The swinginess of low levels.

[ExploderWizard]

These are the assumptions that come parceled with the game. Has nothing whatsoever to do with "straight up" combat. I'm talking about after combat has been entered. In any edition of D&D, it's pretty hard to gain XP without entering combat. 2e only gave you xp for killing stuff, although there were some very minor xp bonuses by class. 1e gave you most of your xp for treasure, which you got by killing stuff. 3e does have some vague rules for gaining xp for killing stuff, but, again, looking at published modules, it's pretty clear that the presumption is that you're going to kill stuff. 4e's no different from any other edition here.

I mean, come on, playing D&D and not killing stuff? That's the outlier, not the norm.

You are speaking about not killing stuff which is different from engaging in combat.

When treasure is the prime source of XP then you do what you need to get it, including killing things. Giving those that you kill for their loot a chance to kill you in return is the preferred plan for those spoken of in the past tense.

By the numbers, you are correct, a party that engages in head to head combat with great frequency will suffer a very high casualty rate. As an adventuring group you have a couple options:

1) You could just charge forward and fight often anyhow because its fun.

2) You could think of smarter solutions that expose your party to less risk and fight only as a means of last result.

The odds of having a higher survival rate are with option 2. Meatgrinder style can be a lot of fun too, but eventually you will have a desire to reach 2nd level. Thats where thinking before rolling initiative comes in handy.

 

[S'mon]

Depends. It was [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] running the 1/session death count. One of my other groups has lost one PC in the tier. This is what I mean by it being DM-dependent or more accurately campaign-dependent.

I find it varies a lot by campaign. My 4e Southlands campaign had no PC deaths the first 15 sessions, then about 1/session for the last 5 sessions. My 4e Loudwater campaign had a 4 PC TPK in the first session, after that 2 PCs have died in around 18 sessions, and both were raised. My Pathfinder Eastmark campaign had a 3/4 PC near-TPK the first session, no PC deaths in the following 6 sessions. My AD&D Yggsburgh chatroom game I ran recently had no PC deaths in 20 sessions, a record for me I think!

 

[Hussar]

You are speaking about not killing stuff which is different from engaging in combat.

When treasure is the prime source of XP then you do what you need to get it, including killing things. Giving those that you kill for their loot a chance to kill you in return is the preferred plan for those spoken of in the past tense.

By the numbers, you are correct, a party that engages in head to head combat with great frequency will suffer a very high casualty rate. As an adventuring group you have a couple options:

1) You could just charge forward and fight often anyhow because its fun.

2) You could think of smarter solutions that expose your party to less risk and fight only as a means of last result.

The odds of having a higher survival rate are with option 2. Meatgrinder style can be a lot of fun too, but eventually you will have a desire to reach 2nd level. Thats where thinking before rolling initiative comes in handy.

See, I just don't get the presumptions here. "Smarter solutions" presume a level of knowledge on the part of the players that just isn't there, IME. How does the party know that there are 10 orcs in that room? They sent the thief to scout ahead with his 15% chance of move silently and 10% Hear Noise chances?

We're talking 1st level characters. They don't have the resources to gather information to the point where they can make those choices. Typically, the encounter is starting because they've stumbled onto something that wants to eat them.

Higher levels? Sure, there are decent chances that your scouting can work. But AD&D at very low levels? It just doesn't work because your odds of success are so low. On the plus side, the monsters are generally so weak that you can just bull through and it's not unusual to get through combats without taking a hit.

I've never seen a group that avoided combat. Why would you? You're giving up way too much xp. Those orcs have swords and armor, that can be sold for xp. Maybe they've got crossbows. Them things are worth their weight in xp.

I found AD&D and Basic D&D to be similar to 4e in lethality to be honest. We didn't die all that often in either edition. It was 3e where the lethality jacked way up.

 

[ExploderWizard]

See, I just don't get the presumptions here. "Smarter solutions" presume a level of knowledge on the part of the players that just isn't there, IME. How does the party know that there are 10 orcs in that room? They sent the thief to scout ahead with his 15% chance of move silently and 10% Hear Noise chances?

Unless the PCs have handicaps, they all have eyes, ears, and brains.

We're talking 1st level characters. They don't have the resources to gather information to the point where they can make those choices. Typically, the encounter is starting because they've stumbled onto something that wants to eat them.

There will be some surprises, they certainly do happen from time to time. If the vast majority of encounters are stumbled into though, the group isn't planning properly or the DM is out to get you. What you describe is an endless series of sudden encounters sprung upon hapless PCs who must just hack their way out of ambush constantly. Intolerable!

Higher levels? Sure, there are decent chances that your scouting can work. But AD&D at very low levels? It just doesn't work because your odds of success are so low. On the plus side, the monsters are generally so weak that you can just bull through and it's not unusual to get through combats without taking a hit.

I've never seen a group that avoided combat. Why would you? You're giving up way too much xp. Those orcs have swords and armor, that can be sold for xp. Maybe they've got crossbows. Them things are worth their weight in xp.

You can fight those 10 orcs on their ground, on their terms and possibly survive. Your chances go up if you can lure them to a prepared place of ambush and deal with them on terms more favorable to your party. In either case you get the XP and loot, the difference is that the chances of everyone surviving to enjoy the spoils tends to be higher with the 2nd option.

It just boils down to what you enjoy more. Do you like busting down doors and smashing around hoping to survive by the seat of your pants or do you approach problems (even ones with violent solutions) like a puzzle?

Great fun can be had either way.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

See, I just don't get the presumptions here. "Smarter solutions" presume a level of knowledge on the part of the players that just isn't there, IME. How does the party know that there are 10 orcs in that room? They sent the thief to scout ahead with his 15% chance of move silently and 10% Hear Noise chances?

We're talking 1st level characters. They don't have the resources to gather information to the point where they can make those choices. Typically, the encounter is starting because they've stumbled onto something that wants to eat them.

Higher levels? Sure, there are decent chances that your scouting can work. But AD&D at very low levels? It just doesn't work because your odds of success are so low.

66% is not low.

 

[Lanefan]

How do you account for a level 0 princess who doesn't know which end of a sword to hold having about as much resilience in combat as an adventuring wizard?

Easy - the wizard and the princess have had, all in all, about the same amount of combat training: nearly none.

The wizard trains to master magic, to throw arcane energy around and produce effects an ordinary man cannot. She doesn't have time to waste on learning swordplay and shieldwork and thus, when melee finds her, she's about as much use as a peasant.

As is the fighter on 1hp being almost entirely unimpeded - no penalties to attack at all.

Now here I agree with you, as I've never much liked this either. Too lazy to design a fix, is all.

I so do NOT want to go back to that level of lethality where you have 1500+ PC's in a given campaign

1500? Now that's impressive!

Sounds like an early and persistent version of DCCRPG's "funnel method" of character generation, only it lasted the entire campaign.

Lan-"they went into the valley together, and one by one they never came out"-efan

 

[Hussar]

/snip


You can fight those 10 orcs on their ground, on their terms and possibly survive. Your chances go up if you can lure them to a prepared place of ambush and deal with them on terms more favorable to your party. In either case you get the XP and loot, the difference is that the chances of everyone surviving to enjoy the spoils tends to be higher with the 2nd option.

It just boils down to what you enjoy more. Do you like busting down doors and smashing around hoping to survive by the seat of your pants or do you approach problems (even ones with violent solutions) like a puzzle?

Great fun can be had either way.

But how do you FIND those 10 orcs in the first place without them finding you? How do you even know that they are in that specific place?

Here's the AD&D thief skills table, note, until 2e, you cannot mix and match your skills:

Now, I'm not sure where JRRNeiklot is getting his "66%" from, but, hey, maybe it's a different edition. From where I'm standing, your thief has a 10% hide in shadows, 15% move silently, and a 10% hear noise. Everyone else's skills are actually lower than that.

So, again, HOW are the PC's finding those orcs and then luring them? You enter the dungeon, you come to a T junction. You send the thief off ahead to scout and he's got about a 10% chance of success - less really because it's possible he won't hear anything through a potentially closed door.

It's funny. Whenever PC's want to rest or whatnot, they are automatically bombarded with encounter after encounter, apparently, but, when they are dungeon crawling, they are apparently able to defeat the odds every single time to gather information and bypass encounter after encounter.

I'd love to see some actual plays of this. Because, as far as I'm concerned, it's an internet myth.

 

[S'mon]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - I played 1st level Labyrinth Lord by-the-book yesterday. Three PCs, 4 hp each, death at 0 hp per RAW. We had a Thief PC with his ca 15% skills, and the GM didn't give any circumstance bonuses. However we did request that even when the % check failed, as it usually did, he still receive the same 2 in 6 surprise chance that any other PC would get.

We did not send the Thief PC scouting ahead; my Elf charmed an Orc jailor after we had been captured at the inn (drugged beer) and we used him as point man until the Fighter PC pushed him off a cliff.

The GM did not let me buy guard dogs or hire retainers, so we generally tried to avoid fighting. Escaping from the dungeon jail we had one fight where giant centipedes ambushed us and bit the Orc, the rest of us shot arrows at them until they died. Then after escaping, at the end we had a fight where we waited in ambush on the trail leading from town to the dungeon until we could ambush the bad guys (2 orcs, 4 goblins and Burger, the treacherous halfling innkeeper); that was the riskiest thing but we had some luck and won, killing most of the goblinoids and capturing Burger.

In the end, no PC died, it was a lot of fun, and the GM showed us the map of the dungeon he had worked on, which had mostly not been used - we had escaped from it asap and refused to go back in, since obviously that would have been suicidal...

 

[Hussar]

So, S'mon, you had 2 fights, 1 of which was up to you, 1 of which was thrust upon you, and this proves what? Doesn't it help my point just as much as yours? You had no control over the fight 50% of the time.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But how do you FIND those 10 orcs in the first place without them finding you? How do you even know that they are in that specific place?

Here's the AD&D thief skills table, note, until 2e, you cannot mix and match your skills:

Now, I'm not sure where JRRNeiklot is getting his "66%" from, but, hey, maybe it's a different edition. From where I'm standing, your thief has a 10% hide in shadows, 15% move silently, and a 10% hear noise. Everyone else's skills are actually lower than that.

So, again, HOW are the PC's finding those orcs and then luring them? You enter the dungeon, you come to a T junction. You send the thief off ahead to scout and he's got about a 10% chance of success - less really because it's possible he won't hear anything through a potentially closed door.

It's funny. Whenever PC's want to rest or whatnot, they are automatically bombarded with encounter after encounter, apparently, but, when they are dungeon crawling, they are apparently able to defeat the odds every single time to gather information and bypass encounter after encounter.

I'd love to see some actual plays of this. Because, as far as I'm concerned, it's an internet myth.

Well the thief only has a 10% chance to hear noise so he's mostly deaf anyway. I suppose that means that every other character is completely deaf.

Oh what the heck they're blind too except for the ones that have an infravision range listed on the character sheet because if it isn't on the sheet then it doesn't exist.


The hear noise thief ability is used in situations to try and hear something so faint, that only the trained ear can detect it. If those 10 orcs were all asleep then the ability would be checked to see if the thief heard their steady breathing. 10 awake and active orcs in a room should not require a hear noise check to detect.

Any character can listen at doors with a chance to hear regular activity.