Quote from: 1989;436757Minions are lame meta-gaming constructs born of player empowerment.

Other people having fun their own way must really piss you off.  Grrr.

For the record, I don't like minions.  I just think it's funny to see people get all bent out of shape about them.

Quote from: Peregrin;436769Other people having fun their own way must really piss you off.  Grrr.

For the record, I don't like minions.  I just think it's funny to see people get all bent out of shape about them.

If it has anything to do with 4e 1989 is pissed off about it

Quote from: Doom;436768well, to be fair, just how often does the 10th level fighter meet goblins, and moreover, how often is he going to be adjacent to 10 of them?

I mean, it's a valid complaint, but something of an edge case, eh?

What I find totally hilarious is how everyone is an expert at hand-to-hand combat.  

Quote from: Thanlis;436741Yeah, AM came pretty close to killing us all off in that one.

I think that's new information.

Quote from: 1989;436757Minions are lame meta-gaming constructs born of player empowerment.

This but with more invective

Anyhow.  In a one minute combat round I think it would be absurd to think figures can't push in or move a bit to get to another target.  Really In AD&D a tenth level fighter without magical gear is only a match for 20 - 30 goblins who enmass will have almost as many attacks and hit points if not as low a target number to hit.

Go look at the number appearing values in AD&D 1e's monster manual again.

Quote from: StormBringer;436780What I find totally hilarious is how everyone is an expert at hand-to-hand combat.  

Best hand to hand combat attacks in a 4e game are by the Wizard with his big stick.

Just like the law of the Hobbits in the LOTR wargame. On paper they're fated to die but lady luck has other ideas.

Quote from: Doom;436768well, to be fair, just how often does the 10th level fighter meet goblins, and moreover, how often is he going to be adjacent to 10 of them?

I mean, it's a valid complaint, but something of an edge case, eh?

Oh, you know. About as often as a fighter in any edition sees a constant stream of goblins entering the room one at a time for easy kill-time comparison purposes.

Quote from: Doom;436768well, to be fair, just how often does the 10th level fighter meet goblins, and moreover, how often is he going to be adjacent to 10 of them?

Why should players stop facing goblins just because they're 10th level? Sounds like Encounterdization in AD&D to me.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;436909Why should players stop facing goblins just because they're 10th level? Sounds like Encounterdization in AD&D to me.

Seanchai

That's something that I never liked from 3E onwards: the mentality that Encounters had to be Balanced for the party. Why? If you can't win, don't fight. Or, if it's too late for that, run. Not everything you run into is going to be a neatly parceled, completely winnable, level-appropriate package.

Quote from: Bobloblah;436921That's something that I never liked from 3E onwards: the mentality that Encounters had to be Balanced for the party. Why? If you can't win, don't fight. Or, if it's too late for that, run. Not everything you run into is going to be a neatly parceled, completely winnable, level-appropriate package.

Personally, I think that the difference is-- by 3e they actually had rules that showed you exactly how difficult it was to run away.

In prior editions you could usually just say "We run away", and there might be some discussion, but the upshot is.. you run away.

In 3e, you first have to adjudicate the AoO you will be suffering from breaking off. You might have to do a fighting retreat over the course of several rounds.. even then, the enemy might have several ways of circumventing you (reach, movement modes, tracking, burrowing, tremorsense.... ) from escape that the DM would literally have to pretend he didn't know about in order to help you run away.

The other thing is that in older editions (well, AD&D, to be sure)  you also had a common situation where hit dice kinda capped out at 16+ as far as combat ability went, so it was not uncommon to be fighting goblins at a much higher level, and basically just wiping them out. The correct fight to pick in AD&D is an unfair one in which you will always win, or none at all. That's kind of the goal.

So I kind of have to chuckle at the macho talk. Someone who missed out on 3e and 4e talking smack about combat most likely wouldn't stand a chance in his first few battles- even against slightly disadvantaged opponents. He'd likely end up flanked and prone within a few rounds just because he doesn't really understand how the rules work.

They didn't have it tougher, they had it easier. And any of the tough stuff probably got done by a series of disposable light footmen that got hired for the occasion.

Here's a famously attributed Gygax riddle

"Why does the DM roll dice?"

Quote from: Doom;436768well, to be fair, just how often does the 10th level fighter meet goblins, and moreover, how often is he going to be adjacent to 10 of them?

Fairly often in my campaign worlds. Goblins, orcs, and other such beings breed fast and often so there are lots of them. If you are going to travel around the less civilized parts of the world, you are going to encounter them -- and in large numbers. Parties camped for the night look the same to the average goblin whether they are group of 2nd level characters or a group of 10th level characters....

Quote from: DeadUematsu;436388Not really. I don't think I ever said anything bad about Jrients or Sett.

Also, I do like pre-4E D&D. I just think the game models a world radically different from what most people actually want.

Not that I want to pick a fight, but I suspect most people are playing pre-4e D&D, and therefore....what most people want.....is not 4e D&D. But that discussion probably deserves a thread of its own...

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;436925Not that I want to pick a fight, but I suspect most people are playing pre-4e D&D, and therefore....what most people want.....is not 4e D&D. But that discussion probably deserves a thread of its own...

I suspect that there are more people who own old sets of books that are tucked away on shelves, but as far as playing? I doubt it.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;436926I suspect that there are more people who own old sets of books that are tucked away on shelves, but as far as playing? I doubt it.

I'm not playing any older editions of D&D at all, at the present time.

Either there's no local groups or enough players who are interested, and/or the existing local groups consists of less than desirable players/DMs.  I would rather not play at all, than to play with these particular existing local groups.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;436922Personally, I think that the difference is-- by 3e they actually had rules that showed you exactly how difficult it was to run away.

In prior editions you could usually just say "We run away", and there might be some discussion, but the upshot is.. you run away.

In 3e, you first have to adjudicate the AoO you will be suffering from breaking off. You might have to do a fighting retreat over the course of several rounds.. even then, the enemy might have several ways of circumventing you (reach, movement modes, tracking, burrowing, tremorsense.... ) from escape that the DM would literally have to pretend he didn't know about in order to help you run away.

The other thing is that in older editions (well, AD&D, to be sure)  you also had a common situation where hit dice kinda capped out at 16+ as far as combat ability went, so it was not uncommon to be fighting goblins at a much higher level, and basically just wiping them out. The correct fight to pick in AD&D is an unfair one in which you will always win, or none at all. That's kind of the goal.

So I kind of have to chuckle at the macho talk. Someone who missed out on 3e and 4e talking smack about combat most likely wouldn't stand a chance in his first few battles- even against slightly disadvantaged opponents. He'd likely end up flanked and prone within a few rounds just because he doesn't really understand how the rules work.

I didn't intend that to be any kind of macho talk. Just more that my experiences as both a player and a DM were that the PCs couldn't be sure that an encounter was winnable, just because it was there. It was often important to try and assess what you were getting into before going off all half-cocked. Not that going off half-cocked never happened, but being used to mop the floor led to some of the more memorable adventuring moments, as well as being an object lesson in what not to do.

I've tried to encourage the same kind of thinking in any and all new players I've collected (I mostly DM these days). There seems to be more of a bias towards believing that if something is there, it must be winnable. I've often wondered if this is spillover from electronic gaming, as in video games that's usually the case.