PDA

View Full Version : How would you react to DM rulings like these rules?



Agrippa
2014-02-08, 05:14 PM
I should tell you that this blog page (http://www.paperspencils.com/2012/08/26/page-by-page-gary-gygaxs-dmg-part-7/) I found is just part seven of a readthrough of the 1st Ed. AD&D DMG. Now I don't care for the limits on monk unarmed attacking, the limits on decision making time or the idea of highly complex combat tables with two pages on grappling. So what would you say if a DM wanted to make monks a more "grounded" class?

erikun
2014-02-08, 05:53 PM
Now I don't care for the limits on monk unarmed attacking
Note that ALL weapons in AD&D had a difference in damage between small/medium size targets and large targets. Daggers did poor damage against very large opponents, while pikes did more. It isn't unusual for the Monk's unarmed attacks to be similarly limited, although the distinct size differences (two inches per level? really?) are quite odd.

Being affected by on-contact effects with your fists makes sense logically. A lot of older systems went by the "if it makes sense, it follows the rules" logic rather than pretending that a person's knuckles were magically warded against contact effects. This worked with poison and with rusting metal weapons, so isn't very strange at all.


the limits on decision making time
Ironically enough, I've seen a lot of people recommend and use limits on player decision time in exactly the same way, to great effect. It doesn't work for all groups, but some people do enjoy playing with a limited amount of time to make decisions - both for remaining in-character, and to prevent others from grinding the game to a halt on their turns.


or the idea of highly complex combat tables with two pages on grappling.
I guess grappling was never good in D&D.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-08, 06:36 PM
I don't care for arbitrary limits such as "a monk’s unarmed damage is only really functional against human sized, human-weight opponents". It might make a bit of sense from a realistic point of view, but nothing else in the game is realistic, so it's just making monks useless against big and tough monsters.

If a DM arbitrarily decided that my character is useless against a wide variety of enemies the party is expected to fight all the time, I'd be rather angry.

SiuiS
2014-02-08, 06:56 PM
I don't care for arbitrary limits such as "a monk’s unarmed damage is only really functional against human sized, human-weight opponents". It might make a bit of sense from a realistic point of view, but nothing else in the game is realistic, so it's just making monks useless against big and tough monsters.

If a DM arbitrarily decided that my character is useless against a wide variety of enemies the party is expected to fight all the time, I'd be rather angry.

You're missing a detail. Monks got improved unarmed damage and a % chance of stunning and death against human opponents, but they gained a flat +1/2 level to weapon damage with weapons. the monk dealing 1d8+5+str+magic instead of 2d8 isn't a bad deal.

E: wow, this guy.


Attacks With Two Weapons: I found this a little odd. “Characters normally using a single weapon may choose to use one in each hand (possibly discarding the option of using a shield).” The way I read that, it sounds as though characters who choose to dual wield might need to give up using their shield, but might not. Would they somehow wield two swords and a shield at the same time?

What, for real? You do realize, person, that it's possible for classes which cannot use shields to use two weapons, right? That's why it's possible they'd lose shield access, but not a guarantee.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-08, 07:22 PM
You're missing a detail. Monks got improved unarmed damage and a % chance of stunning and death against human opponents, but they gained a flat +1/2 level to weapon damage with weapons. the monk dealing 1d8+5+str+magic instead of 2d8 isn't a bad deal.


I suppose that's alright, then.

What I don't like about these rules, however, is that they add another layer of miniscule-level detail to a system that's already suffering from too many such rules. I'm all for adding rules that give the players more options, but they should be concise, elegant and simple to use. This looks like it grinds the game to a halt each time it's used.

erikun
2014-02-08, 07:42 PM
I agree that the weapon-damage-by-size idea was not that great of an idea. Everyone frequently forgot about it, in my experience. It made sense in wargaming, where units only came in sizes like "soldier" and "calvary", but not so much when small could mean pixies the size of dust and large could mean something like a literal animated mountain.

It wasn't an aspect of any other RPGs (that I know of) and when it was dropped in D&D3e, I don't think anyone missed it.

SiuiS
2014-02-08, 08:14 PM
I suppose that's alright, then.

What I don't like about these rules, however, is that they add another layer of miniscule-level detail to a system that's already suffering from too many such rules. I'm all for adding rules that give the players more options, but they should be concise, elegant and simple to use. This looks like it grinds the game to a halt each time it's used.

It was a thing the player and DM had to know and that was it. Remember, back in 1/2e, being DM was an actual, honest to god fraternity. Players weren't allowed to read DM books, players didn't need to and often didn't know most of the rules, and the DM was a prestigious individual who was accorded respect simply for having the burden of all that knowledge.

Rhynn
2014-02-08, 08:54 PM
I guess grappling was never good in D&D.

The AD&D unarmed combat systems deserve a special mention for awfulness. As a kid, I couldn't comprehend them to use them, and once I could comprehend them, I could see I shouldn't use them.

Still not as bad as AD&D 1E psionics, though.

OP: Not sure what you're asking about - just the monk bits? For what, D&D 3.5? Those are one of those cases of unnecessarily fiddly AD&D 1E rules. You really need to understand all the context, like the monk special attacks and how they worked, to see how the monk was balanced out, though.

Generally, don't mix editions. Just try playing some OSRIC, maybe. It's free, and linked in my sig. :smallwink:

Mastikator
2014-02-08, 10:57 PM
The monk is already at a massive disadvantage compared to armed warriors.
It would be better to just give them some bonus against an enemy of the same creature type and size type.

nedz
2014-02-08, 11:04 PM
I should tell you that this blog page (http://www.paperspencils.com/2012/08/26/page-by-page-gary-gygaxs-dmg-part-7/) I found is just part seven of a readthrough of the 1st Ed. AD&D DMG. Now I don't care for the limits on monk unarmed attacking, the limits on decision making time or the idea of highly complex combat tables with two pages on grappling. So what would you say if a DM wanted to make monks a more "grounded" class?

AD&D 1E Monks were excellent, IIRC they were the only class which got evasion. In the situations where your fists didn't work you just switched to a weapon. You got fewer attacks and no specials, but your attack probably did more damage.

The decision making thing is to stop one player blocking out the others, players would learn to either not do this or accept that their action would take some time. The DM would normally say how many rounds something would take at the outset.

Tables: that would be Gary :smallbiggrin:

I heard a lot of complaints about the complexity of 3.5's grappling system. D&D has never done this well. IIRC there were three unarmed combat systems: Grappling, Overbearing and Brawling. In 3.5 these are now special attack options, but who uses Overrun ?

Rhynn
2014-02-08, 11:13 PM
AD&D 2E Combat & Tactics overbearing was hilariously powerful and stupid. The few times I used it, weak 1 HD monsters completely wrecked powerful melee PCs...

It wasn't really comparable to overrun, though; it was basically "a bunch of kobolds jump on you and pin you down, then they cut your throat." Not a good fit for AD&D.

SiuiS
2014-02-09, 12:51 AM
The monk is already at a massive disadvantage compared to armed warriors.

Have you... Have you played the monk?

Slipperychicken
2014-02-09, 01:09 AM
"a bunch of kobolds jump on you and pin you down, then they cut your throat."

I haven't read much of AD&D's rules, but isn't that essentially what happens IRL when one guy tries to fight a mob?

Arbane
2014-02-09, 01:12 AM
AD&D 2E Combat & Tactics overbearing was hilariously powerful and stupid. The few times I used it, weak 1 HD monsters completely wrecked powerful melee PCs...

I remember Knights of the Dinner Table made fun of this. "We're gonna hire a dozen hobos and overbear a dragon!"

Mastikator
2014-02-09, 03:30 AM
Have you... Have you played the monk?

Yes. And seen them as NPCs. Even when monks are higher level they lose out to barbarians and fighters. Hell, I've seen wizards with crossbows kill monks.

SiuiS
2014-02-09, 03:57 AM
Yes. And seen them as NPCs. Even when monks are higher level they lose out to barbarians and fighters. Hell, I've seen wizards with crossbows kill monks.

In 1e? That doesn't mean much. A crossbow with mild optimisation kills everything. The monk's only got 11d4 HP at name level; 11 HP is a valid end result. There are different expectations in those games, including lower odds of survival for everyone.

Mastikator
2014-02-09, 07:39 AM
In 1e? That doesn't mean much. A crossbow with mild optimisation kills everything. The monk's only got 11d4 HP at name level; 11 HP is a valid end result. There are different expectations in those games, including lower odds of survival for everyone.
Oh, never played 1e. Only played 3.5e of the D&D series. It was 3.5e where the monks were pretty bad.

kailkay
2014-02-09, 07:57 AM
Oh, never played 1e. Only played 3.5e of the D&D series. It was 3.5e where the monks were pretty bad.

Wisdom and dex to AC, the ability to use dex bonus on all attack rolls with your main weapons (unarmed combat), 3/4 BAB, like, a bajillion attacks per round, optimized for incredible feats of tripping and grappling...

Not to mention at 6th level your medium-sized monk's fists turn into dual-wielded longswords +1 that do bludgeoning damage, and they only go up from there.

And to top it all off, your character takes minimal fall damage (unless that's a Pathfinder-centric thing... it's been a while since 3.5e for me), has spell resistance, massive saving throw bonuses, and zips around the battlefield like The Flash...

Yeah. Monks are bad. :3 Badly BROKEN.

veti
2014-02-09, 04:01 PM
In 1e? That doesn't mean much. A crossbow with mild optimisation kills everything. The monk's only got 11d4 HP at name level; 11 HP is a valid end result. There are different expectations in those games, including lower odds of survival for everyone.

By the same logic, a fighter or paladin at name level can have 9 HP. And the monk gets a roll to deflect a crossbow bolt. So he's still better off than either of those...

1st level monks in AD&D were almost as tedious to play as magic-users, but they quickly grossed out once you got a decent AC (and how long that took depended on how generous the loot was).

Edit to avoid multi-posting:

Tables: that would be Gary :smallbiggrin:

Speaking of - did anyone ever use the honking great table in the PHB, which showed to-hit adjustments for weapons against each armour class?

I remember looking at it and thinking, even at the impressionable age of 13, that it was about the dumbest idea I'd ever seen. I mean, sure it makes sense that you'd have trouble piercing full plate with a shortbow - but then another character can get exactly the same AC wearing nothing but a cloak, a ring and a winning smile, and then the whole thing suddenly requires more house-ruling than a frat party. I don't think I ever saw anyone try to apply it in-game, even those DMs who claimed to be running rules-as-written.

SiuiS
2014-02-09, 04:32 PM
Oh, never played 1e. Only played 3.5e of the D&D series. It was 3.5e where the monks were pretty bad.

Ah. That's the difference. These "house rules" are how the PHB was written. You have to remember though, that ONLY warriors got more than +2 con on HP ever, 18 strength gave you +2 to hit and damage, and after Name level (usually 9th or 10th) you didn't get hit dice anymore, you added like, 2HP and that was it. Armor class capped at "20" without magic. With lower Hp, fewer damage boosting options, fewer options for extra attacks, and less disparity between attack numbers, being the only guy who can pick up, say, a chair, and do 1d8+5 with it (when a monster of appropriate level would have 5d8+10 HP) is phenomenal.


Wisdom and dex to AC, the ability to use dex bonus on all attack rolls with your main weapons (unarmed combat), 3/4 BAB, like, a bajillion attacks per round, optimized for incredible feats of tripping and grappling...

Not to mention at 6th level your medium-sized monk's fists turn into dual-wielded longswords +1 that do bludgeoning damage, and they only go up from there.

And to top it all off, your character takes minimal fall damage (unless that's a Pathfinder-centric thing... it's been a while since 3.5e for me), has spell resistance, massive saving throw bonuses, and zips around the battlefield like The Flash...

Yeah. Monks are bad. :3 Badly BROKEN.

That's in accurate. I'm not going to go into why, here, but in play a lot of those cool powers aren't worthwhile. They don't actually affect the viability of the class.


By the same logic, a fighter or paladin at name level can have 9 HP. And the monk gets a roll to deflect a crossbow bolt. So he's still better off than either of those...

1st level monks in AD&D were almost as tedious to play as magic-users, but they quickly grossed out once you got a decent AC (and how long that took depended on how generous the loot was).

I've never personally played a monk past level 1 for that very reason; 2d4 HP and absolutely no mitigating factors on how easy it is to kill you? Ouch. I got lucky with wizard, really. Rolled nothing below a 16, and honestly I kind of wish I'd picked monk or something for those stats...

But I've seen a high level monk. They're terrifying. Probably because anyone who gets that far as a player has to be the meanest, most ornery sonovagun to do it.



Speaking of - did anyone ever use the honking great table in the PHB, which showed to-hit adjustments for weapons against each armour class?

I remember looking at it and thinking, even at the impressionable age of 13, that it was about the dumbest idea I'd ever seen. I mean, sure it makes sense that you'd have trouble piercing full plate with a shortbow - but then another character can get exactly the same AC wearing nothing but a cloak, a ring and a winning smile, and then the whole thing suddenly requires more house-ruling than a frat party. I don't think I ever saw anyone try to apply it in-game, even those DMs who claimed to be running rules-as-written.

No, but I wanted to. DM ran a game "100% by the book for the heck of it" so I picked equipment with that in mind. Turns out it's the one rule he abandoned >_<

HOWEVER, this is another misunderstanding between editions. AC 3 was not "three better than a normal guy", it was very specifically the categorical tier of (from memory) strong hide armor or reinforced leather with supplementary shield. I believe you went by armor type and not raw numbers, so a guy I. +8 leather armor still had an AC 8 (not 0) for the chart.

veti
2014-02-09, 04:46 PM
HOWEVER, this is another misunderstanding between editions. AC 3 was not "three better than a normal guy", it was very specifically the categorical tier of (from memory) strong hide armor or reinforced leather with supplementary shield. I believe you went by armor type and not raw numbers, so a guy I. +8 leather armor still had an AC 8 (not 0) for the chart.

Yep, that was the obvious and intuitive answer, and it would work OK - as long as you're only fighting creatures that wear armour.

But where on the chart does a displacer beast belong? Or a giant spider? A bullette?

Even with creatures like kobolds - you'd have to decide, how does their AC break down? They have scaly skin, small size, shields of some sort, and armour.

Multiply that question by however many entries in the Monster Manual you plan to use, and I suspect that's why it was never used.

SiuiS
2014-02-09, 07:30 PM
Yep, that was the obvious and intuitive answer, and it would work OK - as long as you're only fighting creatures that wear armour.

But where on the chart does a displacer beast belong? Or a giant spider? A bullette?

Even with creatures like kobolds - you'd have to decide, how does their AC break down? They have scaly skin, small size, shields of some sort, and armour.

Multiply that question by however many entries in the Monster Manual you plan to use, and I suspect that's why it was never used.

There's actual text to cover that. Remember, this doesn't have to be consistent across every DM who ever played the game ever. It doesn't even have to be consistent across separate campaigns. The drive for rigid homogeny is an intuitive part of 3e, but it caught on because it was novel.

veti
2014-02-09, 07:32 PM
There's actual text to cover that.

There is? I'm surprised, because I did spend at least some time looking for it, and I knew the books pretty well in those days.

Mastikator
2014-02-09, 09:37 PM
Wisdom and dex to AC, the ability to use dex bonus on all attack rolls with your main weapons (unarmed combat), 3/4 BAB, like, a bajillion attacks per round, optimized for incredible feats of tripping and grappling...

Not to mention at 6th level your medium-sized monk's fists turn into dual-wielded longswords +1 that do bludgeoning damage, and they only go up from there.

And to top it all off, your character takes minimal fall damage (unless that's a Pathfinder-centric thing... it's been a while since 3.5e for me), has spell resistance, massive saving throw bonuses, and zips around the battlefield like The Flash...

Yeah. Monks are bad. :3 Badly BROKEN.
Have you ever played a monk in 3.5e? It sounds great on paper. My DM thought it would. Then the monk grand master was one-shotted by our low level barbarian.

Tengu_temp
2014-02-10, 12:31 AM
The monk's only got 11d4 HP at name level; 11 HP is a valid end result.

Valid but astronomically low. The most likely result is somewhere between 25 and 30 HP.


Wisdom and dex to AC, the ability to use dex bonus on all attack rolls with your main weapons (unarmed combat), 3/4 BAB, like, a bajillion attacks per round, optimized for incredible feats of tripping and grappling...

Not to mention at 6th level your medium-sized monk's fists turn into dual-wielded longswords +1 that do bludgeoning damage, and they only go up from there.

And to top it all off, your character takes minimal fall damage (unless that's a Pathfinder-centric thing... it's been a while since 3.5e for me), has spell resistance, massive saving throw bonuses, and zips around the battlefield like The Flash...

Yeah. Monks are bad. :3 Badly BROKEN.

What, a 3e/PF monk? Pitifully low offense in comparison to a mildly optimized fighter (even assuming all your attacks hit, which is usually not the case), much lower AC unless you invest in both dexterity and wisdom, in which case your offense is even worse. Your natural spell resistance is too low to matter, and you get a collection of desynchronized special abilities that are very flavorful but make very little impact in actual gameplay. A raging barbarian or a polymorphed druid are way better grapplers than a monk will ever be.

When your designated martial arts class is worse at unarmed combat than a fighter specializing in it, you know something went wrong during the design stage.

neonchameleon
2014-02-10, 06:26 AM
The 1e monk was worse than the 3e one until name level (and the 3e one was pretty terrible). At levels in single digits they were better than thieves at only three things: Falling off walls, running away, and playing dead, but were for practical purposes a thief variant - and the thief was deservedly considered a weak class. Name level 1e monks are, I agree, terrifying.

The weapon damage vs large creatures was a balancing factor that did two things subtly.
1: It meant that the fighter actually did more damage as they got higher level, all else being equal (as large monsters were more common)
2: It was why the fighter could outfight the cleric and remained relevant at higher levels before they got their army at name level. Fighter weapons (swords) did more damage against big creatures, cleric weapons didn't. And swords turned up so much more often in the loot tables.

Spore
2014-02-10, 06:41 AM
This post makes being a monk sound more like a hobby to an adventurer rather than a real class. Those guys are inferior to modern game NPC classes such as warriors or experts.

And if I wanted to have competent noncombat classes in my game I would play the Dark Eye.

SiuiS
2014-02-10, 07:37 AM
There is? I'm surprised, because I did spend at least some time looking for it, and I knew the books pretty well in those days.

It was in the DMG somewhere I believe. Like many things, it was in an entirely separate discussion on how to use the rules, as opposed to being next to the rules. It's a rubric for eyeballing, mostly.


This post makes being a monk sound more like a hobby to an adventurer rather than a real class. Those guys are inferior to modern game NPC classes such as warriors or experts.

And if I wanted to have competent noncombat classes in my game I would play the Dark Eye.

:smallconfused: you find a class balanced around an entirely different mechanical swing point to be inferior? How are you even comparing them? Comparing anything old and anything modern is only going to show you expected differences.

nedz
2014-02-10, 08:29 AM
1st level monks in AD&D were almost as tedious to play as magic-users, but they quickly grossed out once you got a decent AC (and how long that took depended on how generous the loot was).

Yes but then most 1st level characters were quite weak. Monks came into their own from around 7th-8th level. The trick with low level Monks was to get yourself a big weapon — Halberd IIRC — and not use your fists until around 5th level.


Speaking of - did anyone ever use the honking great table in the PHB, which showed to-hit adjustments for weapons against each armour class?

I remember looking at it and thinking, even at the impressionable age of 13, that it was about the dumbest idea I'd ever seen. I mean, sure it makes sense that you'd have trouble piercing full plate with a shortbow - but then another character can get exactly the same AC wearing nothing but a cloak, a ring and a winning smile, and then the whole thing suddenly requires more house-ruling than a frat party. I don't think I ever saw anyone try to apply it in-game, even those DMs who claimed to be running rules-as-written.

I have played AD&D with lots of groups, never did come across a group who used that particular table. Far too much complexity for little return, especially with monsters.

SiuiS
2014-02-10, 08:50 AM
It's not so bad. I just carried a lance. I could afford the few penalties it gave me.

neonchameleon
2014-02-10, 10:55 AM
Yes but then most 1st level characters were quite weak. Monks came into their own from around 7th-8th level. The trick with low level Monks was to get yourself a big weapon — Halberd IIRC — and not use your fists until around 5th level.

5th level Monk. AC7 (studded leather I think). Attacks: 5/4 rounds. Damage: d6+1 (or about the same as a thief's longsword). XP: Just behind a 6th level thief, not counting the high stat XP bonus. Thief abilities: 1 level behind, strict subset. Other abilities: Run away faster, talk to animals, a tiny bit of magic resistance (as against lower saves).

8th level monk: XP: 200,001-350,000 (the thief hits level 11 at 220,000 and the magic user level 10 at 250,000 - meaning the monk has fewer hit points than the wizard). AC4 (getting somewhere - but the fighter should have been in magic plate armour for a looong time and the thief might well be in elven chain and gets a dex bonus), 2d6 damage 3/2 rounds (again, getting somewhere unless the fighter has weapon spec). Other abilities: The ability to play dead, the ability to heal enough hit points to keep up with the wizard, and the ability to talk to plants. Lacking: followers.

8th level is about where monks became viable compared to thieves (considered a weak class) - and also where the thief gave up adventuring. And where the monk needed to duel to gain more levels (seriously the RAW says that there are only three L8 monks and one of each higher level, and you need to duel to take one of the places above you, loser loses XP).

Mighty_Chicken
2014-02-10, 11:51 AM
(seriously the RAW says that there are only three L8 monks and one of each higher level, and you need to duel to take one of the places above you, loser loses XP).

Oh my, this is so evocative of my childhood memories of when I started DMing AD&D. Similar stuff happened to druids in AD&D second edition, right?

I think I'm going to use this for all classes in my E10 campaign... past E6, everyone has to kill their masters or something to level up! Wouldn't it add a nice old school feeling to it?

Rhynn
2014-02-10, 12:48 PM
Oh my, this is so evocative of my childhood memories of when I started DMing AD&D. Similar stuff happened to druids in AD&D second edition, right?

Yup! But the druids also got totally bizarre XP progressions to go with it.

Also, 1E assassins beyond 13th level.


I think I'm going to use this for all classes in my E10 campaign... past E6, everyone has to kill their masters or something to level up! Wouldn't it add a nice old school feeling to it?

Not really, given that only two relatively uncommon classes and one common class used a mechanic like that, and in each case, it was because the classes represented very specific in-character constructs that involved being part of a hierarchical organization (monk order/temple, assassins' guild, druidic hierarchy).

veti
2014-02-10, 05:03 PM
When I was at university... everyone ran their own heavily-houseruled versions of AD&D. Then one - let's be kind and call him an "optimist" - decided there was a market niche for a plain vanilla rules-as-written group. Unfortunately, the adventure he'd got for this group required ridiculously high level characters (no, it wasn't Tomb of Horrors...)

So we got to start at 15th level, in whatever class we wanted. So naturally, I chose Monk.

I think I completely wrecked his adventure. He had no idea how powerful a 15th level monk was. I mean, he tried to give me 'Bracers of AC2' as starting equipment, until I pointed out that my starting AC wearing nothing but a hastily-tied towel was already 3 or 4 classes better than that.

Ah, happy times...

Mighty_Chicken
2014-02-10, 09:56 PM
Not really, given that only two relatively uncommon classes and one common class used a mechanic like that, and in each case, it was because the classes represented very specific in-character constructs that involved being part of a hierarchical organization (monk order/temple, assassins' guild, druidic hierarchy).

What exactly was the assassin's and the druid's challenge again?

Well, regarding making my player go through some kind of rite of passage when they go beyong E6, it doesn't need to be a duel, necessarily.

But in the setting I'm building (think Crossroads (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269334) in South America), wizards and other "cultured" spellcasters are mostly under a hierarchy akin to the Jesuits. Maybe they must solve a puzzle or research a spell themselves. Maybe divine casters (who aren't in contact with gods, but with minor spirits) should go through a near-death or dream experience.

Maybe rangers have to hunt something big; maybe fighters have to win a war.

This unequal, grounded, "narrativist" in a primitive way and definetively not very "gamist" approach is what many of us like in old school. It makes the game a little less like a videogame where you know what to expect, and more like "real life" (well, what real life would be in a gritty fantasy world) where things aren't necessarily fair and balanced, and they don't work in an Apollonian and organized way, but rather a little un-intuitively.

SiuiS
2014-02-11, 01:30 AM
Oh my, this is so evocative of my childhood memories of when I started DMing AD&D. Similar stuff happened to druids in AD&D second edition, right?

I think I'm going to use this for all classes in my E10 campaign... past E6, everyone has to kill their masters or something to level up! Wouldn't it add a nice old school feeling to it?

Dueling wasn't always killing. Although I'm sure it was for assassins...


Druids in particular were basically just the best presidents. You run for your term and instead of campaign promises or propaganda, whoever beats the tar out of the other guy wins. And the only way to get rid of the over achiever is to eat him. :D

Until you retire. Then you get to start over doing world torus like a celebrity. Druids are amazing.

Rhynn
2014-02-11, 02:17 AM
Dueling wasn't always killing. Although I'm sure it was for assassins...

Yeah, 1E & 2E druids explicitly don't have to kill each other; if the combat is not mortal, the loser "just" loses a level. However, it seems that to the death is the default. (That means one druid at each level below you, down to 11th, gets to advance free because of the opening higher up!)

1E assassins can duel or assassinate the person above them. We are explicitly told that the higher-level character is under no obligation to play fair, though, so making a challenge to a duel is a bad idea, at least if you don't have overwhelming support among the other assassins present. It's clear that assassinating your way up is the correct thing to do.

The 1E monk advancement duels seem to be non-lethal by default, judging by the text.


Note that, in all cases, special circumstances could reasonably create openings and negate the need for combat: if war or a dragon attack or old age claimed a higher-level druid, monk, or assassin, there's a place open and advancement can happen.


What exactly was the assassin's and the druid's challenge again?

For clarity's sake:

Assassins either assassinate the person above them, or challenge them into a duel (which the higher-up has no obligation to respect or be fair about; they can explicitly command minions etc. to kill you instead).
Druids fight a duel, either hand-to-hand or with magic, that is or is not to the death.
Monks fight a hand-to-hand duel with no weapons or magic items, not to the death by default.

Thrudd
2014-02-11, 02:22 AM
There are nine level 12 Druids (that is the first time they officially have that title). There are three level 13 Archdruids and one level 14 Great Druid. You have to win in a contest of hand to hand or spell combat in order to advance into their ranks, if a spot is not already open. So the DM does have an out, and can just say there was already an open spot, or conveniently someone decides to retire or dies to let your character have their spot. The duel does not need to be to the death, however, and the loser drops in XP to beginning of the previous level.
In 2e, they let druids go beyond the level of Great Druid by retiring and becoming Heirophants who wandered the planes.


Assassins, appropriately, have to assassinate or have a duel to the death with a Guildmaster in order to advance to level 14 Guildmaster Assassin. However, there is no specific limit for how many guildmasters there are in the world, you just have to find one and kill him to take over his guild. There is only one level 15 Grandfather of Assassins in the world, however.

There are only three level 8 monks in the world, and one of each higher level up to level 17 Grandmaster of Flowers (I always loved that name lol), and you have to best them in unarmed combat, without magic items, but not necessarily to the death. The loser drops to the beginning of the previous experience level, as with druids.

In any case, around 8th-9th level is when most classes start building their strongholds and attracting their followers, and also when the XP requirement for the next level makes a significant jump.

SiuiS
2014-02-11, 08:11 AM
Note that, in all cases, special circumstances could reasonably create openings and negate the need for combat: if war or a dragon attack or old age claimed a higher-level druid, monk, or assassin, there's a place open and advancement can happen.

Does it specifically allow for openings? In the case of the second highest killing the first, for example, I would assume everyone still has to duel. It's not about making an opening, it's ritualistic.

Rhynn
2014-02-11, 10:31 AM
Does it specifically allow for openings? In the case of the second highest killing the first, for example, I would assume everyone still has to duel. It's not about making an opening, it's ritualistic.

It doesn't need to specifically allow for them; the reason the dueling is explained at all, for e.g. Druids, is that there are limited "spots." I guess that fruids could hold a ritual duel where no one needs to win and let the new guy take the vacant position regardless of the result... but with monks, if the position is vacant, there is no one to duel at all.

It's common sense, something that AD&D tends to assume the DM will use to adjudicate things.