Quote from: Drohem;437629Personally, it has to do with when these conditions start and stop because you can have multiple conditions that either start or stop on either the start or end of either your round or your opponent's round.  In 3.x D&D, the conditions were tracked in whole round units which could easily be ticked off on a scratch sheet.  Now, you have to verify the condition at the start of a round for your character(s) or the affected opponent(s), and at the end of round for your character(s) or the affected opponent(s).

Egads, I hope that makes sense.

Okay...I see what you're saying.

This is exactly why I think every condition should be "save ends".

I also realize that previous editions of D&D were more about one-on-one fights between the PC's and one monster. 4E is about a team of heroes fighting a team of monsters, and now everyone can throw around status effects, so I see how the game could get cluttered.

I just never noticed because I'm good at keep track of all these things mentally when I run.  I wouldn't even use condition markers if my players didn't insist on it.

Quote from: Shazbot79;437637Okay...I see what you're saying.

This is exactly why I think every condition should be "save ends".

I also realize that previous editions of D&D were more about one-on-one fights between the PC's and one monster. 4E is about a team of heroes fighting a team of monsters, and now everyone can throw around status effects, so I see how the game could get cluttered.

I just never noticed because I'm good at keep track of all these things mentally when I run.  I wouldn't even use condition markers if my players didn't insist on it.

Yeah, it's not anything world-shattering; it just can get crazy at higher levels of play and when a large number of tokens are on the board.

Quote from: Shazbot79;437637I also realize that previous editions of D&D were more about one-on-one fights between the PC's and one monster.

I'm not sure what you're smoking but it's sure making you talk nonsense.

Earlier versions of D&D were set up for huge fights.  The whole one hit dice cannon fodder was a  wargame mechanic to allow PCs to mow down hordes of enemies while still being threatened by them.  But even multiple large monsters were easy to handle in play.  In 4e even running a kobold minion is a nightmare of interlacing special abilities and powers.

Tell that to my RC D&D players back when they'd encounter 60 kobolds at a time.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Shazbot79;437637I also realize that previous editions of D&D were more about one-on-one fights between the PC's and one monster.

Definitely not true about TSR editions of D&D. Large numbers of monsters were the norm according to the rules and in play in most game groups I know/knew of.

The notion IS true for one thing: Paizo adventure paths.

Quote from: Settembrini;438067The notion IS true for one thing: Paizo adventure paths.

Prove it.

Quote from: jeff37923;438083Prove it.

Well, it's based on D&D3, which definitely was geared towards a party of 4 PCs against a monster of equal CR. There are ways to tune it towards more or less. But in general, once you doble the nunberof monsters, you bump the EL by 2. So if a single Ogre is an EL 2, then 2 ogres is a 4. And 4 ogres (double again) is a 6. But the default is a single monster.

But for all of you saying  "early editions of D&D were about fighting a million monsters"?  Wasn't the earlier claim that earlier D&D was really about avoiding encounters entirely because the combat system was geared to kill you?

Ok, that's a trick question, because I already know the answer.

The truth is, there were certainly entries like "10-100 goblins" in the monster manual, and there's a million interpretations of that (I see that as "create a settlement of 10-100 goblins, and sort of map the area out.. You don't just pile 85 goblins in a room..but interpretations vary)

Actual AD&D encounter tables are on pages 175-179 in the AD&D 1st edition DMG. Check it yourself if you don't believe me. After the first 2 levels or so (that is, Monster level, not dungeon level) you get beyond 5-20 giant rats or 5-15 stirges or 4-10 gnolls. Most monsters beyond that are 1-4, 1-3, 1-2 or simply "1". There are exceptions: 2-7 bugbears or 2-5 blink dogs or whatnot, but most are in that "half a dice worth" range: 1-4 or so.

Quote from: David Johansen;437728In 4e even running a kobold minion is a nightmare of interlacing special abilities and powers.

Which interlacing powers and abilities are we talking about here, or.. do you actually know?

Well, consider a kobold marked by a fighter and cursed by a warlock, moved adjacent to by another character on his last movement point.

Interrupt! Shifty kobold shifts. No longer in melee range!

Interrupt-interrupt. Combat Challenge! No, not an opportunity attack, you don't get your wisdom bonus to that, fighter. Hit! Uninterrupt the first interrupt! Kobold moves back! Oh wait, not it doesn't, that's Combat Superiority for a move. Un-uninterrupt that interrupt. Wait, did the kobold die? Doesn't someone get a bonus if it dies in range? Wait, what square did it die in? Nevermind, I get it either way. Free action on the interrupt-interrupt, warlock teleports 3 squares.

Expect to see a repeat of this for the next three players, depending on shifts and moves.

And that's just assuming level 1 powers in play...stack on a few levels and powers, and things get really goofy.


Anyway, higher level D&D certainly had mostly fights against a handful of opponents (not solos, though....just not hordes, either). Of course, in AD&D characters really only had one or two things they could do each round, so the 'action economy' wasn't quite a big a deal, and nothing like in 4e, where most solos have little chance of doing anything if they're, like, solo.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438100But for all of you saying  "early editions of D&D were about fighting a million monsters"?  Wasn't the earlier claim that earlier D&D was really about avoiding encounters entirely because the combat system was geared to kill you?

Both are true (if you don't take the "million monsters" claim literally). You avoided encounters in early editions of D&D that you did not think you could win or that were not worth bothering with (potentials rewards did not outweigh the risks) because combat was dangerous, what your encountered was what was there, not something designed especially around your groups current levels and abilities.

Ok, that's a trick question, because I already know the answer.

The truth is, there were certainly entries like "10-100 goblins" in the monster manual, and there's a million interpretations of that (I see that as "create a settlement of 10-100 goblins, and sort of map the area out.. You don't just pile 85 goblins in a room..but interpretations vary)

QuoteActual AD&D encounter tables are on pages 175-179 in the AD&D 1st edition DMG. Check it yourself if you don't believe me. After the first 2 levels or so (that is, Monster level, not dungeon level) you get beyond 5-20 giant rats or 5-15 stirges or 4-10 gnolls. Most monsters beyond that are 1-4, 1-3, 1-2 or simply "1". There are exceptions: 2-7 bugbears or 2-5 blink dogs or whatnot, but most are in that "half a dice worth" range: 1-4 or so.

In dungeons that's true. However, it was was easy to end up with far more than that as the noise of battle brought other monsters. Also, it might not be 1d4 monsters you can beat but 1d4 monsters well over your level. For example, you could -- by the tables in the 1e DMG -- encounter 1d3 Ogres on the first level of a dungeon.  In the wilderness, the numbers encountered were often far larger and they could be anything as the wilderness wasn't divided into "levels".

Quote from: Doom;438110Well, consider a kobold marked by a fighter, moved adjacent to by another character on his last movement point.

Interrupt! Shifty kobold shifts. No longer in melee range!

Interrupt-interrupt. Combat Challenge! Hit! Uninterrupt the first interrupt! Kobold moves back!

Now first player can make a melee attack! Expect to see a repeat of this for the next three players.

And that's just assuming level 1 powers in play...stack on a few levels and powers, and things get really goofy.


Anyway, higher level D&D certainly had mostly fights against a handful of opponents (not solos, though....just not hordes, either). Of course, in AD&D characters really only had one or two things they could do each round, so the 'action economy' wasn't quite a big a deal, and nothing like in 4e, where most solos have little chance of doing anything if they're, like, solo.

I was hoping to get the answer from the guy who had never played 4e, not the guy who just played it incompetently. Ok. If you are doing it this way, you are doing it wrong.
 
 Shifty (minor; at-will): The kobold shifts 1 square as a minor action. It's not an interrupt. It happens on his own turn. You might be thinking of goblins, who get to shift when missed by a melee attack.

Here's how it actually works: If a marked kobold shifts (which happens on it's own turn) then the fighter gets an attack, if he can reach it. That's all there is. There's no interrupting the interrupt, because the kobold simply has no power to do that.

If this were a goblin, who is marked, and it gets missed, if gets a free shift on the players turn. If that shift is close enough to the marking fighter, the fighter gets  a shot on him. But he only gets one during the entire round, and never on his own turn. (note: and the same goes for the goblin). So if the melee attack came from the fighter in the first place? The goblin simply shifts.

Quote from: RandallS;438111In dungeons that's true. However, it was was easy to end up with far more than that as the noise of battle brought other monsters. Also, it might not be 1d4 monsters you can beat but 1d4 monsters well over your level. For example, you could -- by the tables in the 1e DMG -- encounter 1d3 Ogres on the first level of a dungeon.  In the wilderness, the numbers encountered were often far larger and they could be anything as the wilderness wasn't divided into "levels".

True in all editions.

I don't think 1d3 ogres would be an unwinnable encounter for low level PCs in AD&D, either. Especially if they had hirelings to absorb the brunt of battle while the PCs stayed in the rear firing arrows or set up a fighting retreat.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;438121True in all editions.

I don't think 1d3 ogres would be an unwinnable encounter for low level PCs in AD&D, either. Especially if they had hirelings to absorb the brunt of battle while the PCs stayed in the rear firing arrows or set up a fighting retreat.

De[pends how you ruled Ogre Strength and Damage. I figured that if Ogres are inteligent-ish they woudl use wepaons and they really should have 18 (00) strength so they all get +3 to hit and somthing like a d10 + 6 damage.

At those rates 3 ogres can kill a party of 5 5th level PCs if they come across them unawares (an average 5th level wizard has 12 hp remember and an average 5th level figther only has 27)

Just sayin.

Quote from: jibbajibba;438123De[pends how you ruled Ogre Strength and Damage. I figured that if Ogres are inteligent-ish they woudl use wepaons and they really should have 18 (00) strength so they all get +3 to hit and somthing like a d10 + 6 damage.

At those rates 3 ogres can kill a party of 5 5th level PCs if they come across them unawares (an average 5th level wizard has 12 hp remember and an average 5th level figther only has 27)

Just sayin.

They can only attack once per round. In AD&D they do 1d10 or "by weapon". You could probably count on a squad of 10 light footmen (or even heavy footmen) with a sergeant..augmenting the party as the front line.  That's 3 rounds at least where you don't even break a sweat, firing arrow after arrow, just enough to do 4d8+1 hp (let's say 21 hp per ogre)  of damage, and your front line is probably landing a few blows of their own.

It's not an unwinnable battle is all I am saying. plus we don't really have to change the rules (not a very common thing to start suddenly giving Ogres the bonuses that aren't part of their stat block).. that's not really how AD&D was supposed to work, is it? DMs don't need to change the stat block, they could just roll behind the screen and make everything up. Do you know the gygaxian riddle "Why does a DM roll dice?"

Even so. Not unwinnable.