Am I the only one who doesn't like the arbitrary "boss monster" tag?

[Obryn]

Dragons did have Magic Resistance: Standard in 1st edition....
If you have access to the 1st Edition Monster Manual you will find on page 33, example Red Dragon, that it has Magic Resistance: Standard.

You know that means basically 0%, right? It's the default, also known as "saving throws." Contrast w/ Jubilex and Orcus, and compare with other monsters in the book.

(Yes, magic/spell resistance was around in 1e. However, dragons first gained magic resistance in 2e is what I think the other poster meant. Also, of note, dragons in 1e were pretty often non-challenging. The FR grey box had some rules to beef them up, and 2e upped their power very substantially as a response to some rather anticlimactic dragon fights. IIRC, magic resistance itself was beefed up in 2e, too; it was super-easy to penetrate in 1e because it dropped by 5% each caster level.)

-O

 

[billd91]

(IIRC, magic resistance itself was beefed up in 2e, too; it was super-easy to penetrate in 1e because it dropped by 5% each caster level.)

-O

2e made it generally easier for most characters to penetrate SR. In 1e, it dropped 5% for every level past 11th. It was raised 5% for each level below 11th. And since most games probably didn't get too far past 11th level... 1e would have generally been harder.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You know that means basically 0%, right? It's the default, also known as "saving throws." Contrast w/ Jubilex and Orcus, and compare with other monsters in the book.

(Yes, magic/spell resistance was around in 1e. However, dragons first gained magic resistance in 2e is what I think the other poster meant. Also, of note, dragons in 1e were pretty often non-challenging. The FR grey box had some rules to beef them up, and 2e upped their power very substantially as a response to some rather anticlimactic dragon fights. IIRC, magic resistance itself was beefed up in 2e, too; it was super-easy to penetrate in 1e because it dropped by 5% each caster level.)

-O

I understand that but what I was saying was the Magic Resistance was a concept back in 1st edition .

I also know that dragons did get a boost in 2nd edition but so did PC's. PC's were not as powerful in 1st edition so a single dragon was still a challenge for a group of PC's.

When you look at creature design for a specific edition then you also need to look at the PC's as well.

Also you need to understand that certain races could only attain a certain amount of levels in 1st edition so they weren't packing a lot of power so the dragons of that edition were enough of a challenge to a group of PC's.

 

[Obryn]

2e made it generally easier for most characters to penetrate SR. In 1e, it dropped 5% for every level past 11th. It was raised 5% for each level below 11th. And since most games probably didn't get too far past 11th level... 1e would have generally been harder.

Yeah, I tended to run higher-level games when I ran 2e. Back then, it sure seemed better.

-O

 

[Obryn]

I understand that but what I was saying was the Magic Resistance was a concept back in 1st edition .

OK, but I don't think that was the other poster's point.

I also know that dragons did get a boost in 2nd edition but so did PC's. PC's were not as powerful in 1st edition so a single dragon was still a challenge for a group of PC's.

When you look at creature design for a specific edition then you also need to look at the PC's as well.

Also you need to understand that certain races could only attain a certain amount of levels in 1st edition so they weren't packing a lot of power so the dragons of that edition were enough of a challenge to a group of PC's.

I don't think this is really the case. The only sense in which a 2e character was more powerful was in a kit - which was often (*cough*bladesinger*cough) fairly innocuous for power levels. (2e characters also advance slower, as a general rule due to the dilution of the XP-for-GP rules.) Clerics have limited spell selections, wizards' spell damages were capped rather than uncapped, etc. And then there was Unearthed Arcana*... Which more or less neutered level caps and introduced PC races with spell resistance who could summon earth elementals. Settings increased power, but that's not the core game; 2e was in many ways designed to reduce the desire for high-powered characters. (Hi, Rath!)

Why would you say 1e characters were less powerful? IME, it was the opposite.

-O


* No, when I ran a 1e campaign a few years back, I didn't allow about 95% of that book. But it undeniably exists and far outstrips anything that's not setting-specific in 2e.

 

[nightwalker450]

Fran the elderly seamstress should be like this...

She can sew, she does it very well. Character complete.

I don't need combat stats, unless you plan on fighting her. Chances are though, she doesn't fight and you can do whatever you want with her if you choose to go that route.

Guess what she's a minion with awesome sewing skills.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

OK, but I don't think that was the other poster's point.


I don't think this is really the case. The only sense in which a 2e character was more powerful was in a kit - which was often (*cough*bladesinger*cough) fairly innocuous for power levels. (2e characters also advance slower, as a general rule due to the dilution of the XP-for-GP rules.) Clerics have limited spell selections, wizards' spell damages were capped rather than uncapped, etc. And then there was Unearthed Arcana*... Which more or less neutered level caps and introduced PC races with spell resistance who could summon earth elementals. Settings increased power, but that's not the core game; 2e was in many ways designed to reduce the desire for high-powered characters. (Hi, Rath!)

Why would you say 1e characters were less powerful? IME, it was the opposite.

-O


* No, when I ran a 1e campaign a few years back, I didn't allow about 95% of that book. But it undeniably exists and far outstrips anything that's not setting-specific in 2e.

You do realize that a dwarf for instance, had to have above a 17 strength just to be able to go past 7th level and even then that only allowed him to get to 8th.

Along with that, not every race had the option of being every class but those options weren't earth shattering and I still say 2nd edition made PC's more powerful.

I understand that Unearthed Arcana gave more options but right now we are talking about the core game.

 

[Obryn]

You do realize that a dwarf for instance, had to have above a 17 strength just to be able to go past 7th level and even then that only allowed him to get to 8th.

Along with that, not every race had the option of being every class but those options weren't earth shattering and I still say 2nd edition made PC's more powerful.

I understand that Unearthed Arcana gave more options but right now we are talking about the core game.

Yes, I know about racial level limits. That's part of power levels, sure, but it's far from the whole story. (And what's with the "you do realize" bit? If it's about 1e, you can basically take it as a given that I "realize" it.)

I'm still perplexed by your conviction that 2e characters were more powerful. It can't only be because demihumans could advance to about the same place they could under 1e w/ Unearthed Arcana? I need more evidence than that.

Reduction in PCs' power level was part of the whole point of 2e's design. Really, the PHB and DMG are pretty clear here. TSR gave up on that within a few years (it turns out the average gamer doesn't want to play Rath), but those power boosts were mostly in the various books in the setting diaspora - Dark Sun, the sea of FR Specialty Priests, etc.

-O

 

[Gryph]

Er, the fact that solos take for-freaking-ever to kill? If the players manage to go out of their way to eliminate the boss' allies, he should be easier to kill, if they choose to. Obviously I could not choose a solo, but sometimes you need a dragon or beholder.

Overall, I prefer 4e monster design to any previous version, but this I agree with. Five times or four times the hp of a normal creature of the same level can really end up feeling long and wonky in a lot of cases.

Gary Gygax writing on this board (and others) said one of his changes for his planned 2e of D&D would make more use of HD sizes for creatures while leaving the level math alone.

So instead of the standard d8 for monster hit dice, some creatures would be weaker and roll multiple d4 or d6 for hp and some tougher and larger creatures would roll d10 or d12 and possibly up to d20 per HD. I think this is a scaling that should be given some consideration.

A goblin chief who is level 2 or 3 but gets d10 hp per level instead of a standard goblins d6 would be noticebly tougher without causing fights to go into a completely different pacing level.

Anyway, I think it deserves a little number crunching to see if it could be useable in the return to flattened math world.

 

[nightwyrm]

Overall, I prefer 4e monster design to any previous version, but this I agree with. Five times or four times the hp of a normal creature of the same level can really end up feeling long and wonky in a lot of cases.

Gary Gygax writing on this board (and others) said one of his changes for his planned 2e of D&D would make more use of HD sizes for creatures while leaving the level math alone.

So instead of the standard d8 for monster hit dice, some creatures would be weaker and roll multiple d4 or d6 for hp and some tougher and larger creatures would roll d10 or d12 and possibly up to d20 per HD. I think this is a scaling that should be given some consideration.

A goblin chief who is level 2 or 3 but gets d10 hp per level instead of a standard goblins d6 would be noticebly tougher without causing fights to go into a completely different pacing level.

Anyway, I think it deserves a little number crunching to see if it could be useable in the return to flattened math world.

It is entirely calculable just by taking the die roll average. A goblin that uses d10s would have 2 hp more per HD than one using a d6. If you want a monster to have more/less hp, just give him more/less hp. Fiddling around with dice size for tougher/weaker monsters seems like adding variance just for the sake of it.

The new edition should just decouple hp/HD from attack/defense stats.