score [to successfully pummel] on percentile dice is opponent AC value times 10 to arrive at a percentage chance to hit, i.e. AC 10 = 100%.

...

Magical protections such as rings, bracers, cloaks, etc. do not count as AC, so ignore them; encumbrance = AC 10.

A M-U can't use dexterity while casting, and magical items/spells reducing AC (shield, armor, etc.) don't protect against pummeling.  So if someone can close with an unguarded M-U they effectively can almost always disrupt their spells.  They would be smart to do so until a 2nd person can join and attack the M-U to kill instead of disrupt.  Consider also that after starting a successful pummeling routine, (and attackers of any level get 2 attack routines during a round) when rolling the result, many of the results allow you to roll again; i.e., each successful pummel attack can score multiple hits depending upon the effect rolled - and you get two chances to start the "punch them into unconsciousness" cascade.

All these things together are why

Quote from: DMG pg 65It can thus be understood that spell casting during a melee can be a tricky business, for a mere shove at any time can spoil the dweomer! Any spell can be attempted, but success is likely to be uncertain.
...

Because spell casting will be so difficult, most magic-users and clerics will opt to use magical devices whenever possible in melee, if they are wise.

One unfortunate aspect of streamlining play or ignoring all these tactical complexities is that the extreme vulnerability of casting M-Us built into the early AD&D systems is stripped out, and thus you get the problem of M-Us dominating play with their flashy damage and reality warping combat spells instead of being forced to concentrate on using wands and other magical items in combat.   Taken all together, a smart M-U should be prioritizing memorized spells for non-combat protective and utilitarian purposes.  In the context of the whole system, the high variety of protective spells (like blink) makes even more sense.  Yes, the high level wizard will probably have some lightning bolts (or whatever) memorized which allow them to roll lots of damage dice based on level, but unless in a very favorable combat situation they're probably going to be using a 6d6 damage wand of lightning instead.  

Also, if a player can roll up a monk and the party is willing to run interference so the monk can dedicate themselves to a specialized role of closing with and killing M-Us in combat, the higher movement, saving throw bonuses, and open hand stunning abilities (fists are +4 to hit AC type 10) of the monk are like kryptonite to magic-users.  If the monk stuns them for 1d6 segments, they can switch to pummeling them into unconsciousness.  It's quite possible to get in, kill a M-U in a round or two, and get back out with a high move rate.  They may take damage doing it and need to spend a few rounds sucking down potions of healing to rejoin the fight, but its a good tactical trade - like a knight taking out a queen.

In this set of combat rules the tactics of both protecting your own M-U and closing with the enemy M-U take on a different level of importance.   Advanced D&D is "advanced" in the same way Advanced Squad Leader is different than Squad Leader.  All that extra stuff does actually serve a purpose.  Not wanting to bother learning it or using it is, of course, a game choice.  But I think it makes for a rich gaming experience, one where randomness and chance play a roll but not such a large one, and there are more counters to the M-Us ability to dominate the game.

Quote from: EOTB;969622One unfortunate aspect of streamlining play or ignoring all these tactical complexities is that the extreme vulnerability of casting M-Us built into the early AD&D systems is stripped out, and thus you get the problem of M-Us dominating play with their flashy damage and reality warping combat spells instead of being forced to concentrate on using wands and other magical items in combat.

I've managed to simplify things while keeping spellcasters vulnerable. I recognize the simple fact that weapon speeds and initiative numbers have no units. Casting times have units (segments). Movement rates have units (scale inches per round). Rates of Fire have units (shots per round). So I only concern myself with syncing up measures with units. I assume numbers without units are abstractions. Does the fighter have a chance at disrupting the mage's spell? That's answered simply enough by whether or not he can get within striking distance prior to the completion of the spell. How about with a missile weapon? Well, based on Rate of Fire, figure which segments those shots go off and your answer is ready made. Unless I have reason to believe otherwise, I assume a bow with a rate of fire of 2 goes off at segments 3 and 8 each round--so a mage can get away with casting times 1 or 2.

Be it ranged or striking attack, if the attack goes off in the same segment that the spell completes, I consider this a tie. Only then do I go and look at which side won initiative to break that tie. So a bow going off on segment 3 versus a protection from normal missiles completing on segment 3 could go either way depending on the toss of the initiative dice, the winner negating the loser. In the event that even the initiative itself is tied, then the completion of the spell is simultaneous with the arrow strike. The mage is protected from normal missiles, except for that one which barely snuck in.

QuoteAlso, if a player can roll up a monk and the party is willing to run interference so the monk can dedicate themselves to a specialized role of closing with and killing M-Us in combat, the higher movement, saving throw bonuses, and open hand stunning abilities (fists are +4 to hit AC type 10) of the monk are like kryptonite to magic-users.  If the monk stuns them for 1d6 segments, they can switch to pummeling them into unconsciousness.  It's quite possible to get in, kill a M-U in a round or two, and get back out with a high move rate.  They may take damage doing it and need to spend a few rounds sucking down potions of healing to rejoin the fight, but its a good tactical trade - like a knight taking out a queen.

The chess analogy is absolutely on point. Gary was a huge chess nut (and had a love of puns), and I believe he did envision protecting the mage to be all about positioning like a game of chess.

I can't recall, is Weapon Speed presented as an optional system or did most of us (including apparently Gygax himself) just not use it? B/X's if you're hit by someone with better iniative it disrupts the spells seems like a better solutio, what is the advantage of the segments approach in AD&D?

Quote from: Voros;969687I can't recall, is Weapon Speed presented as an optional system or did most of us (including apparentlynGygax himself) just not use it? B/X's if you're hit by someone with better iniative it disrupts the spells seems like a better solutio, what is the advantage of the segments approach in AD&D?

I used it.

That's nice, I asked if it was presented as optional or not. I can go dig up my copy of the 1e DMG if need be.

Quote from: Voros;969687I can't recall, is Weapon Speed presented as an optional system or did most of us (including apparentlynGygax himself) just not use it? B/X's if you're hit by someone with better iniative it disrupts the spells seems like a better solutio, what is the advantage of the segments approach in AD&D?

Apart from attacking someone casting a spell? It's only used on tied initiative. So the rules presented do use weapon speed but only once in a while. It's not used in general, and not used as a modifier to initiative. The way it's presented in writing makes it seem more complex than it really is. In reality, the BtB initiative system for AD&D 1st Ed is actually one of the simpler systems around and can be summed up quite succinctly:
-Each group rolls d6.
-Highest goes first.
-Some exceptions apply.

The rules enumerate very few of these exceptions:
1. Attacking someone engaged in activity other than striking blows,
2. Tied initiative (determined by weapon speed),
3. Charge attack (determined by weapon length),
4. Multiple attacks (staggered throughout the round).

And that's it. You can forget the 20-something page document floating around out there. This is 100% BtB, and I feel it's actually closer to the spirit of the rules as well. And you can fit it easily on an index card.

Speed Factor is also used to determine how many times someone can attack when theres a big difference in speed.

Keep in mind that in AD&D when you have multiple attacks only the first might occur on your initiative. The rest may be staggered over the round. Speed factor can shift that.

Also really unwieldy weapons were so slow that you might not get to act next round due to the recovery time.

But overall speed factor of a weapon can shift your attack window just enough to clip a caster in the process.

As was noted in one of the examples above The attacker has a long or broad sword with a speed of 5. The MU has the winning initiative and is casting Fireball with a speed of 3. The window of interrupt is on rounds 3-5. Whereas a Dagger with a speed of 2 can interrupt in a window of 1-4.

What this also shows is that you cant interrupt a spell on that final segment. The window is the casters initiative when they start revving up. Then the next two rounds they are wiggling their fingers ominously. And the spell will launch on the next. So you have an initiative of 6. The 3 segment spell will launch on initiative 3.

This is where choice of weapon can be important. More damage may mean you are slower, possibly prohibitively slower.

Personally I think its a little more convoluted that it needs to be. Or at least explained a little more convoluted than it needs to be. Then theres the matter of  what happens when you get things with speeds or segments over 6?

Quote from: Omega;969438Segment is a 10th of a round. 10 segments in a round.

In 2e they kept segments as an optional. It added to the wizards initiative roll so they acted later in the round. Initiative was a d10. I'll have to look up what it is in AD&D.

2e Sleep is much the same as 1e. Casting time 1. That is +1 on the casters initiative. No save. But now it only drops 2d4 HD worth of monsters and doesnt effect any over 4+3. Effecting the lowest HD first. Way down from the AD&D version which can take down upwards of 7d4 individuals. Looks like you could no longer insta-kill them while sleeping though.

Ah, thanks again. I probably never used segments when I played 2e as a kid/teen.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969514This is neither here nor there, but you do seem laden with a lot of assumptions borne out of newer D&D that do not apply to old D&D. Pre 3E, we generally roll initiative not at the start of combat but each round. And it's not even necessarily at the beginning of the round. The rules call first for declaration of intent and pre-initiative actions before initiative is rolled (my own house rules due away with pre-declaration of intent entirely, but a lot more happens as pre-initiative actions).

My bad, I had forgotten about rolling initiative at the start of each round.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969514It seems like you're assuming the mage getting the spell off is a sure thing.

No, I'm pointing out that there's a difference between the sudden jeopardy nature of save-or-lose effects and and the otherwise back-and-forth nature of D&D combat, and that some of us don't like the the former. Sure, all kinds of things happen before a save-or-lose goes off; targets may have the opportunity to interrupt it, initiative is rolled, the PCs decide to pursue an adventure which may include save-or-lose effects, PCs are created, the group agrees to play edition X of D&D, etc.. Everything mentioned in this thread either 1) changes nothing fundamental about the problem, or 2) introduces new problems.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969514In case you weren't aware, popular sentiment is that 4E is a mighty fine RPG and it would have been well received if it was called anything but D&D because it's just too much of a departure from D&D to be called D&D. The people who are saying that aren't trashing the system, and they certainly aren't edition warring. Saying "Well I like 4E just fine" in response to "Maybe D&D isn't the game for you" just lends more credibility to the idea that 4E really just isn't D&D.

In case you weren't aware, this apologism is a naive sentiment that completely ignores the attention which the D&D logo brings to an edition, and if we cared about popular sentiment a good many of us wouldn't be playing D&D to begin with. In other words, a 4e published under a different logo would have pandered well to those D&D fans with a bug up their asses about it, but lacking the D&D logo would have brought it to the attention of that many fewer fans.

You say that D&D is just a fucking game, and it is, so I'm done with this nonsense. You publicly wondered why some of us have a preference, I explained why, you proceeded to tell me that I don't really understand what we have a problem with and to nitpick my choice of words, and now you're hung up on game titles. So I'm out, enjoy that bug up your ass.

Quote from: Omega;969812Speed Factor is also used to determine how many times someone can attack when theres a big difference in speed.

This is "When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round," not in general. The rules enumerate two cases where weapon speed factor is the determinant--tied initiative, and after a line of longer weapon users has already had their first strike.

QuoteKeep in mind that in AD&D when you have multiple attacks only the first might occur on your initiative. The rest may be staggered over the round. Speed factor can shift that.

If you have more than one attack, your first attack is automatically first (except, perhaps, with regards to an opponent who has just as many or more attacks).

QuoteAlso really unwieldy weapons were so slow that you might not get to act next round due to the recovery time.

But overall speed factor of a weapon can shift your attack window just enough to clip a caster in the process.

As was noted in one of the examples above The attacker has a long or broad sword with a speed of 5. The MU has the winning initiative and is casting Fireball with a speed of 3. The window of interrupt is on rounds 3-5. Whereas a Dagger with a speed of 2 can interrupt in a window of 1-4.

What this also shows is that you cant interrupt a spell on that final segment. The window is the casters initiative when they start revving up. Then the next two rounds they are wiggling their fingers ominously. And the spell will launch on the next. So you have an initiative of 6. The 3 segment spell will launch on initiative 3.

This is where choice of weapon can be important. More damage may mean you are slower, possibly prohibitively slower.

Personally I think its a little more convoluted that it needs to be. Or at least explained a little more convoluted than it needs to be. Then theres the matter of  what happens when you get things with speeds or segments over 6?

I really don't see anything in the rules that supports this. I believe this is a misinterpretation that comes from assuming weapon speed and the initiative die syncs with segments. They lack units and as such are abstract numbers. For example, the rule on attacking a spell caster when it is tied initiative. The attacker has the opportunity to interrupt even a 1 segment spell because no melee weapon requires 6 seconds to strike a blow on someone who is not engaged in attacking or blocking.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;969839No, I'm pointing out that there's a difference between the sudden jeopardy nature of save-or-lose effects and and the otherwise back-and-forth nature of D&D combat,

Let me see if I got this right. You assert (without evidence) that the nature of D&D is back-and-forth, then reject all examples of it not being back-and-forth as being broken on the basis that they don't fit the back-and-forth nature of the game? Seems like a circular argument. Wouldn't it be more honest to just say you only like to play something you perceive as having a back-and-forth dynamic? Wouldn't it be more prudent just to bring that with you to the table and play the game in that way rather than insist it be hard-coded into the game to the exclusion of all other play styles?

QuoteEverything mentioned in this thread either 1) changes nothing fundamental about the problem, or 2) introduces new problems.

Or so you assert without evidence. Meanwhile, I think it's been clearly established by myself and others that the ability of PCs having fair chances at avoiding save-or-die effects is dependent upon a play style decision regarding how easy or hard spell disruption is. Downplay spell disruption, and mages become very powerful at high levels.

It's also been clearly established that if a character dies this doesn't have to end player participation. Having NPC retainers on hand as a standard thing that provide ready made characters for the player to jump into and continue participation is a play style decision. Allowing players to temporarily play NPCs is another possible play style decision. Other play styles have new PCs appearing conveniently just around the next corner. Any of these allow the player to continue participating even after the character dies, no matter how few dice rolls are involved. Whereas a play style decision that insists players can only play their own PCs leave players with nothing to do when their characters die, even if they die approved "back-and-forth" deaths.

Hence the gripe of being knocked out of a game or an encounter "due to a single die roll" just doesn't track. The culprit that makes players sit out is one's own play style. Not game mechanics.

QuoteIn case you weren't aware, this apologism is a naive sentiment that completely ignores the attention which the D&D logo brings to an edition, and if we cared about popular sentiment a good many of us wouldn't be playing D&D to begin with. In other words, a 4e published under a different logo would have pandered well to those D&D fans with a bug up their asses about it, but lacking the D&D logo would have brought it to the attention of that many fewer fans.

Sounds like you're saying it's okay to dangle something out there that a lot of people like, like D&D, only to actually deliver something that, as you say, a lot of these people have "a bug up their asses about," and that's justified to move copies of game that otherwise wouldn't have sold very well. Something about this strikes me as inherently dishonest. I can see why many people who genuinely love 4E may feel strongly that it shouldn't have been published under the D&D name.

QuoteYou say that D&D is just a fucking game, and it is, so I'm done with this nonsense.

LOL. It seems like you were done like 3 posts.

QuoteYou publicly wondered why some of us have a preference,

Not really. I already knew some people don't like save or die effects. But I also knew that some people do like having them in the game. So that alone is enough to find the treatment of "save-or-die" as a de facto problem objectionable. What was puzzling to me is why this objectionable mindset appeared in this thread since regardless of whether you love or hate save-or-die effects, they do ensure characters will never become invincible, no matter how high level they rise.

QuoteI explained why, you proceeded to tell me that I don't really understand what we have a problem with

While it's pretty clear that you don't, that had little to do with what I was posting about.

Quoteand to nitpick my choice of words,

Your ideas only survive on the backs of sloppy word choice. Nitpicks are inconsequential. It's not a nitpick when precise parsing leads to a radically different conclusion.

Quoteand now you're hung up on game titles. So I'm out, enjoy that bug up your ass.

I'm not. I made a joke, with an emoticon to signal to the humorless that it was a joke.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969635I've managed to simplify things while keeping spellcasters vulnerable. I assume numbers without units are abstractions. Does the fighter have a chance at disrupting the mage's spell? That's answered simply enough by whether or not he can get within striking distance prior to the completion of the spell. How about with a missile weapon? Well, based on Rate of Fire, figure which segments those shots go off and your answer is ready made. Unless I have reason to believe otherwise, I assume a bow with a rate of fire of 2 goes off at segments 3 and 8 each round--so a mage can get away with casting times 1 or 2.

Be it ranged or striking attack, if the attack goes off in the same segment that the spell completes, I consider this a tie. Only then do I go and look at which side won initiative to break that tie. So a bow going off on segment 3 versus a protection from normal missiles completing on segment 3 could go either way depending on the toss of the initiative dice, the winner negating the loser. In the event that even the initiative itself is tied, then the completion of the spell is simultaneous with the arrow strike. The mage is protected from normal missiles, except for that one which barely snuck in.

First and primarily, discussing the corner cases often causes observers to think that initiative is hopelessly complicated.  This is not the case because the corner cases come up so rarely.  I very much agree that 95% of the time AD&D initiative is incredibly simple.  

I do think that the initiative dice result ties in to segments, as I will discuss below.  However, I think running initiative dice results abstractly as Lunamancer describes is a perfectly functional way to play AD&D.  As an example, Nagora, on the DF boards, has put a lot of work into parsing out initiative and he doesn't believe in putting the dice to segments either (http://nagorascorner.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/ad-initiative-main-event.html).  But in discussions with Nagora he also doesn't believe that casting long spells should spill over into later rounds, and also that initiative where casting time doesn't start until the segment shown on the initiative die makes casters too vulnerable.

I happen to be OK with those results, so I accept text that seems to point to them.  On DF, the most detailed answers from EGG on initiative tied the start of spellcasting to the initiative die result, for instance.  That doesn't mean "EGG hath sayeth so therefore you shall do" if someone knows they don't want that approach, but I give those statements weight in reading the text.

Quote from: Voros;969687what is the advantage of the segments approach in AD&D?

Here is the advantage I see very simply: tactical complexity while retaining a smooth round which allows both sides to make action decisions that minimize randomness.  Randomness shouldn't be removed, because it is always a factor.  But I do think simpler systems reward big spells over smaller spells, and similarly give little reason to think about what you're going to do next beyond "I'm going to try to hit that guy"..."OK roll".

I agree that it would be much clearer if there was a simple statement such as "the initiative result directly ties to the segment of action" or some such.  I really believe that this is omitted because it was so assumed that it was forgotten.  Because when looking at all the rest of the actions which are clearly timed to specific segments, to try to keep the striking of blows or shooting missiles abstract creates more issues than it solves.

We're not talking about complication here.  Both sides are already rolling the die.  Reading the die and using it as a segment of action anchor does not create additional steps or complications.

As for why I believe that, I'll point to a couple of statements which on 1E-specific boards are much debated (and one already referenced in this thread):

QuoteThe initiative factor affects who can do what and when during the course of an encounter of any sort.

QuoteTheir [casting of spells] commencement is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack forms, but their culmination is subject to the stated casting time.

Is it possible to come up with an interpretation that doesn't mean casting of spells along with other attack forms don't start at a time directly derived from the initiative result?  Yes.  Is it possible to say "when, but only relative to another's action"?  Yes.
 As stated, many who firmly believe that casting starts at the beginning of the round will say that there is a indefinite amount of negligible time so that, for instance, if both sides are casting magic missile spells that the winning side is very slightly ahead of the other even though both finish in segment 1.  But I think that's a more tortured reading of the text.

Quote1. Spell casters must note what spell they intend to cast at the beginning of each round prior to any knowledge of which side has initiative.

2. Attacks directed at spell casters will come on that segment of the round shown on the opponent's or on their own side's initiative die, whichever is applicable. (If the spell caster's side won the initiative with a roll of 5, the attack must come then, not on the opponent's losing roll of 4 or less.) Thus, all such attacks will occur on the 1 st-6th segments of the round.

3. Intelligent monsters able to recognize the danger of spells will direct attacks against spell casters if not engaged by other opponents so as to be prevented from so doing.

4. The spell caster cannot use his or her dexterity bonus to avoid being hit during spell casting; doing so interrupts the spell.

5. Any successful attack, or non-saved-against attack upon the spell caster interrupts the spell.

In this quote, the reader sees that at minimum, none disagree that attacks against a caster do happen in a specific segment.  The difference is if that is considered to only apply against casters.

I don't see the list as caster-specific per se.  I see it as a list that also includes general reminders of all the factors which casters must adhere to in combat which make spell casting difficult.  For instance, all actors must state their action at the beginning of the round prior to the init roll, not just casters.  I don't think that intelligent monsters do not also direct their attacks against other forms of great danger which they recognize as such.  So here is an example of attacks happening on specific segments which, like the examples above and below it, I believe tie into everybody.

I don't believe this complicates things.  I think it simplifies it.  For example, a charge is handled completely outside of the initiative roll.  Why?  Because when the attack happens is a function of two bits of data - how far away the target is and how fast you move.  There is no reason to roll a die.  

QuoteMelee At End of Charge: Initiative is NOT checked at the end of charge movement. The opponent with the longer weapon/reach attacks first.

If you move at 9" you charge 180 feet in a round, or 18 feet a segment.  If you know that the target is 60 feet away then you already know that the two parties will collide in segment 4.  So at that point the only question is who has the longer weapon, or reach?  

Other events are fixed in time.  Spells, as mentioned earlier, are agreed by all as fixed in time - either fixed by casting time alone to a segment, or by casting time + a number of segments on init die, but either way fixed in time.

If you drink a potion, the time between drinking it and it taking effect is fixed in time.  It will take effect 2-5 segments after you drink it.  What is the point of specifying a 2-5 segment delay if you don't know the segment on which the drinking of the potion happens?  That makes no sense to me.  You don't tie a definite period to an abstract.

So when all these factors are tied together, assigning the rest of combat actions a segment makes complete sense.  If you are attacking someone with a sword and they drink a potion of gaseous form, will you hit them before they turn to gas?  If you've lost initiative but know that even though they drank the potion on segment 2 and your telling blow attempt will take place on segment 5, then it's a straight forward answer - the DM will roll the 2-5 segment delay and see if the potion takes effect either on segment 4 or later.  If it takes place later then your attack still has a chance even though you lost initiative.

If you see that one of your buddies when down 60' away, and an enemy is likely to cut their throat next round, will you make it there in time to prevent that from happening?  If you know that your charge will hit home in segment 4 then knowing the segment that the coup de grace attempt will take place based on the initiative die result removes all question.

Likewise, if you want to charge a cleric attempting to command undead against you - will you make it before he can undertake the task?  Same as above.

If missiles and melee attacks get their first chance to damage the opponent before segment 7 starts, then hand-to-hand combat is given an edge over magic.  Because magical activity always has a fixed delay in casting time, or item activation time for wands, potions, etc., that weapon combat doesn't.  I think this goes a long way towards balancing high level play.

If spellcasting has a high probability of not being able to complete in the round in which casting starts when using high-powered spells with long casting times, it goes a long way towards blunting the effect of high level casters on high level play.  This is the effect discussed in PHB pg 104

QuoteUnless combat is spell versus spell, many such attacks will happen near the end of a melee round. This is because the spell requires a relatively lengthy time to cast, generally longer as spell level increases, so high level spells may take over a full melee round to cast.

Again, those who don't like spellcasting spilling over into subsequent rounds for various reasons say that this sentence was discarded when finalizing the AD&D combat system, since it isn't alluded to further in the DMG.  But it seems to me that the simplest reading of the text results in exactly this, and further, as mentioned above, that it is a very good thing that reigns in the power of high level casters.  Complex actions may take multiple rounds.  

I do think that absent the chaos of mixed combat, say, if two wizards were having a wizard duel, that initiative rolls wouldn't take place and it would simply go on casting time with all casting beginning without delay at the start of the round.  Delay from initiative roll I see as a fudge factor for the chaos of complex combats.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969840This is "When weapon speed factor is the determinant of which opponent strikes first in a melee round," not in general. The rules enumerate two cases where weapon speed factor is the determinant--tied initiative, and after a line of longer weapon users has already had their first strike.

When I read through, it looks to me like all aspects of weapon speed between melee combatants - including multiple attacks by fast weapons against slow weapons - are only invoked if the initiative result is tied.  Because even there it says When weapon speed factor is the determinant.  And outside of spellcasting, that is only on a tied die result.

Quote from: EOTB;969912I do think that the initiative dice result ties in to segments, as I will discuss below.  However, I think running initiative dice results abstractly as Lunamancer describes is a perfectly functional way to play AD&D.  As an example, Nagora, on the DF boards, has put a lot of work into parsing out initiative and he doesn't believe in putting the dice to segments either (http://nagorascorner.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/ad-initiative-main-event.html).  But in discussions with Nagora he also doesn't believe that casting long spells should spill over into later rounds, and also that initiative where casting time doesn't start until the segment shown on the initiative die makes casters too vulnerable.

Speaking for myself, I generally don't see casting times spilling over into a new round. Generally. Some spells really do take more than a round to cast. Also, by my house system, it's possible for, say, a mage to use half of his movement, taking up 5 segments of the round, and then cast a spell with segment 6 being the first segment of casting. Somewhere an old-timer probably just suffered a coronary at the mention of a mage being able to both move and cast a spell in the same round.

But other than the mage being occupied for a portion of the round, I don't see any reason why casting wouldn't begin on segment one. It's not like trying to strike a blow against an active defender where you have to wait to find a gap in his defenses before you have the opportunity to land a good shot. There's no waiting. You just start casting. This is the over-riding logic of the D&D combat system.

Now if I wanted to be really brutal to spellcasters, I'd continue to follow the D&D logic and strikes against someone casting a spell would count as a "free attack" allowing the attacker to make a full round of attacks each segment as per surprise. Of course, I simply assume that the mage, when endangered, especially knowing his spell is spoiled anyway, switches to active defense. So the attacker gets just the one normal strike. Where it might make a difference is suppose a thief sneaks to the enemy's back line and the enemy has three adjacent spellcasters. By the logic of D&D combat, we ought to consider allowing the thief to spoil all three as free attacks. If I wanted to run the game like that, it would be defensible in BtB terms.

QuoteI happen to be OK with those results, so I accept text that seems to point to them.  On DF, the most detailed answers from EGG on initiative tied the start of spellcasting to the initiative die result, for instance.  That doesn't mean "EGG hath sayeth so therefore you shall do" if someone knows they don't want that approach, but I give those statements weight in reading the text.

I definitely think DF has gone off the rails in terms of certain rules interpretations, and I tracked at least one such instance as being due to Influence of Gygax. Here's the thing. Back when Gary was answering rules questions on DF, I was literally corresponding with him daily regarding the Lejendary Adventure system. His primary interest was LA, not D&D. He also had the rights to LA, not D&D. I mention this, because you have to understand, when he would field LA rules questions, his answers would often contradict answers he gave someone else 6 months prior. He really wants people to think for themselves and make their own rulings. Now if that was his attitude towards LA, you have to ask how much of the D&D stuff on DF did he really intend to be in any way authoritative? He tended to reaffirm whatever ruling the person posing the question wanted in the first place.

That said. This may be sacrilege these days since playing OOP games means you wear a special badge on your sleeve, and so you have to make sure to do the things that make the out of print edition different from the current edition. Like being adamant about declaring actions before initiative dice are rolled. But back when 1E was in print, and even in the first few years it went out of print but was still heavy in circulation, a lot of DMs did not require pre-declaration of actions. A lot of people just wanted to play it like when their initiative was up it's like, "Oh, it's my turn" and, within reason, they wanted the action to be resolved right after it's announced. In fact, one of the big reasons I house ruled a universal initiative system is because I hated doing pre-dek. It felt like I was going around the table twice to resolve one round's worth of actions. If you're playing like that, then, yeah, I guess the spell isn't going to begin until you get to your initiative. So it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn a lot of people, Gary included, play that way.

QuoteI don't believe this complicates things.  I think it simplifies it.  For example, a charge is handled completely outside of the initiative roll.  Why?  Because when the attack happens is a function of two bits of data - how far away the target is and how fast you move.  There is no reason to roll a die.  

I try to do things like this as often as possible, eliminating superfluous dice rolls. I realize that every time I do that, it brings me one die roll closer to important things happening *gasp* "due to a single die roll"

QuoteIf you drink a potion, the time between drinking it and it taking effect is fixed in time.  It will take effect 2-5 segments after you drink it.  What is the point of specifying a 2-5 segment delay if you don't know the segment on which the drinking of the potion happens?  That makes no sense to me.  You don't tie a definite period to an abstract.

I agree. You can't add two things that don't have matching units. What's stopping the guy from drinking in segment 1, though? If he were trying to stab one, not finding an opening in his opponents defenses would justify some random time delay for the action. Initiative makes sense for that. What's the underlying logic to this action not beginning at the start of the round?

QuoteWhen I read through, it looks to me like all aspects of weapon speed between melee combatants - including multiple attacks by fast weapons against slow weapons - are only invoked if the initiative result is tied.  Because even there it says When weapon speed factor is the determinant.  And outside of spellcasting, that is only on a tied die result.

I've always been inclined to think the same thing. It's just that since both PHB and DMG talk about line-o-pikes as a special case, I find it hard to ignore. Neither come straight out and spell out how it's handled, but it does refer to after the initial strike is determined by weapon length, then weapon speed determines the next round.

It's almost as if what's being imagined here is that while most of combat may be chaotic, when two opponents close to striking range, we know with absolute certainty the one with the longer weapon will be close enough to strike before the one with the longer weapon will. And since we know with absolute certainty the long weapon is going first, we also absolutely know it needs to be re-readied leaving the attacker vulnerable, so we look to weapon speed to answer whether and to what extent the former defender can capitalize on the opportunity.

There's a guy's sig on Dragonsfoot that goes something like: "AD&D1e initiative rules are the Kobayashi Maru test of roleplaying: there is no right answer, the point is to find out who you are."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;969995There's a guy's sig on Dragonsfoot that goes something like: "AD&D1e initiative rules are the Kobayashi Maru test of roleplaying: there is no right answer, the point is to find out who you are."

I really don't believe that's true, either. I think gamers over-complicate it.

Quote from: Lunamancer;970001I think gamers over-complicate it.

Can we just copy and paste that into every online RPG debate forum?

The initiative rules of AD&D1e are scattered across two books, incoherent and self-contradictory, as well as relying one at least one optional system. There's no need for gamers to over-complicate it when Gygax already did it for us.

Now, we all have our own coherent non-contradictory versions of these initiative rules. But that comes from ignoring or changing things in the books. And that's okay.

QuoteThere's no need for gamers to over-complicate it when Gygax already did it for us.

Now, we all have our own coherent non-contradictory versions of these initiative rules. But that comes from ignoring or changing things in the books. And that's okay.

Ha...very true.

Quote from: Lunamancer;970001I really don't believe that's true, either. I think gamers over-complicate it.

Certainly, and initiative threads are something I've mostly stopped bothering with these days.  If it were't that the subject of the thread was "is there a version of D&D that doesn't suck at high level" I wouldn't bother, but since I do think this is where all the bits and bobs of 1E can shine in comparison to other editions, why not?

And I really do think that assigning the initiative roll result to a segment tremendously simplifies things.  Once you do that, all the various statements in AD&D in the initiative section are pretty harmonious and can apply as written without qualifiers or "well, what if"s.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969977I agree. You can't add two things that don't have matching units. What's stopping the guy from drinking [a potion] in segment 1, though? If he were trying to stab one, not finding an opening in his opponents defenses would justify some random time delay for the action. Initiative makes sense for that. What's the underlying logic to this action not beginning at the start of the round?

Because magic item use is said to be subject to initiative determination.  And under spell casting it says that casting "commencement is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack forms".  It keeps making statements that all this stuff is subject ot initiative determination.  The beginning of a round is not subject to initiative determination.

QuoteThese attacks are the spell-like discharge functions of rods, staves, wands and any similar items. These attacks can occur simultaneously with the discharge of missiles, spell casting, and/or turning undead. The time of such discharge by any magical device is subject to initiative determination.

When the book says "attack" I don't think that precludes defensive or misc  magic.  Potions, scrolls, rings of telekinesis, bowls of water elemental control - almost all items that have to be activated (as opposed to a ring of spell turning) have a spell-like discharge and are similar items to R,S,W.  I see them all under "the time of discharge by any magical device is subject to initiative determination".  R,S,W are most likely to be used in combat, and so deserve highlighting, but I don't see this section as exclusive to those three.

It also says "time of such discharge".  Not order of such discharge.  And the section on time divides the round into segments.

Likewise, turning is subject to initative determination:

QuoteTurning can occur at the same time as missile discharge, magical device attacks, and/or spell casting. It also is subject to initiative determination.

If turning is subject to initiative rolls, why wouldn't casting web or drinking a potion of giant control?  How could an argument that drinking a potion should start apart from initiative for whatever reason not apply to something so simple as turning?

Quote from: Lunamancer;969977But other than the mage being occupied for a portion of the round, I don't see any reason why casting wouldn't begin on segment one. It's not like trying to strike a blow against an active defender where you have to wait to find a gap in his defenses before you have the opportunity to land a good shot. There's no waiting. You just start casting. This is the over-riding logic of the D&D combat system.  

First off, I do believe that initiative rolls are not always appropriate.  I think that any person not immediately threatened, or trying to in some way interact with a combat zone (such as shooting at something fighting) should have their actions start at the beginning of the round whether that's casting or whatever.  

This is why there is a paragraph under the heading "Actions During Combat And Similar Time-Important Situations" where it ends with an example of someone who clearly isn't in combat but near it, and doesn't have to roll initiative dice for any of several actions he wishes to undertake before entering a combat occurring nearby Including using potions and such, during which Gygax explains that wouldn't necessarily be easy to do and should have a delay even if initiative dice aren't rolled).  So I do see the additional variable effect of initiative being added to other units of time only applying if someone is threatened by another having a choice/action available to them which can immediately harm (or shooting into chaos hoping to hit a specific target - a troop of archers 100 yards away indiscriminately group-firing into a zone wouldn't apply, for example).  

Another example of no init roll being needed in the line about spell-v-spell mage duels being different from combat casting in that such spells are not as likely to spill over, which makes sense if that sort of combat starts casting at the beginning of a round.

But I think there's a lot of minor and variable things which delay the start of an act that are abstracted by the initiative roll - the section with the paragraph describing feints and such you mentioned starts out saying "The system assumes much activity during the course of each round".  The specific example to illustrate the point is a melee but I don't think it's exclusive to melee.  There's lots of process steps to completing non-melee actions which make sense as situationally variable, like: was the potion easy to get out of wherever you stored it (most people don't walk around with a potion in their hands); getting spell components out of your pockets; making minor adjustments to your position so that you have the space you need for a spell's somatic components; keeping your head on a swivel and scanning the area for immediate threats before casting starts, like whether a thief might be sneaking up on you, or whether unnoticed archers have entered the fray.

Like I said, allowing for the segment of action to equal the die result makes everything click.  (For fair disclosure, advocates of the other side point to "the blink problem", which I don't see as a problem but won't derail this further unless someone wanted to know why I don't see it as a problem.) As another example of making stuff easily click, when talking about missile use it says:

Quote[missile discharge] can occur simultaneously with magical device attacks, spell casting, or turning of undead. Magical device and spell attacks can negate the effects of or damage some missiles, i.e., arrows fired off simultaneously with the discharge of a fireball spell, or a javelin hurled into an ice storm, or a dwarven hammer tossed at an opponent struck by a fireball or lightning bolt. As referee you will have to determine the final results according to circumstances. This is not difficult using the ITEM SAVING THROW table.

If I say that cone of cold starts casting at the beginning of a round, and completes at the end of segment 5, what is the variable that pushes the javelin throw to happening that late if its starting at the beginning of the round independent of initiative also and always takes place on segment 3?  

If both the missile attack and the cone of cold are subject to a segment determined by the initiative roll, this is possible - the cone of cold could start at the beginning of the round or at the start of segment 2 with a favorable roll result, and complete on segment 5 or 6, while the javelin gets an unfavorable roll result and isn't thrown at the M-U until segment 5 or 6.

This is why I say this is all tremendously simplifying, even if it paradoxically takes a lot of text to support it.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969977Speaking for myself, I generally don't see casting times spilling over into a new round. Generally. Some spells really do take more than a round to cast.

Certainly there are many that aren't counted in segments.  It's the correlation to high level spilling over that makes me think that isn't what they were talking about because those types of spells are scattered throughout the levels instead of being primarily grouped.  That, and spell-v-spell combat wouldn't make any difference if something is listed as having a casting time of a turn for example.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969977Now if I wanted to be really brutal to spellcasters, I'd continue to follow the D&D logic and strikes against someone casting a spell would count as a "free attack" allowing the attacker to make a full round of attacks each segment as per surprise. Of course, I simply assume that the mage, when endangered, especially knowing his spell is spoiled anyway, switches to active defense. So the attacker gets just the one normal strike. Where it might make a difference is suppose a thief sneaks to the enemy's back line and the enemy has three adjacent spellcasters. By the logic of D&D combat, we ought to consider allowing the thief to spoil all three as free attacks. If I wanted to run the game like that, it would be defensible in BtB terms.

I'm not so sure.  Even a stunned, motionless or prone opponent must be attacked using your regular roll and can be missed - there is a bonus, of course, but it isn't automatic, or additional to your normal attack.  A casting mage is dancing around so isn't motionless (or if not dancing around because no somatic components than isn't really hindered by the casting all that much).  I think the loss of dex bonus to AC, if any, covers this.  A regular backstab isn't treated as you describe.  The only free attacks are if someone is running away.  I don't think a casting M-U is the same as this threshold.

Quote from: Lunamancer;969977Here's the thing. Back when Gary was answering rules questions on DF, I was literally corresponding with him daily regarding the Lejendary Adventure system. His primary interest was LA, not D&D. He also had the rights to LA, not D&D. I mention this, because you have to understand, when he would field LA rules questions, his answers would often contradict answers he gave someone else 6 months prior. He really wants people to think for themselves and make their own rulings. Now if that was his attitude towards LA, you have to ask how much of the D&D stuff on DF did he really intend to be in any way authoritative? He tended to reaffirm whatever ruling the person posing the question wanted in the first place.

Good point, and granted.  I can think of a lot of stuff where someone would lay out a scenario and he would say (basically) "yeah, sure".  And then someone else would lay out a scenario that was opposite and he would say "yeah, sure".  

The reason I take these a bit more seriously is because he wasn't saying "yeah, sure" - he was supplying his own details.

But anyway, all in good fun.  I do think people should use whatever system works for their group - that's far more important.  It's just that this works very well with mine.  M-Us memorize fewer combat spells and use magical items more in combat, just like the books describe.  That didn't happen until I did it this way, and it really works to reign in combat in high level play like nothing else I've tried.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;970013The initiative rules of AD&D1e are scattered across two books, incoherent and self-contradictory, as well as relying one at least one optional system.

See what I mean by over-complicating things? Everything you need to know about initiative is contained in the DMG. It takes a bit of creativity (active over-complication) to imagine the PHB is saying something different and the two need to be coordinated somehow.

Calling it self-contradictory is straight-up asinine considering you could have actually cited the contradiction. Then you'd have evidence. Or would have actually cued me into whatever the hell it is you're talking about.

Quote from: EOTB;970015And I really do think that assigning the initiative roll result to a segment tremendously simplifies things.  Once you do that, all the various statements in AD&D in the initiative section are pretty harmonious and can apply as written without qualifiers or "well, what if"s.

I don't know that it simplifies things. Boils things down to arithmetic that makes nerds more comfortable? Sure. I personally don't think that's a plus.

QuoteBecause magic item use is said to be subject to initiative determination.  And under spell casting it says that casting "commencement is dictated by initiative determination as with other attack forms".  It keeps making statements that all this stuff is subject ot initiative determination.  The beginning of a round is not subject to initiative determination.

"Initiative determination" does not equate to "initiative die roll." As we've been discussing, there are other determinants such as weapons speed factor.

QuoteWhen the book says "attack" I don't think that precludes defensive or misc  magic.  Potions, scrolls, rings of telekinesis, bowls of water elemental control - almost all items that have to be activated (as opposed to a ring of spell turning) have a spell-like discharge and are similar items to R,S,W.  I see them all under "the time of discharge by any magical device is subject to initiative determination".  R,S,W are most likely to be used in combat, and so deserve highlighting, but I don't see this section as exclusive to those three.

It also says "time of such discharge".  Not order of such discharge.  And the section on time divides the round into segments.

Likewise, turning is subject to initative determination:

If turning is subject to initiative rolls, why wouldn't casting web or drinking a potion of giant control?  How could an argument that drinking a potion should start apart from initiative for whatever reason not apply to something so simple as turning?

Sounds like those are all something other than striking blows, so they're handled with the catch-all "The speed factor of a weapon also determines when the weapon strikes during the course of the round with respect to opponents who are engaged in activity other than striking blows." Sure. They're "subject to initiative determination" (which I'm not sure is any more profound than saying "Ya gotta wait your turn") but determination is weapon speed factor if a weapon is being used. If your racing your activation time against some other timed action (slamming shut a door for instance), it's just whatever takes less time goes first. If it's a monster attack, then it's the die roll.

QuoteFirst off, I do believe that initiative rolls are not always appropriate.  I think that any person not immediately threatened, or trying to in some way interact with a combat zone (such as shooting at something fighting) should have their actions start at the beginning of the round whether that's casting or whatever.  

What, you don't roll initiative to see who gets to parlay first? :D

QuoteAnother example of no init roll being needed in the line about spell-v-spell mage duels being different from combat casting in that such spells are not as likely to spill over, which makes sense if that sort of combat starts casting at the beginning of a round.

Right. And you'll notice all the nitty-gritty sections of the initiative system always involve at least one party striking blows. It doesn't need to specify a sub-system for spell vs spell or item use vs item use or shutting door vs opening window.

QuoteBut I think there's a lot of minor and variable things which delay the start of an act that are abstracted by the initiative roll - the section with the paragraph describing feints and such you mentioned starts out saying "The system assumes much activity during the course of each round".  The specific example to illustrate the point is a melee but I don't think it's exclusive to melee.  There's lots of process steps to completing non-melee actions which make sense as situationally variable, like: was the potion easy to get out of wherever you stored it (most people don't walk around with a potion in their hands); getting spell components out of your pockets; making minor adjustments to your position so that you have the space you need for a spell's somatic components; keeping your head on a swivel and scanning the area for immediate threats before casting starts, like whether a thief might be sneaking up on you, or whether unnoticed archers have entered the fray.

See, now this is the sort of thing I really dislike, and that's what my above comment about turning the system into arithmetic is not necessarily a good thing alludes to. Although it takes some judgment on the DMs part, each of those micro-actions, grabbing your potion, spell components, and so forth, can be assigned a segment time. I actually saw a character sheet a long, long time ago that had a body diagram for the equipment section with segment times listed telling how much time it takes to grab various items. I'd rather get specific than try to abstract that in a random roll. For one, it's more descriptive. For two, it does give the player a little more control. Three, it's more interactive--something might happen that after you've taken off your backpack but before you reached in to make you think going for that potion isn't the way to go so you can fish for a different item instead. Four, it gives weight to choices in action sequences that have nothing to do with magic or violence.

All in all, though, this is a great point you raise. I ask questions because I find them important and go to the heart of the matter. Self-conscious forum nerds tend to assume my questions are argumentative. They're not. They are legit questions. And you gave a legit answer to my question of "why wouldn't it start on segment 1." So if a spell takes 3 different spell components, that's a minimum of 3 segments to grab them, assuming they're neatly stored in pockets. A larger component held in a backpack? Well, that's a segment to remove the backpack, a segment to open it, and a third to grab the item. In this example, that's 5 segments before the spell casting begins. If the casting time is 6 segments or more, then, yeah, it's rolling over to the next round.

Come to think of it... this seems like pretty cool stuff for a magic dual. Imagine the player strategically placing his spell components. When the two mages face off, they have to quickly draw their components almost like gunslingers.

QuoteIf I say that cone of cold starts casting at the beginning of a round, and completes at the end of segment 5, what is the variable that pushes the javelin throw to happening that late if its starting at the beginning of the round independent of initiative also and always takes place on segment 3?

Ranged weapons have a rate of fire. By virtue of being a rate, that number has units attached, and the unit in question has a time element, so those I sync to segments.

QuoteCertainly there are many that aren't counted in segments.  It's the correlation to high level spilling over that makes me think that isn't what they were talking about because those types of spells are scattered throughout the levels instead of being primarily grouped.  That, and spell-v-spell combat wouldn't make any difference if something is listed as having a casting time of a turn for example.

I thought of another reason why "higher" level spells might spill over to the next round. If it's begun on a surprise round.

QuoteBut anyway, all in good fun.  I do think people should use whatever system works for their group - that's far more important.  It's just that this works very well with mine.  M-Us memorize fewer combat spells and use magical items more in combat, just like the books describe.  That didn't happen until I did it this way, and it really works to reign in combat in high level play like nothing else I've tried.

Yeah, and that's really what counts. Almost everything we're talking about is moot if you avoid casting spells and knocking back potions while someone is literally right in your grill trying to stab your throat. Common sense rulings make weird special cases go away. So I stand by my interpretation of 1E's initiative system. Each side rolls d6. Highest goes first. Common sense exceptions apply.

Is this what you guys do on K&KA all day? :eek:

The basic initiative system works fine. Its the wording of the speed factor that is ambiguous since some will read it as only applying to ties and the rest applying it in other ways by their reading of the rules.

Its trying to reconcile all the disparate ways its used that things get weird. Theres 10 segments in a round.
But basic initiative uses only 6.
But some weapons go as much as speed 13.
And spells up to 9 segments long.
And so on.

In 5e for some reason they decided to pretty much dispose of casting interruption and instead went with concentration interruption. And shifted some spells accordingly. In fact quite a few spells now are concentration based as noted before.

I love how everyone says 'basic initiative works fine' then proceed to write an essay explaining all the complications piled onto it. As if there were a Basic system underneath that worked fine without all the rocco rules. But what could we call it??

:D

Quote from: Voros;970050I love how everyone says 'basic initiative works fine' then proceed to write an essay explaining all the complications piled onto it. As if there were a Basic system underneath that worked fine without all the rocco rules. But what could we call it??

:D

Well, it is a bit of a linguistic conundrum. The underlying base is simple, with some convoluted exceptions that make the whole significantly more complex. And of course that language describing it--how shall we say it?-- could have been more straightforward (EGG's writing style, another way to pad your post count on DF or K&KA :p).

My take: 1e initiative is not as complicated as the myth has grown to. It probably is more complicated than it needs to be to accomplish the goals it serves. However, just cutting it and using something like B/X initiative changes how things work (and the changes that 2e did make altered the balance between various action types, perhaps not for the better).

Quote from: Voros;970050I love how everyone says 'basic initiative works fine' then proceed to write an essay explaining all the complications piled onto it.

Not at all. In case you missed it, here's the initiative system again:

Each side rolls d6. Highest side goes first. Common sense exceptions apply. The rules enumerate four exceptions.
Charging - Weapon length is determinant.
Tied initiative - Weapon speed is determinant
Multiple attacks - Evenly staggered throughout the round (first-and-last)
Attacking one doing something other than striking blows - Compare weapon speed minus losing initiative (treating negatives as positives) to time of the action.

What takes essays is arguing why over complications really don't have foundation in the rules.

Quote from: S'mon;970046Is this what you guys do on K&KA all day? :eek:

All those conversations were hashed out long ago when putting together OSRIC (and only for that purpose).  None of the common conversations (level limits, initiative, etc., etc.,) happening there is kind of the point .  It's a board focused mainly on homebrew stuff, what we're listening and drinking while putting that together, with a side of BtB conversation.

Quote from: Voros;970050I love how everyone says 'basic initiative works fine' then proceed to write an essay explaining all the complications piled onto it. As if there were a Basic system underneath that worked fine without all the rocco rules. But what could we call it??

:D

Its the situational stuff that allways bogs things down and as you can see from Lunamancers posts theres various ways of reading the initiative rules.

And others just ignored the majority of it and stuck to the basics.

Quote from: Omega;970279Its the situational stuff that allways bogs things down and as you can see from Lunamancers posts theres various ways of reading the initiative rules.

And others just ignored the majority of it and stuck to the basics.

It's so easy to get hung up on that stuff, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention virtually all that situational stuff goes out the window in favor of just d6, highest goes first when it's character vs monster (or monster vs monster). Something I definitely remember Gary saying on multiple occasions (paraphrasing in my own word) is that it's kind of crazy to sweat this stuff when there are dragons to slay. If you just stick to d6 highest goes first, you're going to wind up being "BtB" 90% of the time anyway.

As an aside, this epitomizes where I think AD&D is a billion times more user-friendly than it gets credit for. Learning AD&D is kind of like loading a jpeg. You don't need to learn the whole thing to see the big picture. Knowing about 20% of the material covers 80% of anything that could possibly happen during play. As you come across the those situational things the core doesn't cover, you can either make your own rulings or learn how it's handled BtB.

Quote from: Robyo;967721I've never played Godbound or ACKS, but supposedly they embrace high level play.

ACKS tops at level 14*; I don't have any designer's notes handy to confirm, but part of this is because that's the last point where the author things the power curve works, part is that it fully embraces the domain game and by the time you hit lvl 14 you can reasonably be ruling over kingdoms or empires, and part is B/X nostalgia.

* Characters who succeed at becoming liches or similar transformations can advance higher, IIRC, because they're now using monster-like rules and advancing in HD. There's also a bit that basically boils down to "If it makes sense in your game, allow further advancement, but tie it to epic feats / quests / interactions with divinity, and note that there won't be any mortal NPCs of those levels".

Quote from: Lunamancer;970311It's so easy to get hung up on that stuff, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention virtually all that situational stuff goes out the window in favor of just d6, highest goes first when it's character vs monster (or monster vs monster). Something I definitely remember Gary saying on multiple occasions (paraphrasing in my own word) is that it's kind of crazy to sweat this stuff when there are dragons to slay. If you just stick to d6 highest goes first, you're going to wind up being "BtB" 90% of the time anyway.

As an aside, this epitomizes where I think AD&D is a billion times more user-friendly than it gets credit for. Learning AD&D is kind of like loading a jpeg. You don't need to learn the whole thing to see the big picture. Knowing about 20% of the material covers 80% of anything that could possibly happen during play. As you come across the those situational things the core doesn't cover, you can either make your own rulings or learn how it's handled BtB.

Yes, I agree with this entirely.  A lot of the book(s) have detail to cover specific situations where EGG desired certain things weighted in a particular fashion (and in general I agree with how they were weighted), but you can go through entire adventures where it never comes into play.

Also one thing that 1E doesn't get as much credit for in comparison to later editions - it has, I think, just the right mix of choices available to a beginner when making characters.  You can pick a race, and you can pick a class.  But you don't have to pick kits, non-weapon proficiencies, your starting spells (since they're rolled from a sub-set list of common spells), or anything like that which requires weighing options against each other.  So the learning curve for a new player is actually very low.  And even though the learning curve for a DM is higher since the control panel with all these sub-systems is on their side, so to speak, the game doesn't break at all even if the DM forgets to use this stuff 90% of the time.

The problem is that "high level" has been redefined.  Robilar at Level 14 is the highest level PC in either Greyhawk or Blackmoor.

Also, when XP comes from gold, and you divide monster level by PC level as a multiplier, leveling up starts to require ridiculous amounts of gold so it's self limiting.

How long did it take to get that far? A couple of years?

There was a time when hitting the tens in D&D was a notable accomplishment, and sometimes a change in the scope of the gameplay.

When I was 11-12, I had a small group together. The way this all got started is I was hanging out at a friends house, and prior to this he wasn't even someone I hung out with that much, but I noticed an RPG book on the coffee table. He had bought it just because it looked neat, but he had no idea what it was or how to play it. I'd been playing D&D since I was 6, so I took it upon myself to introduce him. There were a lot of factors here that created a perfect storm for starting out at 1st level and rising up to very high level.

1) Since I was teaching this kid how to play, the entire campaign was on easy mode.
2) We had the leisure of literally playing every single day. 3 hours weekdays after school, longer sessions with an expanded group on weekends.
3) I was also teaching him how to DM, but whenever we switched off DMs, everyone played the same characters in a shared campaign.
4) At that age, we also kind of enjoyed power gaming.
5) We didn't know those little nitty gritty rules. And the ones we did know tended to help us (players). There was little incentive to read, process, and adopt rules that increased bookkeeping and complexity and made it harder for our characters. So the lesser rules were a bit one-sided.
6) Although DMs did plan, the majority of the campaign evolved leaning heavily on random encounters. Along with those random encounters, full treasure was generated randomly and assumed to be on the monster for instant taking when we slew it (just like video games). This treasure was IN ADDITION to the occasional planned treasure hoard. The result was lots of treasure. No thought was given to the economy. It never occurred to us there was an economy to be concerned with.
7) Per #5, we didn't pro-rate our XP when we outclassed our enemies. And we did give XP for gold.

I seem to remember a thread a while back where we talked about average number of sessions to level. The verdict was going from level 1 to level 9 after a full year of weekly play is reasonable and kind of what Gary intended. It also matched my own experience running more strictly BtB in highschool and college. So even if we were playing strictly BtB, instead of on easy mode, instead of being ignorant of minor rules that slow down progress, etc, with how frequently we were playing, going from 1 to 9 should have taken 7 weeks. To the best of my recollection, it actually took more like 12 weeks. Then again, some of us switched off 2 or 3 characters, so I suppose that makes sense.

The thing is, after 9th level, the XP tables become linear. And since we didn't know the "divide by level" rule, time to level started to become progressively shorter as the characters continued to level. One level per week was certainly not out of the question. So by week 25, most of us had characters around 20th level. Characters were "semi-retired" at that point. We'd spend a lot of our time hashing out their strongholds and things like that. But between "clearing out the hex" and fending off attacks once the building was complete,  characters did level somewhat. At the end of the year, some of us had character levels in the upper 20's.

Quote from: Lunamancer;970852When I was 11-12, I had a small group together. The way this all got started is I was hanging out at a friends house, and prior to this he wasn't even someone I hung out with that much, but I noticed an RPG book on the coffee table. He had bought it just because it looked neat, but he had no idea what it was or how to play it. I'd been playing D&D since I was 6, so I took it upon myself to introduce him. There were a lot of factors here that created a perfect storm for starting out at 1st level and rising up to very high level.

1) Since I was teaching this kid how to play, the entire campaign was on easy mode.
2) We had the leisure of literally playing every single day. 3 hours weekdays after school, longer sessions with an expanded group on weekends.
3) I was also teaching him how to DM, but whenever we switched off DMs, everyone played the same characters in a shared campaign.
4) At that age, we also kind of enjoyed power gaming.
5) We didn't know those little nitty gritty rules. And the ones we did know tended to help us (players). There was little incentive to read, process, and adopt rules that increased bookkeeping and complexity and made it harder for our characters. So the lesser rules were a bit one-sided.
6) Although DMs did plan, the majority of the campaign evolved leaning heavily on random encounters. Along with those random encounters, full treasure was generated randomly and assumed to be on the monster for instant taking when we slew it (just like video games). This treasure was IN ADDITION to the occasional planned treasure hoard. The result was lots of treasure. No thought was given to the economy. It never occurred to us there was an economy to be concerned with.
7) Per #5, we didn't pro-rate our XP when we outclassed our enemies. And we did give XP for gold.

I seem to remember a thread a while back where we talked about average number of sessions to level. The verdict was going from level 1 to level 9 after a full year of weekly play is reasonable and kind of what Gary intended. It also matched my own experience running more strictly BtB in highschool and college. So even if we were playing strictly BtB, instead of on easy mode, instead of being ignorant of minor rules that slow down progress, etc, with how frequently we were playing, going from 1 to 9 should have taken 7 weeks. To the best of my recollection, it actually took more like 12 weeks. Then again, some of us switched off 2 or 3 characters, so I suppose that makes sense.

The thing is, after 9th level, the XP tables become linear. And since we didn't know the "divide by level" rule, time to level started to become progressively shorter as the characters continued to level. One level per week was certainly not out of the question. So by week 25, most of us had characters around 20th level. Characters were "semi-retired" at that point. We'd spend a lot of our time hashing out their strongholds and things like that. But between "clearing out the hex" and fending off attacks once the building was complete,  characters did level somewhat. At the end of the year, some of us had character levels in the upper 20's.

BTW this sounds very much like how BX-BECM/RC D&D is intended to be played. Your progression rate for time played looks very normal to me. RC recommends 5 sessions/level at name level, maybe 15-20 hours play per 120,000 XP. Sounds like you could have been doing that every week.

Quote from: S'mon;970855BTW this sounds very much like how BX-BECM/RC D&D is intended to be played. Your progression rate for time played looks very normal to me. RC recommends 5 sessions/level at name level, maybe 15-20 hours play per 120,000 XP. Sounds like you could have been doing that every week.

What we were playing was a mish-mash of BECM and AD&D. Although technically it wasn't BECM. I never owned the Companion set until, I dunno, less than 10 years ago to round out my collection. On the other hand, I did own Immortal rules, so we were playing AD&D/BEMI. Also, 2nd Ed PHB came out around that time, and it was just the easiest way to get my friend a meaty PHB.

Another take-away I think worth mentioning... this campaign was fun. Real fun. It's almost like adult gamers purposely sabotage their fun to avoid even a little juvenile power gaming, or a little Monty Haulism. Face it, while the Monty Haul campaign certain has its share of pitfalls, there's a reason DMs are warned to guard against it--because it's easy to creep in. And there's a reason it's easy to creep in. Because it's kind of fun. The extra treasure just meant we built more elaborate castles. It meant players did a good amount of world building. That in turn meant we had a richer campaign world.

We found ways to keep challenging the players. The Monster Manual does talk about mated pairs of dragons, and all the lovely bonuses they get when you beat up on their mate. And that double dragon's hoard suited us fine. We needed that treasure because apparently NPCs had Legend of Zelda style bombs and kept busting up our castles.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;970706Also, when XP comes from gold, and you divide monster level by PC level as a multiplier, leveling up starts to require ridiculous amounts of gold so it's self limiting.

Where does it say that? I've never heard of that before.

Quote from: Baron Opal;970915Where does it say that? I've never heard of that before.

Men and Magic (1974), p. 18: "Gains in experience points will be relative; thus an 8th level Magic-User operating on the 5th dungeon level would be awarded 5/8 experience."

Quote from: Willie the Duck;970942Men and Magic (1974), p. 18: "Gains in experience points will be relative; thus an 8th level Magic-User operating on the 5th dungeon level would be awarded 5/8 experience."

Exactamundo.

We altered it to go by monster level instead of dungeon level, so if you were 10th level, rousting goblins would net you 0.1 xp per gold.

Okay. Thanks for that.

Quote from: Baron Opal;970915Where does it say that? I've never heard of that before.

Its also in AD&D to a degree. But Im not sure if its in 2e. PC level modifying EXP from monsters and treasure earned. But it was on a case by case basis.

Quote from: finarvyn;967753The basic problem is that most actions are resolved using a d20, so either (1) you have to limit how fast a character can get bonuses, or (2) the system will break somewhat at high levels. This isn't just a function of D&D, but is a byproduct of the mathematics. I remember tinkering with Decipher's Lord of the Rings RPG, which I thought was cool until I realized how fast a 2d6 dice rolling range gets "broken" and that kind of took the fun out of it for me. Games based on a d20 die roll have the same philosophical issue, but it doesn't come into play quite as quickly because the number range is larger.

I think that 5E has done a nice job of limiting the bonuses, but I have to confess that I've only played a couple of sessions at levels 10+.

I'd love to hear more about the mathematical aspect. So far, I don't understand why the size of the die is related to the size of the bonuses. It seems to me that the numbers would get higher, yes, but would still operate over the same range, since bonuses are flat and not, say, percentages of the roll. I'm sure my understanding is naive ... can anyone break this down further?

A d20's probabilities are flat (not curved like 2d6), so that each number-face on the die has an equal 5% chance of being rolled. If your target number is 11 you have a 50% chance of rolling 11 or better (results 11-20 * 5%). In 3E target numbers and bonus got a bit crazy (DC 30 on a d20?!?!) meaning you HAD to have bonuses to even have a decent % chance of making the roll. But if you have a +15 to your whatever skill, that suddenly becomes more important than the result of the roll (you will roll 20+ 75% of the time). As the bonuses grow, they "overwhelm" the result of the dice, making the die roll actually the least important part of the skill-check.


This is one of the big reasons I prefer the Earthdawn system. There is a unified dice mechanic that does not suffer this problem, as all dice can "explode", going up a rank gives you a new dicepool with better odds, and all character and monster abilities (saves, etc) run on the same "Step" scale.

Step..Action Dice
1......d4-2
2......d4-1
3......d4
4......d6
5......d8
6......d10
7......d12
8......2d6
9......d8+d6
10.....2d8
11.....d10+d8
12.....2d10
13.....d12+d10
14.....2d12
15.....d12+2d6
16.....d12+d8+d6
17.....d12+2d8
18.....d12+d10+d8
19.....d20+2d6
20.....d20+d8+d6
21.....d20+2d8
22.....d20+d10+d8
23.....d20+2d10
24.....d20+d12+d10
25.....d20+2d12
26.....d20+d12+2d6
27.....d20+d12+d8+d6
28.....d20+d12+2d8
29.....d20+d12+d10+d8
30.....2d20+2d6

I can't speak for finarvyn, but what I think he's saying matches something I've observed, so I'll talk about my own observation.

All game mechanics, no matter what sort of funky dicing mechanism the designer pulls out of his ass, follow an "S" curve probabilisticly. Let me explain.

Do we roll dice for every last thing? Eating? Walking? Breathing? Generally, no. Some things happen with certainty. 100%. Do we also roll dice for an ordinary human, unaided, to flap his arms and begin flying? No. 0%. If you chart this, with the horizontal axis representing skill at a certain thing (left being lower, right being higher), the vertical axis representing probability of that thing happening, because of the bounds of probability any skill higher than the point at which the graph touches the 100% bound will also yield a probability of 100%. Likewise for lower skills and the 0% bound.

Some RPGs for most uncertain actions (combat, etc) may include rolls that are "auto success" or "auto failure". This just means the graph goes horizontal at those probabilities instead. For instance, if you use a d20 system, then yes, the middle 90% of all results fall upon a linear slope. If '20' is auto success, then no matter how low the skill is, the probability is 5%. At the 5% bound, the graph is no longer sloping. It turns horizontal. Likewise on the other end. So the d20 mechanic as such is NOT truly linear. It still follows the 'S' curve, even if in a low-res, angular sort of way.

A lot of RPGs are designed to side-step this 'S' curve by placing severe limits on how high or low skill can be. 5E, for example, does not "cure" the problem of these bounds. The range of play in 5E, from level 1 to 20, is a proficiency bonus of 2 to 6, and the equivalent of AD&D's levels 3 to 7 in terms of, say, Fighter THAC0. On the other hand, 5E's hit points (again, in AD&D terms) range from level 1 to 29 (or higher for the likely case of above-average constitution).

I'm not sure this solves the problem. I guess it depends what you think the problem is. I first got on usenet in 1995, and the vast majority of the gripes I've heard about D&D in general (non-denominational) is that high level combat takes forever. High level characters are invincible to the point of killing suspension of disbelief. A high level character is better off diving head first from orbit than face a slightly superior foe. Each of these problems are only exacerbated by a system which nerfs skill while ramping up hit points. The "S" curve inherent in approaching or hitting the upper and lower bounds of probability, however, I've never had a problem with. I've heard very few complaints about this. And near as I can tell, it never actually causes a problem in play. Only in theory.

Quote from: Telarus;971185In 3E target numbers and bonus got a bit crazy (DC 30 on a d20?!?!) meaning you HAD to have bonuses to even have a decent % chance of making the roll.

It seems to me this solves the problem being discussed entirely. Some tasks just may not be possible at low levels with no bonuses. And some tasks that are chancy at low levels should be near rote at high levels -- which is what that +15 represents. Is the objection here aesthetic? Because high numbers are ugly?

Quote from: Telarus;971185But if you have a +15 to your whatever skill, that suddenly becomes more important than the result of the roll (you will roll 20+ 75% of the time). As the bonuses grow, they "overwhelm" the result of the dice, making the die roll actually the least important part of the skill-check.

That's true if the highest possible result is bound by the size of the dice, but again, I'm not sure I understand why that bound is necessary beyond the aesthetics issue.

Quote from: Lunamancer;971195Do we roll dice for every last thing? Eating? Walking? Breathing? Generally, no. Some things happen with certainty. 100%. Do we also roll dice for an ordinary human, unaided, to flap his arms and begin flying? No. 0%. If you chart this, with the horizontal axis representing skill at a certain thing (left being lower, right being higher), the vertical axis representing probability of that thing happening, because of the bounds of probability any skill higher than the point at which the graph touches the 100% bound will also yield a probability of 100%. Likewise for lower skills and the 0% bound.

Hm, I'm not sure we're charting all conceivable action, just all possible and uncertain action. If something isn't possible, or is perfectly certain, then maybe it's not part of this chart.

Quote from: Lunamancer;971195Some RPGs for most uncertain actions (combat, etc) may include rolls that are "auto success" or "auto failure". This just means the graph goes horizontal at those probabilities instead. For instance, if you use a d20 system, then yes, the middle 90% of all results fall upon a linear slope. If '20' is auto success, then no matter how low the skill is, the probability is 5%. At the 5% bound, the graph is no longer sloping. It turns horizontal. Likewise on the other end. So the d20 mechanic as such is NOT truly linear. It still follows the 'S' curve, even if in a low-res, angular sort of way.

If I understand correctly, even this slight curve is based on 20 being automatic success and 1 being automatic failure. Without that rule, the probability is flat again -- is that right?

Quote from: Lunamancer;971195I first got on usenet in 1995, and the vast majority of the gripes I've heard about D&D in general (non-denominational) is that high level combat takes forever. High level characters are invincible to the point of killing suspension of disbelief. A high level character is better off diving head first from orbit than face a slightly superior foe. Each of these problems are only exacerbated by a system which nerfs skill while ramping up hit points.

I can certainly understand where it would make sense to for defensive abilities to scale with offensive ones, and I've run into similar issues at high level. Surviving swimming across lava and such, using nothing more than sheer hit point totals.

Quote from: Zalman;971262Hm, I'm not sure we're charting all conceivable action, just all possible and uncertain action. If something isn't possible, or is perfectly certain, then maybe it's not part of this chart.

It's stating the obvious to head off the argument that games who deny the S-curve by truncating the extremes by pointing out, no, there are things even in such games which hit the 100% and 0% extremes. No amount of clever design can avoid this. Consider it a throw-away line if you need no convincing at absurd extremes.

QuoteIf I understand correctly, even this slight curve is based on 20 being automatic success and 1 being automatic failure. Without that rule, the probability is flat again -- is that right?

Without auto-success, the curve still changes from sloped to horizontal. Only it does so at 0% rather than 5%. Likewise on the other end. Without autofail, instead of going horizontal at 95%, it goes horizontal at 100%. AD&D 1st Ed gets a little fancier with the six repeating 20's in the hit tables. The slope goes horizontal at 5% for a very short time, then drops to 0% and goes horizontal again. It approximates asymptotic behavior at the zero bound more closely than either of the other options. So to answer your question, no, the changing of the slope, which technically makes d20 not a linear mechanic, is not dependent upon the particular rules of the RPG. It's a feature inherent with the bounds of probability.

I think the mistake in typical probability analysis in RPGs comes from the fixation on the raw numbers produced by the dice or stats rather than their practical effects on actual play. If I'm attacking AC 10 and I have THAC0 11, and we're playing with no auto-success, no auto-failure, my odds of a successful hit are 100%. It's tempting to think of THAC0 7 as being 4 points, or 20% better, and in many cases it is, but against the same defender with the same AC 10, the odds of success are the same 100%. Whereas the value of a +4 modifier when you're near the 50% mark really is worth 20%, beyond the 80% mark, the worth of the same modifier diminishes. Advocates of "curved" or multi-dice mechanics claim the so-called "linear" single die d20 mechanic lacks this feature. We see here that's not so.

QuoteI can certainly understand where it would make sense to for defensive abilities to scale with offensive ones, and I've run into similar issues at high level. Surviving swimming across lava and such, using nothing more than sheer hit point totals.

Well, let's take a look at scaling then.

Here are three ways to look at it. You'll have to take my word that this example is totally off the top of my head and not engineered to produce any particular conclusion, and I think the reasonableness of my assumptions on stats and magic items help lend credibility. So a level 3 fighter an 18/50 strength (+1 to hit, +3 damage) and a +2 longsword attacks a clone of himself who has AC 1 (+2 chainmail, shield, and -1 dex bonus) and 24 hit points (average hp per level assuming a 16 CON). Three average hits result in a kill. Odds of a hit are 35% each attack. So in terms of expected numbers, this is 9 rounds of combat. Store that in memory. 3 hits. 9 attacks, 9 rounds.

Fast forward. This same fighter is now 17th level, has acquired gauntlets of ogre power (raising his strength bonuses to +3 to hit, +6 damage), and he's upgraded to a +5 longsword. His clone also has upgraded gear, +5 chainmail and a +3 shield, giving him AC -5. He now has 2 attacks per round, dealing an average damage of 15.5 per hit, and a hit probability of 70%.

Question: If you wish to retain the 3-hit kill as your measure for scaling, how many hit points should he have?
Answer: Definitely more than 31 so that two average hits will fail to kill him. But definitely less than 47 so three average hits will suffice.
Question: How many hit points does 1st Ed actually give him on average?
Answer: 92 (128 in 5E). Double-to-Triple what scales. It's already high in terms of scaling hit counts. You don't want to make it higher.

Question: What if you want the 9 rounds to be your measure for scaling instead, then how many hit points should he have?
Answer: Somewhere between 174 to 195. About double what 1E gives him.
Question: And what if you want the 9 attacks to be your standard for measure (this is the measure that will probably most closely approximate how much table time this combat will take)?
Answer: Between 87 and 97.

Three measures. Wildly varying answers. But I think there's a really strong case here that AD&D nailed it perfectly. 5E would have been more like 6 attacks to kill at level 3, 28 attacks (equivalent hit prob would only be like 20%) to kill at level 17. No wonder why the battles are taking so long!

Might be worth noting that if 5E gave the fighter about 35 hit points without ever increasing the total, the combat would be about 9 attacks long both at level 3 and level 17. Also worth noting, that in 1E, the number of rounds the battle lasts tends to diminishes as power levels scale up. The number of blows exchanged doesn't change, the number of dice flying around the table doesn't change, but do you know what does change? The number of opportunities to cast spells.

Quote from: Lunamancer;971293Might be worth noting that if 5E gave the fighter about 35 hit points without ever increasing the total, the combat would be about 9 attacks long both at level 3 and level 17. Also worth noting, that in 1E, the number of rounds the battle lasts tends to diminishes as power levels scale up. The number of blows exchanged doesn't change, the number of dice flying around the table doesn't change, but do you know what does change? The number of opportunities to cast spells.

Wow, this is really zen. Never thought of it that way before! :eek:

I feel Enlightened in the Way of Gygax. :cool:

I think the "big sack of HP's" is meant to carry the Fighter through multiple battles without recovery, though (isn't it?).

Yes. And represent more and more skill at just not getting hit, and the gradual fatigue accumulating as they wear down.

Quote from: cranebump;971384I think the "big sack of HP's" is meant to carry the Fighter through multiple battles without recovery, though (isn't it?).

I interpret HP in AD&D1e as abstracting parries, too. As the fighter becomes more skilled and experienced (level goes up), they become better at hitting things (to-hit numbers change) and better at parrying (part of HP).

For comparison, in classic Traveller you only had so many melee attacks before fatigue set in and you had a malus to your rolls. Occasionally someone will write a system where fighting fatigues you, but there's usually some separate number to track, so it gets tedious and kind of takes you out of things; abstracting parries into another number works better in that regard. If you abstract it into armour then parries are infinite like attacks, if you abstract it into hit points then they're finite.

This is where someone pops up and says "yeah but you can't parry a fireball" and where we answer, as the DMG did at one point, that in the end it's a system for fantasy adventures, if we have fireballs and dragons and bullettes and so on, we can't really question it too much.

Quote from: cranebump;971384I think the "big sack of HP's" is meant to carry the Fighter through multiple battles without recovery, though (isn't it?).

I was answering a specific question of scaling. To apply that to what you're asking, it's harder to come up with a non-contentious example. I mean, an orc has hit dice equal to one-third of the 3rd level fighter's level. Should I find a monster with one third the hit dice of the 17th level fighter (so 5 and two-thirds hit dice) to do a comparison? Say, a wereboar perhaps?

HD 5+2, THAC0 15, AC 4. Avg hit points 25. It will have only a 5% chance of hitting the 17th level fighter. The 17th level fighter will have a 95% chance of hitting the wereboar. The only way the wereboar suvives two hits from the fighter is if both damage rolls are absolute minimal (only 1 in 144 chance of that). There's an 89.6% chance the wereboar is toast in round 1. The fighter automatically gets his first attack on round 2 before the wereboar goes, so it's less than 1% likely the wereboar will even get a second attack. If this fighter were walking down the road, fighting one wereboar after another one at a time, he'd probably survive 260 wereboars. But he'd probably contract lycanthrope by the 28th wereboar or so.

There's no way the 3rd level fighter will get through nearly as many orcs. So wereboar isn't a fair comparison. In order to find something that is, I'd have to figure out how many orcs the 3rd level fighter can get through, and then figure out which monster or group of monsters provide an equal challenge to determine what would be fairly "scaled up" from the orc. But if I did that, then we automatically know that, of course the fighter's hit points will have scaled up to last as many scaled up encounters.

Though one point this example does illustrate--instead of taking 260 wereboars to kill the character, it only takes 28 to kill his humanity. So you can see how these effects that don't have to deplete hit points really 10x the challenge pittily monsters pose to high level characters. With those odds, even a group of 3-5 wereboars is more than I'd like to risk a 17th level character on. Even a reasonable number of wereboars provides an obstacle, even if only as a deterrent.

Quote from: Lunamancer;971293Might be worth noting that if 5E gave the fighter about 35 hit points without ever increasing the total, the combat would be about 9 attacks long both at level 3 and level 17. Also worth noting, that in 1E, the number of rounds the battle lasts tends to diminishes as power levels scale up. The number of blows exchanged doesn't change, the number of dice flying around the table doesn't change, but do you know what does change? The number of opportunities to cast spells.

~MIND BLOWN~

However, I don't think your math is quite right on 5e.

I'll spare you the details, but I'm getting 3.77 DPA for third-level champion fighters. At level 17, if we mirror your assumption and the clone gets +3 armor while the original gets a +3 sword, it goes up to 9.15 DPA.

Level 3 fighter (14 CON) has 28 hp, down in 7.4 attacks. With Action Surge, that's ~6-7 rounds.
Level 17 fighter (16 CON) has 157 hp, down in 17.5 attacks. With Action Surge 2x, that's ~4 rounds.

So the number of rounds is down, but I guess not as much as in 1e. I know, I know, 5e is low magic, but who doesn't have any magic gear by level 17?

Edit: Details: http://anydice.com/program/c1de

Quote from: fearsomepirate;971710However, I don't think your math is quite right on 5e.

I'll spare you the details, but I'm getting 3.77 DPA for third-level champion fighters. At level 17, if we mirror your assumption and the clone gets +3 armor while the original gets a +3 sword, it goes up to 9.15 DPA.

That could be. I don't know 5E rules nearly as well as 1E. I think you forgot about the shield, though. I had the 17th level guy with a +3 shield. That was one of the things I observed. In any edition, defensive plusses stack more readily than offensive ones. As I recall, my numbers (which may be incorrect) had the 1E guy going from 35% hit prob, to 70% hit prob. Which I'm thinking that may have been a mistake as well. The hit prob in 1E probably should have gone to 95%, making combat go a bit quicker. And since I don't know 5E so well, I assumed beginning with a similar probability (not necessarily the same specifics in terms of ability scores and magic items--Strength and its bonuses work so very different in the 2 editions it wasn't worth trying to imitate that way). When I scaled up to level 17, I knew the 1E guy would gain 14 points worth in THAC0 while the 5E guy would gain only 4 points in proficiency bonus (at best--I don't have the exact levels in which the prof bonus changes memorized). The error of going 70% in 1E rather than 95% thus carried over since I just deducted 50 percentage points to account for the 10 point gap in attack skill between the two editions. If I were to redo it with the assumptions I had in mind, the 5E guy would have gone from 35% to hit up to 45% to hit while the 1E guy went from 35% to 95%.

QuoteLevel 3 fighter (14 CON) has 28 hp, down in 7.4 attacks. With Action Surge, that's ~6-7 rounds.
Level 17 fighter (16 CON) has 157 hp, down in 17.5 attacks. With Action Surge 2x, that's ~4 rounds.

This is where it gets dicey. I'm definitely not familiar with the little special abilities 5E characters get along the way (I considered it to be one of the major things that put me off to 5E). But that led me to leaving out something that I think really hammers my point home. Don't 5E fighters at a certain level start to regenerate 10 hit points per round whenever they are down by 50% or more of their hit points? If your 9.15 DPA is accurate, that's like ignoring a full attack and then some each round. I'm sure there are other offensive abilities as well that make doing the math on this a little trickier.

Quote from: Lunamancer;971721That could be. I don't know 5E rules nearly as well as 1E. I think you forgot about the shield, though. I had the 17th level guy with a +3 shield. That was one of the things I observed. In any edition, defensive plusses stack more readily than offensive ones.

5e does work somewhat differently. +3 armor and +3 shield is the highest you could get, and +3 armor is a "legendary" item (500,000 GP to make, and therefore 20,000 days of crafting by 17th level characters); +3 shield and +3 weapon are "only" very rare, at one tenth the cost. An attacker equipped with the best possible (for attack) legendary and very rare item would probably have a belt of storm giant strength (29 strength, so +9 to hit, +9 to damage) and a +3 sword (+3 to both). So, a 3rd level fighter is likely (point buy ability scores) to be +5 to hit (16 STR, +2 proficiency), and likely to defend with AC 18 to 21 (the latter if they take defensive fighting style and have plate armor and shield which is probably too expensive for a 3rd level character). The well equipped very high level fighter could have AC 27 (+3 plate, +3 shield, +1 defensive fighting style, from plate AC 18 and any shield giving +2) but would be +18 to hit (+6 proficiency, +9 from storm giant strength, +3 for the sword). So hitting on 13 to 16 in the first case and 9 in the second. In fairness the character could add three more +1 AC items like ring of protection but those seem to all require attunement so three is the limit (and the belt of giant strength also requires attunement). (A belt of storm giant strength is probably way more legendary than +3 plate armor, but a "merely" very rare belt of fire giant strength would drop the strength bonus by 2 to +7.) There are probably some other items that might modify this that I haven't thought of, and I'm ignoring potential advantage/disadvantage.

So defensive bonuses from items are potentially more common, but that's offset in that, meager as the increase in proficiency is from +2 at first level to +6 at 17th level, it is still an increase. And the fighter at 17th level has also gotten 6 ability score increases (or feats) by 17th level, so there's additional opportunity to increase beyond just proficiency but without adding a magic item, through strength increases; less so for defense because dexterity doesn't help with heavy armor and is bounded at +2 for medium armor.

Of course it's up to the DM whether the various items can be made (unlikely just from the time required, but that could be moved downward) or found.

QuoteThis is where it gets dicey. I'm definitely not familiar with the little special abilities 5E characters get along the way (I considered it to be one of the major things that put me off to 5E). But that led me to leaving out something that I think really hammers my point home. Don't 5E fighters at a certain level start to regenerate 10 hit points per round whenever they are down by 50% or more of their hit points? If your 9.15 DPA is accurate, that's like ignoring a full attack and then some each round. I'm sure there are other offensive abilities as well that make doing the math on this a little trickier.

An 18th level champion gets Survivor, which adds 5+CON bonus to hit points at the start of their turn if they have greater than 0 HP but no more than half their hit points. The fighter also gets Second Wind at 1st level, which adds d10+level HP as a bonus action once per short or long rest. At 15th level, the champion gets critical hits (doubling damage dice but not other bonuses) on 18 to 20. Extra attacks are added at 5th and 11th level (and again at 20th level). Action surge at 2nd level (for another action in a round), and a second at 17th level but can't use both in the same round.

With the very well equipped characters above, hitting on a 12 with maximum defensive items in use but +12 damage to a one handed weapon doing d8, I see average damage per attack as 45% of 16.5, so 7.425, multiplied by three per round for the extra attacks not counting the extra critical hits which would add 4.5 points on 15% of hits, so 8.1 per attack on average and 24.3 per round. So 4.36 rounds to chew through the defensive character's base hit points of 10+16*6=106, and another 3.5 to 4.9 rounds to chew through the likely CON bonus (20 CON and possibly the Tough feat for +2 HP per level, so 85 to 119 HP), and finally 0.88 rounds to chew through the average of 21.5 hit points from second wind. Two uses of action surge reduce this by one round each by repeating the three attacks in two separate rounds; total of 6.74 to 8.14 rounds.

For the 3rd level champions, critical hit on 19 to 20; one action surge, no extra attack, second wind of d10+3; taking +5 to hit and AC of 19 (defensive fighting style but only the starting equipment of chain mail). Hitting for d8+3 damage with 35% chance once per round, plus an extra 4.5 in 10% for the criticals, gives 3.075 damage per round; likely HP are 22 for 3rd level (10+6+6) and 6 more for 16 CON over three levels, and 7.5 for second wind: with one use of action surge to reduce the time by one round, that gives 10.54 rounds.

A hill dwarf defender would get an extra HP per level, and a half-orc attacker would get an extra die of damage on critical hits, but obviously the only possible race for both of these champions is spherical cow. What are we trying to demonstrate again? Yes, slightly shorter fight so fewer chances at high level to throw as many spells, but the 3rd level caster allies don't have ten plus spells, and the 17th level caster allies have some spells that would slow down the fight (e.g., heal for 70 points to extend the fight by almost three rounds) but mostly spells that would end things more quickly -- the rate of combat damage probably doesn't determine the length of the fight at 17th level, unless spell slots are really running low.

Note: And I neglected to consider the attacker's possible fighting styles like dueling for +2 damage per hit (or reducing defense to get more damage using a two handed weapon or two weapon fighting - giving up a +3 shield for additional damage seems a mistake, though), or feats like Defensive Duelist or Savage Attacker. Correcting for these (and finding my errors) is an exercise left to the one person other than me in the entire world who cares, if that person exists.

I'd probably give the representative 5e Fighter-18 a +2 weapon, +1 armour, +1 shield. +1 ring of protection - those are all Rare items - never seen giant strength girdle yet so I'd keep STR at 20. IME 5e PCs tend to go through most of their career with just bits & bobs of +1 stuff unless there's a specific quest for powerful items. NPCs don't routinely carry any gear since there are no magic items on the Individual Treasure rolls, and Hoard rolls rarely turn up what you want. If items are commissioned from NPCs or crafted by PCs, following the rules (DMG pg 129) only up to Rare stuff is at all practical - at 5000gp, 25gp of crafting per day, that's 200 man-days to craft, which can be reduced by multiple workers (level 6 casters). Very Rare such as +3 weapons and +2 armour needs 2000 days and spellcasters of 11th+ level, so you generally can't get groups working on them.

Quote from: Lunamancer;971721That could be. I don't know 5E rules nearly as well as 1E. I think you forgot about the shield, though. I had the 17th level guy with a +3 shield. That was one of the things I observed.

In 5e, you shouldn't assume more than one really kickass piece of gear at high level. Published campaigns and the random loot tables are much, much stingier than any prior edition. So it's unlikely to have both a +3 shield and +3 armor. In fact, you might have neither at level 17! Maybe you've got a +2 shield, Flametongue, and that's it. Like that's really it.

QuoteIn any edition, defensive plusses stack more readily than offensive ones. As I recall, my numbers (which may be incorrect) had the 1E guy going from 35% hit prob, to 70% hit prob. Which I'm thinking that may have been a mistake as well. The hit prob in 1E probably should have gone to 95%, making combat go a bit quicker.

That seems about right. 17th level fighter has a 70% chance to hit AC -3. I don't know AD&D too well, but that sounds about right for some kind of magic plate & shield combo.

QuoteAnd since I don't know 5E so well, I assumed beginning with a similar probability (not necessarily the same specifics in terms of ability scores and magic items--Strength and its bonuses work so very different in the 2 editions it wasn't worth trying to imitate that way). When I scaled up to level 17, I knew the 1E guy would gain 14 points worth in THAC0 while the 5E guy would gain only 4 points in proficiency bonus (at best--I don't have the exact levels in which the prof bonus changes memorized).

The 5e guy will also gain points from ASI, so you should go from +4 or +5 to hit at at level 3 to +11 to hit at level 17. In addition, you should also go from a +2 or +3 bonus to damage at level 3 to +5 damage at level 17. You also have to account for archetype and fighting style. I chose a Champion with the Duelist style, which gives him +2 to damage, but the numbers would have been different if he'd been a Two-Weapon or Great Weapon fighter. That's why I had to write an Anydice program to figure this out.

QuoteDon't 5E fighters at a certain level start to regenerate 10 hit points per round whenever they are down by 50% or more of their hit points?

Champions get that at 18th level. 5 + CON modifier. I also forgot their crit range expands to 18. That raises the damage to 9.38. Note that if the fighter has Flametongue rather than a +3 sword, the damage goes to 10.05.

Addendum:

I highly recommend you use my Anydice program. It can account for AC, expanded crit range, rerolling damage dice, adv/dis, and critical hit bonus. I've commented it to make it easier. Here's a sample comparing a level 17 Champion fighter to a level 17 half-orc barbarian, recklessly attacking.

http://anydice.com/program/c1f1

It's definitely tricky trying to get apples-to-apples comparisons. One thing that is disconcerting, and this really isn't new with 5E, I definitely saw this in 3E, but it seems like the game wants to dictate the campaign. With my AD&D assumptions, I tried to pick something that a lot of people would hopefully feel is reasonable for sake of comparison. And I say hope because the game doesn't tell me what a 3rd level fighter should have for magic items. I've certainly run campaigns where he might have more/better stuff, and others where he'd be lucky to have a potion or two. These were all choices that were separate from the rules themselves.

So this leads me to ask a few questions:
1) Apart from mass hit points and strange feats, how is the levels 1-20 5E different from levels 3-7 AD&D? (In other words, is a 20th level 5E character just high level in name only?)
2) Can we ditch the 5E magic item assumptions without breaking the system?
3) If I re-examine AD&D 1st Ed, downgrading the magic items so they match what is reasonable for 5E, would this be a better basis for comparison?
4) Is accounting for attribute increases really helpful, or does it just open new cans of worms? (e.g. improving Str would tend to shorten fights, improving Dex and/or Con would cause them to last longer, or in 1E it's not impossible, or even uncommon over a long enough adventuring career, for attributes to be increased--should they increase in tandem with the 5E stats for the sake of comparison?)

Quote from: Lunamancer;9718541) Apart from mass hit points and strange feats, how is the levels 1-20 5E different from levels 3-7 AD&D? (In other words, is a 20th level 5E character just high level in name only?)

Hmm - level 18 5e does feel a lot like level 9 1e. But OTOH I always thought 9 in 1e was 'high level'.

For what it's worth on the whole environmental damage problem where players can start to do stupid stuff with there HP totals an easy change I've been toying in the game I'm making that can work is to change the damage to be A multiple of there level.
So instead of them taking 1d6 at 12th level and going no biggie they are taking 1d6 x 12 and tend to respect it more.

Quote from: Lunamancer;971522The fighter automatically gets his first attack on round 2 before the wereboar goes

Good analysis.

Just a small nitpick given the number of people reading who may be unfamiliar with AD&D combat (and that also further increases the chance of a high level fighter taking down the enemy before taking any damage themselves) - the fighter with 3/2 attacks gets his first attack on round 1 before the wereboar goes.

QuoteA 12th level fighter is allowed attack routines twice in every odd numbered melee round, for example, and this moves up to three per round if a haste spell is cast upon the fighter.

Quote from: Lunamancer;971854So this leads me to ask a few questions:
1) Apart from mass hit points and strange feats, how is the levels 1-20 5E different from levels 3-7 AD&D? (In other words, is a 20th level 5E character just high level in name only?)

There will be some differences. By level 20 in 5e, even though the spells have been softened quite a bit, there can be plenty of cases where the adventure can continue in Direction X because the spellcasters have access to spell Y. Now AD&D level 7, you might have the same situation, but a magic item would be more likely to be the gatekeeper of that adventure. So level 20 isn't high level in name only, it's just much more muted than in, say, 3e.

Quote2) Can we ditch the 5E magic item assumptions without breaking the system?

I feel you can. I certainly think it does for the receiving of +X weapons and armor (+ rings, cloaks, etc.). If you get hit on a roll of 12 instead of 14 from an enemy and do 11 damage/hit instead of 13, you just fight fewer of them (at once or per day), and negotiate or run away (which is very doable) more often.

Strategic magic items, I feel, are harder to design around (design a system to allow level X with or without them, and both be balanced). Getting rid of the bag of holding at level 6 or the flying carpet at level 9 vastly changes what you end up doing in your campaign.

Quote3) If I re-examine AD&D 1st Ed, downgrading the magic items so they match what is reasonable for 5E, would this be a better basis for comparison?

Probably. But check whether you're comparison actually informs a question you want answered. If you have to modify both editions to versions of themselves you wouldn't be playing to adequately compare them, does it help any once you actually get down to playing one or the other?

Quote4) Is accounting for attribute increases really helpful, or does it just open new cans of worms? (e.g. improving Str would tend to shorten fights, improving Dex and/or Con would cause them to last longer, or in 1E it's not impossible, or even uncommon over a long enough adventuring career, for attributes to be increased--should they increase in tandem with the 5E stats for the sake of comparison?)

Well, in your campaigns playing 1e, how often do attribute changes (or picking up gauntlets of ogre power) happen?

Just one set of observations, hopefully others will chime in.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;971949There will be some differences. By level 20 in 5e, even though the spells have been softened quite a bit, there can be plenty of cases where the adventure can continue in Direction X because the spellcasters have access to spell Y. Now AD&D level 7, you might have the same situation, but a magic item would be more likely to be the gatekeeper of that adventure. So level 20 isn't high level in name only, it's just much more muted than in, say, 3e.

This sounds more like "in theory" than "in practice." What I typically see--in published modules, for example--is that there is some non-magical way to proceed in direction X, or the magical means are provided somewhere in the adventure, or spell Y won't function in the area so direction X can't be accessed at all. Also, I don't know if this has changed, but scrolls of high level spells are usable in 1st Ed by characters normally too low level to cast them--it just comes with a chance of spell failure. And, of course, access to a Wish (which can come from a lot of places, including the +1 Luck Blade which isn't exactly a 'high level' magic item) can imitate just about any spell. Even failing all of the above, hiring an NPC is always an option.

QuoteProbably. But check whether you're comparison actually informs a question you want answered. If you have to modify both editions to versions of themselves you wouldn't be playing to adequately compare them, does it help any once you actually get down to playing one or the other?

Well, the question is is how do the various editions change the play experience. Imposing a "correct" number and potency of magic items the party should possess at a particular level in itself is an alteration of play experience, so analysis needs go no further than that, and the verdict to me looks... not so good for WotC D&D. But assuming DMs can and do ignore such dictates and the game is still fun, then there's no problem continuing examination. All it means is, in addition to looking at changes each edition brings, we can also look at how high vs low magic changes the play experience.

The reason I asked this question is because while there may be a "BtB" magic item distribution for 5E, there is no such thing, no expected level of magic for 1st Ed. A lot of the Arthurian Knights in 1st Ed Deities & Demigods, for example, are sporting a single +2 magic item. Many don't even have that. A few have some unique item. Arthur himself, the head bad-ass of that bunch, has a scabbard that protects him from cuts so he takes only half damage from slashing and piercing weapons, full damage from bludgeons. On top of that, he has a +5 sword of sharpness. The totality of all Arthurian legend is just one +5 item. On the other hand, a lot of campaigns I've played in have had Holy Avengers and other +5 items introduced by level 8 if not sooner.

QuoteWell, in your campaigns playing 1e, how often do attribute changes (or picking up gauntlets of ogre power) happen?

Just one set of observations, hopefully others will chime in.

Just aging from "Young Adult" to "Mature" calls for a +1 to two attributes. And of course for scores 14+ for Dex (or any score except 13 for anyone with thieving abilities), 15+ for Str, 12+ for Chr, 14+ for Wis (9+ if uses cleric spells), any score for Con, and any score for Int for any who use magic-user or illusionist spells, a one point adjustment in 1E has as much effect on the game as a 2 point adjustment in 5E. So we're looking for what, 3-5 additional points to occur at some point between levels 1 and 20? I don't think that's unreasonable at all. (Not counting gauntlets of ogre power, and definitely not counting the Cavalier or any UA or OA class).

Quote from: kosmos1214;971895For what it's worth on the whole environmental damage problem where players can start to do stupid stuff with there HP totals an easy change I've been toying in the game I'm making that can work is to change the damage to be A multiple of there level.
So instead of them taking 1d6 at 12th level and going no biggie they are taking 1d6 x 12 and tend to respect it more.

For falls over 40 feet, I straight up require a Save vs Death, but I don't have damage accumulate (so it's 4d6, not 10d6 for a 40 foot fall). This makes falls more survivable for low level characters, and huge falls always carry the risk of death no matter how high level or how many hit points.

Other than that? I really haven't seen an environmental damage problem. I've always taken swimming in lava as a joke. Without magical protection, I assume death to be automatic (unless you're just in and out with bare flesh only, in which case you are saved by the Leidenfrost effect and take no damage). What else is there? Drowning? If I did decide to handle that by assigning some amount of damage each round, I have no problem with higher level characters being able to survive longer/taking longer to drown. Starvation, dehydration, hypothermia, smoke inhalation? Same thing.

5e does not have expected items per level, and pcs will typically have far fewer items than in 1e at equivalent level.

3e and 4e have expected items or wealth in items by level.

Quote from: Lunamancer;9718541) Apart from mass hit points and strange feats, how is the levels 1-20 5E different from levels 3-7 AD&D? (In other words, is a 20th level 5E character just high level in name only?)

This is kind of an odd question. Things mostly progress like they did in AD&D. The spell lists are broadly the same. A thief becomes able to pick nearly every mundane lock in the world around level 10. The Fighter is still not as powerful as he was in 1e. I did the math, and IIRC a level 20 fighter has about 12x the base per-round damage that he does at level 1. 5e clips both ends (level 1 is more powerful, level 20 a bit less so), so it's about a 9x damage increase from 1 to 20. But from what I understand, 1e fighters went through even the toughest dragons like hot knives through butter, so maybe this isn't all bad.

Quote2) Can we ditch the 5E magic item assumptions without breaking the system?

Sure. If you give out more loot, you just need to throw out more and tougher monsters.

Quote(3) If I re-examine AD&D 1st Ed, downgrading the magic items so they match what is reasonable for 5E, would this be a better basis for comparison?

I think the games should be evaluated on their own terms, i.e. you should take into account what is common and typical for the game itself rather than trying to make one game behave like the other.

Quote4) Is accounting for attribute increases really helpful, or does it just open new cans of worms? (e.g. improving Str would tend to shorten fights, improving Dex and/or Con would cause them to last longer, or in 1E it's not impossible, or even uncommon over a long enough adventuring career, for attributes to be increased--should they increase in tandem with the 5E stats for the sake of comparison?)

You absolutely must account for attribute increases in 5e. They're not an optional part of the game; they're fundamental to class progression. Between levels 4 and 19, a fighter gets an additional 12 ability score points to spend. There's no reason for a level 20 fighter to not have 20 in his main stat and some boosts to CON as well (there's no DEX bonus to heavy armor in 5e). This isn't the case in 1e, is it?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;971986This is kind of an odd question. Things mostly progress like they did in AD&D. The spell lists are broadly the same. A thief becomes able to pick nearly every mundane lock in the world around level 10. The Fighter is still not as powerful as he was in 1e. I did the math, and IIRC a level 20 fighter has about 12x the base per-round damage that he does at level 1. 5e clips both ends (level 1 is more powerful, level 20 a bit less so), so it's about a 9x damage increase from 1 to 20. But from what I understand, 1e fighters went through even the toughest dragons like hot knives through butter, so maybe this isn't all bad.

In measuring strictly damage per round, though, I found the 12x rule if you assume a benchmark AC of 4 (for some reason) and 17 Strength. This also assumes no magic weapon at 1st level, +5 magic weapon at 20th level. Not terrible assumptions. I use 18/50 not because it's the average Strength an AD&D fighter would have (there's no way of knowing that) but because there are four categories of adjustments above it (18/75, 18/90, 18/99, and 18/00) and four below (18, 17, 16, and 9-15) placing 18/50 in the middle. The tricky part is what AC is a fair benchmark. AC 4 may be normal for what the level 1 guy is up against, not necessarily so for the 20th level guy. Anything in the negatives makes the level 20 guy about 60x damage per round. At AC 0, it's about 30x damage per round.

As for easily slaying dragons, that may be true for a dragon who stands toe to toe with the fighter. A dragon doesn't even need to be played that intelligently to fly just high enough to stay out of striking range of the fighter (so now the fighter is using +3 arrows with a base damage of d6) and use its breath weapon. A cat 8 large red dragon will have 88 hit points, and thereby do 88 damage on the first breath attack (save for half), 75 on the second (after taking a couple of those arrows), and 62 on the third. Even if the fighter makes all three saves, he's taking 112 damage. Average hit points (assuming Con 16) for a level 20 fighter is 101. So much for butter.

QuoteI think the games should be evaluated on their own terms, i.e. you should take into account what is common and typical for the game itself rather than trying to make one game behave like the other.

The problem is, who's to say what's "typical"? When 2nd Ed (not really all that different from 1st Ed mechanically) published stats up to 25 in the PHB, I suddenly started seeing higher-than-18 scores more common for PCs. Whether it was min-maxing your race bonus to get a 19, or I recall Ioun Stones being popular. And then there was Dark Sun. Just by putting it out there, you got more of it. It wasn't a change in rules. It was a change in how people played.

On the flip side, I'm willing to bet artifacts & relics were more likely to make an appearance in 1st Ed since they were published in the 1E DMG but not the 2E DMG. So how much of what is assumed typical is just a consequence of the choice not to publish magic items over +3?

QuoteYou absolutely must account for attribute increases in 5e. They're not an optional part of the game; they're fundamental to class progression. Between levels 4 and 19, a fighter gets an additional 12 ability score points to spend. There's no reason for a level 20 fighter to not have 20 in his main stat and some boosts to CON as well (there's no DEX bonus to heavy armor in 5e). This isn't the case in 1e, is it?

Fair enough, if they can only influence attack power and not defense due to the armor limitations on Dex. Otherwise it would be a wash and you'd have to make too many assumptions about what players choose.

Quote from: Lunamancer;972045n measuring strictly damage per round, though, I found...Anything in the negatives makes the level 20 guy about 60x damage per round. At AC 0, it's about 30x damage per round.

And that's a big philosophical difference between 5e and every single other edition before it. Increasing accuracy is no longer a huge component of your statistical damage. As a consequence, adjusting the target AC does not have as big a disparity between the 1st level and 20th level fighter's viability as adjusting the target HP. Very, very few monsters have an AC over 20 in 5e. Instead of going up to THAC0 1 and two attacks, you go up to THAC0 9 and four attacks.

QuoteOn the flip side, I'm willing to bet artifacts & relics were more likely to make an appearance in 1st Ed since they were published in the 1E DMG but not the 2E DMG. So how much of what is assumed typical is just a consequence of the choice not to publish magic items over +3?

I'm judging "typical" by published campaigns. They just don't hand out tons of loot. Note also that for the first time ever, a +3 sword is just its own thing. Flame Tongue isn't +[anything]. It just does +2d6 fire damage (which still makes it more powerful than a +3 sword). I think the Defender Sword is +3. But a lot of magic swords have +1 or no bonus, just other effects.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;972061And that's a big philosophical difference between 5e and every single other edition before it. Increasing accuracy is no longer a huge component of your statistical damage. As a consequence, adjusting the target AC does not have as big a disparity between the 1st level and 20th level fighter's viability as adjusting the target HP. Very, very few monsters have an AC over 20 in 5e. Instead of going up to THAC0 1 and two attacks, you go up to THAC0 9 and four attacks.

The reason AC makes such a big difference at the lower values I calculated is because moving from a 20% chance to hit to 15% chance is like losing a quarter of your DPA. Going from 15% to 10% is like losing one third of it. And going from 10% to 5% throws half of it out the window. In other words, it has everything to do with small divisors. To say 5E doesn't have this problem implies what my impression about 5E has been all along--it shies away from extreme ends of the probability scale.

And that's exactly why I asked the question, is this thing REALLY even going from level 1 to 20 (as it has been traditionally understood), or isn't it just taking levels 3 to 7 and stretching that 5-level range out to 20 levels?

Let me digress for a moment.

3E came out just after Gary Gygax's Lejendary Adventure game. I recall some of the arm-chair game designers back then tried to insist extreme probabilities were undesirable. Some of the whack jobs on RPGnet allegedly had some scientific proof that success about 2 out of 3 times was objectively the most fun. And over the time that's passed since, I'd say this idea more and more that we want to avoid getting too close to 0% and 100%. Several months ago on this very site someone argued with me from the perspective of "information theory" that the closer something is from even odds, the more "information" is revealed with each roll and so it's somehow more efficient and therefore (somehow) more fun. A few pages back on this thread there was some discussion about the inherent boundaries of probability and that the "problem" with high level play is that yous tray into this area, and therefore the only good RPG for playing high level could possibly be one that trims off those ends--essentially (though proponents would never put it in these words), amputating huge portions of play and pretending to have solved a problem.

I think what's obviously happened is just because an RPG says "You roll dice to resolve this type of action" gets (erroneously) extrapolated to "You *MUST* *ALWAYS* roll dice to resolve this kind of action." Whereas I feel part of what makes high level play high level play is that, even though the dice are still there, they take on a lesser and lesser roll. As attack rolls and saving throws become nearer and nearer to certain, the game starts to feel less like something on the spectrum between roulette and blackjack into something on the spectrum between poker and chess. Too often, whether discussing high levels or just different RPGs, people say "broken" when they should say "different."

End of digression.

That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of here. The title of the thread? Is it completely baseless to begin with? Is high level D&D just considered "suck" because it's different from low level play? Has the philosophy of homogeneity claimed a "solution" by cutting out the extreme ends and just relabeling the middle to make it seem more impressive, maybe even pass it off as something it isn't? Whatever your personal preference may be, I think this is a fair question. It doesn't help me if you say "Yeah, you can totally play high level in 5E. In fact, it fixed some of the problems of high level play!" only to find it lacks the key characteristics that makes high level play a new set of challenges. I strongly feel the game needs to transition to those new challenges to avoid tedium.

QuoteI'm judging "typical" by published campaigns. They just don't hand out tons of loot. Note also that for the first time ever, a +3 sword is just its own thing. Flame Tongue isn't +[anything]. It just does +2d6 fire damage (which still makes it more powerful than a +3 sword). I think the Defender Sword is +3. But a lot of magic swords have +1 or no bonus, just other effects.

What I've found by playing modules (and granted this may be a Gygax thing since he did write a lot of the classics) is that the magic items are often passed up in actual play--apparently their owners did a good job safeguarding their most valuable treasures. So even though you may see a lot sprinkled into published material, how much of it actually makes it into the game in actual play varies greatly by the skill of the player. My general impression of newer games (this can even be seen in comparing newer versions of Tomb of Horrors to the original) is that there has been a transition away from player skills to rolling more dice. If I were writing a module where more of the challenges were handled by dice, I'd probably include lesser number and power magic items as well.

DCC is super cool at level 8. Note: it only goes to level 10, level 8 in DCC is like being somewhere around level 16 in regular D&D, and I said level 8 because that's the highest level my players have gotten to so far.

Quote from: Lunamancer;972066The reason AC makes such a big difference at the lower values I calculated is because moving from a 20% chance to hit to 15% chance is like losing a quarter of your DPA. Going from 15% to 10% is like losing one third of it. And going from 10% to 5% throws half of it out the window. In other words, it has everything to do with small divisors. To say 5E doesn't have this problem implies what my impression about 5E has been all along--it shies away from extreme ends of the probability scale.

Yep. As for what you said in your digression, I don't know about information theory and all that, but I do know that players get really frustrated when every attack roll they threw in the night's combat was a miss. I saw that happen a lot more when I ran BECMI than I do 5e.

QuoteA few pages back on this thread there was some discussion about the inherent boundaries of probability and that the "problem" with high level play is that yous tray into this area, and therefore the only good RPG for playing high level could possibly be one that trims off those ends--essentially (though proponents would never put it in these words), amputating huge portions of play and pretending to have solved a problem.

I think you're over-identifying "play" with "probability." Chance to hit is only one of many aspects of play.

QuoteAs attack rolls and saving throws become nearer and nearer to certain, the game starts to feel less like something on the spectrum between roulette and blackjack into something on the spectrum between poker and chess. Too often, whether discussing high levels or just different RPGs, people say "broken" when they should say "different."

I think what happened is a lot of people just found that boring. High-level 5e warriors are still beasts. Spells like Summon Planar Ally and Shapechange are whole different levels of power. But you do still actually need to roll the dice in combat.

QuoteThat's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of here. The title of the thread? Is it completely baseless to begin with? Is high level D&D just considered "suck" because it's different from low level play?

I think the problem is D&D's basic framework was really never designed for high-level play. That was extrapolated later, and it was always a bit of a mess. 5e cleaned it up quite a bit. If what you mainly want at high level is to only roll damage, not attack, then sure, that's no longer a thing.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;972871Yep. As for what you said in your digression, I don't know about information theory and all that, but I do know that players get really frustrated when every attack roll they threw in the night's combat was a miss. I saw that happen a lot more when I ran BECMI than I do 5e.

Strange. On the one hand, it almost seems like you're saying 5E is superior because you're more likely to hit. Then a couple lines later, high level D&D is boring because you don't miss enough? It seems like this only parses if you firmly believe there is a correct range of probabilities to play in. Individual taste be damned.

QuoteI think you're over-identifying "play" with "probability." Chance to hit is only one of many aspects of play.

That really seems like an unfair assessment considering I had mentioned one of the charms of high level play is seeing how the feel of the game transitions away from roulette/blackjack and towards poker/chess--to move away from making dice so central.

There's certainly nothing stopping you from lining up the men on the chess board, but instead every time two pieces come to occupy the same square, flip a coin to determine which piece is captures and which keeps the square. Of course that would radically change effectiveness of strategies as well as the feel of the game. It would be chess-in-name-only. Compare that to rolling a d20 where the piece moving into the square is only captured if the a '1' is rolled. The broad approach to playing the game and most of the strategies would remain in tact. There would just be an element of the wild added and the finer details of certain strategies may be altered. But the game is still resembles chess. Probabilities can make all the difference in how the game plays.

The use of magic did bring a certain level of certainty into play. The spells just worked, no roll needed. Many of them didn't call for a save to see if their effects could be avoided or some other roll for determining the potency of the casting. Even in low level play, you could tap into this. That's another thing that changed in later editions. More dice rolling for magic.

QuoteI think what happened is a lot of people just found that boring.

I doubt that on the grounds that I don't even think "a lot of people" really ever even experienced it. There's so much brow-beating involving the utterance of "Monty Hall" that unless the group is hell-bent on going balls-to-the-walls crazy on it, they're going to shy away from high level play. I don't think too many people step into high level D&D intent on making a serious attempt at playing what's actually there. The out-dated game show reference may also be a good indication of when the last time any significant number of gamers actually even thought through what that would entail.

QuoteHigh-level 5e warriors are still beasts. Spells like Summon Planar Ally and Shapechange are whole different levels of power. But you do still actually need to roll the dice in combat.

Magic-users can summon monsters beginning at 5th level. Polymorph becomes available by 7th level.

You're doing a great job convincing me that 5E offers the full range of the classic D&D experience from levels 3 all the way up to level 7. I'm very well aware at how fun D&D is at that level range. And I could see how it would be tempting to take the Oreo cookie, remove all the cookie and just expand the stuffing.

However, what I really like about D&D is in addition to those mid levels where many a great fantasy adventure is had, there are also low levels (levels 1-2) which are gritty and brutal. And then there are also high levels that offers still a different kind of play. And it's not just the versatility of having a dial that I can turn, "I feel like doing high fantasy today." It's that I can play through from one mode of play to another to another using the same character in the game world with a sense of continuity.

I said way, way back in the thread that drastic rules changes between editions were off-putting because I felt if I had to learn the system all over again, I may as well choose a different system entirely that better suits how my tastes have changed. Similarly, if I really wanted to tap into that sweet, mid-level play, I'd just play Lejendary Adventure. It does it so much better than any version of D&D.

QuoteI think the problem is D&D's basic framework was really never designed for high-level play. That was extrapolated later, and it was always a bit of a mess.

So you assert. I'm not going to make assumptions about the intent behind the design. But as I was just saying, the whole charm of AD&D is specifically that it has functionality at those three distinct levels of play (or however you wish to stratify it). I think the evidence is contra your extrapolation theory. It's not like a modern game which presents a math equation (apparently nerds bust a nut over that shit calling it elegant, but I have a math degree and I find it trite), and for better or for worse, that's what it is. AD&D specifically has tables up to 17th level for fighter saves and attack tables, 19th for clerics, 21st for thieves and magic-users, 29th for spell memorization, and these tables aren't generated by any obvious formula from which to extrapolate. There was clearly some careful thought and consideration given to play at these levels.

Quote5e cleaned it up quite a bit. If what you mainly want at high level is to only roll damage, not attack, then sure, that's no longer a thing.

This was claimed with each and every edition of the game. Even if there were any good evidence to support you saying it now, the preponderance of evidence is still that people were having fun before the big change, and sooner or later a newer edition will come out that will clean up the mess that is 5E. Which a) means it's not really true that 5E cleaned up everything as will be seen upon the release of 6E, and b) what it did change was never really broken in the first place.

What I suspect is really going on is the game is changed for the sake of some new fashion. Seems like that's exactly what you're saying--this extreme probability stuff has got to go. That is the trendy thing as I observed in my digression. But gamers and game designers can't see it for what it is, just a current fashion that will some day be proven as stupid as the mullet and or any number of other now-obvious goofy trends of the past. They mistake it for genius that those unwashed fools who pioneered the game just didn't have at their disposal. In short, they just don't get it.

Excellent summary, Lunamancer. I enjoyed reading that. I don't even play D&D and haven't bought a new D&D book since whenever 2nd edition AD&D came out, but I find the discussion interesting.

Quote from: Lunamancer;972898Strange. On the one hand, it almost seems like you're saying 5E is superior because you're more likely to hit. Then a couple lines later, high level D&D is boring because you don't miss enough?

Always missing is frustrating. Always hitting is boring. I'm saying this as a DM who's observed plenty of players' reactions.

QuoteThe use of magic did bring a certain level of certainty into play. The spells just worked, no roll needed.

That's not really true. Most spells have a casting time longer than 1 segment, so they had a risk of completely failing. That's no longer the case in 5e.

QuoteThat really seems like an unfair assessment considering I had mentioned one of the charms of high level play is seeing how the feel of the game transitions away from roulette/blackjack and towards poker/chess--to move away from making dice so central.

I guess some players love that. The title of the thread (and the success of 5e) suggests that more than a few don't.

Basically what you're focused on is that for you "being powerful" means "I don't roll dice," and since you still roll dice at high level in 5e, you're not really any more powerful than you were at level 1. Okay. You think "high-level play" in an RPG should mean that you don't roll dice, and since you roll dice in 5e, that's bad. Got it.

QuoteMagic-users can summon monsters beginning at 5th level. Polymorph becomes available by 7th level.

You're doing a great job convincing me that 5E offers the full range of the classic D&D experience from levels 3 all the way up to level 7.

Are you trying to insinuate that there are no summoning spells or shape-shifting spells that don't become available until high level in AD&D?

9th level 1e spells: Astral Spell, Bigby's Crushing Hand, Gate, Imprisonment, Meteor Swarm, Monster Summoning VII, Power Word: Kill, Prismatic Sphere, Shape Change, Temporal Stasis, Time Stop, and Wish.

9th level 5e spells: Astral Projection, Foresight, Gate, Imprisonment, Meteor Swarm, Power Word Kill, Prismatic Wall, Shapechange, Time Stop, True Polymorph, Weird, and Wish.

Not an identical list, and you wouldn't expect them to be after 40 years, but broadly similar enough that your repeated insistence that everything you can do in 5e at 20th level was available at 7th level in AD&D 1e is making it pretty clear you haven't made any effort to learn much about 5e except that you roll dice, and rolling dice isn't something you think should happen at high level.

Quote(apparently nerds bust a nut over that shit calling it elegant, but I have a math degree and I find it trite)

I have two, plus a PhD in a related field. I like 5e because it's fun, not because of any kind of mathematical symmetry.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;972933Always missing is frustrating. Always hitting is boring. I'm saying this as a DM who's observed plenty of players' reactions.

Sure. I've observed those things as DM. I've also observed players laughing and having a good time while missing seemingly every time. I've also seen players extremely excited when on a hot streak and seemingly hitting every time. It seems like you're ignoring observations that don't align with the conclusion you'd like to reach. Funny how in the last post you were accusing me of being obsessively preoccupied with probabilities, because the seemingly opposite reactions to similar stimulus suggest something else is at play and probabilities may not really have that much to do with it. I happen to find the level of player engagement to be a far more salient factor.

QuoteThat's not really true. Most spells have a casting time longer than 1 segment, so they had a risk of completely failing. That's no longer the case in 5e.

True. Unlike a die roll, though, it puts the determination in the participants hands. You can get frustrated at bad die rolls if yours is a personality prone to such things, but not when you live or die by your own free choice.

QuoteI guess some players love that. The title of the thread (and the success of 5e) suggests that more than a few don't.

Most of what I was reading was along the lines of it was never a problem pre-WotC. That high level play only becomes problematic with newer versions of the rules. Nothing is ever unanimous, but the way 1E is set up absolutely assures there will always be challenges, no matter how high level the PCs get.

QuoteBasically what you're focused on is that for you "being powerful" means "I don't roll dice," and since you still roll dice at high level in 5e, you're not really any more powerful than you were at level 1. Okay. You think "high-level play" in an RPG should mean that you don't roll dice, and since you roll dice in 5e, that's bad. Got it.

Mis-characterizing what I'm saying and solidifying with "got it" doesn't seem very constructive at all.

QuoteAre you trying to insinuate that there are no summoning spells or shape-shifting spells that don't become available until high level in AD&D?

Not at all. By pointing out similar spells exist at a lower level, it defeats any argument that they somehow change the game, which is what you were claiming. The two in particular you mention do little more than ramp up stats which, as we've been discussing, means far, far less in 5E than 1E.

5e is a bit different - low level PCs certainly hit more - but low level PCs are still squishy like in pre-4e D&D and at high level the Barb-19 IMC attacks at +14, he's hitting a lot of enemies on a '2'. At level 20 he'll have STR 24, attack at +16 and hit plate armour on a 2.

I don't think 5e stretches out the level 4-8 experience, the edition that did that was 4e.

I do think in 5e it's unusual to see monsters only hitting on a 20, that Barb-19 has AC 22 (with legendary armour) so orcs attacking at +5 hit on a 17. In my other game the Barb-12 only has AC 18.

Lamentations continued to be good at levels 9-14 or so.

Rules Cyclopedia D&D was quite good until around level 24 or so.

Quote from: RPGPundit;973724Rules Cyclopedia D&D was quite good until around level 24 or so.

I've only played RC to 19th - what are the issues for post-24 play? I'm guessing maybe casters have too many spells and fighters never miss?

Quote from: S'mon;973733I've only played RC to 19th - what are the issues for post-24 play? I'm guessing maybe casters have too many spells and fighters never miss?

I doubt it. The spells at 19 are (6 5 5 5 4 3 2 2) while at 24 they are (7 7 6 6 5 5 4 3 2), and the fighter's to-hit goes down by 2 over that period. Now 9th level spells make a bit of a difference, but not much (you're already at the point where spells and magic items dominate unless you play the whole fighter-as-king/general bit). Honestly, I just think that it is just like 1e AD&D after level 17. There's just not much left to gain or any particular reason why being level 24 is different from being level 11.

As usual, I suspect "doesn't work after level x" really means "is different after level x."

I mean, in AD&D, fighters gain 3 hit points per level after 9th. But each level, the MU's fireball damage increases by d6, or 3.5 on average. That means if all characters are level 45, fireball practically becomes a save-or-die spell. Okay, we can refute that easily enough by pointing out that if you measure by XP rather than level, this never happens because a Fighter needs substantially less XP than a MU to level beyond 9th. However, in the case of mage vs mage, they have the same XP table, so we toss out that counter-argument. By level 22, fireball's average damage is double the average mage's hit points. It kind of becomes a die-or-die spell. Surely that's broken!

But is it? To me, it's just a thing, and it is what it is, and if you're aware of it, you're hip to how the game changes feel as levels progress. As a player it tells me, before the game gets to that point, it may be wise to take some time away from adventuring to craft some protective magical items. Build the character laterally, in other words, rather than just be all about advance, advance, advance. Better to be 19th level and survive the fireball than 22nd level and dead. This is one of the challenges of high level play. This is why it becomes increasingly common for higher level characters to do things other than adventure and why they tend to fade into the background. It's not because the game stops working. It's not because we get bored. It's not because the game fails to challenge high level characters.

Incidentally, consider an elven mage, having hit max level at level 11. All the years this character has just to devote to building magic items. As we've discussed here a bit, as levels get higher, rounds get fewer, and casting times get longer, devices are the key to a mage's potency. It makes it hard, then, for me to think the elf is at a disadvantage here.

Quote from: Lunamancer;973767I mean, in AD&D, fighters gain 3 hit points per level after 9th. But each level, the MU's fireball damage increases by d6, or 3.5 on average. That means if all characters are level 45, fireball practically becomes a save-or-die spell.

Not that I disagree with the central premise, but I'd like to make an aside on the specifics of this example. At level 45, the fighter, without constitution bonus, has an average 49.5 +36(3) = 157.5 hp of and a saving throw vs. spells of 6, modified by the magic items I hope he has by that point down to 1. The 45d6 fireball will do on average 45(3.5)=157.5 (huh, cool coincidence), but with a 95% chance of doing half, does in fact on average only 82.6875 points. Even without the 18 Con (admittedly only +36 hp) they might have, the fighter hopefully also has items of fire resistance. Either way, the fireball does not turn into a save-or-die spell. It is the complex web of contingencies, gates to other planes, being able to fight them as an astral projection which simply returns to their true body if killed, or heck wishing the fighter into a dragon's maw that will get the fighter killed by a high level MU.

Since the introduction to "Gods, Demigods and Heroes" refers to a 45th level character as "ridiculous," the answer really is that Gygax never intended the game to go that high.

GDGH was the proof he'd lost control of his game, but that's a tale for another day.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;973799GDGH was the proof he'd lost control of his game, but that's a tale for another day.

So, this time tomorrow?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;973799Since the introduction to "Gods, Demigods and Heroes" refers to a 45th level character as "ridiculous," the answer really is that Gygax never intended the game to go that high.

GDGH was the proof he'd lost control of his game, but that's a tale for another day.

I think Arduin Grimoire had already proven that he never had control over his audience. That said, it is worth mentioning again. When it is shown that D&D is bad at something, it is usually an arena or situation which were never part of its original design specifications or intent.

I GM'd an Earthdawn campaign through 3 editions (1st, 2nd, Classic), and we got up to 12th/13th Circle on all the characters (around 25+ in BECMI scale). It was increadibly fun, but it got a bit inhoherent after I had run through the FASA "Barsaive At War" metaplot. I think this was because I didn't fully understand how old-school play shifted back towards a "wargaming campaign". We had so many elements of it that it kinda worked (the Elf Warrior/Scout had his own mountain kingdom of warrior-cult elves, the Human Sky Raider/Elementalist has her own airship and crew, etc, etc.), but I think it would have been even better had I been thinking of the setting as a wargame campaign, not just a series of high-level pre-scripted adventures with some of my own mixed in between them.

Quote from: Lunamancer;973767Incidentally, consider an elven mage, having hit max level at level 11. All the years this character has just to devote to building magic items. As we've discussed here a bit, as levels get higher, rounds get fewer, and casting times get longer, devices are the key to a mage's potency. It makes it hard, then, for me to think the elf is at a disadvantage here.

Are you saying that having a level cap of 11 is not a disadvantage?  Can a human mage not just as easily decide to spend time making magic items? Aren't the resources used to adventure not really the same as those used to craft items?

Quote from: Skarg;973818Are you saying that having a level cap of 11 is not a disadvantage?  Can a human mage not just as easily decide to spend time making magic items? Aren't the resources used to adventure not really the same as those used to craft items?

The resource in question is time. An Elf has a lot more of it.

Quote from: Telarus;973817We had so many elements of it that it kinda worked (the Elf Warrior/Scout had his own mountain kingdom of warrior-cult elves, the Human Sky Raider/Elementalist has her own airship and crew, etc, etc.), but I think it would have been even better had I been thinking of the setting as a wargame campaign, not just a series of high-level pre-scripted adventures with some of my own mixed in between them.

Yeah, that certainly fits my experience. High level play works when the PCs each have their own significant power bases, and some reason to work together. But pre-scripted adventures are often not a great model - admittedly my own Runelords of the Shattered Star campaign is mostly pre-scripted adventures, though I'm trying to keep it as open as possible and the PCs have acquired some resources, eg Fort Rannick, and a small army of Gray Maidens. But my sandbox Wilderlands game with PCs as leaders and rulers (who still go down dungeons sometimes too) is probably a better default model.

Quote from: Dumarest;973809So, this time tomorrow?

I'm glad you asked, Eager Young Space Cadet! :D

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
GARY LOSES CONTROL OF HIS GAME
   When one writes a game – pretty much anybody – you form a mental picture of “how the game is played.”  This is natural and logical; you’re writing the damn thing, after all, of course you’re going to have ideas about how it plays.  Dave and Gary had definite ideas on the subject of how Blackmoor, and later D&D, should be played.

   The highest level PC in Greyhawk during the pre-publication era was Rob Kuntz’ fighter, “Lord Robilar.”  Robilar made it to the lofty level of 14!  This was a mind-blowing, earth-shattering level of achievement.  In roughly that same time period I made it to 9th level, and was exceedingly pleased!  Rob played mostly solo and knew how to calculate risks to a nicety, which is how he reached that exalted level.

   (On the other hand, Dave always thought Gary was way too generous with experience!  It was not rare in Blackmoor for characters to take more than a year to reach 5th or 6th level!)

   Some differences in play style are merely matters of taste.  However, when a game designer… of ANY game… presupposes certain elements of play style, there can be mechanical consequences of going outside those suppositions.  For most games this isn’t really a problem; nobody seriously expects somebody to try to use helicopters in a game of chess, for instance.  But the deliberately open-ended nature of the D&D rules made it virtually certain that there would be people playing the game in a way not envisioned, or intended, by its creators.

   What x number of consenting adults do around their own gaming table is their business.  However, as D&D became more and more popular, more and more people wanted “official recognition” of the way they played.  Starting a relatively short time after the original 1974 publication, TSR was bombarded by letters and articles.  A good number of these submissions were things that were just plain outside the parameters of the game Gary and Dave had envisioned.  Level inflation and “too generous” referees occupied a large part of this mail, and in-person contacts at the still-small GenCon.  Gary and Dave had created a game where a 4th level fighter truly was a Hero, and people were complaining that the game didn’t include spell lists for 35th level magic users.

   Tone matters.  An article that begins, “Here are some things we invented that we think are fun” will be received differently from an article that states “This game has stupid limits and we did something better.”  Such is simply human nature, and part of its result was a rather defensive attitude on the part of TSR, rather than, “Well, we designed the game to do such and thus, so if you are doing something else, good luck and let us know how it works.”  Given a defensive posture on the part of the game’s publisher, those who wanted to radically change the game increased the stridency of their tone, which increased the defensiveness of TSR, etc, etc, etc.  This is the background for the 1976 release of D&D “Supplement IV,” Gods, Demi-Gods, and Heroes.(GDGH)

   Part of D&D had always been the fun of incorporating things we loved from literature.  Since virtually all of us read not only SF and fantasy but any myths and legends we could get our hands on, it’s not surprising that we thought the idea of a guidebook for mythologies in D&D was a good idea.  Besides, D&D had the notion of “gods” and “temples” and “clerics,” so it made sense to discuss who they were “temples” and “clerics” OF.
   
There was another purpose as well.  To quote Tim Kask in the Foreword,
      
“This volume is something else, also: our last attempt to reach the “Monty Hall” DM’s.  Perhaps now some of the ‘giveaway’ campaigns will look as foolish as they truly are.  This is our last attempt to delineate the absurdity of 40+ level characters.  When Odin, the All-Father has only (?) 300 hit points, who can take a 44th level Lord seriously?”
   

   As the saying goes, “Nice try.”  The effect was pretty much exactly not this.

   Years later, I was talking with FASA’s Forrest Brown about why their Star Trek starship combat game had turned from “The USS Enterprise is the most powerful ship in space” to “The USS Enterprise is a third rate also-ran.”  Forrest said, “We’re selling games to wargamers.  Guns sell.  Big guns sell more.”  And indeed, this same mentality was already in effect, though I don’t think anybody at TSR really realized it, or realized quite how it would manifest.  When Gods, Demi-Gods, and Heroes was published the vast majority of the D&D audience didn’t look at it as a statement of “this is as high as you can get;” they looked on it as essentially another Monster Manual.  The Iron Law of Player Characters triumphed:  “If you stat it, they will kill it.”

   I can’t say with any certainty how much GDGH influenced the tone of AD&D first edition with its notion that “such campaigns become so strange as to be no longer “AD&D”.”(DMG, p. 7)  What I can say is that it marked a moment when D&D became, in effect, bigger than its creators.  It was no longer part of the “wargaming” community, the Castle and Crusade Society, the International Federation of Wargamers, a venue where a game’s author could say, “This is how you play the game,” and be taken as authoritative.

   The game had exceeded the reach of its creators.

So the question I guess I must ask, and I want to state that I'm asking in earnest:

Do 'you' (as in anyone who reads the Gronan post above) think it's good or bad that Gygax 'lost control' of his game?

Not good, not bad.  Just "is."

It was inevitable if it ever sold more than its original 1000 copies.  I just think it's interesting to be able to put a finger on a spot and say "here (in my opinion) is where it happened."  (or, more likely, here is where we see that it has happened)

And that's a really good question.  Thanks for asking it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;973830So the question I guess I must ask, and I want to state that I'm asking in earnest:

Do 'you' (as in anyone who reads the Gronan post above) think it's good or bad that Gygax 'lost control' of his game?

I think it comes down to this...

"However, as D&D became more and more popular, more and more people wanted 'official recognition' of the way they played."

Gary is often cast as having a "my way or the highway" attitude. But the truth is he wanted people to play however they chose; that the context of his attempt to preserve the integrity of D&D was to defend against those who wanted their own ways to be recognized as official. As to whether I think it was good for Gary to lose control of his game in a general sense, I would say he never intended to control it, nor did he. Do I think it's a good thing that Gary lost control of his game to these narcissists specifically? Absolutely not.

That's just silly. My 45th-level elf magic-user uses helicopters in chess matches all the time.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;973830So the question I guess I must ask, and I want to state that I'm asking in earnest:

Do 'you' (as in anyone who reads the Gronan post above) think it's good or bad that Gygax 'lost control' of his game?

I don't think it's bad at all that people can use RPGs to express their personal creativity.

I think it can be frustratingly counter-productive that they insist on calling their personalized and significantly modified RPG "D&D" (presuming it does have material departures from D&D as-written).  Because then any person who tries "D&D" with them and doesn't like it often goes away from that experience thinking whatever they just did is the sum total of what "D&D" is, and it colors their reaction to later being offered a chance to play "D&D".  Whereas if they were offered a chance to play "Dave's personal fantasy RPGx" and didn't like that, they wouldn't necessarily transfer that negative reaction to "D&D" as a whole.

Quote from: EOTB;973838I don't think it's bad at all that people can use RPGs to express their personal creativity.

I think it can be frustratingly counter-productive that they insist on calling their personalized and significantly modified RPG "D&D" (presuming it does have material departures from D&D as-written).  Because then any person who tries "D&D" with them and doesn't like it often goes away from that experience thinking whatever they just did is the sum total of what "D&D" is, and it colors their reaction to later being offered a chance to play "D&D".  Whereas if they were offered a chance to play "Dave's personal fantasy RPGx" and didn't like that, they wouldn't necessarily transfer that negative reaction to "D&D" as a whole.

If I could go back in time to give advice, and my advice would be taken...

In a perfect world, the original D&D set would be advertised as a "How to Build a Fantasy Wargame Campaign."  The CHAINMAIL combat system would be more thoroughly integrated, the system Dave Arneson used would be included, and the "Alternate Combat System" Gary developed would be used.

Then the book would say "Here are three possible ways to resolve combat.  Or you can use one of your own."

Then you'd have CHAINMAIL magic, and then Dave Arneson's magic system from Blackmoor, and then Gary's adaptation of Vance's system.

Then the book would say "Here are three possible ways to do magic.  Or you can use one of your own."

Et cetera.

Probably not practical, but the best match for the intentions of the creators.

Quote from: Dumarest;973837That's just silly. My 45th-level elf magic-user uses helicopters in jetan matches all the time.

Fixed yer typo. :D

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;973862Fixed yer typo. :D

You're just showing off your Barsoomian knowledge now.

Deities & Demigods was absolutely Monster Manual 2. We were in high school and I make no apologies. Killing gods with insano-level PCs was lots of fun.

Quote from: Lunamancer;9718542) Can we ditch the 5E magic item assumptions without breaking the system?

What magic item assumptions? Theres no such thing in 5e. They even discourage magic shops. Though do have mechanics for shopping for those that want it. Magic items in 5e are fewer and farer between now.

Quote from: Omega;973910What magic item assumptions? Theres no such thing in 5e. They even discourage magic shops. Though do have mechanics for shopping for those that want it. Magic items in 5e are fewer and farer between now.

The assumption that in 5E they would be fewer and lesser power than 1E. Not my assumption. Others brought that into this thread.

Quote from: Lunamancer;973916The assumption that in 5E they would be fewer and lesser power than 1E. Not my assumption. Others brought that into this thread.

Yes, 5e also works with 1e frequency of items, though best still to cap at +3 weapons/armour.

Quote from: Lunamancer;973767Incidentally, consider an elven mage, having hit max level at level 11. All the years this character has just to devote to building magic items. As we've discussed here a bit, as levels get higher, rounds get fewer, and casting times get longer, devices are the key to a mage's potency. It makes it hard, then, for me to think the elf is at a disadvantage here.

Quote from: Skarg;973818Are you saying that having a level cap of 11 is not a disadvantage?  Can a human mage not just as easily decide to spend time making magic items? Aren't the resources used to adventure not really the same as those used to craft items?

Quote from: Lunamancer;973822The resource in question is time. An Elf has a lot more of it.

If you mean from lifespan, doesn't that only apply in those campaigns where a set of human and elvish PCs survive and play for more time than a human's healthy lifespan?

Quote from: Skarg;973976If you mean from lifespan, doesn't that only apply in those campaigns where a set of human and elvish PCs survive and play for more time than a human's healthy lifespan?

You could literally make that argument about anything. Aren't clerics only good in campaigns that have gods? A DM is certainly entitled to create a game world that doesn't have them. Dragonlance was sort of like that for a while. Is it really an AD&D thing, with its section on where cleric spells come, to nerf the cleric? Or was it really the DM who did that?

Quote from: Lunamancer;974029You could literally make that argument about anything. Aren't clerics only good in campaigns that have gods? A DM is certainly entitled to create a game world that doesn't have them. Dragonlance was sort of like that for a while. Is it really an AD&D thing, with its section on where cleric spells come, to nerf the cleric? Or was it really the DM who did that?

No, I mean from the perspective of disadvantage to players of elf PCs vs human PCs in a campaign that isn't liable to run more than 30 years of game time. Maybe you were thinking in terms of NPC demographics, or starting high-level PCs with some balance system where the elves get to start with making magic items because they are assumed to be much older and so have time to have created items, or...?

Quote from: S'mon;973953Yes, 5e also works with 1e frequency of items, though best still to cap at +3 weapons/armour.

The +3 limit is advisable to avoid breaking the bounded accuracy system.

Items are otherwise somewhat self-limiting, since many require attunement and that can only be three; most seem less powerful than the corresponding 0e/1e items but that may be my misremembering.

Quote from: Skarg;974031No, I mean from the perspective of disadvantage to players of elf PCs vs human PCs in a campaign that isn't liable to run more than 30 years of game time.

Isn't liable? As long as we're playing a guessing game, the smart money is that the campaign never runs long enough for level limits to even come into play in the first place.

Maybe elves just suck at magic in AD&D.

Quote from: Dumarest;974221Maybe elves just suck at magic in AD&D.

Well, they're not Tolkien elves.  But if you assume the older adult elves are all fully dual or triple multiclassed at max level...ouch.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;973834

Quote from: Christopher Brady;973830So the question I guess I must ask, and I want to state that I'm asking in earnest:

Do 'you' (as in anyone who reads the Gronan post above) think it's good or bad that Gygax 'lost control' of his game?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;973834Not good, not bad.  Just "is."

It was inevitable if it ever sold more than its original 1000 copies.  I just think it's interesting to be able to put a finger on a spot and say "here (in my opinion) is where it happened."  (or, more likely, here is where we see that it has happened)

And that's a really good question.  Thanks for asking it.

This interaction warmed my heart.

Quote from: Lunamancer;973836I think it comes down to this...

"However, as D&D became more and more popular, more and more people wanted 'official recognition' of the way they played."

Gary is often cast as having a "my way or the highway" attitude. But the truth is he wanted people to play however they chose; that the context of his attempt to preserve the integrity of D&D was to defend against those who wanted their own ways to be recognized as official. As to whether I think it was good for Gary to lose control of his game in a general sense, I would say he never intended to control it, nor did he. Do I think it's a good thing that Gary lost control of his game to these narcissists specifically? Absolutely not.

I don't think we can say for certain that these individuals were specifically narcissists.   They were bouncing around in a brand new space without any visible boundaries nor anyone enforcing any. Regardless, if it were not these specific individuals, it would be others soon after. Gronan's piece showcases how all these other games ran afoul of a buying audience that kept wanting to push the power level. EGG could have seen that coming (and all sorts of people I'm sure have opined that they would have if they had been in his shoes, and I really don't think any of us can know that). Seeing it, he could have integrated steps into the game to moderate them (perhaps a more rigid xp system) but I'm not sure that would have changed anything. I really don't know if the game would have been the success it was if it were designed to head off all the problems it ended up facing. Part of the beauty of the game is the organic development of both game and gaming community, complete with squabbles, turf wars, and fighting for control of the community and the narrative, etc. etc. I don't think roleplaying would have become the thing it has if it had all been smooth and pristine.

It seems that even more significant than than powergamers was the flood of those from the sf and fantasy fandom who had no roots in wargaming and didn't care much about how Gygax and co. intended the game to be played.

They took the 'make of it what you will!' maxim in OD&D to heart and started crafting their own versions and worlds, hence T&T, the Perrin Conventions, Manual of Aurania, RQ, GW, et al. Pretty notable though that they almost all prominently recognize Gygax and Arneson in even the earliest drafts of their systems. Seems a lot of resentment towards Gygax and TSR in fandom and the zines had more to do with TSR's strict and zealous enforcement of their copyright (however needed) and the SPI debacle. Many people were coming from a kind of 'open source' way of thinking and encountering the increasingly corporate approach of TSR.

Our group has been playing 3e for 14 years or so. We've had the same group forever, our core three including DM going on 25 years. We're currently at the point now where we retire our characters at 12th level if we get that far of course. By this point we as players usually want to try something new, (who doesn't love rolling up new guys?) and combat gets bigger and certainly takes a lot longer. I think it's gotta start being a pain running a higher level campaign as well too.

Quote from: rawma;974033The +3 limit is advisable to avoid breaking the bounded accuracy system.

Items are otherwise somewhat self-limiting, since many require attunement and that can only be three; most seem less powerful than the corresponding 0e/1e items but that may be my misremembering.

Most are somewhat lesser powered in some way. But they did away with itels with limited charges and instead most now have a small allotment of charges that regenerate per day. Though a few will burn out if you expend the last charge. But overall they do feel a little toned down. Which is good as aside from a few exceptions, nothing is class locked.

Quote from: GrabtharsHammer;974492Our group has been playing 3e for 14 years or so. We've had the same group forever, our core three including DM going on 25 years. We're currently at the point now where we retire our characters at 12th level if we get that far of course. By this point we as players usually want to try something new, (who doesn't love rolling up new guys?) and combat gets bigger and certainly takes a lot longer. I think it's gotta start being a pain running a higher level campaign as well too.

This definitely makes 3e/PF suck less. :D My experience has been the best 3e/PF campaigns I've run had a hard level cap, either restricted to the PF Beginner Box (so 10th) or explicitly limited to 10th for two 3e games. A hard cap that applies to NPCs too (& limit monsters above CR10 accordingly) works very well, player characters get to be big dogs at 9th-10th when the game is still mostly workable.

I broke my "cap at 10" rule to run a 3e/PF Adventure Path 2014-2015, Curse of the Crimson Throne, it finished at 14th level and I certainly regretted the last 4 levels.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;974306I don't think we can say for certain that these individuals were specifically narcissists.   They were bouncing around in a brand new space without any visible boundaries nor anyone enforcing any. Regardless, if it were not these specific individuals, it would be others soon after.

My dissatisfaction isn't aimed at any specific individuals. The narcissist element certainly exists today as well. What I see as problematic is it being normalized. Let me try to explain it this way.

Suppose I've got some nice, harsh old-school rules. And suppose I'm not a harsh DM. Suppose I'm more moderate. As a consequence, I may tweak things, break rules, and fudge dice rolls, and when I do those things tend to favor PCs more often than not. I might make the observation that this creates a particular dynamic between myself as DM and the players--that the players may view me as being "on their side." My role in the game is friend to the players. And so when I decide to exercise my creative license, I get a lot more latitude. The players seem a lot more trusting and open-minded. The end result is we all have more fun. Not because the rules are a perfect match to my style; they're not; but because of the dynamic between DM and players which is probably a lot more important than rules when it comes to having fun.

Parallel this with the narcissistic ideal that we should all just go out and find the RPG whose rules most closely fit our individual preferences. Well, if I'm the same moderate DM, I'd be playing with a moderate rules set. No longer would I be bending the rules to favor the players. The rules already match how I want to run things. I'd just be faithfully executing them. That's my role in the game. So now when I decide to exercise my creative license, players cry foul.

As fashionable as it may be for old-timers to blame newbies and millennials for this attitude, the fact is all they know of TTRPGs is whatever the current version of D&D is. And that's something that's been re-designed by old-timers who have convinced themselves that they are making improvements.

QuoteGronan's piece showcases how all these other games ran afoul of a buying audience that kept wanting to push the power level. EGG could have seen that coming (and all sorts of people I'm sure have opined that they would have if they had been in his shoes, and I really don't think any of us can know that). Seeing it, he could have integrated steps into the game to moderate them (perhaps a more rigid xp system) but I'm not sure that would have changed anything.

I don't think that would be a good idea, either. Who exactly is the "audience" anyway? It's a collection of people, but the audience this year is not the exact same people it was last year, nor will it be next year. Not only that, but when you get down to looking at individual people, their preferences this year are not necessarily the same as it was last year or will be next year either. In my own experience, I tend to notice that younger gamers and less experienced gamers are more likely to enjoy playing at very high levels. Older gamers and veterans prefer something more grounded. But they can and often do evolve while sticking to the same system.

If my observations are true in general and not just anecdotal, then you'd have to expect the audience to seem to demand more high level stuff when the audience is growing. It's not actually true that they do want more high level stuff. The audience has simply gained more new "immature gamers" than it has graduated older "mature" gamers. But if you want to keep retention high, though, then you do have to hold the line. AD&D 1st Ed worked just fine. I played it up to the high 20's in terms of levels.  I can't see any reason why it wouldn't continue to work in the 30's and 40's. But once you decide to return to playing a more grounded campaign, the game works great for that, too. That's one of the comments I made earlier in the thread, that low level, mid level, and high level are all distinctly different feels you get from the same exact game. The game has that flexibility to accommodate the player as his play style and preferences evolve.

QuoteI really don't know if the game would have been the success it was if it were designed to head off all the problems it ended up facing. Part of the beauty of the game is the organic development of both game and gaming community, complete with squabbles, turf wars, and fighting for control of the community and the narrative, etc. etc. I don't think roleplaying would have become the thing it has if it had all been smooth and pristine.

I'm all for organic development. And I think that's exactly what Gary was going for. Vying for the stamp of "official" however seems the exact opposite of organic development. I am not convinced RPGs have benefited from nerds squabbling and behaving badly. It's hard to evaluate a counterfactual and compare it to what would have been. It reminds me of economic journalist Jim Grant's parable of what if one of Cleopatra's loyal servants had at the time of her death liquidated just $100 worth of her wealth and saved it at interest at a mere 2% per anum, the entire world's population could divvy up that account today and we'd all be trillionaires. It's a fun story, but there's also a real truth to it. A study done of peoples retirement accounts during the greatest market growth in history revealed the average rate of return was less than 2% on account of people panicking out of the market, or trying to buy low and sell high and having horrible timing. It's easy to look back at the one great trade you made and say, "It's a good thing I timed the market right that one time," when in reality if you'd just left everything be, things would have been far better.

Quote from: Lunamancer;974530Parallel this with the narcissistic ideal that we should all just go out and find the RPG whose rules most closely fit our individual preferences.

I don't see that as the narcissistic ideal. There are arguments for and against finding/creating an RPG tailor made to your preferences, but I don't see how it is narcissistic.

QuoteAs fashionable as it may be for old-timers to blame newbies and millennials for this attitude, the fact is all they know of TTRPGs is whatever the current version of D&D is. And that's something that's been re-designed by old-timers who have convinced themselves that they are making improvements.

I am a strong proponent of the concept that there is nothing new under the sun, and that the newbies of today are not particularly worse than the newbies of yesteryear. But I'm not following the linkups here. Are you saying that the newbies of today are playing (well, now) 5e, which is an old-timer's improvement on TSR-era D&D?

QuoteI am not convinced RPGs have benefited from nerds squabbling and behaving badly.

Very probably not, although again, I'm not sure that trying to head this off would have been either successful nor productive.

QuoteIt's hard to evaluate a counterfactual and compare it to what would have been. It reminds me of economic journalist Jim Grant's parable of what if one of Cleopatra's loyal servants had at the time of her death liquidated just $100 worth of her wealth and saved it at interest at a mere 2% per anum, the entire world's population could divvy up that account today and we'd all be trillionaires. It's a fun story, but there's also a real truth to it. A study done of peoples retirement accounts during the greatest market growth in history revealed the average rate of return was less than 2% on account of people panicking out of the market, or trying to buy low and sell high and having horrible timing. It's easy to look back at the one great trade you made and say, "It's a good thing I timed the market right that one time," when in reality if you'd just left everything be, things would have been far better.

Maybe I'm having a bad reading comprehension day, but I'm again not seeing the connecting line between this accurate seeming story of market timidity and what it is supposed to be an allegory to. If you have the time, could you re-clarify? Thanks!

Quote from: S'mon;973733I've only played RC to 19th - what are the issues for post-24 play? I'm guessing maybe casters have too many spells and fighters never miss?

In essence, both fighters and magic-users as well as opponents are so powerful that a lot of times a combat will come down to who wins initiative. Also, resurrection magic is so accessible that death essentially means nothing anymore; nothing but a TPK would be anything more than a slight annoyance.

Also, Demi-humans are very disadvantaged at that point. To the point that the people who were playing them (particulary the Halfling) were no longer feeling they were having fun at all.

Quote from: RPGPundit;975405In essence, both fighters and magic-users as well as opponents are so powerful that a lot of times a combat will come down to who wins initiative. Also, resurrection magic is so accessible that death essentially means nothing anymore; nothing but a TPK would be anything more than a slight annoyance.

Also, Demi-humans are very disadvantaged at that point. To the point that the people who were playing them (particulary the Halfling) were no longer feeling they were having fun at all.

Thanks, I did a few things to address these in my teen-level game - gave demi-humans additional benefits along with their Attack Ranks (eg Thief skills or Cleric spellcasting). I ran Raise Dead & Resurrection spells by the book but my son's MU-17/18 still died permanently when he failed a save vs Disintegrate. I agree offence tends to outstrip defence somewhat, MUs need to layer up spell protection to survive, and NPC MUs die easily at the hands of Fighter PCs if caught without Mirror Image up. Fighters & Clerics have to max out AC as best they can - I allowed long term magic item commissioning, which is good for taking hundreds of thousands of gp off the PCs... :D

Quote from: Spinachcat;973907Deities & Demigods was absolutely Monster Manual 2. We were in high school and I make no apologies. Killing gods with insano-level PCs was lots of fun.

My buddy who introduced me to the game showed me a couple of his old character sheets, one was an obscene 35th level paladin who defeated Ares. He always said "we were just kids doing silly stuff, no real campaign to speak of, just heroic quests with powerful characters lots of combat and lots of loot. It was was also a shit load of fun."

Crazy things happen if an entire party gangs up on a single god.

No doubt, when you hit level 35 and are even fighting gods, this is just a bunch of kids doing silly stuff. But what if you were to take that premise and actually play the game out by the rules?

A party of 6-8 (depending on exact stats and magic items) 9th level fighters, if they stand and fight to the death, can slay Cerberus, but only 1 or 2 at most will be left standing by the end of it. For 35th level Paladins? Maybe 3 would be an even match. A single Paladin, on the other hand, would be lucky to see round 2.

Against Ares? A 35th level Paladin with a +5 two-handed sword and gauntlets of ogre power deals 12-21 damage with each hit. He'll hit on any roll other than a '1', even against Ares. If he never stops fighting to lay on hands or cast spells, it'll take him about 11 rounds to single-handedly deplete all of Ares' hit points. In that time, Ares will deal a total of 500 points of damage, give or take a hundred or so depending if he uses his spear or his sword. In a straight-up fight, Ares is probably an even match to fight two 35th level Paladins simultaneously.

Ares and Cerberus together I have no doubt will totally wreck a 5-6 member party of 35th level adventurers.

So, yeah, if you really want to keep on playing to those levels and beyond, the game still has material to challenge you.

In the olden days, I'm not sure how well action economy was understood or thought about. You could conceive of six 9th-level fighters as a 300-hp monster that makes six/twelve attacks per round, each doing something like 1d10+5 hit, possibly more, its attacks going down as its hp drops.  Heironeous in the World of Greyhawk supplement has 217 hp and does four attacks, each hitting for 1d8+12. So as a solo monster, he won't last very long against a very high-level party. Now, if he's flanked by a quartet of Solars, now you have a real fight on your hands.

A similar "problem" is well-known in 5e. There really is no such thing as a good solo monster. A solid boss fight is always going to have some minions surrounding the big bad. And I think this is fine.

Quote from: Lunamancer;975989Crazy things happen if an entire party gangs up on a single god.

No doubt, when you hit level 35 and are even fighting gods, this is just a bunch of kids doing silly stuff. But what if you were to take that premise and actually play the game out by the rules?

A party of 6-8 (depending on exact stats and magic items) 9th level fighters, if they stand and fight to the death, can slay Cerberus, but only 1 or 2 at most will be left standing by the end of it. For 35th level Paladins? Maybe 3 would be an even match. A single Paladin, on the other hand, would be lucky to see round 2.

Against Ares? A 35th level Paladin with a +5 two-handed sword and gauntlets of ogre power deals 12-21 damage with each hit. He'll hit on any roll other than a '1', even against Ares. If he never stops fighting to lay on hands or cast spells, it'll take him about 11 rounds to single-handedly deplete all of Ares' hit points. In that time, Ares will deal a total of 500 points of damage, give or take a hundred or so depending if he uses his spear or his sword. In a straight-up fight, Ares is probably an even match to fight two 35th level Paladins simultaneously.

Ares and Cerberus together I have no doubt will totally wreck a 5-6 member party of 35th level adventurers.

So, yeah, if you really want to keep on playing to those levels and beyond, the game still has material to challenge you.[/QUOTE

Just the fact that they were 35th level floored me, as well as the fact gods acrually had stats!

Quote from: S'mon;975413Thanks, I did a few things to address these in my teen-level game - gave demi-humans additional benefits along with their Attack Ranks (eg Thief skills or Cleric spellcasting). I ran Raise Dead & Resurrection spells by the book but my son's MU-17/18 still died permanently when he failed a save vs Disintegrate. I agree offence tends to outstrip defence somewhat, MUs need to layer up spell protection to survive, and NPC MUs die easily at the hands of Fighter PCs if caught without Mirror Image up. Fighters & Clerics have to max out AC as best they can - I allowed long term magic item commissioning, which is good for taking hundreds of thousands of gp off the PCs... :D

Yes, there's definitely ways to moderate it. And really, the impressive thing about RC D&D is just how well it holds up for so long in the level escalation.

Quote from: RPGPundit;976577Yes, there's definitely ways to moderate it. And really, the impressive thing about RC D&D is just how well it holds up for so long in the level escalation.

We just switched conversationally from BECMI to RC. Is there a significant difference that you were thinking of? Other than the skill system (which came from the Gazetteers), is there anything in RC that changes high level play. I know RC is different than how we experienced BECMI, such as the fact that we didn't know about the weapon mastery system until we hit level 26 and got the Master's boxed set, etc. Is there anything else to think about?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;976823We just switched conversationally from BECMI to RC. Is there a significant difference that you were thinking of? Other than the skill system (which came from the Gazetteers), is there anything in RC that changes high level play. I know RC is different than how we experienced BECMI, such as the fact that we didn't know about the weapon mastery system until we hit level 26 and got the Master's boxed set, etc. Is there anything else to think about?

It's hard to remember. I hadn't run BECMI since the RC came out.

RC is a superior reference but will deluge a new GM who may end up allowing stuff like the Mystic that should be strictly optional.

Quote from: S'mon;977276RC is a superior reference but will deluge a new GM who may end up allowing stuff like the Mystic that should be strictly optional.

My biggest beef with RC, which I guess is also true of BECMI beyond BE, is the weapon mastery rules. It seems like there's some cool there. But it's a lot of data for the DM to juggle, and most of the "cool" is "cool in an over-the-top goofy way that won't fit most of my campaigns except that occasional one I do for shits and giggles." Problem being, the way the more powerful monsters scale up to ridiculous number of hit dice, it seems like the higher level content is built around the weapon mastery system being in use.

Quote from: Lunamancer;975989Crazy things happen if an entire party gangs up on a single god.

No doubt, when you hit level 35 and are even fighting gods, this is just a bunch of kids doing silly stuff. But what if you were to take that premise and actually play the game out by the rules?

A party of 6-8 (depending on exact stats and magic items) 9th level fighters, if they stand and fight to the death, can slay Cerberus, but only 1 or 2 at most will be left standing by the end of it. For 35th level Paladins? Maybe 3 would be an even match. A single Paladin, on the other hand, would be lucky to see round 2.

Against Ares? A 35th level Paladin with a +5 two-handed sword and gauntlets of ogre power deals 12-21 damage with each hit. He'll hit on any roll other than a '1', even against Ares. If he never stops fighting to lay on hands or cast spells, it'll take him about 11 rounds to single-handedly deplete all of Ares' hit points. In that time, Ares will deal a total of 500 points of damage, give or take a hundred or so depending if he uses his spear or his sword. In a straight-up fight, Ares is probably an even match to fight two 35th level Paladins simultaneously.

Ares and Cerberus together I have no doubt will totally wreck a 5-6 member party of 35th level adventurers.

So, yeah, if you really want to keep on playing to those levels and beyond, the game still has material to challenge you.

Why do the 35th-level murderhoboes get to gang-bang a god, and expect the god not to have any allies or minions or to appear for them and participate in a deathmatch?

Don't the spells also tend to become more important than the hitpoints at high levels?

Quote from: Skarg;977313Why do the 35th-level murderhoboes get to gang-bang a god, and expect the god not to have any allies or minions or to appear for them and participate in a deathmatch?

They don't. My point is, the gods are quite formidable. If you were to take seriously the prospect of using Deities & Demigods as a monster manual, you'll be able to challenge PCs for a long, long, long time.

QuoteDon't the spells also tend to become more important than the hitpoints at high levels?

For the gods, yes. And there is a repertoire of general deital powers, possessed by virtually all gods, which are not specified in the god's stat block.

For players, not so much. Too much in the way of immunity and resistance to magic.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;976014In the olden days, I'm not sure how well action economy was understood or thought about. You could conceive of six 9th-level fighters as a 300-hp monster that makes six/twelve attacks per round, each doing something like 1d10+5 hit, possibly more, its attacks going down as its hp drops.

I'd guess that it was well-understood at least by the designers. Because the thing you're talking about is no different from a group of 6 soldiers in a wargame;).

QuoteA similar "problem" is well-known in 5e. There really is no such thing as a good solo monster. A solid boss fight is always going to have some minions surrounding the big bad. And I think this is fine.

What, you mean the hydra doesn't get bonus actions:D?

Quote from: Skarg;977313Why do the 35th-level murderhoboes get to gang-bang a god, and expect the god not to have any allies or minions or to appear for them and participate in a deathmatch?

Because most people are booger-eating morons who are doing well to shit unassisted, which means also that they're dreadful tacticians.

Thanks Lunamancer  & Gronan. I thought that was about it.

Quote from: Skarg;977313Don't the spells also tend to become more important than the hitpoints at high levels?

At lower levels, too. I mean... hold person. Or silence 15' radius. Hell, even web.

Quote from: Skarg;977313Why do the 35th-level murderhoboes get to gang-bang a god, and expect the god not to have any allies or minions or to appear for them and participate in a deathmatch?

Don't the spells also tend to become more important than the hitpoints at high levels?

The god killing is usually possible because the GM lacks the system mastery to run the god's powers as written, and is demonstrably short of tactical acumen so the players always have the upper hand. So they default to being just big bags of hit points with cool loot.

Basically the gods are stupid and people have fun killing stupid.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;977346Because most people are booger-eating morons who are doing well to shit unassisted, which means also that they're dreadful tacticians.

Quote from: saskganesh;977401The god killing is usually possible because the GM lacks the system mastery to run the god's powers as written, and is demonstrably short of tactical acumen so the players always have the upper hand. So they default to being just big bags of hit points with cool loot.

Basically the gods are stupid and people have fun killing stupid.

Which is Old Gamer Speak: "You're Doing It Wrong", and "Your Fun is The Bad Fun."

Jeezu, people, can't you let other people play the game their way, at least?  I get it that it's not your or my fun, but for heaven's sake, this constant whining about how terrible other gamers are for not doing it your way has gotten way past old.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;977402Which is Old Gamer Speak: "You're Doing It Wrong", and "Your Fun is The Bad Fun."

Jeezu, people, can't you let other people play the game their way, at least?  I get it that it's not your or my fun, but for heaven's sake, this constant whining about how terrible other gamers are for not doing it your way has gotten way past old.

No. Its calling out people who bitch about something they broke themselves. And RPGing is chuck full of these nitwits.

"Oh no! I gave the 1st level player a holy avenger +10 and now hes mowing down everything! This game sucks!"
"Oh no! I let four level 20 characters beat up Odin! This game sucks!"
"Oh no! I put a super zoo in the start town and now the druid knows EVERY ANIMAL! This game sucks!"

ad nausuim.

AND

It creates SCARRED FOR LIFE people like you who played D&D wrong and forever after have some totally FUCKED UP idea of what its suppose to be and tell everyone else over and over and over and over how it really is when it AINT.

news at eleven. Move along. move along.

Quote from: Lunamancer;977308My biggest beef with RC, which I guess is also true of BECMI beyond BE, is the weapon mastery rules. It seems like there's some cool there. But it's a lot of data for the DM to juggle, and most of the "cool" is "cool in an over-the-top goofy way that won't fit most of my campaigns except that occasional one I do for shits and giggles." Problem being, the way the more powerful monsters scale up to ridiculous number of hit dice, it seems like the higher level content is built around the weapon mastery system being in use.

I give multiple attacks at higher level, with that you don't need weapon mastery imo.

There are ways to use things wrong, even if you do find it fun -- such as 'pencils make poor suppositories' -- and thus forthcoming complaints about "tool failure" are not equally valid. This should be obvious on its face. Using "badwrongfun" as cover for all unintended usages, and product failure thereabout, is just a lazy excuse.

The More You Know! :cool:

Quote from: S'mon;977479I give multiple attacks at higher level, with that you don't need weapon mastery imo.

Someone at RPGNet did a huge table of math and found that every two levels of mastery is roughly equivalent to an extra damage die.

Quote from: AsenRG;977337I'd guess that it was well-understood at least by the designers. Because the thing you're talking about is no different from a group of 6 soldiers in a wargame;).

Yeah, I guess they would have to be, wouldn't they? This is probably why, against AC 0, threat scales roughly linearly with hit dice for both monsters and fighters. It also makes sense given that Gygax et al. considered 10th level to be very high. The gods in the Greyhawk supplement are all roughly 30th level characters. Heironeous is a 17th level paladin/12th level ranger with 4 attacks, for example. Alone, vs a 10th-level party? Yeah, they might be able to take him. With the typical contingent you'd expect of a god, he's kick the shit out of them, which I think is what Gygax probably expected.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;977514Yeah, I guess they would have to be, wouldn't they? This is probably why, against AC 0, threat scales roughly linearly with hit dice for both monsters and fighters. It also makes sense given that Gygax et al. considered 10th level to be very high. The gods in the Greyhawk supplement are all roughly 30th level characters. Heironeous is a 17th level paladin/12th level ranger with 4 attacks, for example. Alone, vs a 10th-level party? Yeah, they might be able to take him. With the typical contingent you'd expect of a god, he's kick the shit out of them, which I think is what Gygax probably expected.

I'm pretty sure Gronan had mentioned that the stats of the gods were meant as an example of "too high to possibly defeat", but didn't take in account the munchkins;).
Of course, I'd expect that if you were to fight one god, you'd fight also a couple of cohorts. But what the hell are you even doing fighting by yourself at 10th level:D?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;977402Which is Old Gamer Speak: "You're Doing It Wrong", and "Your Fun is The Bad Fun."

Jeezu, people, can't you let other people play the game their way, at least?  I get it that it's not your or my fun, but for heaven's sake, this constant whining about how terrible other gamers are for not doing it your way has gotten way past old.

Speaking for myself, I can say I never once kicked in someone's front door while they were in the middle of the game to make sure they were playing right, hauling people who are playing wrong off to gamer jail, and placing a certified substitute players and GMs to replace them. People can play any way they want to. And I don't even have to state that for it to be the case. In fact, I could state there is one and only one true way to play, and that still doesn't stop people from playing what they want to. Pissing in someone else's Cheerio's is not the issue here, nor is it on any other gaming forum on the internet where nerds who will probably never meet or play together bicker about things without ever being able to effect each others' games.

All that said, let me agree with you 100%. Let fun be the standard. Now be consistent with it.

Turn your head to the title of the thread. Apparently some people aren't having fun. Some people are falling short of the standard. Some people are in fact playing wrong. Has nothing to do with whether or not they're playing by the book. They're failing to have fun.

So you post what you're doing. Someone who is having fun comes along and says, "Well, of course you're not having fun. You're playing wrong! You need to be doing X, Y, and Z. And for Christ's sake, the book suggests X, Y, and Z, so you don't even have to stretch for creative solutions here."

At this point, you have two choices. You can say "Gee, this person's having fun. Maybe I should consider their advice. Maybe even give it a try, see what happens."

Or you can get stuck on your own ego and say "Muh playstyle!"

It seems like whatever genuine concern you have for helping the former is overcome by your desire to defend the latter.

Quote from: AsenRG;977579I'm pretty sure Gronan had mentioned that the stats of the gods were meant as an example of "too high to possibly defeat", but didn't take in account the munchkins;).
Of course, I'd expect that if you were to fight one god, you'd fight also a couple of cohorts. But what the hell are you even doing fighting by yourself at 10th level:D?

Post 212, to be precise.

And sure, you can do whatever you want, it's your game.  But in a game where the designer considered 15th level to be extremely high and 20th level to be nonpareil, don't be surprised if around level 35 she starts to come apart at the seams.

Quote from: Lunamancer;977670Speaking for myself, I can say I never once kicked in someone's front door while they were in the middle of the game to make sure they were playing right, hauling people who are playing wrong off to gamer jail, and placing a certified substitute players and GMs to replace them. People can play any way they want to. And I don't even have to state that for it to be the case. In fact, I could state there is one and only one true way to play, and that still doesn't stop people from playing what they want to. Pissing in someone else's Cheerio's is not the issue here, nor is it on any other gaming forum on the internet where nerds who will probably never meet or play together bicker about things without ever being able to effect each others' games.

All that said, let me agree with you 100%. Let fun be the standard. Now be consistent with it.

Turn your head to the title of the thread. Apparently some people aren't having fun. Some people are falling short of the standard. Some people are in fact playing wrong. Has nothing to do with whether or not they're playing by the book. They're failing to have fun.

So you post what you're doing. Someone who is having fun comes along and says, "Well, of course you're not having fun. You're playing wrong! You need to be doing X, Y, and Z. And for Christ's sake, the book suggests X, Y, and Z, so you don't even have to stretch for creative solutions here."

At this point, you have two choices. You can say "Gee, this person's having fun. Maybe I should consider their advice. Maybe even give it a try, see what happens."

Or you can get stuck on your own ego and say "Muh playstyle!"

It seems like whatever genuine concern you have for helping the former is overcome by your desire to defend the latter.

The point is that I AM consistent.  Just because the majority doesn't like level 35 being what it is, doesn't make the group who does like it wrong.  I'm against ANYONE who claims that it somehow does.  They found something that made it good for them.  Now, we just need to see what we can do to make level 35+ fun for us.  We should be looking at helping each other, not accusing each other, but we have a very vocal contingent here who haven't had anything constructive to contribute in years other than to stick their heads into any D&D thread and immediately make some judgement on everyone else.

Like claiming players are booger eatingly stupid for example.  That's not helpful, that's dismissive and pre-judgemental.

I don't understand how you can post here more than twice and still be offended by Gronan calling people "booger-eatingly stupid."

Quote from: fearsomepirate;977760I don't understand how you can post here more than twice and still be offended by Gronan calling people "booger-eatingly stupid."

He's offended by everything Gronan* posts really.

*or anyone else who actually played a TSR version of D&D.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;977678Post 212, to be precise.

And sure, you can do whatever you want, it's your game.  But in a game where the designer considered 15th level to be extremely high and 20th level to be nonpareil, don't be surprised if around level 35 she starts to come apart at the seams.

Exactly.

We've known this for *decades*. Yet people keep insisting, or pretending, this is not the case. St. Gary said it. We've all defied/denied him at some point, and saw it for ourselves (for some, MANY TIMES)- for fuck's sake people, this thread is 27-pages long, it exists *because* it's largely true (like all systems). The math around the core d20 mechanics do not hold up beyond the "sweet spot" (which for me is 7th-12th for "high-level" play). Once you hit 15th? You're doing the work of the Gods, and the game becomes this lumbering onerous behemoth that honestly needs to be re-scaled (see Palladium games)

And I'm not saying you can't play D&D of any edition at higher levels. I'm saying that the conceits of the game with ever-increasing magic-bloat, itemization issues, pushes the core-mechanics beyond their own boundaries into near irrelevancy unless you're willing to do a lot of extrapolation on the math. Earlier editions are *far* more forgiving. Once you get to 3e... the shit goes flying out the window.

Edit: I think I have a 19th level Pathfinder NPC whose stat-bloc is *3-pages long* to prove it.

It's not "booger-eatingly stupid," it's "most people are booger-eating morons."

If you're going to quote me, please get it right.

Quote from: tenbones;977805And I'm not saying you can't play D&D of any edition at higher levels. I'm saying that the conceits of the game with ever-increasing magic-bloat, itemization issues, pushes the core-mechanics beyond their own boundaries into near irrelevancy unless you're willing to do a lot of extrapolation on the math. Earlier editions are *far* more forgiving. Once you get to 3e... the shit goes flying out the window.

Edit: I think I have a 19th level Pathfinder NPC whose stat-bloc is *3-pages long* to prove it.

I've experienced 3e in this stage and its pretty true. I've played 4e in Epic and its somewhat less. Sure the numbers are bigger but overall you have the same resource-management at 24th level as you do at 9th or 15th. I haven't played 5e past 10th level so I don't know how bad it is...?

Quote from: tenbones;977805Exactly.

We've known this for *decades*. Yet people keep insisting, or pretending, this is not the case. St. Gary said it. We've all defied/denied him at some point, and saw it for ourselves (for some, MANY TIMES)- for fuck's sake people, this thread is 27-pages long, it exists *because* it's largely true (like all systems). The math around the core d20 mechanics do not hold up beyond the "sweet spot" (which for me is 7th-12th for "high-level" play). Once you hit 15th? You're doing the work of the Gods, and the game becomes this lumbering onerous behemoth that honestly needs to be re-scaled (see Palladium games)

And I'm not saying you can't play D&D of any edition at higher levels. I'm saying that the conceits of the game with ever-increasing magic-bloat, itemization issues, pushes the core-mechanics beyond their own boundaries into near irrelevancy unless you're willing to do a lot of extrapolation on the math. Earlier editions are *far* more forgiving. Once you get to 3e... the shit goes flying out the window.

Edit: I think I have a 19th level Pathfinder NPC whose stat-bloc is *3-pages long* to prove it.

Yup. Any fixed range variable (dice, cards, etc.) shall fail to meaningfully contain infinity. The formula's usage of the fixed range variable defines the meaningful playable range. After that point, you should stop play, or stop complaining.

Relatable life has limits. That's part of its fun. Embrace them.

Quote from: Opaopajr;978254Yup. Any fixed range variable (dice, cards, etc.) shall fail to meaningfully contain infinity. The formula's usage of the fixed range variable defines the meaningful playable range. After that point, you should stop play, or stop complaining.

Relatable life has limits. That's part of its fun. Embrace them.

There are ways around that that don't compromise the game mechanics. But more or less, they rely on changing the scale of the game.
If you play Spears of the Dawn, Scarlet Heroes and Godbound with the same character, switching to a new game once you reach the maximum level, and you'd see what I mean.

Even 5e, with its supposedly bounded accuracy, runs into a problem with save DCs eventually hitting the 20s. Tiamat has DC 27 saves on her breath attacks, making it impossible for anyone who is non-proficient in DEX saves to pass.

This is precisely why I've largely moved away from d20. I'm looking for something that scales much better, much broader, and can reach those "high-levels" of play that really let your PC's do the "demi-god" kind of thing. D&D doesn't do that smoothly because mechanically it was never really meant to, no matter what WotC's versions say.

My test-run of Forgotten Realms using Savage Worlds made me feel like it was fresh again. Players weren't shoe-horned into roles that bucked the direction of the game. You could do high-level play, fantastically high-level by any standard, because SW scales pretty well (especially if you use the Rifts or Supers material). And other systems can do this too, and some I'm sure, do it better.

I'm not knocking D&D, I'm knocking the "designers" of later editions that are ultimately blowing sunshine up everyone's collective asses pretending d20 *does* do this level of play WELL. It doesn't. It never has - but it could. You'd just have to re-scale things and make it steeper and beefier of a climb.

Quote from: tenbones;978423This is precisely why I've largely moved away from d20. I'm looking for something that scales much better, much broader, and can reach those "high-levels" of play that really let your PC's do the "demi-god" kind of thing. D&D doesn't do that smoothly because mechanically it was never really meant to, no matter what WotC's versions say.

Definitely true of D&D, and I'm sure there are some good games for playing demigods. I'm not sure, however, that there really are any games that truly scale better and broader, just ones that have a sweet spot that covers the demi-god region. I'm convinced that a single ruleset probably would suffer in overall quality if it also had to have an infinitely broad ability to scale (or at least from swineherd to near-god)*.

Some systems, like GURPS or Champions/HERO, you theoretically can put any level of power in, but honestly, they tend to get kinda gooey at either end of the spectrum (building a village idiot on 5 points and the local dirt farmer on 10 points doesn't necessarily do anything except make you feel like you've done something to distinguish the two. Same wonkiness at 1000 pts vs. 1200 pts).

For my money, I'd rather take Asen's idea and use a system designed for a given power range when playing in that range, and switch it out if a threshold is crossed.

*I'm beginning to think this more and more in general--there's no one perfect system, so if you try too hard to achieve one goal, it detracts from the others.

From my perspective on the oD&D material, it has this baked in. But so many people didn't have knowledgeable players to model/learn this play style from and it got dropped. In the oldest campaigns play shifted from "adventuring party of heroic individuals" to "wargame/political map campaign" at Name Level. That's why so many of the wilderness random encounters have huge numbers of orcs, etc. They're not threats for the party, they're threats fro the party's castle/tower/church and followers/food-sources/resources. Depending on Reaction Roll, they could be trade or alliance opportunities, which may shift the balance of power between the Lords in the local region. In this way, a traveling group of PCs and followers changes the political landscape of the game as they generate wilderness RE checks.

In this mode, each Name Level PC has a force of henchmen and followers and a stronghold to be besieged. The players (usually more than a single party's worth, in the "open table" campaigns) make alliances and develop rivalries, combine forces, and lay siege to other Lord's strongholds - PC or NPC. Or they lay siege to dungeons that threaten to become players in the overland politics by acquiring territory. The armies bottle up the location and the teams of high level characters use spec ops tactics to take out the location's threats.

This is the play-style that I want to explore. With airships and flying castles.

My 45th level elf magic-user/assassin killed Sauron and stole his ring in our last session. It was awesome.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;978414Even 5e, with its supposedly bounded accuracy, runs into a problem with save DCs eventually hitting the 20s. Tiamat has DC 27 saves on her breath attacks, making it impossible for anyone who is non-proficient in DEX saves to pass.

Sounds to me like that's a feature, not a problem.

If you're going up against the Queen of Evil Dragons flat-footed, you're going to suffer. Be quick on your feet, or prepare *really thoroughly*.
Maybe you can find an rare elixir that grants temporary proficiency in dex saves, or get that same power as a boon from an appropriate opposed god for some service; or an artifact shield that converts all saves for half damage to half damage / save for no damage (isn't that a high-level class power?). Maybe you make sure your wizards have resistance to her breath weapon covered, or enlist an elemental prince to your cause who stands out front and absorbs the attack.

She's actually intended to easily TPK a level 15 party if she spawns at full strength, so I guess so. But saves in 5e are kind of a known issue. Your non-proficient saves never get better, but DCs for enemy powers keep going up. The annoying thing is that spells usually target WIS, and breath attacks usually target DEX, neither of which the Fighter is proficient in. He can pick up one of those saves if feats are allowed, but you see the issue.

Quote from: AsenRG;978399There are ways around that that don't compromise the game mechanics. But more or less, they rely on changing the scale of the game.
If you play Spears of the Dawn, Scarlet Heroes and Godbound with the same character, switching to a new game once you reach the maximum level, and you'd see what I mean.

Yup, and that is the way to do it. Don't fight infinity, just move your Variable Range wholesale to another Tier Level. It's an aesthetics shift, nothing more. Your formula is not trying to contain all possible play, just what is tier revelant.

"Oooh, there's now an extra placeholder zero behind all your numbers! (But really it's just for looks, shh! We're still playing the same mechanics with a different power level conceit.) Ooh, you're so different & powerful now, ooh! Those orcs & goblins are now 1/10 as powerful as you -- they're mere fractions!" :eek: :cool:

Quote from: Willie the Duck;978449For my money, I'd rather take Asen's idea and use a system designed for a given power range when playing in that range, and switch it out if a threshold is crossed.

*I'm beginning to think this more and more in general--there's no one perfect system, so if you try too hard to achieve one goal, it detracts from the others.

Thanks, but I think I must note that the idea isn't new at all. On Dave Morris blog, and in the discussion on Power Levels in Tianxia's corebook, a similar one was mentioned. I just added the example with different systems:).
Actually, you can do it in the same system. Just "restart" and play a lvl 1 character in the new tier;).
Switching from Spears of the Dawn to Scarlet Heroes is just an example, but you see, suddenly your Fighter who reached Level 1 drops normal people without attacking, and his attacks almost always drop more than one enemy. It's like in DCC when you actually get a PC class and level;)!
Or it's like you just became an actual hero, and the setting started accommodating you more!

So, how would I do that? Well, by changing what the rules for a "basic success" mean, of course.
In crafting, a normal character who just beats the TN has crafted an acceptable lute that might be good enough to give signals in the forest.
A heroic character crafting who just beats the TN has crafted a decent instrument that can be sold.
A mythic character has just crafted a masterpiece, and a higher check might have created an artefact.

In combat, the normal character hitting means he probably hurt his target, unless its armour is good.
The heroic character hitting means he dropped the target, and if its target wasn't good enough, the blow allows him to also drop a couple others.
The mythic character hitting just destroyed a whole squad of 10 people, maybe more, and maybe provoked a morale check on the whole regimen:p!

I think you get the idea.

Quote from: Opaopajr;978778Yup, and that is the way to do it. Don't fight infinity, just move your Variable Range wholesale to another Tier Level. It's an aesthetics shift, nothing more. Your formula is not trying to contain all possible play, just what is tier revelant.

"Oooh, there's now an extra placeholder zero behind all your numbers! (But really it's just for looks, shh! We're still playing the same mechanics with a different power level conceit.) Ooh, you're so different & powerful now, ooh! Those orcs & goblins are now 1/10 as powerful as you -- they're mere fractions!" :eek: :cool:

Yeah, kinda like this:D!

Quote from: tenbones;97842My test-run of Forgotten Realms using Savage Worlds made me feel like it was fresh again. Players weren't shoe-horned into roles that bucked the direction of the game. You could do high-level play, fantastically high-level by any standard, because SW scales pretty well (especially if you use the Rifts or Supers material). And other systems can do this too, and some I'm sure, do it better.

Ive never tried Savage Worlds. In hear its a fun RPG. How well did it mesh with the Forgotten Realms, magic wise? I just downloaded the free Test Drive SW documentcand looks like a lot of playing cards vernacular.

Quote from: Batman;978932Ive never tried Savage Worlds. In hear its a fun RPG. How well did it mesh with the Forgotten Realms, magic wise? I just downloaded the free Test Drive SW documentcand looks like a lot of playing cards vernacular.

The core book is only $8. The Fantasy Companion for it $20. There is a *shit* ton of conversions straight from various D&D settings and bestiaries already out there.

Magic - Magic in Savage Worlds is a package of effects that you re-skin based on the type of magic you do. They call them "Trappings". To explain it, you have to understand a couple of mechanical principles to SW. It's a classless system, but advancement has no limit. Every 20xp (which is adjustable) you get what they call an Advance. This advance can be used to raise Stats, Skills or buy an Edge. And "Edge" is like a D&D "Feat" - but in terms of mechanical weight it's *far* beefier.

Savage Worlds makes Magic-Use a Edge. Once you purchase that Edge, you pick your Trapping: Arcane Magic, Divine Miracles, Weird Science, Necromancy etc. This is your "style" of magic (and yes you can learn the others). Each style gives you specific effects that overlay specific spells that each Trapping has access to. *Each* spell is, itself, a new Edge. Each style becomes its own skill, so when you cast a spell, you pay the points to power that spell and roll your skill for the effect.

The vast majority of the spell-effects in D&D can be duplicated with relative ease. But here is where the rubber hits the road: Casters are now beholden to the same progression as every other "type" of character. Sure caster can whip out some powerful effects, assuming they've slapped all their Advances into their spell-lists. But that will leave them vulnerable to everything outside of spellcasting. Most of the magic stuff, even the fluff, can be modeled in Savage Worlds with less mechanical tweaking than D&D. Plus every subsystem in the game has rules for creating pretty much everything you could want.

It's a ridiculously flexible system and it scales amazingly well. Case in point - Savage Worlds now powers *RIFTS* (and does it very well imo). It's not a "perfect" system, of course, I have some small quibbles, but they're just that - quibbles.

For Realms purposes, I can sit very comfortably in the "Sweet spot" of D&D gameplay- relatively 7th-13th level for a *loooong* time. And if the game needs to go higher-powered, it is pretty effortless. The game DOES play differently, it can feel a little more deadly, but it also feels more cinematic.

Card Rules - The only thing Cards are used for is Initiative, and some Edges. It sounds dumb, I know, but 1) I started my experience with Savage Worlds playing Deadlands, so it made sense, and it got me over my natural skepticism 2) It actually works! And it's not like you have to buy funky dice (FFG), 3) You could house-rule them away pretty easy.

Otherwise 98% of the time you're using plain ol' standard D&D dice.

The other BIG plus. All the Savage Worlds games are cross-compatible if you like going *gonzo* with your campaigns. There is ridiculous amounts of support for this system.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;978414Even 5e, with its supposedly bounded accuracy, runs into a problem with save DCs eventually hitting the 20s. Tiamat has DC 27 saves on her breath attacks, making it impossible for anyone who is non-proficient in DEX saves to pass.

Doesnt that mean you should instead sanely stay out of the path of those breath attacks instead of complaining you cant save against them like the person proficient at saving against that sort of stuff can??? And even with proficiency you might still fail if you arent a particularly nimble character. Because you are, oh I dont know, TRYING TO DODGE A GOD? nah, that couldnt possibly be it.

Note that some magic items add to your saves. And theres resistances from items and spells and skills about, and both the Rogue and Monk can sidestep some damage even with what would have been a failure otherwise.

Quote from: Batman;978932looks like a lot of playing cards vernacular.

Aces, Wild Card, etc, just annoying terminology, has nothing to actually do with cards or assumes anything about playstyles or gaming systems involving cards.  Like Tenbones said, it's only initiative, and you can roll dice instead.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;978414Even 5e, with its supposedly bounded accuracy, runs into a problem with save DCs eventually hitting the 20s. Tiamat has DC 27 saves on her breath attacks, making it impossible for anyone who is non-proficient in DEX saves to pass.

Your mistake is not bringing a ring of evasion to a breath weapon fight. And a squad of very high level vengeance paladins, preferably with the Sentinel feat.

Or possibly just the assumption that it is bad math instead of perhaps a design philosophy that people without Dex proficiency aren't supposed to make that save. That certainly seems to be what they were going for with the make-saves-progressively-harder-but-each-failed-save-less-crippling rules.

I've been running 5e for a few years, and I think it's just not very good design. Your high-level fighter will eat nearly every magic spell bad guys throw at him, especially if you don't play with feats (Resilient will grab him either DEX or WIS saves, but can only be taken once).

Quote from: Willie the DuckThat certainly seems to be what they were going for with the make-saves-progressively-harder-but-each-failed-save-less-crippling rules.

I wouldn't say the effects are less crippling. There are plenty of spells and effects at high levels that will one-shot players, especially if they haven't put much in CON.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;979900I wouldn't say the effects are less crippling. There are plenty of spells and effects at high levels that will one-shot players, especially if they haven't put much in CON.

It almost has to be less crippling than oD&D through 3e, where there are a huge number of 'make this save or your character dies' spells. Most of the 5e spells fall into a few broad categories

• 'make the save or lose your action', and either have to successfully save to end the effect (Hold Person), get to make the save every round and each round you save you get to act (Stinking Cloud), or the effect ends when you take damage (Hypnotic Pattern)
  
• 'used to be save or die, now just damage' these spells, like Finger of Death and Disintegrate, are now just damage spells with special effects like auto-die if you hit 0 hp or come back as a zombie.
  
• 'no save allowed spells' like Sleep, Power Word, Kill, and Forcecage - which usually have some other qualifier rather than a save (whether that is good or bad, it means it isn't the saves at fault)
  
• 'multiple checks before you are killed/taken-out' such as Contagion (with ruling on when effects occur, yes the wording is bad) or an Intellect Devourer's attack.
  

There might be a spell or effect I am forgetting, but overall there are significantly fewer things that fall under the category of make-this-save-or-your-character-is-either-dead-or-will-have-no-agency-in-this-battle.

None of this changes your actual-play experience, of course, and if you say isn't working well, nothing I can say about design intentions matter. I just think they were being deliberate in the idea that you weren't expected to make every save, and modified the outcomes of failure to match.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;979902It almost has to be less crippling than oD&D through 3e, where there are a huge number of 'make this save or your character dies' spells. Most of the 5e spells fall into a few broad categories

• 'make the save or lose your action', and either have to successfully save to end the effect (Hold Person, get to make the save every round and each round you save you get to act (Stinking Cloud), or the effect ends when you take damage (Hypnotic Pattern)
  
• 'used to be save or die, now just damage' these spells, like Finger of Death and Disintegrate, are now just damage spells with special effects like auto-die if you hit 0 hp or come back as a zombie.
  
• 'no save allowed spells' like Sleep, Power Word, Kill, and Forcecage - which usually have some other qualifier rather than a save (whether that is good or bad, it means it isn't the saves at fault)
  
• 'multiple checks before you are killed/taken-out' such as Contagion (with ruling on when effects occur, yes the wording is bad) or an Intellect Devourer's attack. There might be a spell or effect I am forgetting, but overall there are significantly fewer things that fall under the category of make-this-save-or-your-character-is-either-dead-or-will-have-no-agency-in-this-battle.
  

None of this changes your actual-play experience, of course, and if you say isn't working well, nothing I can say about design intentions matter. I just think they were being deliberate in the idea that you weren't expected to make every save, and modified the outcomes of failure to match.

Dragon's breath in particular does enough damage to drop appropriate-level casters to zero. This is actually across all levels, but it's worse at high levels. If your wizard has 10 DEX, a 4th-level wizard has a 40% chance of making the save against a CR 4 red dragon and thus surviving a (7d6)/2 breath attack. Your 17th-level wizard, by contrast, automatically fails the save against a CR 17 red dragon and will take 18d6 damage. Yes, the damage didn't scale linearly, so a 17th-level wizard has a much better chance of surviving 18d6 damage than a 4th-level wizard does of surviving 7d6, but the wizard is down on the next Legendary Action.

I think most players don't realize how much 5e DMs tend to pull punches. There are so many monsters that can easily take out the caster in a single round, and time and time again, I've seen DMs simply not do this, having the monster focus on the tank or spread out its attacks for no real reason. Maybe we should be playing harder and forcing players to adjust.

That certainly sounds right. I was thinking more of save-or-die, save-or-suck effects, not direct damage. Is the 17th level wizard expected to have a ring/spell to protect them, or a 20 con, perhaps? Otherwise, it does sound like a 2-round-to-drop.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;979908I think most players don't realize how much 5e DMs tend to pull punches. There are so many monsters that can easily take out the caster in a single round, and time and time again, I've seen DMs simply not do this, having the monster focus on the tank or spread out its attacks for no real reason. Maybe we should be playing harder and forcing players to adjust.

I'm not sure that's 5e-specific. I think in most editions the pure mechanical output of level appropriate monsters will quickly take down the spellcaster/wizard/magic user. Honestly, level appropriate monsters, just looking at the stats, seem like they should take down the PCs (not just spellcasters) quite a bit of the time. Even 3e, what many say is the height of giving things to the PCs, 12th level parties vs. CR 12 devils, demons, etc. seem really really challenging (unless you are those 3e optimizers who can ride the rules off the rails into near godhood status by level 10). I think that this overall might be by design. The game is set up to be hard, so that the PCs, to win, have to be 1) smart, wiley, full of guile, etc., or 2) the DM pulls punches.

It would be neat if the game was designed such that the PCs playing smart would work, but the DM pulling punches didn't. I haven't seen that game though. As to whether we should be playing harder and forcing players to adjust, I don't know about we (each group has different goals), but I would recommend it to you if you are finding the gaming experience unsatisfactory.

QuoteI've seen DMs simply not do this, having the monster focus on the tank or spread out its attacks for no real reason. Maybe we should be playing harder and forcing players to adjust.

Coming back to this, there's a line of reasoning (that I think that I agree with) that in a real fight, a monster who lunges past the front line of capable martial combatants to attack the people behind them, ought to be a dead monster. Likewise, if each of the orcs ignores the guy in front of them to all gang attack one martial (so that they will go down in a round), they will likewise die a quick death. If the system doesn't reflect that (perhaps because of insufficient teeth in the opportunity attack mechanism), then that is the flaw in the system, not that the DM is making the monsters not act intelligently (because the proposed action shouldn't be the intelligent choice).

Quote from: fearsomepirate;979900I've been running 5e for a few years, and I think it's just not very good design. Your high-level fighter will eat nearly every magic spell bad guys throw at him, especially if you don't play with feats (Resilient will grab him either DEX or WIS saves, but can only be taken once).

I've had my concerns about 5e save progression (and attribute dependence) since first reading it. I always thought Saves would have been cleaner to add Proficiency Bonus to all Attributes, and class-based save proficiency just provided Expertise (double PB). It immediately mitigates Attribute whinging, as the PB quickly outpaces. And it makes PB tier level more of a guesstimate-able difficulty comparison (basically check tierage between PCs and mobs).

One of these days I'll test my theory out in a homegame...

Quote from: Willie the Duck;979913That certainly sounds right. I was thinking more of save-or-die, save-or-suck effects, not direct damage. Is the 17th level wizard expected to have a ring/spell to protect them, or a 20 con, perhaps? Otherwise, it does sound like a 2-round-to-drop.

There are no expected magic items in 5e. You'll probably have some magic weapons and armor, but nothing like "oh yeah, everyone has Ring of Protection +N by level 12, of course!"

QuoteI'm not sure that's 5e-specific. I think in most editions the pure mechanical output of level appropriate monsters will quickly take down the spellcaster/wizard/magic user.

Prior to 3e, the damage output seemed to be governed more by a high chance to hit rather than throwing down piles of damage dice. And, of course, saves didn't have a DC. Part of it is a holdover from 3.x's ill-thought linear modifiers. I don't think Cook et al. really thought very hard about what having modifiers go as high as +5 (or more!) really implied in terms of being able to key dice rolls to targets. I mean you can effectively double your HP for most classes just by putting points in CON. That's stupid. The math in AD&D is much more intelligible because the modifiers to HP and damage rolls largely stay in a tight range.

QuoteIt would be neat if the game was designed such that the PCs playing smart would work, but the DM pulling punches didn't. I haven't seen that game though.

4e did this well. It was really easy to put together solid combat encounters where you really had to play well to challenge the players, and you didn't have to worry that being smart would come off as being an asshole. If I put a 7th-level encounter up against 7th-level players, they were unlikely to get TPK'd unless they played stupid. And if I played stupid, they would just breeze through it. Other than the whole "90 minutes to run a combat encounter" thing, it worked well.

QuoteComing back to this, there's a line of reasoning (that I think that I agree with) that in a real fight, a monster who lunges past the front line of capable martial combatants to attack the people behind them, ought to be a dead monster. Likewise, if each of the orcs ignores the guy in front of them to all gang attack one martial (so that they will go down in a round), they will likewise die a quick death. If the system doesn't reflect that (perhaps because of insufficient teeth in the opportunity attack mechanism), then that is the flaw in the system, not that the DM is making the monsters not act intelligently (because the proposed action shouldn't be the intelligent choice).

Yeah, the other big flaw in 5e is there is technically no reason the mummy lord shouldn't just walk past the fighter and beat the piss out of the wizard. We 5e DMs just don't usually do that because it feels unfair and contrary to the spirit of the game.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980063Yeah, the other big flaw in 5e is there is technically no reason the mummy lord shouldn't just walk past the fighter and beat the piss out of the wizard. We 5e DMs just don't usually do that because it feels unfair and contrary to the spirit of the game.

He'll at least take a Reaction attack. If the Fighter has Sentinel feat like the Barb IMC he'll also be stuck with Speed 0. Even without that, the Wizard often lurks too far back for a 30' speed monster to reach in one round. Or if quarters are tight the Wizard has a solid block of defenders in front. And the Bladesinger Wiz IMC usually has a pretty ridiculous AC, anyway.

Past a certain point, a single weapon attack isn't a big deal. I've seen Sentinel in actual play a total of zero times so far. Also haven't seen a Bladesinger (and probably won't, since I don't run AL games, and it seems everyone at the table just uses my books).

Trust me, there have been plenty of times where if I or the DM I was playing with went as hard on the players as I did in 4e, it would have easily resulted in at least one player death. Shoot, just having zombies munch on downed players tends to cause a tidal wave of player tears.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980063Yeah, the other big flaw in 5e is there is technically no reason the mummy lord shouldn't just walk past the fighter and beat the piss out of the wizard. We 5e DMs just don't usually do that because it feels unfair and contrary to the spirit of the game.

That's the same in all versions of D&D, though.  Except maybe 4e with it's 'marking' mechanism.  Most Mummies/Mummy Lords have the ability to soak whatever hits the Fighter/Thief(Rogue) can dish out and run up to the Wizard/Magic Users.  And given that often, you're fighting on its territory, there's no real way to bottleneck it, preventing it's movement.  Even worse, if it has spells, it should ignore the melee guys, by sending minions to engage those, while it targets the Wizards/Clerics/Magic Users with all the firepower it can muster.

There's a reason why I say that players and DMs are trained to have a 'gentleman's agreement' to target the least effective members of the PC's first.  It's to give the Magic Users a chance, otherwise you often end up with TPKs every major fight as the main damage dealers/fight enders are removed in the first few rounds.  That's all the tactics it needs.  Arrange map in favour of bad guys (because they can, as most never leave them), send minions to engage the front liners, throw everything at casters, stand back and watch everything die.

At least that's how it works with AD&D 2e and later.

Cue Gronan coming and yelling at us for 'doing it wrong'.  Again.

I've often thought that it would be interesting to try some kind of "anti focus fire" mechanic in D&D where a creature that is not engaged gets some kind of moderate bonus to its actions.  That is, the more of the other side you leave to their own devices, the more effective they are.  As with many such ideas, though, the devil is in the details.  

Instead, I always wind up deciding that I'll focus fire about as much as the players do, and thus let the players set how much tactical stuff they want to do versus how they want to pretend that leaving people unengaged is a bad idea.  If the players want to push it, and think they can play smart enough to make pushing it come out in their favor, more power to them.  I'll let them have it when they give me the chance.  If they back off, I'll play the creatures according to their motivations.  I prefer the latter, but can easily handle the former.

I think the problem with a rules-based "focus fire" counter is that anything simple but effective also needs some other tweaks in the game, that D&D just isn't well equipped to accept (at least, not without side effects that are worse than the issue).  The game already skews towards the party mobbing a single tough creature anyway, and anything that counters "focus fire" in general tends to make that effect even stronger.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;980094That's the same in all versions of D&D, though.  Except maybe 4e with it's 'marking' mechanism.  Most Mummies/Mummy Lords have the ability to soak whatever hits the Fighter/Thief(Rogue) can dish out and run up to the Wizard/Magic Users.

In the TSR editions, you can't move past enemies who can hit you. You can either engage them in melee or retreat.  Consequently, a single fighter could effectively block off a 15'-wide hallway. In the WotC editions, your zone of control got cut to a single 5'x'5 square, except in 4e. 5e's gone back to the 3.x way, when I think AD&D had it right.

QuoteThere's a reason why I say that players and DMs are trained to have a 'gentleman's agreement' to target the least effective members of the PC's first.

On a grid, this heavily tilts everything toward the players. One reason I have come to prefer TotM gaming is it's easier for me to just say, "You can't get past the hobgoblin soldiers to the goblin archers. They're in the way."

Quote from: Christopher Brady;980094There's a reason why I say that players and DMs are trained to have a 'gentleman's agreement' to target the least effective members of the PC's first.  It's to give the Magic Users a chance, otherwise you often end up with TPKs every major fight as the main damage dealers/fight enders are removed in the first few rounds.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980125In the TSR editions, you can't move past enemies who can hit you. You can either engage them in melee or retreat.  Consequently, a single fighter could effectively block off a 15'-wide hallway.

Isn't this an almost word-for-word retread of the start of the thread where the 'gentlemen's agreement' term first got used?

Can we just fast-forward the whole shebang?
CB: It requires a gentlemen's agreement for the magic user to survive.
those-against-CB (from now on taCB): It's not a 'gentlemen's agreement,' the rules say it.
CB: No it doesn't.
taCB: Yes it does.
CB: No it doesn't (specific reference).
taCB: Yes it does (specific reference).
CB: that's not what that means (argument).
taCB: it sure is (argument).
CB: GRR!!
taCB: RAR!!

Since in last Friday's D&D game the party let themselves get flanked and the kobolds got into melee with the magic user, I guess I'm no gentleman.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;980094There's a reason why I say that players and DMs are trained to have a 'gentleman's agreement' to target the least effective members of the PC's first.  It's to give the Magic Users a chance, otherwise you often end up with TPKs every major fight as the main damage dealers/fight enders are removed in the first few rounds.  That's all the tactics it needs.  Arrange map in favour of bad guys (because they can, as most never leave them), send minions to engage the front liners, throw everything at casters, stand back and watch everything die.

At least that's how it works with AD&D 2e and later.

Cue Gronan coming and yelling at us for 'doing it wrong'.  Again.

It's ironic that the guy who cries foul every time someone mentions the word "tactics" is also the guy that says there has to be a gentleman's agreement.  

First of all, how does the enemy magically know who is the most effective and least effective member?  That unarmored guy on the left flank might be a monk three levels higher than the rest of the party or have Bracers AC:0, Ring and Cloak +5 etc.

Secondly, you're assuming if the minions know who is the most powerful character, that they will want to volunteer to be the first to attack them.  "Hmm, I think I'll attack the guy with the dagger, Jeb can get the guy with the 2-handed Greataxe."

Thirdly, no plan survives contact with the enemy, and that goes triple when the enemy are Player Characters.  There is no such thing as a perfect trap, and PCs are some of the sneakiest, craziest bastards on earth.  That perfect plan might just be a total failure.

Int checks, morale checks, command or charisma checks, tactics skill checks, GM roleplaying monsters and NPCs accordingly, there are tons of reasons why the opposition may not function with 100% perfect tactical efficiency, and none of them require a gentleman's agreement.  Even if everything does go according to plan, the NPCs can simply be outthought and outfought by the players...that is if they don't wail and gnash their teeth crying "One True Wayism" if someone suggests they play tactically.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980130Since in last Friday's D&D game the party let themselves get flanked and the kobolds got into melee with the magic user, I guess I'm no gentleman.

If they let themselves get flanked, the agreement is not relevant.  It's not an agreement to let the players get away with mistakes, only an agreement to pretend that later editions don't let creatures walk through whatever good lines the players have established with minimal penalties.  If everyone goes charging in and leaves the wizard exposed, all bets are off.  Heck, a few months ago, I had a couple of invisible opponents sneaking to the rear of the party, and the two casters in the back almost got wiped out.  It was only luck and quick reactions from the ranger that bailed them out.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980125In the TSR editions, you can't move past enemies who can hit you. You can either engage them in melee or retreat.  Consequently, a single fighter could effectively block off a 15'-wide hallway. In the WotC editions, your zone of control got cut to a single 5'x'5 square, except in 4e. 5e's gone back to the 3.x way, when I think AD&D had it right.

As I don't have my AD&D 2e stuff, but have the reprinted AD&D 1e, can you point to me where it says this?  I will freely admit that I may have missed that section of the rules and if so, I'd like to have it pointed out, please.  And RC as well, if possible.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980125On a grid, this heavily tilts everything toward the players. One reason I have come to prefer TotM gaming is it's easier for me to just say, "You can't get past the hobgoblin soldiers to the goblin archers. They're in the way."

My experience says otherwise, but...  Anecdote.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980130Since in last Friday's D&D game the party let themselves get flanked and the kobolds got into melee with the magic user, I guess I'm no gentleman.

It was the party's fault.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;980135If they let themselves get flanked, the agreement is not relevant.  It's not an agreement to let the players get away with mistakes, only an agreement to pretend that later editions don't let creatures walk through whatever good lines the players have established with minimal penalties.  If everyone goes charging in and leaves the wizard exposed, all bets are off.  Heck, a few months ago, I had a couple of invisible opponents sneaking to the rear of the party, and the two casters in the back almost got wiped out.  It was only luck and quick reactions from the ranger that bailed them out.

There IS no agreement.

If their front rank is not sufficiently dense to block movement, characters behind the front rank WILL get meleed.  It's a major killer of 3rd edition and later players; they think in terms of 5 feet per figure, whereas OD&D allows 3 figures in a ten foot frontage.

The section in ODD vol. 3 states that three characters can hit a door simultaneously.  Volume 3 page 12 states that three hobgoblins can fit in a 10 foot wide corridor, and humans and hobgoblins are about the same size.  (Roman legions in close order had 3 1/2 foot between men, center to center.  This is no coincidence.)

In Vol 1 it refers to CHAINAMAIL as among the recommended equipment, and CHAINMAIL states "All types of troops are considered to control the space 1 " on either side of themselves to stop infiltration"  (p. 16)

So, if the PCs don't keep their ranks solid, they are in trouble.  No "gentleman's agreement" involved.  Learn tactics or die.

The "Gentleman's agreement" I use in 5e is that monsters typically attack either whomever's closest or just hit them hardest.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;980136As I don't have my AD&D 2e stuff, but have the reprinted AD&D 1e, can you point to me where it says this?  I will freely admit that I may have missed that section of the rules and if so, I'd like to have it pointed out, please.  And RC as well, if possible.

Page 70, 1e DMG:
"If characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break out of combat."

In the 2e manual, there are 3 kinds of listed movement for melee:
1. Into melee range
2. Withdrawing
3. Fleeing

The idea of moving through melee isn't even contemplated. Moving into melee range is described as the "basic" maneuver. Chainmail and Holmes reflect the same idea. Mentzer is a bit more clear in stating unequivocally that your only maneuvers in melee are "Fighting Withdrawal" and "Retreat." If you look at any of the TSR editions, when one moves into melee, one's only options are to either stay in melee or retreat; there is no option to continue forward, draw an opportunity attack or some other penalty, and engage the back line.

Since you mentioned CHAINMAIL, don't forget it specifically says that figures control 1" to either side so that formations can't be infiltrated.

Quote from: CRKrueger;980132It's ironic that the guy who cries foul every time someone mentions the word "tactics" is also the guy that says there has to be a gentleman's agreement.  

First of all, how does the enemy magically know who is the most effective and least effective member?  That unarmored guy on the left flank might be a monk three levels higher than the rest of the party or have Bracers AC:0, Ring and Cloak +5 etc.

Secondly, you're assuming if the minions know who is the most powerful character, that they will want to volunteer to be the first to attack them.  "Hmm, I think I'll attack the guy with the dagger, Jeb can get the guy with the 2-handed Greataxe."

Thirdly, no plan survives contact with the enemy, and that goes triple when the enemy are Player Characters.  There is no such thing as a perfect trap, and PCs are some of the sneakiest, craziest bastards on earth.  That perfect plan might just be a total failure.

Int checks, morale checks, command or charisma checks, tactics skill checks, GM roleplaying monsters and NPCs accordingly, there are tons of reasons why the opposition may not function with 100% perfect tactical efficiency, and none of them require a gentleman's agreement.  Even if everything does go according to plan, the NPCs can simply be outthought and outfought by the players...that is if they don't wail and gnash their teeth crying "One True Wayism" if someone suggests they play tactically.

Also, at some point the assumption "Your front rank is three characters in plate and shield" went bye-bye.  About the same time as the idea of hiring henchmen short or long term to make sure you had your armored front rank, at least one cleric, etc.

Fafhrd and the Mouser, Conan, Elric, and other S&S types frequently had NPCs along either short or long term.  I remember for sure Faf & Mouser hiring a couple of guides for, I think, a mountain climbing expedition.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980144There IS no agreement.

If their front rank is not sufficiently dense to block movement, characters behind the front rank WILL get meleed.  It's a major killer of 3rd edition and later players; they think in terms of 5 feet per figure, whereas OD&D allows 3 figures in a ten foot frontage.

The section in ODD vol. 3 states that three characters can hit a door simultaneously.  Volume 3 page 12 states that three hobgoblins can fit in a 10 foot wide corridor, and humans and hobgoblins are about the same size.  (Roman legions in close order had 3 1/2 foot between men, center to center.  This is no coincidence.)

In Vol 1 it refers to CHAINAMAIL as among the recommended equipment, and CHAINMAIL states "All types of troops are considered to control the space 1 " on either side of themselves to stop infiltration"  (p. 16)

So, if the PCs don't keep their ranks solid, they are in trouble.  No "gentleman's agreement" involved.  Learn tactics or die.

I know.  I'm translating that way of thinking into more recent editions, where the rules do not support that kind of play as well as they do in earlier ones.  I want that kind of play, but also appreciate some of the (different) features of the later editions.  Your example that I was replying to is not relevant to the gentleman's agreement in these later rules.

In my game, the enforcement translates more to, "Even though the strict letter of the rules states that you can waltz through this line with minimal penalty to get to the juicy target of the archers that are making you miserable, the spirit of the thing at our table is that the guys with armor and big axes in front would smash you to bits if you ignored them that way.  Thus, as long as you honor that spirit and play your characters to the tactics of the situation and not the rules lawyering, the opponents will do the same."

In effect, I've found it more efficient to do the GM adjudication on this issue by Kantian means.  The categorical imperative here is that the world treats you the way your actions say it should work.  Rather than specific rules that kill you right now if you do something stupid.  In practice, after a short learning experience, it amounts to the same thing:  The players try to form good lines and guard the squishy allies.

Quote from: CRKrueger;980132It's ironic that the guy who cries foul every time someone mentions the word "tactics" is also the guy that says there has to be a gentleman's agreement.

If it weren't for you and Black Vulema and Asen and one or two others, I'd start to think there was something wrong with my reading comprehension.  Thanks for cashing my reality check.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;980154I know.  I'm translating that way of thinking into more recent editions,

Didn't realize that.  Carry on.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;980154I know.  I'm translating that way of thinking into more recent editions, where the rules do not support that kind of play as well as they do in earlier ones.  I want that kind of play, but also appreciate some of the (different) features of the later editions.  Your example that I was replying to is not relevant to the gentleman's agreement in these later rules.

In my game, the enforcement translates more to, "Even though the strict letter of the rules states that you can waltz through this line with minimal penalty to get to the juicy target of the archers that are making you miserable, the spirit of the thing at our table is that the guys with armor and big axes in front would smash you to bits if you ignored them that way.  Thus, as long as you honor that spirit and play your characters to the tactics of the situation and not the rules lawyering, the opponents will do the same."

In effect, I've found it more efficient to do the GM adjudication on this issue by Kantian means.  The categorical imperative here is that the world treats you the way your actions say it should work.  Rather than specific rules that kill you right now if you do something stupid.  In practice, after a short learning experience, it amounts to the same thing:  The players try to form good lines and guard the squishy allies.

The man in my new OD&D group here is not only an experienced player, but a combat vet.  Screening, watching your flanks, protecting vulnerable troops, etc, is all second nature to him.  It's kind of nice.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980157The man in my new OD&D group here is not only an experienced player, but a combat vet.  Screening, watching your flanks, protecting vulnerable troops, etc, is all second nature to him.  It's kind of nice.

Our best tactical player (also military, but no combat experience) can't make sessions anymore, but fortunately was with the group long enough to impart the basics to most of the group.  I'm not running so hardcore that they need constant attention to every detail (and probably not skilled enough to require that anyway), but I do expect the basics.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980086Past a certain point, a single weapon attack isn't a big deal. I've seen Sentinel in actual play a total of zero times so far. Also haven't seen a Bladesinger (and probably won't, since I don't run AL games, and it seems everyone at the table just uses my books).

Trust me, there have been plenty of times where if I or the DM I was playing with went as hard on the players as I did in 4e, it would have easily resulted in at least one player death. Shoot, just having zombies munch on downed players tends to cause a tidal wave of player tears.

I guess I have some pretty kickass players. :D I have to go way over Deadly to challenge my Sunday group at all.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980145The "Gentleman's agreement" I use in 5e is that monsters typically attack either whomever's closest or just hit them hardest.

So you end up with a lot of dead wizards?  

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980145Page 70, 1e DMG:
"If characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break out of combat."

So OK, so if the Mummy Lord IS engaged with melee.  Fair enough.  So the best 'tactic' is to send the minions in front and blast the Magic User to bits.  Then let the minions eat the rest of the party because attrition says 'I win'.  Not much in the way of tactics, but hey.  If it works, keep using it.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980145In the 2e manual, there are 3 kinds of listed movement for melee:
1. Into melee range
2. Withdrawing
3. Fleeing

That I remember.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980145The idea of moving through melee isn't even contemplated. Moving into melee range is described as the "basic" maneuver. Chainmail and Holmes reflect the same idea. Mentzer is a bit more clear in stating unequivocally that your only maneuvers in melee are "Fighting Withdrawal" and "Retreat." If you look at any of the TSR editions, when one moves into melee, one's only options are to either stay in melee or retreat; there is no option to continue forward, draw an opportunity attack or some other penalty, and engage the back line.

So the Mummy Lord doesn't move into melee, ever.  Gotcha.  Still end up with TPK's.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;980180So you end up with a lot of dead wizards?

Allow me to clarify.
The monsters typically attack whomever is closest in melee.
If more than one PC is closest, they typically attack whomever did the most damage last round.
Otherwise, I typically roll a die to see who gets attacked.

Artillery monsters tend to go for the back lines or focus-fire on whomever the front is engaging.

I say "typically" because I'm the DM, I can do what I want, and sometimes what I want to do isn't that.

QuoteSo OK, so if the Mummy Lord IS engaged with melee.  Fair enough.  So the best 'tactic' is to send the minions in front and blast the Magic User to bits.  Then let the minions eat the rest of the party because attrition says 'I win'.  Not much in the way of tactics, but hey.  If it works, keep using it.

What is your problem?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980155If it weren't for you and Black Vulema and Asen and one or two others, I'd start to think there was something wrong with my reading comprehension.  Thanks for cashing my reality check.

It's my pleasure:).

Quote from: S'mon;980162I guess I have some pretty kickass players. :D I have to go way over Deadly to challenge my Sunday group at all.

I know the feeling. I mean, when an ambush about 5 to 1 doesn't work, a GM's got to think on his feet;)!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980157Screening, watching your flanks, protecting vulnerable troops, etc, is all second nature to him.  It's kind of nice.

When we ran through the Temple of Elemental Stupidity, I tried to impart to some of the other players "contact drills". We had henchmen and men-at-arms hirelings, of course. We only kind of half used proper small unit tactics, but we really churned through those elemental fuckers. The DM seemed kind of bewildered.

As I've said before, I'd love to run a modern warfare or espionage rpg, but the players...

Quote from: Christopher Brady;980180So you end up with a lot of dead wizards?  

How would that follow from what he said? If the party is advancing with the high-hp, heavily armored types in front (and maybe a rear guard), with the squishies in the middle, then the monsters engage the heavies, the spellcasters and enemy artillery types either snipe at each other, boost their front line, or damage the other front line (depending upon the specifics of the situation and their capabilities), and the fight goes to whomever does it better. That sounds like the system working.

QuoteSo OK, so if the Mummy Lord IS engaged with melee.  Fair enough.  So the best 'tactic' is to send the minions in front and blast the Magic User to bits.  Then let the minions eat the rest of the party because attrition says 'I win'.  Not much in the way of tactics, but hey.  If it works, keep using it.

I don't even know what this is or what you are complaining about. If the mummy lord is in melee, they are not blasting the MU to bits. If they are blasting the magic user to bits, then they likely aren't in melee and it is a straight front-line-and-well-protected-artillery vs. front-line-and-well-protected-artillery scenario, and it is something in the way of tactics. If the minions eat the rest of the party because attrition says 'I win,' then this is the case because apparently the minions are much better fighters than the fighters are. This sounds like a party up against a far superior force.

QuoteSo the Mummy Lord doesn't move into melee, ever.  Gotcha.  Still end up with TPK's.

Why? Please explain what you think fearsomepirate said that implies this. Walk us through how you envision this battle taking place so that we can point out the assumptions about the scenario or the rules interpretations that you are making, so that we can decide if we agree and/or offer differing takes.

Fearsomepirate and I were talking about the toothless opportunity attack system of more recent editions, and whether one should play the enemies as making rules-smart decision (just eat that attack and rush past to the spellcasters) or making verisimilitude-smart decisions (no, they would engage the front line, since rushing past would be stupid irl). I wouldn't call that a gentlemen's agreement, but it's with discussion-distance of the same thing. There was room to find agreement, instead of doing the same-old throwdown.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980144If their front rank is not sufficiently dense to block movement, characters behind the front rank WILL get meleed.  It's a major killer of 3rd edition and later players; they think in terms of 5 feet per figure, whereas OD&D allows 3 figures in a ten foot frontage.

The section in ODD vol. 3 states that three characters can hit a door simultaneously.  Volume 3 page 12 states that three hobgoblins can fit in a 10 foot wide corridor, and humans and hobgoblins are about the same size.  (Roman legions in close order had 3 1/2 foot between men, center to center.  This is no coincidence.)

QuoteAlso, at some point the assumption "Your front rank is three characters in plate and shield" went bye-bye.  About the same time as the idea of hiring henchmen short or long term to make sure you had your armored front rank, at least one cleric, etc.

Yes, and I for one think this is the real issue. Three characters per 10' frontage works very well when 1) the party is sufficiently large, and 2) the landscapes are sufficiently constrained that you can count on one hand (or a bit more) the 10' frontages needed to block off the back lines from the enemy. When playing oD&D/bD&D/1e AD&D with 6-8 players and a troop of hirelings going into dungeons with 10-20' corridors, this works perfectly. As I've said before, early D&D works phenomenally, when played under the assumption of play for which it was designed.

The problem is that, as player preference of gaming style changed, the rules did not change to match. Gaming groups have tended to shrink to more link 4 players, so that drops the # of characters. Players have usually not wanted to play a bunch of lower-level npcs as well, so hirelings have fallen to a 0-2 per PC kind of thing. And more of the adventuring has moved out of the dungeon. I am not going to say that one playstyle is superior, but I will say that the rules did not keep up. If you are going to play such that spellcasters can't keep out of the range of the enemies, than you can't have squishy spellcasters.

5e has finally sorta recognized this, and responded by at least allowing you to make high AC (bladesinger, 1 level fighter or cleric multiclass dipping, or hill dwarf), high hp (abjurer), or high luck (diviner) wizards. If you don't play with those specific options, though, it seems that the books expect the enemies to not eat the opportunity attack and rush past the front lines to take out the bigger threat/lower defense spellcasters.

QuoteFafhrd and the Mouser, Conan, Elric, and other S&S types frequently had NPCs along either short or long term.  I remember for sure Faf & Mouser hiring a couple of guides for, I think, a mountain climbing expedition.

Yeah, but not for much of their adventuring, and certainly not squads of 3 soldiers per 10' (plus backups for those who fall). Much of the S&S heroes were most often not playing squad tactics. They also were very much of the vein of 'the protagonists are not squishies, they belong in the front line,' even Mouser. I think this might have been part of the movement away from large squad tactics in that people wanted to play these types of characters, who could get into a comingled front line fight and somehow survive.

That's where I'm coming from. I don't think this issue happened between TSR and WotC, I think it was that time of the oD&D fad-bubble and the movement from wargamers to college kids who wanted to play as Fafhrd, Mouser, Conan, Elric, (Frodo, Strider, Merlin), and not as squad commanders.

Quote from: Opaopajr;979923I've had my concerns about 5e save progression (and attribute dependence) since first reading it. I always thought Saves would have been cleaner to add Proficiency Bonus to all Attributes, and class-based save proficiency just provided Expertise (double PB). It immediately mitigates Attribute whinging, as the PB quickly outpaces. And it makes PB tier level more of a guesstimate-able difficulty comparison (basically check tierage between PCs and mobs).

One of these days I'll test my theory out in a homegame...

Yeah it was an odd way to do saves. But it works overall as most saves are Dex or WIS based, with a few others tossed in.

Good example was we had an encounter with an adult black dragon that really didnt want to talk, at all. We were bad off allready from just getting there. Everyone scattered and the damn dragon blasted my Warlock. DC 18 DEX save. My DEX is 10 so just a straight roll. Failed miserably. 56 points of damage which the Warlock survived. But that was half my health gone. Kefra fires off Feeblemind. DC 19 INT save. Dragon fails its save. But uses an ability to shrug it off.
Next round Kefra blasts it with Sunbeam. 19 CON save. And despite having a comprable +10 CON bonus, the dragon fails that too and uses another ability to shrug it off. Then blasts me again. I fail that one too and opt to use an inspiration to reroll the save and actually just bare make it. I was down to 1/4th my HP.
Round 3 and Kef sunbeams it again. Dragon fails save again and uses its ability to again shrug it off. Here I see my opening. I still had some spells left for just such an occasion and nailed it with Dominate Monster as was fairly sure from past experience it couldnt blockade another failed save.
The save DC was 19 (8+5+6) Dragons WIS save is +6. Dragon gets a 15. PING! In me Power! mwah-haa-haa-haa!

Had that failed Id have allmost certainly gone down on the next blast as the dratted lizard kept making its recharge rolls.

So lots of give and take even at high levels with saves and is just natural that you can not excell at everything. and even when you have cranked up stats its not a guarantee.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980144If their front rank is not sufficiently dense to block movement, characters behind the front rank WILL get meleed.  It's a major killer of 3rd edition and later players; they think in terms of 5 feet per figure, whereas OD&D allows 3 figures in a ten foot frontage.

I don't see how that makes a difference since the opposition are aligned on a 5' square as well. It not realistic but it amount to the same thing. I figure it ever bothered me that much I will just switch over to using 1 yard hexes/squares like I used in GURPS. And yes I fucking realize I can ditch the grid, I find using one convenient so I that call I make and live with the less realistic outcome.  

Otherwise the combat I referee pretty much how you described things. If the PCs spread out too much they will find the enemy slipping through and attacking the rear echelon of porters, mules, and magic users. If the players don't watch their left or right they will get flanked and the end will quickly crumpled under the barrage of extra attacks. The same with not properly dealing with formations or god forbid somebody gets behind and attacks are coming in from front and back.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980144So, if the PCs don't keep their ranks solid, they are in trouble.  No "gentleman's agreement" involved.  Learn tactics or die.

No argument from about that.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;980256The problem is that, as player preference of gaming style changed, the rules did not change to match. Gaming groups have tended to shrink to more link 4 players, so that drops the # of characters. Players have usually not wanted to play a bunch of lower-level npcs as well, so hirelings have fallen to a 0-2 per PC kind of thing. And more of the adventuring has moved out of the dungeon. I am not going to say that one playstyle is superior, but I will say that the rules did not keep up. If you are going to play such that spellcasters can't keep out of the range of the enemies, than you can't have squishy spellcasters.

If what they want to do then live with the consequences of organizing oneself in that style.  And you don't need help from the rule system to make the campaign fun and enjoyable. You need to be smart. If you want to run around in a small group then you need to pay more attention to scouting and situational awareness. In the decades I been running the Majestic Wilderlands only a quarter of the different adventuring groups when ahead and incorporated hirelings into their group. Even when OD&D became the primary system I was using in 2008.

What the other group quickly learned to scout, come up with a plan that catches the enemy unawares, and setup ambushes. And for the most part the execution goes by the numbers and while the party may take some hits generally they win the victors. But catch them with their pants down or fighting a prepared enemy then a TPK looms.

A recent example in two Adventures in Middle Earth campaign. One group charges in and has a lost at least one party member each session. The last session was particular brutal as the party committed several tactical blunders. They got strung out and split their forces. Their opposition were a bunch of wolves, not even wargs. The wolves stuck together and just picked off the party one by one resulting in two deaths out of five in that the session. And the only reason two lived because they were on a wall above the wolves, and one just turned coward and ran away leaving the party's scholar (and healer) to die.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;9802565e has finally sorta recognized this, and responded by at least allowing you to make high AC (bladesinger, 1 level fighter or cleric multiclass dipping, or hill dwarf), high hp (abjurer), or high luck (diviner) wizards. If you don't play with those specific options, though, it seems that the books expect the enemies to not eat the opportunity attack and rush past the front lines to take out the bigger threat/lower defense spellcasters.

high AC is of little help with multiple attacks coming in from all directions and some with advantage.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;980256That's where I'm coming from. I don't think this issue happened between TSR and WotC, I think it was that time of the oD&D fad-bubble and the movement from wargamers to college kids who wanted to play as Fafhrd, Mouser, Conan, Elric, (Frodo, Strider, Merlin), and not as squad commanders.

There is a smart way of doing that and a dumb way. However for the players that do invest in hirelings and take the time to learn tactics, the result is far more effective.

It's not just about your more wargame-inspired scenarios, either. Here's a very simple, classic type scenario:

The Ogre King/Ghoul Lord/Death Knight/[insert favorite BBEG] is brooding in his Boss Chamber. The classic Fighter/Cleric/Thief/Wizard party bursts in. "Ho there, evil foe!" cries out the fighter, as he charges forward with sword in hand. And behold, the BBEG and the fighter are now locked in deadly combat!

In OD&D, AD&D 1e, every variant of Basic, and AD&D 2e, in this scenario, the fighter tangles up close and personal with his mighty blade, with the cleric providing some secondary melee support, dropping back when healing or some other buff is needed. The rogue plinks or tries to get a backstab, and the wizard provides the heavy artillery. Since initiative is side-based, and the guys in heavy armor busted down the door first, it kind of doesn't matter who wins, as this is what is going to happen.

In 3rd and 5th edition, if the DM plays in a rules-smart way, and the fighter does his heroic "rush into the room like a badass" thing, the BBEG probably  beats everyone except the rogue and fighter on initiative, laughs at the stupid fighter's attempt to be relevant, draws a 50-50 chance of a single 1[W] + MOD in damage, walks up to the wizard, and turns him into paste (unless you are high enough level in 3e for the cleric to have buffed himself into Mecha-Jesus). 4e doesn't have this problem, but 4e basically replicated the TSR-style scenario with obnoxiously complicated mechanics. I seriously hated tracking marks.

If I run my monsters in a rules-smart way, the smart tactic for the party is always to never enter the room and just stack up on the. If it's a 10' hallway, the two armored guys can stand up front, and the two ranged guys can stand in the rear. The -2 penalty to ranged attacks is well worth the squishies not being vulnerable. Yes, it works, but it's boring. It means every single fight takes place at a doorway.

To expand a bit on the toothlessness of 5e's opportunity attacks:

Ordinarily, you only get one OA per round. As you level up, the fighter actually has a very weak base melee OA.

Fighter: 1[W] + STR. Fighting Style might give a bit of a boost, +1.3 for great weapon, +2 for duelist. +5% crit chance for Champion.
Melee rogue: 1[W] + 6d6 + DEX
Melee cleric: 1[W] + d8 + STR
Raging barbarian: 1d12 + STR + 3, plus brutal crit
Paladin: 1[W] + d8 + STR, also has Fighting Style.

Really, only the Battle Master can do anything significant, as there are a number of maneuvers which will either impede the BBEG's progress or make him less effective at attacking the wizard. But this reminiscent of 4e's "solve a problem that was never a problem before via more complexity," which is annoying...and it's limited to a specific subclass, and tied to a finite resource of that class, and tied to specific maneuvers. It's easily one of my least favorite 5e design choices.

Quote from: Omega;980257Yeah it was an odd way to do saves. But it works overall as most saves are Dex or WIS based, with a few others tossed in.

Good example was we had an encounter with an adult black dragon that really didnt want to talk, at all. We were bad off allready from just getting there. Everyone scattered and the damn dragon blasted my Warlock. DC 18 DEX save. My DEX is 10 so just a straight roll. Failed miserably. 56 points of damage which the Warlock survived. But that was half my health gone. Kefra fires off Feeblemind. DC 19 INT save. Dragon fails its save. But uses an ability to shrug it off.
Next round Kefra blasts it with Sunbeam. 19 CON save. And despite having a comprable +10 CON bonus, the dragon fails that too and uses another ability to shrug it off. Then blasts me again. I fail that one too and opt to use an inspiration to reroll the save and actually just bare make it. I was down to 1/4th my HP.
Round 3 and Kef sunbeams it again. Dragon fails save again and uses its ability to again shrug it off. Here I see my opening. I still had some spells left for just such an occasion and nailed it with Dominate Monster as was fairly sure from past experience it couldnt blockade another failed save.
The save DC was 19 (8+5+6) Dragons WIS save is +6. Dragon gets a 15. PING! In me Power! mwah-haa-haa-haa!

Had that failed Id have allmost certainly gone down on the next blast as the dratted lizard kept making its recharge rolls.

So lots of give and take even at high levels with saves and is just natural that you can not excell at everything. and even when you have cranked up stats its not a guarantee.

This reads like a "Saves War" reminiscent of D&D 3e or Exalted... This is not a good thing.

Spreading more save resistance around inherently tamps down 'save or suck/pwn' attrition wars, which could only be a good thing, IMO. I need to test out my Houserule to Saves soon. :)

I'm not really sold on the saving throw concept to begin with. It wasn't so great in its first implementation, where at high level, you failed saves so rarely that there was almost no point to most of them, with casting save spells at high-level monsters being equally pointless. Beginning in 3rd edition, a "save" is just an Attack vs AC without the possibility of a critical hit. 4e dispensed with the conceit that saves and defenses were different in any meaningful way and recast everything as Attack vs AC, critical hits included. 5e's back to 3rd edition, but that's not necessarily a good thing.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980287It's not just about your more wargame-inspired scenarios, either. Here's a very simple, classic type scenario:

The Ogre King/Ghoul Lord/Death Knight/[insert favorite BBEG] is brooding in his Boss Chamber. The classic Fighter/Cleric/Thief/Wizard party bursts in. "Ho there, evil foe!" cries out the fighter, as he charges forward with sword in hand. And behold, the BBEG and the fighter are now locked in deadly combat!

In OD&D, AD&D 1e, every variant of Basic, and AD&D 2e, in this scenario, the fighter tangles up close and personal with his mighty blade, with the cleric providing some secondary melee support, dropping back when healing or some other buff is needed. The rogue plinks or tries to get a backstab, and the wizard provides the heavy artillery. Since initiative is side-based, and the guys in heavy armor busted down the door first, it kind of doesn't matter who wins, as this is what is going to happen.

Except in AD&D and other classic editions there nothing to stop the BBEG from ignoring the fighter and moving on the magic-user. The worse case scenario is are the rules like Retreat on page X24 of the Expert Rules

QuoteRETREAT. Any movement backwards at more than V2 the normal movement rate is a retreat. If a creature tries to retreat, the opponent may add + 2 to all "to hit" rolls, and the defender is not allowed to make a return attack. In addition to the bonus on "to hit" rolls, the attacks are further adjusted by using the defender's Armor Class without a shield. (Any attacks from behind are adjusted in the same manner.)

The BBEG run past the fighter at full move. The fighter attacks at +2, the BBEG is completes is move in melee range of the wizard. Depending on much of stickler for rules details the group is, you could consider the BBEG unable to attack.

In short it is a situation similar to what is found in later edition. The difference that later editions attempt to handle the corner cases within the text and the above is all that B/X says on the topic and leaves it the referee to rule.

An argument can be made that movement must cease once you enter melee range. In which case it take the BBEG two rounds to reach the wizard.

In all editions of D&D the consideration of the referee is the same. It is worth soaking the extra hits in order for the BBEG to take out the wizards.

I don't have the time to check references for accuracy at the moment, but I think fearsome pirate covered this:

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980145Page 70, 1e DMG:
"If characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break out of combat."

In the 2e manual, there are 3 kinds of listed movement for melee:
1. Into melee range
2. Withdrawing
3. Fleeing

The idea of moving through melee isn't even contemplated. Moving into melee range is described as the "basic" maneuver. Chainmail and Holmes reflect the same idea. Mentzer is a bit more clear in stating unequivocally that your only maneuvers in melee are "Fighting Withdrawal" and "Retreat." If you look at any of the TSR editions, when one moves into melee, one's only options are to either stay in melee or retreat; there is no option to continue forward, draw an opportunity attack or some other penalty, and engage the back line.

So I think his argument is that the earlier edition books in effect say that you can't just ignore the fighter and go on to the magic user. Naturally, it doesn't answer that "but what if I do?" because you can't (cue  5 page argument on whether that's genius writing or an abdication of responsibility).

Quote from: estar;980321Except in AD&D and other classic editions there nothing to stop the BBEG from ignoring the fighter and moving on the magic-user. The worse case scenario is are the rules like Retreat on page X24 of the Expert Rules

If the fighter's already engaged him in melee, the BBEG's only options are to fight to the death or retreat.

QuoteThe BBEG run past the fighter at full move. The fighter attacks at +2, the BBEG is completes is move in melee range of the wizard. Depending on much of stickler for rules details the group is, you could consider the BBEG unable to attack.

What I'm really being a stickler for here is the concept of "advancing" and "retreating." You're interpreting moving deeper into enemy forces as "retreating." I don't read it that way. As I interpret it, moving past the fighter through his zone of control isn't "retreating;" it's "advancing." Once you hit zone the dude with a sword controls, your options are fight, or move the other direction. Continuing forward isn't on the table. Someone can correct me if I'm completely wrong here. That's just how I understand the text.

QuoteIn short it is a situation similar to what is found in later edition. The difference that later editions attempt to handle the corner cases within the text and the above is all that B/X says on the topic and leaves it the referee to rule.

I don't think this is the difference. It seems to me that the early rules are framed in terms of coherent battle lines. It is quite obvious when I have a line of a dozen spearmen in formation with archers and artillery behind them what the "front line" is, where "forward" is, and where "backward" is. The language of combat is consistently framed in these terms all the way through at least Mentzer Basic, probably 2e as well. This is also why initiative is per side, rather than per individual. The sides are often described as forming battle lines.

The problem is these rules dissolve into incoherence in what eventually became the typical situation of 4-6 PCs fighting in a room, especially when using minis. Once people have spread out a bit, there's no longer an obvious "front line" or "forward" direction. So beginning with 3rd edition, the rules are reframed in terms of the individual PC (and 3.5 onward, the individual token on the grid) rather than battle lines and formations. The rules were made clear and consistent, but the ability to meaningfully control space was lost in the process.

Well, the "reaction time doesn't matter" is a total falsehood for starters, since if Horrible Spellcaster gets initiative, "eat Fireball" or whatever.

Also, if the big evil bad guy monster is sitting around in his chamber all alone with no defenses, he's too stupid to shit unassisted and deserves to die immediately anyway.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;980256Yes, and I for one think this is the real issue. Three characters per 10' frontage works very well when 1) the party is sufficiently large, and 2) the landscapes are sufficiently constrained that you can count on one hand (or a bit more) the 10' frontages needed to block off the back lines from the enemy. When playing oD&D/bD&D/1e AD&D with 6-8 players and a troop of hirelings going into dungeons with 10-20' corridors, this works perfectly. As I've said before, early D&D works phenomenally, when played under the assumption of play for which it was designed.

So one needs a small army to back them up, like a miniatures war game, as opposed to a role playing game?  That DOES change a lot of the assumptions.  I don't have a minis/war game background, so that does influence a lot of my play style.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;980256The problem is that, as player preference of gaming style changed, the rules did not change to match. Gaming groups have tended to shrink to more link 4 players, so that drops the # of characters. Players have usually not wanted to play a bunch of lower-level npcs as well, so hirelings have fallen to a 0-2 per PC kind of thing. And more of the adventuring has moved out of the dungeon. I am not going to say that one playstyle is superior, but I will say that the rules did not keep up. If you are going to play such that spellcasters can't keep out of the range of the enemies, than you can't have squishy spellcasters.

The issue I have, is that the game's assumptions have changed and evolved over the past 3 decades, but the innate mechanics may not have.  Which creates an odd disconnect in how things should be done in the game's system.

Here's the problem I've seen since my 2e days:  If the Magic User players are smart, and the Monsters (and by monsters I'm talking everything from Kobolds to the titular Dragons) are as well, you often end up with a Magic/Ranged Sniping match between them, where the other players are effectively on mop up detail.  Most 'boss' monsters (Goblin leaders, Orc chieftans, and shaman and so one, the leaders and warlords) have a guard detail with them at all times, or if they have the mobility, the means to keep most of the party away from them.  Very rarely you'll have people with any sort of tactical backgrounds playing nowadays.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;9802565e has finally sorta recognized this, and responded by at least allowing you to make high AC (bladesinger, 1 level fighter or cleric multiclass dipping, or hill dwarf), high hp (abjurer), or high luck (diviner) wizards. If you don't play with those specific options, though, it seems that the books expect the enemies to not eat the opportunity attack and rush past the front lines to take out the bigger threat/lower defense spellcasters.

I've had to give all fighting classes the Sentinel Feat for free in a couple of games.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;980256Yeah, but not for much of their adventuring, and certainly not squads of 3 soldiers per 10' (plus backups for those who fall). Much of the S&S heroes were most often not playing squad tactics. They also were very much of the vein of 'the protagonists are not squishies, they belong in the front line,' even Mouser. I think this might have been part of the movement away from large squad tactics in that people wanted to play these types of characters, who could get into a comingled front line fight and somehow survive.

That's where I'm coming from. I don't think this issue happened between TSR and WotC, I think it was that time of the oD&D fad-bubble and the movement from wargamers to college kids who wanted to play as Fafhrd, Mouser, Conan, Elric, (Frodo, Strider, Merlin), and not as squad commanders.

But, and I may be honestly mis-remembering here, but wasn't one of the core conceits of original D&D being Conan of Cimmeria?  I mean, Gronan's current forum name (which I believe he's claimed was based on his original character, way back when) is an allusion to it.  Am I wrong?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;980256That's where I'm coming from. I don't think this issue happened between TSR and WotC, I think it was that time of the oD&D fad-bubble and the movement from wargamers to college kids who wanted to play as Fafhrd, Mouser, Conan, Elric, (Frodo, Strider, Merlin), and not as squad commanders.

Actually it was in 78 or 79 when TSR made the conscious decision to market to the 13 to 18 demographic.

How many times have I said OD&D was "written by wargamers for wargamers?"  Enough that I've lost count.  And of COURSE play preferences changed, because the wargamer market all bought OD&D.

As you said, OD&D works great when played by wargamers ("under the assumption of play for which it was designed".)

Although I need to note that a lot of us DID adventure solo.  Just not at first level.

Well, except for poor Lessnard, but that's another story.

The whole point of the game was player skill, and you wanted to be sure your skill was high enough.

And then people who sucked at that play style got put in charge of 3E.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980330Also, if the big evil bad guy monster is sitting around in his chamber all alone with no defenses, he's too stupid to shit unassisted and deserves to die immediately anyway.

Maybe he's socially awkward.

Anyway, the point is that playing 5e in a rules-logical way (because many of the premises of OD&D no longer have mechanical representation) means you could beat the shit out of parties pretty easily.

But maybe I should start doing that.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980343Anyway, the point is that playing 5e in a rules-logical way (because many of the premises of OD&D no longer have mechanical representation) means you could beat the shit out of parties pretty easily.

But maybe I should start doing that.

I don't see how a typical 5e medium encounter can beat the shit out of a typical party. It just seems totally alien to what I've seen. Wizards can easily use magic like mage armour & shield to have good ACs.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980144There IS no agreement.

If their front rank is not sufficiently dense to block movement, characters behind the front rank WILL get meleed.  It's a major killer of 3rd edition and later players; they think in terms of 5 feet per figure, whereas OD&D allows 3 figures in a ten foot frontage.
.

This is what I am used to as well with BX and AD&D. Not sure about 2e but fairly sure they kept the 3 as well.

Quote from: Opaopajr;980310This reads like a "Saves War" reminiscent of D&D 3e or Exalted... This is not a good thing.

Spreading more save resistance around inherently tamps down 'save or suck/pwn' attrition wars, which could only be a good thing, IMO. I need to test out my Houserule to Saves soon. :)

And then what do you have? Everyone has even saves and whats the point other than homogenizing the whole dam thing so no one can cry "oh boo hoo hoo! I can for not saves as good as that mean ol thief can vs dwagons! Why god why is this game so unfair to me!"

Quote from: Omega;980412And then what do you have? Everyone has even saves and whats the point other than homogenizing the whole dam thing so no one can cry "oh boo hoo hoo! I can for not saves as good as that mean ol thief can vs dwagons! Why god why is this game so unfair to me!"

Big middle there, cowboy! ;) Oh, I dunno, the game could go back to whittling away HP with tactics and big swingy "I win" saves return to frosty sprinkles on top? Just sayin'. :rolleyes: Unclench from your protectiveness of 5e's honor. :p

I'm going to pre-emptively declare all my responses here with a "It is my contention that..." so assume it before each response.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;980336So one needs a small army to back them up, like a miniatures war game, as opposed to a role playing game?  That DOES change a lot of the assumptions.  

You don't have to. It is, how it was designed to be played, and where there are the least number of issues. The game assumes that a line of heavily armored soldiers are up in front, keeping the enemies from getting to soft, easily slain magic users. It is also designed with the assumption that most engagements happen in environments where this can be accomplished (such as dungeons). A theoretical 'D&D, in all ways but this' game where these assumptions aren't in place could have different rules--such as not having unarmored wizards, and having intercept-the-advancing-monster rules that increase zones-of-control. TSR-era D&D doesn't have these, because they aren't needed within the way it is designed to be played.

QuoteThe issue I have, is that the game's assumptions have changed and evolved over the past 3 decades, but the innate mechanics may not have.  Which creates an odd disconnect in how things should be done in the game's system.

Well, the mechanics have changed. Not at the pace I think would be prudent to their playing audience and in some cases not for the best for solving given issues (see fearsome and I's discussion on toothless opportunity attacks).

QuoteHere's the problem I've seen since my 2e days:  If the Magic User players are smart, and the Monsters (and by monsters I'm talking everything from Kobolds to the titular Dragons) are as well, you often end up with a Magic/Ranged Sniping match between them, where the other players are effectively on mop up detail.  Most 'boss' monsters (Goblin leaders, Orc chieftans, and shaman and so one, the leaders and warlords) have a guard detail with them at all times, or if they have the mobility, the means to keep most of the party away from them.

And the PC front-liners engage the guard detail while the chieftains, shamans, and so on engage in a long range sniping contest. Tactics are used, people make decisions. To the side with the best thinkers or better numbers go the victory. You haven't explained what the problem with this is. If you are playing such that the Monsters side front-liners can't rush past the heroes' front line any more than the reverse, this seems to be the game working as intended. If the DM isn't enforcing this "can't rush past" rule, then the DM is selectively neglecting the rules in the Monster's favor (especially since their chieftain often gets to cast spells with a lower AC, because monster stats). If you are playing in a small group, and most of your encounters happen out of dungeons, and Monsters can just run around the PC front liners to get to the wizard, then yes, game not fitting with new assumptions, and I believe that version of the game needs some house-rules such as zone-of-control interception or tougher magic users.

QuoteBut, and I may be honestly mis-remembering here, but wasn't one of the core conceits of original D&D being Conan of Cimmeria?  I mean, Gronan's current forum name (which I believe he's claimed was based on his original character, way back when) is an allusion to it.  Am I wrong?

This is where I get really navel-gazing, so I might go off the rails here. People spend entirely too much time thinking about the 'core conceits' of D&D, or 'what, in essence, D&D is.' And it's all bull. There is no there there. There are no core conceits to oD&D, except that it is a game based on taking a miniatures tactical war/skirmish ruleset, and using it to play a game where you go into a MC(called a 'DM')-controlled environment, attempting to gain a goal (gp/xp, plus items that will help you on your next outing), while engaging or avoiding obstacles, as it seems prudent. D&D has a flavor or theme based on a collection of fiction that decidedly includes Conan. But that isn't a core conceit.

The rules aren't specifically designed to allow you to seamlessly play Conan, as he acted in the fiction, and come out alive. A lot of things Conan did, if you think about it, were foolhardy things that would get him killed if his luck ever ran out. He, like lots of fictional characters, always rolls crits when he needs to (I'm in particular thinking Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, where he trades gunfire with massively multiple mooks at point blank range, often not even seeking cover, and coming out only man standing). The (meta-)physics of Conan's world favor success using that strategy. The physics of the D&D universe favor doing what is smart moves for small-squad army engagements.

I will say, and this was my original contention, that  after the game was introduced and started to become really popular (particularly out of the wargaming population), a large portion of the people buying it started saying something along the lines of, "this is really fun, but I wanted to play Conan of Cimmeria, not squad captain Conan of the Cimmeronian armed forces." I am genuinely surprised that either 1) TSR didn't make more changes to the actual game rules to facilitate this game-play, since they clearly decided to market to this audience in all things except rules*, or 2) some other game that did wouldn't have become the most popular system (just shows how useful name recognition and being first really is). My only guess is that everyone just played in a way, possibly with house rules, that this wasn't a problem.
*We could argue all day about how many rules they did change for this audience, but I'm specifically talking about the squishy wizards/front-line-needing-large-squads-lots-of-people-didn't-want-to-play-with issue.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980338Actually it was in 78 or 79 when TSR made the conscious decision to market to the 13 to 18 demographic.

Miscommunication on my part. Mixing whether I'm talking about the designers or the audience. TSR started marketing to them then, because they had been becoming a greater and greater portion of the people buying D&D over time (when do you suppose they overtook wargamers-closer to '74 or closer to '78/'79?).

QuoteHow many times have I said OD&D was "written by wargamers for wargamers?"  Enough that I've lost count.  And of COURSE play preferences changed, because the wargamer market all bought OD&D.

As you said, OD&D works great when played by wargamers ("under the assumption of play for which it was designed".)

And this is a mantra I keep hounding on. Most of the complaints* about oD&D are pretty much people reviewing a really well crafted flower vase and complaining that it dribbles horribly when they drink from it.
*excepting those about the organization of the books, etc., which, honestly, if Gary knew we'd be critiquing that 40 years later, he would have put another week into, lesson learned.

QuoteAlthough I need to note that a lot of us DID adventure solo.  Just not at first level.

Well, except for poor Lessnard, but that's another story.

I'd buy the first round to hear that story.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980343But maybe I should start doing that.

If you want your players to rise to the challenge, as far as tactical skills, sure. However, I'll raise two points

• There are actual rules that might reward, say, real-world good tactical thinking, that are simply not present in the 5e rules. If you up the difficulty and make the players have to 'think better' to succeed. They might think 'better' in the way that the ruleset does reward (such as extremely cheesy rules exploits or builds).
  
• If I create a gaming experience that rewards playing squad captain to a pike-hedge of hirelings, and my players come to me and say, "I really wanted to play Conan, Xena, movie-Aragorn, or an Arnold Schwarzenegger character, not squad captain Joe." what happens? Who is being more reasonable? Sure, in the real world, the cinematic hero character is technically being tactically stupid, but unless the players are wargamers, realistic tactical brilliance might not be their highest priority.

Quote from: S'mon;980349I don't see how a typical 5e medium encounter can beat the shit out of a typical party. It just seems totally alien to what I've seen. Wizards can easily use magic like mage armour & shield to have good ACs.

Look at how many appropriate-CR enemies do enough damage in a single round to drop a wizard to 0 in one round (e.g. the CR 12 Erinyes can do 12d8+12 in one round, the CR 7 stone giant can do 6d8+12,  CR 2 ghast does 2d6+3, CR 20 ancient white dragon does 16d8, etc). Or look at what you could do with mobs of a couple levels lower if they simply ignored the front rank, ate the OAs, and swarmed the back rank. If you play to kill, and/or the party doesn't turtle at doorways all the time, there are a lot of times you could really mess up the party with the 6-8 of those they can supposedly handle.

Basically, if DMs focused on trying to kill at least one party member instead of being fair/reasonable/realistic/etc, I think there are a lot more opportunities than most people realize.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980329If the fighter's already engaged him in melee, the BBEG's only options are to fight to the death or retreat.

That is stated nowhere in RAW. Instead there is a consequence for moving away from one's enemy.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980329What I'm really being a stickler for here is the concept of "advancing" and "retreating." You're interpreting moving deeper into enemy forces as "retreating." I don't read it that way. As I interpret it, moving past the fighter through his zone of control isn't "retreating;" it's "advancing." Once you hit zone the dude with a sword controls, your options are fight, or move the other direction. Continuing forward isn't on the table. Someone can correct me if I'm completely wrong here. That's just how I understand the text.

Then you are the same as the rule lawyers using 3.X or later editions. Letting the rules dictate what can and can't be done instead of what would actually happen if you really there fighting the battle.

In your example there is no formation. Just two combatants engaged in combat with three other individual scattered about the room. There is no plausible reason to rule that the BBEG can't just move by the lone warrior and attack whomever he wants in the rear. It is plausible however that there a severe consequence to do so.

This is in contrast with a BBEG in a corridor that meets a party that is in a formation that extends across the corridor. It is not plausible that the BBEG could just move through the frontline to attack the somebody in the rear. The BBEG has to something proactive like grapple with one of the front line fighters and throw them out of the way. Again a action with consequences for the BBEG the two most important of which is that the BBEG is vulnerable to multiple attacks, and has to spend time breaking a hole open in the formation which gives the party more time for additional attacks.

I will say that specifically for OD&D this is something that a 13 HD BBEG is going to try to pull against mid level party or higher. Simply because the amount of hit points and armor class even the toughest creatures have leaves them vulnerable to multiple attacker executing the equivalent of a blanket beating. It is the same way in D&D 5th edition. People complain about the bloated hit points but they forget the multiple attacks and higher amount of damage built into the system at higher levels.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980329I don't think this is the difference. It seems to me that the early rules are framed in terms of coherent battle lines. It is quite obvious when I have a line of a dozen spearmen in formation with archers and artillery behind them what the "front line" is, where "forward" is, and where "backward" is. The language of combat is consistently framed in these terms all the way through at least Mentzer Basic, probably 2e as well. This is also why initiative is per side, rather than per individual. The sides are often described as forming battle lines.

However that not the example given that I replied too. A lone fighter engaging a BBEG with three other in a room is not a formation.  As for the early rules being oriented around formation. I disagree that were about that. They were accounted for because there Gygax used common sense and things he learned by reading that recognizes that formations were an important part of melee. But realize there are numerous accounts of people soloing dungeons or adventuring in small groups.  To me OD&D accounts for both and there things you can do that are smart or stupid in both situations and in the ones in between. And yes if you have the numbers by god learn to use a formation.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980329The problem is these rules dissolve into incoherence in what eventually became the typical situation of 4-6 PCs fighting in a room, especially when using minis. Once people have spread out a bit, there's no longer an obvious "front line" or "forward" direction.

I disagree that OD&D is incoherent when melee is a series of duels.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980329So beginning with 3rd edition, the rules are reframed in terms of the individual PC (and 3.5 onward, the individual token on the grid) rather than battle lines and formations. The rules were made clear and consistent, but the ability to meaningfully control space was lost in the process.

Nothing was lost, zone of control was never part of OD&D in the way you are thinking. From your reply it seems to me it is a house rule you been using for years.

Let's be through about this, In Chainmail 2nd edition on page 14 we have the following notes.

QuoteMiscellaneous Melee Information:
1. Missiles cannot be fired into a melee.

2. All types of troops are cons idered to control the space I" on either side of themselves to stop infiltration.

3. Units within 3"of a melee may be drawn into it if the player to whom they belong so desires. However, the unit that joins a melee cannot have been moved over one-half of its normal movement during that turn. The unit joining the melee may move up to 6" into battle.

Based on my experience playing later wargames I am going to assume that control in this case means "once entered, movement ceases, the combatant is not in melee". That how ZoC worked in Panzerblitz which is the first time I encountered the concept.

What it doesn't mean that in subsequent rounds the combatant CAN'T move out of the ZoC to somewhere else. If I remember correctly in Panzerblitz if you are smart you arranged your units with ZoC side by side so that fast units can only move one hex a phase until they are completely through. The fact you take multiple poundings in doing meant it was on done out of desperation or in specific circumstances.

And I think this is the correct interpretation of what control was meant in Chainmail (Gronan will correct me) due to this on page 18 of Swords & Spell

QuoteMelee Contact: As soon as opposing units come in contact -- their stands touch -- all movement ceases, and melee takes place. Any unit not already engaged in melee may move a maximum of 1" right or left in order to confront and contact an opposing unit attempting to bypass or flank the unit.

However you have some support in this also on Page 22.

QuoteWithdrawal from Melee: Only elite or guard units are able to withdraw from melee voluntarily. All other units must remain until victorious or defeated. Elite and guard units which opt for withdrawal must make a morale throw, and if they fail, their morale automatically drops one level. If they succeed, they may move back one-half move, facing the enemy. In the former case they take normal casualties and return casualties according to their lower morale level. In the latter case they inflict 10% normal casualties and receive none in return. Troops with a base movement rate at least 50% greater than their opponents can withdraw from melee at will with no penalty.

The problem with the above that while accurate in regards to organized formations OD&D is focused on individual combatants. And applying the above rule to individual melee combat especially with rounds being anywhere from 6 seconds to 1 minutes fly contrary to what I experienced while fighting in the SCA, boffer LARPS, and other medieval reenactments.

Everything about formation fighting makes perfect sense and I experienced most of what Chainmail talks about while fighting in a formation. But when a fight is a skirmish or only a handful of combatant are fighting on another, then it becomes a series of duels. In that situation, a BBEG ignoring a single fighter in front them is the more accurate ruling. There will be consequences but being forced to duel until one individual's morale broke or is killed is not one of them.

In case there is any confusion I consider 3.X and 5e approach just as artificial and unrealistic as what you are advocating.

As I stated often the rules are there as a tool and if the reality of the setting conflicts with the rules, then the referee should makes his ruling how it really should work not what written.

Quote from: estar;980455That is stated nowhere in RAW. Instead there is a consequence for moving away from one's enemy.

No, there's a consequence for moving away from combat, which is framed in terms of sides, not individual tokens. In AD&D, you may

Attack
Parry
Fall back
Flee

QuoteThen you are the same as the rule lawyers using 3.X or later editions. Letting the rules dictate what can and can't be done instead of what would actually happen if you really there fighting the battle.

Interpreting  the word "flee" to include "charging past the fighter to smack the wizard" is much more lawyerly than interpreting the language in a natural way.

QuoteIn your example there is no formation. Just two combatants engaged in combat with three other individual scattered about the room. There is no plausible reason to rule that the BBEG can't just move by the lone warrior and attack whomever he wants in the rear.

It's entirely plausible that if you're within fighting distance of someone, he'd be able to stop you from moving around behind him. Happens all the time in football. But aside from the plausibility, the problem is the RAW doesn't really comprehend the situation. The fact is there is no RAW at all for whether or not you can circle around behind somebody who's close enough to hit you, break off the attack, and go stab the guy 15 feet behind him.  Neither one of us is being "lawyerly," so much as we're disagreeing on how to apply the rules for a situation they weren't written for. The WotC editions do have rules for this, but I think they suck, especially at high level.

QuoteIt is the same way in D&D 5th edition. People complain about the bloated hit points but they forget the multiple attacks and higher amount of damage built into the system at higher levels.

You don't get multiple strikes on an opportunity attack in 5e. At low level, a Fighter's OA can easily kill a monster outright. At high level, they're an inconvenience at best. IMO that's a problem with high-level 5e. Only Paladins and Rogues have seriously threatening OAs.

QuoteLet's be through about this, In Chainmail 2nd edition on page 14 we have the following notes.

Okay, let me be really thorough, then. I'm imagining this kind of situation:

| |  |D|  |
| |  |  |  |
| |  |B|  |
| |  |   |  |
| |  |F|  |
| |C|   |  |
| |  |   |  |
| |  |W|  |


D = Door
B = BBEG
F = Fighter
C = Cleric
W = Wizard

If the BBEG wants to move around the fighter and attack the wizard, it sounds like Chainmail says the fighter can move to intercept, similarly if he tried to move around the cleric. That's the way I understand AD&D as well. Also, once the Fighter and the BBEG are engaged, the way I read AD&D, the BBEG's only movement options once engaged are to continue fighting or flee in the direction of the door, since it seems pretty obvious to me where the "Front" and "back" are. Do you disagree?

Interesting analysis Willie. I haven't played newer versions of D&D so I can't fairly comment on what tactics the rules in those editions reward. I'm also not arrogant enough to claim that older versions of D&D suck because they don't correspond to certain, ah,  contemporary playstyles.

You make the reasonable claim that many players who started playing D&D in the 80's wanted a more cinematic playstyle, but the rules did not reward that. So they probably houseruled. OK. But in the meantime, the industry that emerged in D&D's wake didn't really address that. The more important trend instead was towards greater "realism" and more rules density. Games became more complex and not necessarily more fun to play, YMMV. The new teenager demographic may not have all had a wargamer background, but they certainly wanted their splat!

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980439You don't get multiple strikes on an opportunity attack in 5e. At low level, a Fighter's OA can easily kill a monster outright. At high level, they're an inconvenience at best. IMO that's a problem with high-level 5e. Only Paladins and Rogues have seriously threatening OAs.

This seems to be a consequence of the decision to give some classes multiple, reasonable-damage-attacks and other classes a single, situationally-really-awesome attack like Sneak Attacks and Smites. What do you suppose happens if you gave a full, normal attack sequence for each OA?

The more rules they add, the worse the game plays.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980478No, there's a consequence for moving away from combat, which is framed in terms of sides, not individual tokens. In AD&D, you may

Attack
Parry
Fall back
Flee

The actual rules state

QuoteBreaking Off From Melee:
At such time as any creature decides[/B}, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing party may move away at full movement rate, and unless the opponent pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance.

That what AD&D RAW states.

Since we arguing on the basis of RAW, there is no prohibition written that says that a BBEG can't engage the fighter, decide to break off, make up to a full movement, stopping when the BBEG enters melee range of the Wizard. In short RAW AD&D is no better or worse than 3e or 5e in this regard.

If you want breaking off from melee to only used if the combatant is in a panicked state and not as a tactic that is your right as referee. But it is not supported by RAW and the plain meaning of the terms Gygax used. He wrote some dense text but is not one of them.  What is interesting there appears nothing that says explicitly AD&D that you stop movement one you become engaged in melee combat. Although it is obvious that what assumed.

Also it reasonable in RAW that that the first "step" of movement has to be to a point out of melee range otherwise the combatant trying to break becomes re-engaged.

My conclusion is that AD&D RAW doesn't support you interpretation of breaking off melee.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980478Interpreting  the word "flee" to include "charging past the fighter to smack the wizard" is much more lawyerly than interpreting the language in a natural way.

First off you weren't specific as to which classic edition you were using but since we do now we can get specific. As stated above AD&D doesn't have a explicit rule but it is obviously implied by the text that once you entered melee range movement ceases. So you are correct to say that a BBEG can't charge past a lone fighter blocking his path. However the BBEG can break off the next round and continue to engage the fighter.

As for the plain meaning of flee, the good ol' bat dictionary has two

Flee could mean

Quote1) run away from a place or situation of danger.
or
2) run away from (someone or something).

And if the BBEG breaks off the next round he is certainly running away from that fighter.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980478It's entirely plausible that if you're within fighting distance of someone, he'd be able to stop you from moving around behind him. Happens all the time in football.

Yes but we are talking about a minute melee round per RAW which is a hell of long time in football.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980478But aside from the plausibility, the problem is the RAW doesn't really comprehend the situation.

You are forgetting that it been stated several times if the rules don't cover something or doesn't make sense, make a ruling in light of what you know. My view it is plausible for a BBEG to ignore the lone fighter in front him to go after the wizard. It may take a extra round and the BBEG will suffer a few hits but if the BBEG (or PC) feel the situation warrants it. The opposition has a problem with that, then they can just bloody well learn to work together in a formation or hire enough men at arms to form a formation.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980478You don't get multiple strikes on an opportunity attack in 5e. At low level, a Fighter's OA can easily kill a monster outright. At high level, they're an inconvenience at best. IMO that's a problem with high-level 5e. Only Paladins and Rogues have seriously threatening OAs.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;980478Okay, let me be really thorough, then. I'm imagining this kind of situation:

(snip good diagram)

If the BBEG wants to move around the fighter and attack the wizard, it sounds like Chainmail says the fighter can move to intercept, similarly if he tried to move around the cleric. That's the way I understand AD&D as well. Also, once the Fighter and the BBEG are engaged, the way I read AD&D, the BBEG's only movement options once engaged are to continue fighting or flee in the direction of the door, since it seems pretty obvious to me where the "Front" and "back" are. Do you disagree?

First it is Breaking off Melee action not the Flee action.  Now that we specified AD&D I would adjudicate the sequence as

BBEG move the engage the Fighter

Fight a Round of Melee with the Fighter

BBEG breaks off moves to the Cleric and engages in Melee.

The Fighter gets a opportunity attack.

The Fighter gets to move and engage the BBEG.

The BBEG may get an attack if the distance to the cleric was less than half of the BBEG's move if you feeling generous. It would be reason to interpret Breaking off as the thing you do that round in lieu of an attack. It not clear how breaking off movement interacts with the rules about engaging in melee combat after movement.

Regardless the Cleric gets to attack.

Now it this point it starts to get high situational. If the party has a clue then the fighter would move in such a way that the BBEG can't break off and do a full move. At best the BBEG would be able to take a 10 foot step left or right. But if it doesn't work out that way then the following applies.

The BBEG break off melee.

Cleric gets a AoO
The Fighter gets a AoO

The BBEG moves and engages the Wizard again your call whether the BBEG get an attack this round.

The Cleric moves and engages the BBEG
The Fighter moves and engages the BBEG
Melee is resolved. And all three party members will definitely get a melee attack this round

Despite our disagreement about breaking off of mellee, my interpretation still means that it is going to be rough for the BBEG to attempt this. And not a "I win" plan. But may be the only logical course if getting the Wizard into melee range is that important.

And if the BBEG is sitting there alone with no guards and no defenses with his thumb up his ass, I STILL maintain he deserves to be butchered.

Gary assumed the players and ref were smart enough to shit unassisted.  This assumption has, sadly, proven to be inoperative.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980503And if the BBEG is sitting there alone with no guards and no defenses with his thumb up his ass, I STILL maintain he deserves to be butchered.

Bilbo: Hey what do I see?
Referee:A vast and lofty cavern filled with gold and treasure. And in its midst Smaug the Golden lies sleeping
Bilbo: Does have any guards?
Referee: No
Bilbo: Is Anybody else around? Does it have any defense?
Referee: Nope.
Bilbo: Well according to Gronan it deserved to be butchered so I kill it and take it's treasure.
Referee: Waaait a minute.....
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1220[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980503And if the BBEG is sitting there alone with no guards and no defenses with his thumb up his ass, I STILL maintain he deserves to be butchered.

Gary assumed the players and ref were smart enough to shit unassisted.  This assumption has, sadly, proven to be inoperative.

So far as I can tell, no one has said otherwise. Fearsome pulled this BBEG out of thin air to create a scenario around which we can analyze how the rules work for keeping the enemies from swarming the magic user (in a scenario so contrived, he had the PCs call out "Ho there, evil foe!"). Who is it that you are still maintaining this position in opposition towards?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;980515So far as I can tell, no one has said otherwise. Fearsome pulled this BBEG out of thin air to create a scenario around which we can analyze how the rules work for keeping the enemies from swarming the magic user (in a scenario so contrived, he had the PCs call out "Ho there, evil foe!"). Who is it that you are still maintaining this position in opposition towards?

They're still "white-rooming" an utterly ridiculous situation.  My point (and I do have one) is that a stupid statement should be ignored, not engaged with.

And if somebody actually said "Ho there, evil foe" in my group the game would end right there, because we'd all be laughing so hard we'd pass out.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980520They're still "white-rooming" an utterly ridiculous situation.  My point (and I do have one) is that a stupid statement should be ignored, not engaged with.

Y'know. I think I agree.
I am so used to forum-goers patting themselves on the back for being superior to nonexistent straw-bad-gamers, that I jumped to conclusions. My bad.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980521And if somebody actually said "Ho there, evil foe" in my group the game would end right there, because we'd all be laughing so hard we'd pass out.

I think my DM would have the evil lich villain narrow their eyes, squint (neither of which a lich ought to be able to do), glance down at their dry, desiccated crotch and say, "did...did you just call me a 'ho?'..."

Quote from: estar;980510Bilbo: Hey what do I see?
Referee:A vast and lofty cavern filled with gold and treasure. And in its midst Smaug the Golden lies sleeping
Bilbo: Does have any guards?
Referee: No
Bilbo: Is Anybody else around? Does it have any defense?
Referee: Nope.
Bilbo: Well according to Gronan it deserved to be butchered so I kill it and take it's treasure.
Referee: Waaait a minute.....
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1220[/ATTACH]

And if, instead of one first level hobbit thief, it had been Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Glorfindel, Aragorn, and Boromir, it might have gone badly for Smaug.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;980522I think my DM would have the evil lich villain narrow their eyes, squint (neither of which a lich ought to be able to do), glance down at their dry, desiccated crotch and say, "did...did you just call me a 'ho?'..."

Or be like Xykon, and just say, "Kid, who writes your dialogue?"

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980525And if, instead of one first level hobbit thief, it had been Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Glorfindel, Aragorn, and Boromir, it might have gone badly for Smaug.

Also, is it time for "Games are not books" again?

Quote from: estar;980500Since we arguing on the basis of RAW, there is no prohibition written that says that a BBEG can't engage the fighter, decide to break off, make up to a full movement, stopping when the BBEG enters melee range of the Wizard. In short RAW AD&D is no better or worse than 3e or 5e in this regard.

Here's the text I'm looking at:

Quote from: PHB 104Participants in a melee can opt to attack, parry, fall back, or flee.
Attack can be by weapon, bore hands, or grappling.
Parrying disallows any return attack that round, but the strength "to hit" bonus is then subtracted from the opponent's "to hit" dice roll(s), so the character is less likely to be hit.
Falling back is a retrograde move facing the opponent(s) and can be used in conjunction with a parry, and opponent creatures are able to follow if not otherwise engaged.
Fleeing meads as rapid a withdrawal from combat as possible; while it exposes the character to rear attack at the time, subsequent attacks can only be made if the opponent is able to follow the fleeing character at equal or greater speed.

TIL fleeing is called "Breaking Off" in the DMG. Thanks, Gary.

QuoteBBEG move to engage the Fighter
Fight a Round of Melee with the Fighter

So it seems to me that once we are here (this is assuming the fighter can move to intercept the BBEG directly rather than having to argue further on the details of diagonal movement in AD&D), the BBEG's only possible movements are the squares marked with an X, as nothing else would be "away" from the fighter.

| |X|X|X|
| | |B| |
| |-|F|-|

And if the fighter elects to pursue, progress closer to the wizard is precluded.

QuoteDespite our disagreement about breaking off of melee, my interpretation still means that it is going to be rough for the BBEG to attempt this. And not a "I win" plan. But may be the only logical course if getting the Wizard into melee range is that important.

Right. I mean whether you or I are the DM, the fact is this sort of layout gives serious protection to the wizard. My interpretation, he has to stay and get pounded by the fighter. Your interpretation, if he really wants to go for the wizard, he's going to take a blizzard of attacks that, with +3 or better magic weapons, could amount to ~12 HD of damage or more. Seems good to me. That'll outright kill a lot of monsters. So no matter who's interpretation we go with, this is a fairly smart layout for the players, one that the DM can approach in a variety of ways without feeling like an ass.

In 5e, if the BBEG gets a good initiative roll, he moves to the right, draws a single piddly little attack's worth of damage from the fighter, and turns the wizard into paste in a single round. Seriously, look through the manual. A CR N monster is nearly always capable of taking out an Nth-level wizard in one round. And since AoO's don't scale up for the fighter, I'm in a place where either I play moderately stupid, or I play in such a way that 99% of encounters are "the fighter stands in the door while others shoot through him." I've done the latter, and it's kind of boring.

People do play that way. I've played in a few Earthdawn games without "zones of control" and in those games "gank the mage" happened FAST (no Opportunity Attacks in the game either, thank the passions for reactive dodge rolls).

In my current games, as I'm experimenting moving back to the older style, I have simply said moving through a ZoC takes a Dexterity Check against the opponent's Physical Defense (a stat based on Dex), with failure ending movement. This follows the game's "Impaired Movement (Heavy)" rule. Simple. Bam, windlings (faerie PC race) with high Dex float right through your pike formation. Giant clumsy troll has to batter it down or go around it (suffering the same multiple hits the BBEG took in that scenario), possibly getting "stuck" to other intervening units.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;980528Also, is it time for "Games are not books" again?

This is a better response than the first. There is no suggestion in the books that any combination of champions would be able to withstand Smaug. He defeated armies.

Quote from: Voros;980611This is a better response than the first. There is no suggestion in the books that any combination of champions would be able to withstand Smaug. He defeated armies.

Talk about missing the damn point of the satire.

Quote from: Telarus;980603People do play that way. I've played in a few Earthdawn games without "zones of control" and in those games "gank the mage" happened FAST (no Opportunity Attacks in the game either, thank the passions for reactive dodge rolls).

In my current games, as I'm experimenting moving back to the older style, I have simply said moving through a ZoC takes a Dexterity Check against the opponent's Physical Defense (a stat based on Dex), with failure ending movement. This follows the game's "Impaired Movement (Heavy)" rule. Simple. Bam, windlings (faerie PC race) with high Dex float right through your pike formation. Giant clumsy troll has to batter it down or go around it (suffering the same multiple hits the BBEG took in that scenario), possibly getting "stuck" to other intervening units.

Were you the one who asked about allowing Extra Attack in AoO? One reason I think they decided not to allow it is players and monsters are still somewhat symmetrical, and CR-appropriate monsters do buckets of damage. While your 12th-level fighter might only do 1d8+7 per attack, a CR 12 Erinyes does 4d8+4. Allowing her all three attacks on an AoO makes it almost impossible for someone to retreat out of a situation that's gone upside-down.

I've adopted Theater of the Mind rules based loosely on 13th Age. Each side has Melee/Near/Distant ranks, assuming a sufficiently large area, and an enemy in the Melee rank blocks progress unless he's engaged with at least two opponents.

Quote from: estar;980613Talk about missing the damn point of the satire.

No sure if this is in reference to me or Gronan but I thought your post was funny. Not something I say about your posts too often!

Quote from: estar;980455Based on my experience playing later wargames I am going to assume that control in this case means "once entered, movement ceases, the combatant is not in melee". That how ZoC worked in Panzerblitz which is the first time I encountered the concept.

What it doesn't mean that in subsequent rounds the combatant CAN'T move out of the ZoC to somewhere else.

There are a lot of different kinds of ZoC from wargames; looking at Introduction to War Gaming (https://grognard.com/wargamerfiles/spiintro.pdf), page 23, you seem to be describing a Rigid, Inactive, Permissive Zone of Control. Not that the effect on supply lines comes up at the usual role-playing level of skirmish combats.

Too many restrictions on movement through melee? Everyone ends up glued to the first spot they ended up next to an opponent. Too few restrictions on movement through melee? No point to even having guards or a marching order, since everyone just attacks whomever they like. A given person's ideal is somewhere in between, although likely closer to the former than the latter.