[All Editions] Magic No Longer "Special"

[Eldariel]

Third.
First level in third edition is brutal.

In 2ed, it's almost unplayable.

Or rather, you were expected to use unfair tactics to survive the first level. You Did. Not. Fight. You only fight on your own terms when you can build ambushes and slay the adversaries without fight, or frighten the targets into avoiding a fight. Most encounters you just avoided if possible, or fled if not.

[Matthew]

Says more about individual experience than the system, I would say, but then I cannot think of many second edition games where initial hit points were not set to maximum. On the other hand, I played a lot of B/X where we rolled our hit points, and the result was certainly playable, if deadly.



Ah, I only played 2E, of which I can't seem to find any references to (though, I may be missing it). I apologize for my ignorance.

There are no second edition rules for playing classed 0 level characters to the best of my knowledge (though there were plenty of 0 level NPCs); as I say, the only first edition rules I can think of refer to the cavalier in Unearthed Arcana or the set of general rules in Greyhawk Adventures.

[Jayabalard]

the only first edition rules I can think of refer to the cavalier in Unearthed Arcana or the set of general rules in Greyhawk Adventures.I think there might have been something in one of the survival guides(Dungeoneer's or Wilderness) but I no longer have those books to check :smallfrown:

[Kurald Galain]

Third.
First level in third edition is brutal.

In 2ed, it's almost unplayable.

It's only unplayable if you think the solution to every problem is to charge it head-first with your sword (or with your magic missile, as the case may be).

[Myrmex]

Or rather, you were expected to use unfair tactics to survive the first level. You Did. Not. Fight. You only fight on your own terms when you can build ambushes and slay the adversaries without fight, or frighten the targets into avoiding a fight. Most encounters you just avoided if possible, or fled if not.

Then you get killed from an arrow trap. Or rolled a fumble and got killed by an arrow trap.

[LibraryOgre]

Then you get killed from an arrow trap. Or rolled a fumble and got killed by an arrow trap.

What were you doing about traps? Was your thief, your gnome, and your dwarf all checking ahead? Once that occurred, did you have someone with good HP and AC taking the lead?

It was certainly possible to die from a missed trap in AD&D. That's why you made sure there were no traps before you put your foot down. I believe someone described it as "subterranean fantasy ****ing Vietnam."

[Myrmex]

What were you doing about traps? Was your thief, your gnome, and your dwarf all checking ahead? Once that occurred, did you have someone with good HP and AC taking the lead?

It was certainly possible to die from a missed trap in AD&D. That's why you made sure there were no traps before you put your foot down. I believe someone described it as "subterranean fantasy ****ing Vietnam."

Missed traps, mostly. And a brutal DM. Even the traps' traps had traps. I'm serious. There was a falling block trap that required two people to set off the pressure plates, so that the third would get squished when he stopped to disarm an arrow trap whose trigger mechanism had a poison needle trap on it, just for good measure. That was a pretty wtf dungeon, though.

Then when you add on being chased through a dungeon, or trying to run away, and you add in traps, including the sort that reset? Yuck. One mess up and you're dead.

I think my favorite was the DM who had a whole dungeon in the shape of a death rune, so when the party mapmaker finished mapping the dungeon at the end, he fell over dead. Then the next person who picked up the map fell over dead. I had heard of this thing from another group (OoG), so I picked up the map and looked through the other side. I guess the act of tracing the death rune while walking the steps made it magical.

The sheer volume of potentially dangerous things meant that most of your characters were dead before their third level, if only because most of the characters you rolled were incompetent, and then the competent ones got unlucky. I mean, if that's your sort of game, go for it. I prefer games with more continuity.

[Satyr]

I think there is a vast difference between characters who are powerful and outstanding within the system - because they are strong, fast, and so on, and the assumption that characters are supposed to be oh so special by default that the usual system rules don't apply for them. In the first case, the characters are extraordinary if needed, and can be attoned to a more down to earth style if not, or even pushed upwards to true extremes if needed. There is a certain flexibility in there, and a certain adjustment to your own tastes - you can use the same system to play campaigns with very different scopes and central conflicts.

The second case - and if you ask me, in every regard inferior, approach is to deploy a different set of rules for PCs and NPCs and supporting the specialness of the PCs on the metalevel as well. This is not only a lot less flexible (because you pretty much have to change a significant part of the system to change the focus of the game) and quite redundant (why do I need to different set of rules when one is completely sufficient and would make the game less clunky and more streamlined?), it also lacks an ingame justification, which usually is annoying, because the extraordinary abilties of the characters remain less justified, if at all.

[RagnaroksChosen]

...
The sheer volume of potentially dangerous things meant that most of your characters were dead before their third level, if only because most of the characters you rolled were incompetent, and then the competent ones got unlucky. I mean, if that's your sort of game, go for it. I prefer games with more continuity.

if you play the game as charge in break down the door style then yes i agree with you other wise i don't... even groups with out rogues found other ways to get around traps. fighter with a 10 foot pole any one?

realy if you played a little smart you could easily make it past 3....

[SimperingToad]

I think there might have been something in one of the survival guides(Dungeoneer's or Wilderness) but I no longer have those books to check :smallfrown:

Don't recall any such rules in those two, but I believe there were a couple of modules that dealt with this. One was Lost Island of Castanamir, and the other Treasure Hunt. I may be off-base on the exact two, though.

[SimperingToad]

Missed traps, mostly. And a brutal DM. Even the traps' traps had traps. I'm serious. There was a falling block trap that required two people to set off the pressure plates, so that the third would get squished when he stopped to disarm an arrow trap whose trigger mechanism had a poison needle trap on it, just for good measure. That was a pretty wtf dungeon, though. <snip>

I think that is the crux of your problem. A killer DM is going to wreak havoc on PCs no matter which game is run. That's not a fault in the system.

[Fhaolan]

I think my favorite was the DM who had a whole dungeon in the shape of a death rune, so when the party mapmaker finished mapping the dungeon at the end, he fell over dead. Then the next person who picked up the map fell over dead. I had heard of this thing from another group (OoG), so I picked up the map and looked through the other side. I guess the act of tracing the death rune while walking the steps made it magical.


I love it! That's beautiful.

That's Tomb of Horrors-level old-school game, that is.

[Myrmex]

I think that is the crux of your problem. A killer DM is going to wreak havoc on PCs no matter which game is run. That's not a fault in the system.

I play with the same DM in 3e, and it's easier. Probably because he mellowed with age. Getting max HP at first level changes a lot, though. So do animal companions, way more spells, spiked chains, and taking 10. I think our stat gen system is way more generous, so half the characters aren't below average due to how 3d6 works.

[Eldariel]

Then you get killed from an arrow trap. Or rolled a fumble and got killed by an arrow trap.

Don't go to places that could potentially contain arrow traps. Also, most traps are pre-triggerable anyways. Buy a hireling or whatever to walk ahead (with the excuse of "protecting the others") if you absolutely need to go to a potentially trapped environment.

[AllisterH]

It's only unplayable if you think the solution to every problem is to charge it head-first with your sword (or with your magic missile, as the case may be).

In 1e, 1st level is playable since you get most of your xp from LOOT and NOT from killing monsters. You can do a smash/sneak style adventure and grab and progress there.

2e is very different since the default _IS_ that you get the bulk of your xp from killing monsters. Meaning that the only way to actually get past 1st level is by throwing yourself into combat.

It should be noted that in pre 3e, you really weren't expected to be attached to your character until it was at least 3rd level. There's a reason why there's the "Bob Jr the 4th, the fighter" jokes prevalent in pre 3e and not so much in 3e/4e.

re: Tucker's kobolds

*Looks at the 4e DMGs which have a lot of advice and examples of terrain/traps that kobolds can abuse*
* Looks at the flaming glue pot made infamous from Keep on the shadowfell*

Er, are we reading the same books here Oslecamo

[Myrmex]

Don't go to places that could potentially contain arrow traps.

Yeah. We could just give up on being adventurers and stay home cleaning up pig ****.


Also, most traps are pre-triggerable anyways. Buy a hireling or whatever to walk ahead (with the excuse of "protecting the others") if you absolutely need to go to a potentially trapped environment.

We started using mules. That's when the DM started using traps with delay & reset timers, and hallway wide effects. Arrow traps wouldn't be so bad if they only did a small amount of damage, but taking 1d6 damage when you only have 3 HP is crap.

[Eldariel]

Meh. If DM decides to kill you, you die, no save. If DM doesn't try to kill you though, AD&D 2e first level is very survivable (just be Tomb of Horrors-paranoid). I've done it plenty o' times.

[Kurald Galain]

2e is very different since the default _IS_ that you get the bulk of your xp from killing monsters.
Or by quest XP. Also, the table explicitly points out that you get XP for roleplaying well, and for having good ideas (neither of which appears to be present in later editions). Heck, rogues still get XP from loot, and a caster gets XP from casting spells.

Also, you don't die until you're at -10, which helps (yes, that's an optional rule, but it was common at least here). Also, maximum HP at level 1 was a common houserule, as was some form of point buy, or stat allocation.

[Myrmex]

Meh. If DM decides to kill you, you die, no save. If DM doesn't try to kill you though, AD&D 2e first level is very survivable (just be Tomb of Horrors-paranoid). I've done it plenty o' times.

It's just that a single hit has about a 50% chance of bringing down a level 1 character. You're going to go through a lot of characters, even if you play smart.

At least in 3e, it takes a single unlucky hit (critical) to kill a character. Negative hit points offer a lot of padding, as well. There's the added benefit that monsters tend to leave you alone after you drop, which means even if you fall in combat, you're not dead and get xp.


Also, you don't die until you're at -10, which helps (yes, that's an optional rule, but it was common at least here). Also, maximum HP at level 1 was a common houserule, as was some form of point buy, or stat allocation.

It was the lack of these rules that made the first few levels so onerous. I've only played like 10-15 sessions of 2e, though.

[Kurald Galain]

It's just that a single hit has about a 50% chance of bringing down a level 1 character. You're going to go through a lot of characters, even if you play smart.
Okay, we get it, you had a lot of combat focused 2E and your characters died a lot. That is NOT the only possible way to play 2E. In fact, given the game's popularity back then, it is probable that very few people ever played the game like you did.


It was the lack of these rules
What lack? That rule is right in the PHB.

[Matthew]

What lack? That rule is right in the PHB.

I think he means in his games; that is why I earlier observed this is individual experience generalised to system wide failure.



Or by quest XP. Also, the table explicitly points out that you get XP for roleplaying well, and for having good ideas (neither of which appears to be present in later editions). Heck, rogues still get XP from loot, and a caster gets XP from casting spells.

Really, it is the lack of a default system of gaining experience in second edition that makes it contrast with first edition. They basically say "we've upped the experience points for killing monsters, but do what you want, we know some of you like advancing every other session and others like to go much more slowly". Looking at second edition as though it is a complete system, rather than a basic system awaiting customisation gives skewed returns.

[Myrmex]

Okay, we get it, you had a lot of combat focused 2E and your characters died a lot. That is NOT the only possible way to play 2E.[/i] In fact, given the game's popularity back then, it is probable that very few people ever played the game like you did.

Most people I know who played 2E and now play 3E share similar stories. You simply went through a lot of 1st level characters, especially fighters. When an attack has a 25% chance to kill you (whether it's from a goblin, a trap, a mule you fumbled in trying to coax down the trap laden hallway), you're going to wind up dead 25% of the time. So long as you only have one combat between levels 1 and 2, in a 4 person party, and each party member gets attacked once, you'll probably end up with at least one dead party member.


What lack? That rule is right in the PHB.

You said so yourself- common houserules. We did not play with those houserules.

[Matthew]

Most people I know who played 2E and now play 3E share similar stories. You simply went through a lot of 1st level characters, especially fighters. When an attack has a 25% chance to kill you (whether it's from a goblin, a trap, a mule you fumbled in trying to coax down the trap laden hallway), you're going to wind up dead 25% of the time. So long as you only have one combat between levels 1 and 2, in a 4 person party, and each party member gets attacked once, you'll probably end up with at least one dead party member.

Which is of course a self selected sample; most of the people I know who played AD&D/2e then played D20/3e switched back to 2e, which is clearly not representative. Point is, if you have a group of people whose style of play was not catered for in AD&D, but is catered for with D20 (and I would say that D20 was designed to meet the needs of this group, who are likely in a significant majority) then they will share similar stories of how AD&D did not work for them, if you see what I mean.

[Myrmex]

Which is of course a self selected sample; most of the people I know who played AD&D/2e then played D20/3e switched back to 2e, which is clearly not representative. Point is, if you have a group of people whose style of play was not catered for in AD&D, but is catered for with D20 (and I would say that D20 was designed to meet the needs of this group, who are likely in a significant majority) then they will share similar stories of how AD&D did not work for them, if you see what I mean.

Oh, of course. I know quite a handful that stuck with 2E (don't play with them, just casual conversations occasionally) because they prefer that level of mortality and "one stupid move..." attitude. I prefer a little leeway, my DMs prefer lots of monsters and my fellow players great cleave, so we stick with 3E.

[Snails]

With the potentially big criticals being core and saves easier to fail, I see more mortality in 3e at all levels. You can go from full to negative very quickly.

[AllisterH]

With the potentially big criticals being core and saves easier to fail, I see more mortality in 3e at all levels. You can go from full to negative very quickly.

Generally speaking, this is true. In 1e/2e, if you were a heavy armour class, once you got out of the low levels (levels 1-4), your chance of surviving shot up significantly.

By name level, a typical plate wearing fighter probably fails a save on a 7 or less, has an AC in the mid negatives and hp at least in the mid 50s. Not many critters in the MM you actually need to outright fear one shotting you.

[Draz74]

It should be noted that in pre 3e, you really weren't expected to be attached to your character until it was at least 3rd level.

QFT. And the number of low-level adventurers, bright-eyed and gung-ho, that every player had watched perish, did something different to the game in my experience.

It made a Chimera feel like a threat that really could terrorize a village.

It made it a lot easier to answer "Why hasn't any Wizard come along, leveled up, learned Teleport, and used it in an intelligently commercial fashion in order to take over the world economically?" (Answer: because people who start off with that kind of reasonable mindset don't ever live to see Level 3. I know, it's not fully logical. But it made sense in-game, at the time.)

Similarly, it made higher-level adventurers feel all the more special, even when they had to run away from a dragon or mind flayer.

3e characters can still keel over awfully fast at Level 1, if the dice go against them. But at least on the offensive front, they have tools at their disposal that would have made 2e characters weep with envy. (ToB classes? Warlocks/DFAs? Wow. Gods of Level 1.)

[Kaiyanwang]

3e characters can still keel over awfully fast at Level 1, if the dice go against them. But at least on the offensive front, they have tools at their disposal that would have made 2e characters weep with envy. (ToB classes? Warlocks/DFAs? Wow. Gods of Level 1.)

I apologize.. I don't understand this part.. gods because of the at-wills?

[erikun]

I apologize.. I don't understand this part.. gods because of the at-wills?
Yeah, pretty much.

"Hi, I'm a 2e Wizard. I have one spell and 2 HP. I wear no armor and have to rely only on my dexterity to protect me - which doesn't give me a bonus. Most of combat involves me hiding behind everyone and throwing rocks. I could use my one spell on the defensive Shield, but then I would be throwing away the one useful thing I can do."

"Hi, I'm a 3e Warlock. I wear a chain shirt and have 8 HP. Not only do I get a bonus for a slightly-above average dexterity, but I can cast Shield all day long. On top of that, I can throw out magical blasts which not only do as much damage as a crossbow, but completely ignore enemy armor."

2e Wizard: :smalleek:

[Draz74]

To be fair, you probably can't afford a chain shirt at level 1. But yeah, that's pretty much what I had in mind. And it wouldn't hurt to emphasize, yet again, that the Warlock can use his magic attack all day long.

[Kurald Galain]

You said so yourself- common houserules. We did not play with those houserules.
An optional rule from the rulebooks is not a houserule.



"Hi, I'm a 3e Warlock. I wear a chain shirt and have 8 HP. Not only do I get a bonus for a slightly-above average dexterity, but I can cast Shield all day long. On top of that, I can throw out magical blasts which not only do as much damage as a crossbow, but completely ignore enemy armor."
I don't think anyone doubts that power level went up as 3E progressed. But ironically, the only difference between a warlock and a crossbow-using wizard is that the numbers are slightly higher. Both can attack one enemy per round at +X to hit and Y damage.

Anyway, games where combat is lethal don't bother me. I've played Shadowrun, Vampire, and Call of Cthulhu. In all of those, most characters try hard to avoid combat because combat causes you to die. That still leaves you with plenty of opportunity to be sneaky, or skillful, or fast talking.

[Somebloke]

Bah. I think that there are two different playstyles involved between 4th and 2nd edition, but both have their merits.

With 4th, death is a possibility but only a small one. Despite what people have said I have managed to make my players genuinely sweat in encounters, mostly through nasty attacks and cunning tactics by the monsters (a swarm of giant jumpng spiders...the look on the party's faces when they bounced halfway across the board to mob the supposedly protected wizard was classic). They've even reatreated from obviously overwhelming threats (leading to an impromptu skill challenge). But there is a feeling that if a player dies it will be a rare event, one on par with a major character dying in a series or movie (if you want to note the design philosophy differences between 4th and 2nd this viewpoint would be a good place to start).

The same people will also happily sit down to play an A-state game, where gunfights are over in seconds, death can be two good rolls (on the part of the DM) away in combat and people always look for an angle outside of 'we attacak'.

Talking about the first playing style as an example of the moral decay of gamers or somesuch is ridiculous.

[Kurald Galain]

Talking about the first playing style as an example of the moral decay of gamers or somesuch is ridiculous.

I don't think anyone is doing that. Rather, certain people appear to claim that the latter playstyle is unplayable, and only present in older games, and always present in older games.

[Somebloke]

I don't think anyone is doing that. Rather, certain people appear to claim that the latter playstyle is unplayable, and only present in older games, and always present in older games.

That really doesn't hold either. It is a very different style that does not lend itself to great epics (one friend once recounted how a wild magic surge ended a long-running campaign with an out-of-control Ice Storm). But so long as you love the characters like you love a horror story heroine or character from an 'Anyone can Die' tragedy then there is a lot of fun to be had avoiding the grim spectre.

[Matthew]

That really doesn't hold either. It is a very different style that does not lend itself to great epics (one friend once recounted how a wild magic surge ended a long-running campaign with an out-of-control Ice Storm). But so long as you love the characters like you love a horror story heroine or character from an 'Anyone can Die' tragedy then there is a lot of fun to be had avoiding the grim spectre.

Not really; there is far too much emphasis increasingly being put on lack of "survivability" in these past games. In actual fact it was perfectly survivable, but not every game master had the same idea of what was "fair". As pointed out above character death could be as frequent as D20/3e, more frequent, or less frequent, depending entirely on what was deemed "normal" within the group.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Talking about the first playing style as an example of the moral decay of gamers or somesuch is ridiculous...

I don't think anyone is doing that. .

Nobody has done that explicitly, but it has been strongly implied by the discussion about the "entitlement culture". Similarly, nobody has explicitly stated any generalizations about older editions' lethality, but it has very strongly been implied.

[Tyndmyr]

Whoever pulled out the 25% mortality rate for 3.5 between level 1 and 2....that seems terribly high. Yes, some things can one shot some characters on a crit. Con heavy meatshields are pretty safe. If you're facing level appropriate fights, the only people in danger of being one shotted should be as far away from the front line as range allows.

Still, even for a wizard, you should have 6-7 hit points at level 1. You might require a potion after a fight if unlucky, but going all the way to dead requires a pretty solid hit. IE, a crit with a healthy damage roll from certain mobs. That's pretty unlikely. Certainly not 25%, probably more like 5% or so.

[Matthew]

Whoever pulled out the 25% mortality rate for 3.5 between level 1 and 2....that seems terribly high. Yes, some things can one shot some characters on a crit. Con heavy meatshields are pretty safe. If you're facing level appropriate fights, the only people in danger of being one shotted should be as far away from the front line as range allows.

Still, even for a wizard, you should have 6-7 hit points at level 1. You might require a potion after a fight if unlucky, but going all the way to dead requires a pretty solid hit. IE, a crit with a healthy damage roll from certain mobs. That's pretty unlikely. Certainly not 25%, probably more like 5% or so.

Depends heavily on the party composition and players. A good example is my experience playing the Burning Plague a few years back. The first time through was with six players and resulted in the death of four of the characters and the retreat of the remaining two. The second time through was with three (different) players and was completed successfully without any casualties.

[LibraryOgre]

I will say that I have died far more often in PF, 3.5, and 4e than I ever did in 2e. In 2e, I think I had two or three real character deaths over the course of a decade. I've had two or three over the past year in 4e, one death and one "out of the game" in PF (and the out-of-the-game character is currently being tortured by a green dragon), and at least one in the last 3.5 game I played in.

[Tyndmyr]

I've never actually died in either 2nd or 4th e. Granted, I played both systems far less than I played 3/3.5, but I guess it's fair to say that 2nd rewarded the paranoid...and 4th just appears to be ridiculously hard to die against appropriate encounters.

Still, you'd have thought it woulda happened at least once in 2nd E, despite being the paranoid secondary beatstick type.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Not really; there is far too much emphasis increasingly being put on lack of "survivability" in these past games. In actual fact it was perfectly survivable, but not every game master had the same idea of what was "fair". As pointed out above character death could be as frequent as D20/3e, more frequent, or less frequent, depending entirely on what was deemed "normal" within the group.
I'd like to push back on this.

The one irreducible component of survivability is random chance. In 4E, death by chance - pure bad luck - is practically non-existent. There are pretty much no "coin flip" powers; if something kills you, you had to have made some bad choices in the past to get there.

In 3E, there were lots of "death by chance" effects - Critical Hits being one of the most commonly cited. Many first level characters have a 1 in 20 chance (every round!) of being killed outright by an x3 critical weapon. OK, it's a bit better than that (i.e. minimum damage roll required) but any combat with an x3 Crit weapon was a situation where the dice alone - as opposed to tactics, preparations, etc. - determined your survival.

In 2E, even non-critical hits (IIRC, RAW had no Crit Rules) had a chance of one-shotting any character. Unless you added in other rules (Death's Door, Max HP at LV 1), a lucky longsword swing would finish off anyone with d8 HD or less.

Unless your DM literally handled his 1st level PCs like fine china, no sufficiently savvy (and honest) DM could get around these mechanics. Survivability, at its core, is an issue of system design, not DM volition.

That said, DMs can easily crank up the lethality of a system or, by cheating at dice, crank it down.

[Snails]

In 2E, even non-critical hits (IIRC, RAW had no Crit Rules) had a chance of one-shotting any character. Unless you added in other rules (Death's Door, Max HP at LV 1), a lucky longsword swing would finish off anyone with d8 HD or less.

Unless your DM literally handled his 1st level PCs like fine china, no sufficiently savvy (and honest) DM could get around these mechanics. Survivability, at its core, is an issue of system design, not DM volition.

That said, DMs can easily crank up the lethality of a system or, by cheating at dice, crank it down.

I think it is fair to say that the lethality level in every edition can easily be tweaked by the DM, and to some degree by the players, to be whatever desired.

If you play with the 2e RAW with no tweaking whatsoever, you would be right. Heck, even the an 18 Con Dwarf could start with5 HP, and die with the first arrow that comes up "box car" on the damage roll.

[Matthew]

I'd like to push back on this.

The one irreducible component of survivability is random chance. In 4E, death by chance - pure bad luck - is practically non-existent. There are pretty much no "coin flip" powers; if something kills you, you had to have made some bad choices in the past to get there.

In 3E, there were lots of "death by chance" effects - Critical Hits being one of the most commonly cited. Many first level characters have a 1 in 20 chance (every round!) of being killed outright by an x3 critical weapon. OK, it's a bit better than that (i.e. minimum damage roll required) but any combat with an x3 Crit weapon was a situation where the dice alone - as opposed to tactics, preparations, etc. - determined your survival.

In 2E, even non-critical hits (IIRC, RAW had no Crit Rules) had a chance of one-shotting any character. Unless you added in other rules (Death's Door, Max HP at LV 1), a lucky longsword swing would finish off anyone with d8 HD or less.

Unless your DM literally handled his 1st level PCs like fine china, no sufficiently savvy (and honest) DM could get around these mechanics. Survivability, at its core, is an issue of system design, not DM volition.

That said, DMs can easily crank up the lethality of a system or, by cheating at dice, crank it down.

Right, but that last part is rather the point. In looking only at the default rules of second edition you will perceive only the skeleton of a game. Bear in mind that all the spells and classes beyond fighter, thief, magician, and cleric were optional. As a game that you essentially construct to taste (the optional critical hit rules were not part of our sessions prior to 2000, for instance), you will get a rather lethal result if you consider only the skeleton of the game, but in practice that was rarely how it was played in my experience. Of all the groups I have played AD&D with there has never even been the question of rolling first level hit points, to the best of my recollection.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I think it is fair to say that the lethality level in every edition can easily be tweaked by the DM, and to some degree by the players, to be whatever desired.
Yes, but only by either imposing homerules, or by cheating at dice.

Yes, 2E is all about making up homerules, but at some point you have to ask "is this still 2E combat?" In 3E the argument is much clearer - RAW is RAW - but I have to say that somewhere in the PHB is a usable system, and not just a bunch of suggestions.

[Matthew]

Yes, 2E is all about making up homerules, but at some point you have to ask "is this still 2E combat?" In 3E the argument is much clearer - RAW is RAW - but I have to say that somewhere in the PHB is a usable system, and not just a bunch of suggestions.

Let's distinguish here between "house rules" and "optional rules", not that I think there is much of a difference, but the optional rules for second edition are many and varied, with absolutely transformative combat and magic systems. The base system of AD&D/2e is more or less B/X, but it is designed for people to modify for their own home campaign, heck that's what every official published setting then went and did. It is one thing to say "the baseline rules of second edition are potentially very deadly" and another to say "second edition is very deadly". After all, the optional rules and campaign settings are to a large extent are what differentiated second edition from the other versions of the game.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Let's distinguish here between "house rules" and "optional rules", not that I think there is much of a difference, but the optional rules for second edition are many and varied, with absolutely transformative combat and magic systems. The base system of AD&D/2e is more or less B/X, but it is designed for people to modify for their own home campaign, heck that's what every official published setting then went and did. It is one thing to say "the baseline rules of second edition are potentially very deadly" and another to say "second edition is very deadly". After all, the optional rules and campaign settings are to a large extent are what differentiated second edition from the other versions of the game.
Oh, absolutely, but IIRC things like Max HP weren't listed as "optional rules" anywhere.

And Death's Door only appeared in a Dragon Magazine. Doesn't mean they're not good ideas, but I dunno how much I'd use their existence to sugarcoat the brutality of a 2E as a system.

[horseboy]

There are no second edition rules for playing classed 0 level characters to the best of my knowledge (though there were plenty of 0 level NPCs); as I say, the only first edition rules I can think of refer to the cavalier in Unearthed Arcana or the set of general rules in Greyhawk Adventures.
there was a module written for -3 level characters. It was something about a buzzard. Somebody gave me a Xerox copy in a box of stuff so I have no idea where it came from. Basically I just converted it to a 2-3 level adventure by replacing the giant buzzard with a werebuzzard. Yes, that was level -3. Apparently starting at level 1 just wasn't hardcore enough for some.

I think a lot of the whole "AD&D doesn't work" type thing is because of the context they're played in. I'm always curious what age these horror stories happen at. You start in college where everyone's got a decent idea what's going on and they seem to have a better experience. Start on a military base and you hit Tucker. Start like I did at 12 and well, you get a lot of horror stories.

As to lethality, meh, I play Rolemaster. I like lethality. I makes martial characters valid.

For "Character specialness" when I optiful the crap out of a pilot to make him the best pilot that the mechanics can allow I take a page from Marvel and make being a pilot isn't what the character is about. What he's "about" is bring honour back to his family after his uncle has dragged the family name through the mud. If he gets that honour back by blowing up the Death Star and being a pilot or crashing on a primitive planet and bringing enlightenment and nobility to the savages never sitting behind a throttle ever again doesn't really matter how he does it so long as he does it.

For the original topic, it's one of the things I like about Earthdawn. Magic is everywhere, it's where Eberron bit off of. Yet magic is still dangerous, as in "demons" turning you into a sock puppet if you're not careful. Non-utility magic items require epic quests to re-awaken their dormant powers (providing never ending plot hooks) and if you don't? Well, they're a really big box cutter the merchant will give you two chickens and a goat for.

[Matthew]

Oh, absolutely, but IIRC things like Max HP weren't listed as "optional rules" anywhere.

And Death's Door only appeared in a Dragon Magazine. Doesn't mean they're not good ideas, but I dunno how much I'd use their existence to sugarcoat the brutality of a 2E as a system.

Nope, you are wrong on those counts. Maximum hit points was in the Complete Fighter's Handbook (1989) and Death's Door is right there in the PHB/DMG (forget which one, it also appeared in the first edition DMG).

[LibraryOgre]

Oh, absolutely, but IIRC things like Max HP weren't listed as "optional rules" anywhere.

And Death's Door only appeared in a Dragon Magazine. Doesn't mean they're not good ideas, but I dunno how much I'd use their existence to sugarcoat the brutality of a 2E as a system.

No, death's door is in the core. I'm at work, so I can't give a page cite, but it is in the PH or DMG.

[horseboy]

I believe Death's Door was core in 2nd, and came out in Unearthed Arcana as a cavalier special ability in 1st.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Nope, you are wrong on those counts. Maximum hit points was in the Complete Fighter's Handbook (1989) and Death's Door is right there in the PHB/DMG (forget which one, it also appeared in the first edition DMG).
Which is why I make liberal use of IIRC when talking 'bout Old Skool on these here boards :smalltongue:

Still... did 2E combat really have so many variants that THAC0, AC, and Saving Throws were the only constants? :smallconfused:

[Matthew]

I believe Death's Door was core in 2nd, and came out in Unearthed Arcana as a cavalier special ability in 1st.

Nope, it was optional. In first edition you could be knocked down to negative 1 to 3 and survive, bleedin' out one hit point per round to minus 10, but if you got knocked lower than minus 3 from the attack you were dead. On the other hand, there was a completely different rule that said the game master could just rule such a character was maimed or even knocked unconscious.



Which is why I make liberal use of IIRC when talking 'bout Old Skool on these here boards :smalltongue:

Still... did 2E combat really have so many variants that THAC0, AC, and Saving Throws were the only constants? :smallconfused:

It was pretty crazy. Because second edition used a B/X default system it then had a bunch of sub rules that were all labelled optional, dozens more in the Complete Fighter's Handbook and an entirely different combat system in Combat & Tactics, which was almost the same as the D20/3e one, but more complicated.

[horseboy]

Nope, it was optional. In first edition you could be knocked down to negative 1 to 3 and survive, bleedin' out one hit point per round to minus 10, but if you got knocked lower than minus 3 from the attack you were dead. On the other hand, there was a completely different rule that said the game master could just rule such a character was maimed or even knocked unconscious.Yeah, that was right. It was optional for everyone but the cavalier. They straight up got it as a class ability.



It was pretty crazy. Because second edition used a B/X default system it then had a bunch of sub rules that were all labelled optional, dozens more in the Complete Fighter's Handbook and an entirely different combat system in Combat & Tactics, which almost the same as the D20/3e one, but more complicated.
Oh man tell them about the wrestling rules in Complete Fighter's That was a nightmare of just straight randomness. It'll make you appreciate 3rd's grappling rules.

[Matthew]

Oh man tell them about the wrestling rules in Complete Fighter's That was a nightmare of just straight randomness. It'll make you appreciate 3rd's grappling rules.

As I understand the basic wrestling rules for AD&D/2e were taken from Boot Hill, and were fun, but quite random and a bit silly. Basically, there were ten moves that you could pull off depending on what you rolled to hit, and if you got someone in a lock you would do damage round to round unless they rolled the appropriate wrestling counter move (or stabbed you with a dagger, which in unarmed combat had something like +4 damage). The Complete Fighter's Handbook added a bunch of specialisation rules to help you control the result on the chart, and then added a whole new "martial arts table" with a whole load of additional rules. More martial arts rules turned up in the Complete Priest's Handbook for the monk kit, and they went totally berserk in the late 90s with the release of the Complete Ninja's Handbook, which added about a zillion different martial arts rules (must have been 20 pages at least), depending on what specialities you took or something, I dunno, never used those rules...

I guess if you can say that D20/3e has character options that are "traps" and that these encourage you to learn to master the rules, AD&D/2e has rules that are "traps" and these encourage you to learn which ones actually work as you would hope. :smallbiggrin:

[AllisterH]

There's also in 2e, "optional" and "OPTIONAL"

An example of the latter would be the Non-Weapon Proficiencies. Technically, they were optional, but all of the splatbooks after the PHB treated them as "core".

So, this beggars the question. If TSR treated NWP as "core" but listed them as "optional", what the hell were they exactly?

[Thane of Fife]

As I understand the basic wrestling rules for AD&D/2e were taken from Boot Hill, and were fun, but quite random and a bit silly. Basically, there were ten moves that you could pull off depending on what you rolled to hit, and if you got someone in a lock you would do damage round to round unless they rolled the appropriate wrestling counter move (or stabbed you with a dagger, which in unarmed combat had something like +4 damage). The Complete Fighter's Handbook added a bunch of specialisation rules to help you control the result on the chart, and then added a whole new "martial arts table" with a whole load of additional rules. More martial arts rules turned up in the Complete Priest's Handbook for the monk kit, and they went totally berserk in the late 90s with the release of the Complete Ninja's Handbook, which added about a zillion different martial arts rules (must have been 20 pages at least), depending on what specialities you took or something, I dunno, never used those rules...

Ah, I've got some fond memories of the Pummeling Table. Specifically, I can recall the party wizard getting miffed at the cleric and slugging him. I think he rolled a Gut Punch, or something. Each punch had its own chance to score an instant KO (why can a punch KO you in one hit, but not a mace?), and the wizard layed out the cleric with one punch. It's even funnier when you realize that the cleric was a 6'4" human, and the wizard was a 2-and-a-half foot gnome.

Combat and Tactics had its own rules for Pummeling and Wrestling and Martial Arts, and they were probably better than those tables, if considerably less amusing.

[Foryn Gilnith]

In 2e, IMO such a rule would be optional. In 3e, where the overall player mentality is different, such a rule would be core. And the rule I'm talking about in 3e is prestige classes.

[Matthew]

There's also in 2e, "optional" and "OPTIONAL"

An example of the latter would be the Non-Weapon Proficiencies. Technically, they were optional, but all of the splatbooks after the PHB treated them as "core".

So, this beggars the question. If TSR treated NWP as "core" but listed them as "optional", what the hell were they exactly?

What proficiency slots represented was a currency for optional rules, and they were used in various ways, but mainly to augment fighting abilities. Although a significant number of optional rules were built on proficiencies, they could actually be pretty much ignored in the majority of cases. The kits are a pretty good example, as most provided bonus weapon and non-weapon proficiencies (or recommended/required/restricted them), but these could simply be ignored and the "benefit/drawbacks" section used instead.

I think the change to "character points" in the mid nineties was a good move, but it never really caught on and it was too little too late anyway.



Ah, I've got some fond memories of the Pummeling Table. Specifically, I can recall the party wizard getting miffed at the cleric and slugging him. I think he rolled a Gut Punch, or something. Each punch had its own chance to score an instant KO (why can a punch KO you in one hit, but not a mace?), and the wizard layed out the cleric with one punch. It's even funnier when you realize that the cleric was a 6'4" human, and the wizard was a 2-and-a-half foot gnome.

Heh, heh; I always wanted to see somebody score a knock out haymaker on a dragon, but it never happened, sadly. :smallbiggrin:



Combat and Tactics had its own rules for Pummeling and Wrestling and Martial Arts, and they were probably better than those tables, if considerably less amusing.

They are pretty much identical to the D20/3e rules.

[Sir Homeslice]

Two words: tucker kobolds. Low level monsters in 3.5 can still be a threat if used smartly.

Roughly Ninety-Two Words: Tucker's Kobolds are overhyped, overquoted, and incredibly stupid to be citing as a defense of low CR monsters in 3.5e while detracting low level 4e monsters, because you have Kobolds acting like mildly intelligent rat bastards abusing every single home field advantage they can possibly acquire like a drunken husband abusing his children while the party of people they were going against were essentially mental eight year olds caught in a well-done haunted mansion that ran around with all the intelligence and desperate speed of a flaming mouse in it's death throes.

Unrelated to my boat of ninety-two words: There, I said it. Tucker's Kobolds are stupid and there is literally nothing holding you back from duplicating Tucker's Kobolds in 4e, since the DM has control over the monsters.


Whoever pulled out the 25% mortality rate for 3.5 between level 1 and 2....that seems terribly high. Yes, some things can one shot some characters on a crit. Con heavy meatshields are pretty safe. If you're facing level appropriate fights, the only people in danger of being one shotted should be as far away from the front line as range allows.

Still, even for a wizard, you should have 6-7 hit points at level 1. You might require a potion after a fight if unlucky, but going all the way to dead requires a pretty solid hit. IE, a crit with a healthy damage roll from certain mobs. That's pretty unlikely. Certainly not 25%, probably more like 5% or so.

First level Orc warriors, which are core and CR ½ per 5 HP Orc, deal 18 damage on an 18-20 crit and 9 on a normal hit, both averaged. The only thing that'll survive the crit is a 24 con Barbarian, who comes out of the experience with 1 HP left, and a Wizard needs 22 Con to survive the latter. Fighters with 16 Str can deal 2d6+4, average 11 damage to that same Orc, 22 if he landed an average crit.

I'm just saying that first level 3.5e is essentially rocket tag.

[Kurald Galain]

So, this beggars the question. If TSR treated NWP as "core" but listed them as "optional", what the hell were they exactly?
I expect this was to mollify people transferring from the earlier edition. That is, they wanted these new rules, but tell the older players that you can still play it the previous way.

Honestly I've never met a DM who did not use the NWP and HODD rules.

[Somebloke]

Roughly Ninety-Two Words: Tucker's Kobolds are overhyped, overquoted, and incredibly stupid to be citing as a defense of low CR monsters in 3.5e while detracting low level 4e monsters, because you have Kobolds acting like mildly intelligent rat bastards abusing every single home field advantage they can possibly acquire like a drunken husband abusing his children while the party of people they were going against were essentially mental eight year olds caught in a well-done haunted mansion that ran around with all the intelligence and desperate speed of a flaming mouse in it's death throes.

Unrelated to my boat of ninety-two words: There, I said it. Tucker's Kobolds are stupid and there is literally nothing holding you back from duplicating Tucker's Kobolds in 4e, since the DM has control over the monsters.



First level Orc warriors, which are core and CR ½ per 5 HP Orc, deal 18 damage on an 18-20 crit and 9 on a normal hit, both averaged. The only thing that'll survive the crit is a 24 con Barbarian, who comes out of the experience with 1 HP left, and a Wizard needs 22 Con to survive the latter. Fighters with 16 Str can deal 2d6+4, average 11 damage to that same Orc, 22 if he landed an average crit.

I'm just saying that first level 3.5e is essentially rocket tag.You can duplicate the effects of the Tucker Kobold, but the main difference with 4th ed is that thanks to the hit points that characters possess they will have a hell of a buffer.

It is still possible but there is a less greater sense of fear when a particularly cunning plan by the DM that uses levelled damage wipes out half rather than most of your hit points, which will re-set at the end of the encounter.

[dsmiles]

@OP:

I use "Magic Shops," in a way that makes them less than desirable to use. Magic items, especially powerful ones, are sold on a contract basis. As in: sign your name here, and you will pay a "price to be named at a later date."

So, yeah, characters can get magic items, if they're willing to pay the piper.

[Jayabalard]

It's even funnier when you realize that the cleric was a 6'4" human, and the wizard was a 2-and-a-half foot gnome.I don't think that's really that suprising... "All trees are felled at ground level" after all.

[Matthew]

I expect this was to mollify people transferring from the earlier edition. That is, they wanted these new rules, but tell the older players that you can still play it the previous way.

Well, proficiencies had been heavily pushed from 1985 onwards, primarily appearing in Oriental Adventures, the Wilderness Survival Guide, and the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and weapon proficiencies had been around and "core" since 1978. I think it was more a case of providing a paired down basic system, which had the happy side effect of appeasing those who regarded proficiencies as anathema.



Honestly I've never met a DM who did not use the NWP and HODD rules.
My experience was that we did not use them when we started (early nineties), later on we noted them down and then never used them (mid nineties), and now we have gone back to not using them. a few years ago I experimented heavily with a full on skill system for AD&D, though, which was interesting.

[Tyndmyr]

First level Orc warriors, which are core and CR ½ per 5 HP Orc, deal 18 damage on an 18-20 crit and 9 on a normal hit, both averaged. The only thing that'll survive the crit is a 24 con Barbarian, who comes out of the experience with 1 HP left, and a Wizard needs 22 Con to survive the latter. Fighters with 16 Str can deal 2d6+4, average 11 damage to that same Orc, 22 if he landed an average crit.

I'm just saying that first level 3.5e is essentially rocket tag.

Survive and Still standing are very different things. Yes, a single hit from one of those certainly can knock someone into the negatives if you're just a bit unlucky, but negatives is very different from dead.

A wizard with a 16 con(not terribly unreasonable) and no boosting of hp through other means would require a 17+ hp blow to be one shotted at level one. A crit can do it(though orcs have one of the highest damage/crits of their range), but even that isn't guaranteed death.

[Krow]

I still remember trying out the older editions during a big game hiatus.

PC: I grab the Knight by the collar!
DM: Roll Grapple...
PC: <Rolls>
DM: You got him in a leg lock...
PC: What!? :smallsmile:

[Myrmex]

Whoever pulled out the 25% mortality rate for 3.5 between level 1 and 2....that seems terribly high. Yes, some things can one shot some characters on a crit. Con heavy meatshields are pretty safe. If you're facing level appropriate fights, the only people in danger of being one shotted should be as far away from the front line as range allows.

Still, even for a wizard, you should have 6-7 hit points at level 1. You might require a potion after a fight if unlucky, but going all the way to dead requires a pretty solid hit. IE, a crit with a healthy damage roll from certain mobs. That's pretty unlikely. Certainly not 25%, probably more like 5% or so.

That was for 2e. We didn't play with max HP or bleed out rules. If we would have, it would have been far less lethal.

Back then, I just played. I never took much time to learn the rules. I didn't really even start nosing through 3e books when we switched until I had to DM and a powergamer had joined our table.

[Sir Homeslice]

You can duplicate the effects of the Tucker Kobold, but the main difference with 4th ed is that thanks to the hit points that characters possess they will have a hell of a buffer.

It is still possible but there is a less greater sense of fear when a particularly cunning plan by the DM that uses levelled damage wipes out half rather than most of your hit points, which will re-set at the end of the encounter.

Surprise! HP resets at the end of any 3.5e encounter too, they're called Wands of CLW/Lesser Vigor, or the mandatory Cleric/Fifty Seven Belts of Healing you have to lug around. If you're looking for the Padded Sumo argument, it applies to the monsters, and has been somewhat rectified by the latest batch of monsters.

And, 4e PCs begin with more HP than their 3.5e counterparts but end up with drastically less. If a clever DM was using a cunning plan and appropriate monsters, you'll lose more than half of your HP, you'll be knocked around like a ragdoll and thrown under 0 HP a few times. {Scrubbed}

[Foryn Gilnith]

Eesh. A bit too ardent in your defense of 4e, there. Might want to tone down on the hyperbole (Mandatory 57 Healing Belts) and/or the hostility (uneducated drivel)
Tucker's kobolds is a debate largely unrelated to whether magic is special or not. IMO Tucker's Kobolds are overhyped, but that is an argument with mental baggage that we do not need to bring into this thread.

[Jayabalard]

Surprise! HP resets at the end of any 3.5e encounter too, they're called Wands of CLW/Lesser Vigor, or the mandatory Cleric/Fifty Seven Belts of Healing you have to lug around.Nope, they certainly did not reset at the end of any encounter in 3e.

Basically all you're saying is that you played that way in 3.5e, so you don't see it as a problem in 4e. That argument really doesn't apply to anyone who would bring up the hp reset of 4e as a problem; it's not a particularly valid argument.

[Sir Homeslice]

Eesh. A bit too ardent in your defense of 4e, there. Might want to tone down on the hyperbole (Mandatory 57 Healing Belts) and/or the hostility (uneducated drivel)
Tucker's kobolds is a debate largely unrelated to whether magic is special or not. IMO Tucker's Kobolds are overhyped, but that is an argument with mental baggage that we do not need to bring into this thread.

On the issue of Healing Belts, it's hyperbole, I love hyperbole, and we can all appreciate hyperbole. The issue is still that you need a cleric to survive and to keep the classes that need HP alive. Failing that, you'll need Wands of CLW/Lesser Vigor or A good amount of healing belts to keep yourself up and running at full steam so you don't get KO'd.

And I'm hostile and aggressive because everyone forces my hand and I have an incredibly short temper. I personally can't stand misinformation (OH NO, PEOPLE ARE WRONG ON THE INTERNET) due to person experiences, most of which are largely unrelated to D&D.

And I only came in swinging about Tucker's Kobolds because they were brought up and used as an example of how 3.5e is apparently better in their creation of monster statblocks than 4e's monster statblocks.


Nope, they certainly did not reset at the end of any encounter in 3e.

Basically all you're saying is that you played that way in 3.5e, so you don't see it as a problem in 4e. That argument really doesn't apply to anyone who would bring up the hp reset of 4e as a problem; it's not a particularly valid argument.

While I acknowledge that a good number of people, perhaps a (possibly staggering) majority of them didn't use Wands of CLW/Lesser Vigor/Healing Belts or a good Cleric, you can't deny that it's an option explicitly supported by the system, and there's very little reason not to go ahead and use the aforementioned items/spells to top off characters needing their HP to stay afloat.

[Starbuck_II]

I expect this was to mollify people transferring from the earlier edition. That is, they wanted these new rules, but tell the older players that you can still play it the previous way.

Honestly I've never met a DM who did not use the NWP and HODD rules.

I did. I was a Fighter too so my ability to specialize was wasted.

[Jayabalard]

And I'm hostile and aggressive because everyone forces my hand and I have an incredibly short temper.Neither of those are a very good excuse.



While I acknowledge that a good number of people, perhaps a (possibly staggering) majority of them didn't use Wands of CLW/Lesser Vigor/Healing Belts or a good Cleric, you can't deny that it's an option explicitly supported by the systemCertainly I can: there's nothing that forces any of those things to be available in any particular game; At low level, there's no reason to assume that you're going to be able to acquire those items. At best, you could claim that that option is implicitly supported by the system, and even then I'm not really sure that I agree.

Even if you use that sort of option, it's rather disingenuous to suggest that there isn't a huge difference between using magic spells and items, expending some of your finite resources to heal up instead of just having the healing happen with a little bit of rest.


there's very little reason not to go ahead and use the aforementioned items/spells to top off characters needing their HP to stay afloat.I'd say that there are plenty of reasons not to use those items or spells to top off characters; the simplest case is any time there is a scarcity of resources (ie, you won't be able to replace those items/spells readily and might need them more at a later time).

[Tyndmyr]

My earlier mortality comment was specifically addressed to the claim regarding mortality in 3.5

Healing is used frequently in 3.5, but yes, it takes the form of resources that can also be used for other things. He who chugs potions or soaks heals after every fight is burning lots of precious resources that could be used for other spells, or other items. This is less the case in 4e. I won't say there are never other uses for 4e healing surges and such, because there are, but it's the exception, and using them for healing is default, where in 3.5, gold certainly isn't assumed to exist for purchasing healing potions. Thats merely an option among many.

[Foryn Gilnith]

And I only came in swinging about Tucker's Kobolds because they were brought up and used as an example of how 3.5e is apparently better in their creation of monster statblocks than 4e's monster statblocks.
Huh? I don't remember that being mentioned. The only comparison made using Tucker's Kobolds as a point was that some system are more conducive to tactics than to others. And I don't remember anyone claiming 4e discouraged tactics.

[AllisterH]

My earlier mortality comment was specifically addressed to the claim regarding mortality in 3.5

Healing is used frequently in 3.5, but yes, it takes the form of resources that can also be used for other things. He who chugs potions or soaks heals after every fight is burning lots of precious resources that could be used for other spells, or other items. This is less the case in 4e. I won't say there are never other uses for 4e healing surges and such, because there are, but it's the exception, and using them for healing is default, where in 3.5, gold certainly isn't assumed to exist for purchasing healing potions. Thats merely an option among many.

Who actually uses POTIONS for healing? In-combat healing, potions suck majorly due to the action economy and out of combat, Wands of Healing/Lesser vigor are so much more of a bang for your buck.

Really, if you're spending money on potions of healing, there's something wrong there....

[nightwyrm]

May I chime in that the limiting resource in 4e has shifted away from a simple hp count to include other things. Losing half your hp is not so scary anymore because it's not suppose to. During an encounter, the limiting resource is the number of ways you can activate a healing surge. Once a party runs out of second winds and healing powers, that's when they start to panic. During a day, the limiting resource is the number of healing surges and dailies. Once you're out of healing surges, there's almost no way of getting healing.

[Tiki Snakes]

May I chime in that the limiting resource in 4e has shifted away from a simple hp count to include other things. During an encounter, the limiting resource is the number of ways you can activate a healing surge. Once a party runs out of second winds and healing powers, that's when they start to panic. During a day, the limiting resource is the number of healing surges and dailies. Once you're out of healing surges, there's almost no way of getting healing.

Which gives tuckers 4th Kobolds a nice new tool to use. Being Reptiles and explictely (in some readings) quite happy at higher temperatures, simply fill the 'public' part of the dungeon with sauna levels of heat. The Kobolds, if you hang on to parts of their 3.5 fluff, actually benefit from the heat as it means they need to eat less, whereas if the pc's are failing endurance checks now and then, they are losing healing surges directly...

But enough of reptilian tangents, eh? :)

[Somebloke]

Surprise! HP resets at the end of any 3.5e encounter too, they're called Wands of CLW/Lesser Vigor, or the mandatory Cleric/Fifty Seven Belts of Healing you have to lug around.

All of which are brought about by character builds, etc. which are not an automatic assumption of 3.5- I have had plenty of campaigns where healing was limited by low level or circumstances, and the fighter etc. decided to wait until they really needed it before drawing off precious costly resource. In 4th edition hp reset is automatic, costs nothing in terms of money and is an integral part of the flow of the game.


If you're looking for the Padded Sumo argument, it applies to the monsters, and has been somewhat rectified by the latest batch of monsters.

Yes, absolutely. Which means that the benefits of cunning plans on the part of the players is also similarly reduced (the one-shot sneak attack is now if not a thing of the past then quite a bit harder for example) especially since...I've seen 4e combat once compared to a battle between ships of the line, drawn out affairs requiring multiple volleys of shots. Brilliant tactics will still change the course of the battle but they need to be followed up upon and there is time where the suprised party can rally or attempt to flee.


And, 4e PCs begin with more HP than their 3.5e counterparts but end up with drastically less.

Yes, at high levels this is true- however the hp is not so low that the damage numbers in 4th edition would enable a knockout blow. Furthermore, at high levels in 3e the save-or-die spell effects begin to tell. Being suprised with a 29th level daily(that hits) in 4e is a major blow. Being suprised by a 9th level spell in 3.5e is catastrophic.


If a clever DM was using a cunning plan and appropriate monsters, you'll lose more than half of your HP, you'll be knocked around like a ragdoll and thrown under 0 HP a few times.

Of course it can be done- I mentioned that I've done it as a DM itself- it just requires a bit more planning on the part of the DM and a bit more sustained effort. An impediment that can be overcome is still an impediment.


{Scrubbed}I don't know what you wrote here and I am not particularly interested, but I am trying to keep this discussion civilised. If you are not interested in doing so then please don't bother responding to me as this tells me that you really do not have the temperment suited to dicussion boards.

[dsmiles]

In 4th edition hp reset is automatic, costs nothing in terms of money and is an integral part of the flow of the game.


Not exactly automatic. Still need to spend healing surges and such. If the players choose not to spend them, no healing for you.

[Somebloke]

Not exactly automatic. Still need to spend healing surges and such. If the players choose not to spend them, no healing for you.

True, but there really is not much of a reason to do so.

[dsmiles]

Example:

For the entire combat, a kobold hits me once for 3 damage. I really don't think I'm going to spend a surge for 3 HP...would you?

[Somebloke]

Example:

For the entire combat, a kobold hits me once for 3 damage. I really don't think I'm going to spend a surge for 3 HP...would you?No, granted- but that 3hp isn't really what you might call a gamebreaker or the decision particularly difficult to make. Those 20-odd other hit points make a big buffer.

[dsmiles]

That's actually where I was going with that, there's many occasions wher characters won't heal after combat, they just didn't take enough damage, or spent their "second wind" during combat and didn't take enough damage after that.

[Tyndmyr]

May I chime in that the limiting resource in 4e has shifted away from a simple hp count to include other things. Losing half your hp is not so scary anymore because it's not suppose to. During an encounter, the limiting resource is the number of ways you can activate a healing surge. Once a party runs out of second winds and healing powers, that's when they start to panic. During a day, the limiting resource is the number of healing surges and dailies. Once you're out of healing surges, there's almost no way of getting healing.

You've gotta be kidding....hp is the only count that normally kills you in 4e. In 3.5, there were a great many ways to die. 3.5 is not a "simple hp count".

As for total healing, check out the sheer amount of healing possible in a standard party in 4e. Even just via surges, its a lot, and there are other ways of getting healing as well. It just happens that since so much is supplied by default that there's not much need usually to maximize other forms of healing.

[Somebloke]

That's actually where I was going with that, there's many occasions wher characters won't heal after combat, they just didn't take enough damage, or spent their "second wind" during combat and didn't take enough damage after that.Okay, I can agree, but I still maintain that apart from a handful of occasions that have little impact on gameplay (ie the 3hp) it tends to be an automatic response.

[nightwyrm]

You've gotta be kidding....hp is the only count that normally kills you in 4e. In 3.5, there were a great many ways to die. 3.5 is not a "simple hp count".

I was not talking about ways to die, I was talking about limiting resources. Spells are a limiting resource for 3e casters, hps are a limiting resource for melees. Getting SoD'ed kills or screws you over but "lives" aren't a resource you can gauge and spend. Saving against a SoD doesn't alter the resource you can spend against the next SoD (in general). What dying (and SoD) does is hit your money, which I guess it's an even more important limiting resource since a lot of problems can be solved by buying the right magic item.


As for total healing, check out the sheer amount of healing possible in a standard party in 4e. Even just via surges, its a lot, and there are other ways of getting healing as well. It just happens that since so much is supplied by default that there's not much need usually to maximize other forms of healing.

I was pointing out that you don't gauge how close you're to dying in 4e by the number in your hp box on your char sheet, even though it seems so because the only way to kill something is via hp damage. It's actually the number of ways to restore hp to somebody. During an encounter, that's the number of healing powers a party has available. A party can have a lot, but it is finite. During the course of a day, the number of ways to heal is determined by the number of healing surges a party has. You have certain powers that "heal as if X has spend a healing surge" but those are most often dailies. Again, a party can have a lot, but it is finite.

Compare with a 3.5 party. During combat, the number of hp you start with is a real limiting resource since 3.5 healing during combat tends to be small and inefficient. Over the course of the day, the limiting resource for your hp is number of charges you have on your heal stick, which is a function of your wealth.

[Kaiyanwang]

Compare with a 3.5 party. During combat, the number of hp you start with is a real limiting resource since 3.5 healing during combat tends to be small and inefficient. Over the course of the day, the limiting resource for your hp is number of charges you have on your heal stick, which is a function of your wealth.

I always found this sentence objectionable, at least as a generalization. Sure, there are lot of times that is better flee or nuke, but sometimes you have to heal /mass heal or that guy /the party is gonna die.

DM gamestyle I guess.

[nightwyrm]

I always found this sentence objectionable, at least as a generalization. Sure, there are lot of times that is better flee or nuke, but sometimes you have to heal /mass heal or that guy /the party is gonna die.

DM gamestyle I guess.

Are you talking about the heal spell? Coz that's the good healing spell. But things like Cure X wound? Those just don't scale well compared to the damage dealt by monsters at the levels you get them.


edit: Funny story. In one game, a PC was just dropped into the negatives (but alive) so the cleric healed the PC on his next turn and brought the PC just above 0. The monster, seeing the PC was still conscious, attacked and knocked the PC below -10, killing him.

[Optimystik]

edit: Funny story. In one game, a PC was just dropped into the negatives (but alive) so the cleric healed the PC on his next turn and brought the PC just above 0. The monster, seeing the PC was still conscious, attacked and knocked the PC below -10, killing him.

That happened to me in NWN more times than I care to recall :smallannoyed:

It's worse with computer games; AI is a lot easier to fool than a DM, so getting caught by something like that is just plain irritating.

[dsmiles]

Wizards! Do you feel underappreciated? Is your magic no longer special? Feast your eyes on this: A brand new low magic, high technology campaign.

Works for me...:smallbiggrin:

[Sebastian]

So does anybody else feel the same way about this that I do? Do you prefer the new-look magic, and like the way things have progressed over the years? Or do you prefer it the old way, as I do?

I agree with you at 100%

2E>3E>>>>>>>>>>>...>>>>4e.

IMHO, of course.