Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
So again... Level 10 or so before you get to 'real' dragons.

Great example of how in 3.5/4E you only fight what you can handle. So higher-level characters fight higher-level dragons. Lower-level characters fight lower-level dragons.

What? We were answering Alpharius' question about whether you would fight a real dragon at low levels in 3E. You were disputing that.

And I go back to my original statement, those player's problem had nothing to do with system and everything to do with their expectations based on previous DMs.

In 1st and 2nd Wizards also took longer to level.

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
SoD basically makes high-level D&D a game of 'don't roll a 1'.

It can be poorly implemented or abused, which just makes it like anything else.

http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2012/04/on-six-things-you-dont-know-about-save.html

Right, and no part of that article disputes the fact that high level combats come down to 'don't roll a 1'.

 pretre wrote:
And I go back to my original statement, those player's problem had nothing to do with system and everything to do with their expectations based on previous DMs.

No, it was the system that taught them that all encounters are there to be beaten by them, and only a bad DM would make put something in their way they couldn't beat. They even said that after dieing. Well, not the system part, but that they felt that there shouldn't be things they can't beat that they run into. The DM tried explaining that they could have gone around it or found a different approach but they didn't think it was right to put something in the story they couldn't fight. It wasn't just one person either, but four, though one of them had sort of a 'eh' attitude toward the.

 Ahtman wrote:
In 1st and 2nd Wizards also took longer to level.

they also didn't automatically learn spells (there was a chance of failure to learn), and they needed to acquire a spell book with the spell tehy wanted.

The latter was the real way to temper wizards: simply only give them access to certain spells.

One fix my group used in 2nd edition was to give mages the "Field Wizard" rule. They got a bonus spell per level that could only be used on certain utility type spells, but in return they coud only memorize each spell one time. It made wizards more able to do magic, but limited their ability to dominate combat. (oh, and nobody could learn both Fireball and Lightning Bolt).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
SoD basically makes high-level D&D a game of 'don't roll a 1'.

It can be poorly implemented or abused, which just makes it like anything else.

http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2012/04/on-six-things-you-dont-know-about-save.html

Right, and no part of that article disputes the fact that high level combats come down to 'don't roll a 1'.

Well, except for the part that SoD only applies when characters do something stupidly reckless.

So yes, high level characters directly charging a Medusa need to "not roll a 1." Or they could actually do some adventuring, and avoid the effect entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 pretre wrote:
And I go back to my original statement, those player's problem had nothing to do with system and everything to do with their expectations based on previous DMs.

No, it was the system that taught them that all encounters are there to be beaten by them, and only a bad DM would make put something in their way they couldn't beat. They even said that after dieing. Well, not the system part, but that they felt that there shouldn't be things they can't beat that they run into. The DM tried explaining that they could have gone around it or found a different approach but they didn't think it was right to put something in the story they couldn't fight. It wasn't just one person either, but four, though one of them had sort of a 'eh' attitude toward the.

2nd edition had explicit rules for parley and running away. Hell, Munchkin has a mechanic for avoiding combat.

 Ahtman wrote:

 pretre wrote:
And I go back to my original statement, those player's problem had nothing to do with system and everything to do with their expectations based on previous DMs.

No, it was the system that taught them that all encounters are there to be beaten by them, and only a bad DM would make put something in their way they couldn't beat. They even said that after dieing. Well, not the system part, but that they felt that there shouldn't be things they can't beat that they run into. The DM tried explaining that they could have gone around it or found a different approach but they didn't think it was right to put something in the story they couldn't fight. It wasn't just one person either, but four, though one of them had sort of a 'eh' attitude toward the.

Then that's some dumb players. All D&D's, even with Challenge ratings, never said that you would always win a fight or that you should always win a fight. There were always times you might need to run away. Blaming it on the system is silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
Well, except for the part that SoD only applies when characters do something stupidly reckless.

So yes, high level characters directly charging a Medusa need to "not roll a 1." Or they could actually do some adventuring, and avoid the effect entirely.

Charge a Medusa, Fight a Beholder, Fight a Balor, Fight a Wizard. In 1st through 3rd, most high-level encounters involve one or more parties that can kill the other one outright if they fail their save. It isn't just Medusas and avoidable effects. Although, I suppose you could just avoid meddling in the affairs of wizards entirely once you get past level 10.

2nd edition had explicit rules for parley and running away.

All editions had rules for talking to bad guys. Although, I always thought it was silly, since you can just roleplay talking to bad guys.

Low-level players can fight real dragons in 3E and 4E. This is because dragons have been scaled to make it possible. As far as the game is concerned, they're "real" dragons. The reason those editions scale down dragons is because under their rubric you are supposed to be able to fight what you come across.

 Manchu wrote:
Low-level players can fight real dragons in 3E and 4E. This is because dragons have been scaled to make it possible. As far as the game is concerned, they're "real" dragons. The reason those editions scale down dragons is because under their rubric you are supposed to be able to fight what you come across.

The same is true of 1st edition as well. Dragons always scaled. My first edition monster manual has rules for 1 HP per HD dragons (very young) and could easily be tackled by low level parties.

Your scaling argument is a red herring. The problem with that story is the players and their expectations, not the system they came from.

 pretre wrote:
Then that's some dumb players.

It is more that they had become acclimated to a certain attitude, or approach, to RPG's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
The problem with that story is the players and their expectations, not the system they came from.

Expectations don't form in a vacuum, the different systems encourage different attitudes toward the game.

As already discussed, HD is not the same thing as CR or EL. This is because HD, even a HP/HD chart, is not part of an overall design for combat-encounter balance. In fact, system does matter.

To wit, you will note that dragon age is randomly determined in the AD&D MM. This is something like the logic of the wandering monster tables. It is a tool to populate a world, not to balance a fight.

 Manchu wrote:
As already discussed, HD is not the same thing as CR or EL. This is because HD, even a HP/HD chart, is not part of an overall design for combat-encounter balance. In fact, system does matter.

To wit, you will note that dragon age is randomly determined in the AD&D MM. This is something like the logic of the wandering monster tables. It is a tool to populate a world, not to balance a fight.

The random monster tables were scaled by level. I.e. appropriate encounters for the level. 1st Ed required DMs to pick appropriate encounters just as 3rd and 4th ed did. 3rd and 4th just added CR and EL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 pretre wrote:
The problem with that story is the players and their expectations, not the system they came from.

Expectations don't form in a vacuum, the different systems encourage different attitudes toward the game.

I'll agree to that to an extent. I still don't think that 3E or 4E encourage that any more than 1st ed did though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
1st Edition DMG, a 1st level dungeon could generate a Very Young dragon. Just double checked.

 pretre wrote:
3rd and 4th just added CR and EL.

"Just added"?

 Manchu wrote:

 pretre wrote:
3rd and 4th just added CR and EL.

"Just added"?

Your point? Are you trying to say that 3rd/4th changed more things than just CR/EL? I think that's obvious and just taking my statement ouf of context.

The random monster tables were scaled by level. I.e. appropriate encounters for the level. 1st Ed required DMs to pick appropriate encounters just as 3rd and 4th ed did. 3rd and 4th just added CR and EL.

I was talking about how to pick encounters. In 1st/2nd, you had to do it based on the monster tables/descriptions and XP values. In 3rd/4th, they 'just added' CR/EL to that equation.

Again, CR/EL are much more (because they are mechanics of an overarching design goal) than the "monster level" clusters of Appendix C, which is by the way only one of several ways random encounter tables are organized there.

This is not "just added." It's a significant change that goes to the very heart of the game.

Nevermind. It's not worth it.

Because low level character can take on real dragons who are not babies or extremely young in 3.5 and 4E.

You are saying that such a dragon either qualifies as not "real" or presumably a "baby or an extremely young one." I suppose that's a matter of perspective external to the rules. But in terms of the rules themselves, they are real dragons and they are not babies. For instance, there was a Young White Dragon in Keep on the Shadowfell, the very first adventure for 4E.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
Nevermind. It's not worth a warning.

That's not only backhanded, but extremely low.

It's backhanded and low to think better of something you posted that went over the line and edit it out? I think we will have to agree to disagree about that one.

I would say that monitoring yourself for rule infringement is actually what you're supposed to do. You are certainly free to think less of me for it though.

You didn't post a thing that was insulting at first. Implying that I would ding you for disagreeing with me is the insult.

 Manchu wrote:
You didn't post a thing that was insulting at first. Implying that I would ding you for disagreeing with me is the insult.

When I feel that I can't address a point without being rude, I certainly have the right to remove it. I edited once and tried to edit again before I felt that I couldn't make the point with out going over the line. Just because you disagree with where the line is doesn't change that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There. I edited my edit.

Well, to fill in everyone else and move this back on topic, all pretre actually posted was he thought I was taking the discussion too far afield, as per what he ascribed to my habit, and then he reiterated that I must have misunderstood Alpharius's initial question. I don't think I misunderstood his question. Low-level characters are meant to take on real, non-baby dragons in 3.5 and 4E. I also don't think it's taking the discussion on a tangent (considering the dragon question was a tangent of this topic) to explain that this is because encounter balance is such a central part of later editions as compared to earlier ones.

 pretre wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Level 2 characters can take on a dragon (not a baby or an extremely young one, I'm guessing?) in 3.0+ and not only live, but take it down?!?

No.

But some players think that a DM wouldn't put a monster in front of them unless they could beat it.

See, one advantage to having the DMs wife as a PC in our party, was that she was kind enough to inform the rest of the party (my wife and I, and our neighbor and his wife) of what keywords to listen for in most situations as to whether we could beat something in a fight (ie. the party is in a tavern, and there's a "grizzled dude sitting on a stool by the door with a club leaning on the wall" Obviously, these keywords were not present in the event of an ambush or some other situations.

Now that I'm at home with my AD&D DMG in front of me, I can confirm what I recalled: the "Monster Level" random encounter tables of Appendix C are not tied to character/party level but to dungeon level with the idea that more dangerous monsters live deeper down into the dungeon. This is what I mentioned before: world building and, more specifically, a description of an ecological system (what Maliszewski termed "Gygaxian naturalism") rather than an encounter balancing mechanic. Now, it is true that players could metagame their knowledge of the random tables* to restrict their delving to certain levels. But even there we can see the immense difference between this metagaming strategy, to which a roleplayer might justifiably object, and the giveness of balance in later editions as a matter of game design.

Third Edition entailed a complex mini-game of encounter design that interlocked with a scaling XP reward system. The 3.5 DMG speaks of encounter levels being appropriate to party levels. As with most things, 4E rendered the conceits of 3E even more explicit. Having armed/constrained the DM with the XP budget mechanic, the authors go on to warn: "As you select individual threats to make up you encounter, keep the level of those threats in mind. Monsters and traps more than four levels below the party's level or seven levels above the party's level don't make good challenges. They're either too easy or too hard, even if the encounter level seems right." Such proscriptions have nothing to do with the setting in which the characters exist but rather everything to do with the game that the players are playing.

*Metagaming is not the only possibility. Dungeons are an eco-system in the world of D&D, like a swamp or a forest. Just as they might have some knowledge about the characteristics of a traditional ecosystem generally, it is possible (although by no means necessary) that the characters might have similar knowledge about dungeons. This is reflected in part in the 3E skill Knowledge (Dungeoneering). Still the distinction persists: that more dangerous monsters live deeper in dungeons is a fact about the world whereas encounter balance is an element of game design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More news:

Introducing Codename: Morningstar

We are excited to announce our newest licensee, Trapdoor Technologies. Trapdoor is working on an integrated toolset and rules knowledge base to support the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Combining rules, character sheets, and adventures together into a clean interface, Trapdoor's goal is to create tools for Dungeon Masters and players that will allow for fast and easy management of their game. Known for now as Codename: Morningstar, the tools will have a limited playtest at Origins Game Fair.

From here.

 Manchu wrote:
But why the presumption that classes should be balanced to begin with? This is quite a modern development and I think it has to do with the idea that every character has a right to 20+ levels.

Well, I like balance.

Even if you leave out the balance argument, though, I hope we can agree to say that designing the game so that the wizard eventually becomes a better fighter than the fighter is just plain wrong.

4th Edition gave fighters parity and utility. They were way more fun to play, to me, than 5th Edition fighters will be.

I like balance, too -- in games that require it like 3.5 (where it was a problem) and 4E (where it was much less of a problem, at least just between classes). But there are games where it isn't an issue. We'll have to wait and see when it comes to 5E.

Out of curiousity Manchu, what games are you referring to where balance wasnt an issue?

I'm not sure many (any?) of the earlier RPGs were 'balanced', nor should they be (?) and it wasn't a problem either!

"Earlier". "Earlier" than what? 3.0? AD&D wasnt balanced, sure, but it was also a wreck of a game looking back on it. Did I enjoy the heck out of it while I played it? Absolutely! Would I go back to it? Not a chance.

TMNT & Other Strangeness was before 3.0, wasn't really balanced (is any Palladium game?), but it also didnt feature the off-balanceness of 3.PF, where some characters could be rendered basically obsolete!

Plenty of WW games were before 3.0, they featured some passing balance through much simpler mechanics. Take werewolf, which had a vague class-esque system through Auspices: sure your Ahroun (fighter) wasnt really focused on spirits, but he could still pick up SOME of what was going on. Same as a Theurge (caster) could pick up combat ability but wouldnt have the uber-ness of an Ahroun. Either way, both could contribute in multiple circumstances!


That's why I'm curious which games Manchu is referring to. I dont pretend to have encyclopaedic knowledge of RPGS! Im curious of the mechanics of an imbalanced system, that wasnt hurt/broken/whatever by its imbalance.

3.0+ seem far too rigid to be enjoyable for me, so, yeah, different strokes and all that I suppose.

"Balance" in a wargame seems attainable, if perhaps difficult (impossible?) to achieve.

"Balance" in a RPG seems like an odd goal to be reaching for...

For the longest time, TMNT and other Strangeness was my go-to game. I adored it almost to the exclusion of all else. I am certainly in no place to judge!

Im not sure how balance in an RPG seems like an odd goal though. Having a game where a character can become completely superfluous and an active drain on the others sounds like a recipe for dead characters and hurt feelings. At the very last, it sounds like at least one player will end up not having very much fun!

You're going a bit too far in that direction.

No one said 'useless'!

But having all classes be equally powerful or whatever metric you use?

Sounds boring...