This "resting at 9:05 AM" business

[Hussar]

However, the numbers you see in 3e around 10th-level still tend to be *way* higher than what you'd see in 1e around 10th level.

I noted this in another thread I started in General (no replies yet) with reference to a new FR module I bought yesterday called The Twilight Tomb. It's a 3.5e module for 3rd level characters. If I put 1e 3rd-level characters in there - even after removing the feats and skills from the monsters and replacing them with 1e-type abilities - they'd get slaughtered!

Lanefan

Well, that was the problem wasn't it? By 10th level in 1e, you were through with using the Monster Manual and were starting in on the Dieties and Demigods. 10th level parties could face off with multiple red dragons and expect to win. Balor's were a speed bump.

Not that it had to be this way mind you. There were ways to keep this from happening. But, it certainly could be this way, particularly if you were playing in modules a lot.

I don't know that particular module, but, if you look at the numbers that got thrown at PC's in earlier edition modules, I've found the opposite to be true. I mean, Keep on the Borderlands has encounters with about 20 kobolds for 1st level PC's. In 3e, this would be an instant TPK. In Basic D&D, it was par for the course. ((Note, expected numbers of PC's made a HUGE difference as well))

 

[Lanefan]

Well, that was the problem wasn't it? By 10th level in 1e, you were through with using the Monster Manual and were starting in on the Dieties and Demigods. 10th level parties could face off with multiple red dragons and expect to win. Balor's were a speed bump.

Not that it had to be this way mind you. There were ways to keep this from happening. But, it certainly could be this way, particularly if you were playing in modules a lot.

I don't know that particular module, but, if you look at the numbers that got thrown at PC's in earlier edition modules, I've found the opposite to be true. I mean, Keep on the Borderlands has encounters with about 20 kobolds for 1st level PC's. In 3e, this would be an instant TPK. In Basic D&D, it was par for the course. ((Note, expected numbers of PC's made a HUGE difference as well))

In 1e, KotB can be pretty deadly too.

As for the module, I got it with intent of possibly using it in my next campaign, but on reading it a party of 6-8 3rd-level characters in 1e would probably get wiped; I'll have to wait till they're in the 4th-5th range. Yet a party of 4 3rd-level 3e types are expected to finish. (though the module *does* expect they'll bump to 4th halfway through, but how much use is that if there's no chance whatsoever for them to train...it's an off-plane adventure)

Lanefan

 

[MerricB]

However, the numbers you see in 3e around 10th-level still tend to be *way* higher than what you'd see in 1e around 10th level.

Hmm. The big killer is AC. That really increases in 3e at a rate I'm far from happy with. (Thankfully, I think they'll pull it back in 4e). Monsters have HP creep. Actual damage? Hmm - it's probably higher for fighters, lower for Wizards.

Monsters - ogres & humanoids in particular - have had damage bumps to counter increased HPs, but there's a strange thing in AD&D where certain monsters deal a *huge* amount of damage, and the PCs have less to cushion themselves against them. It doesn't take many 3-36 damage attacks to take down an AD&D PC!

Training is the exception, not the rule, in 3e, in any case. (Seriously, it was also the exception in almost any AD&D published module that ran in "story mode", such as Dragonlance or Giants/Drow).

Cheers!

 

[vongarr]

I agree with you. Smart resource management and "reality" dictates how much you can rest.

But the problem is, D&D is an anomaly when it comes to the fire and forget system. Most people who are going to be buying D&D for the next 20 years (young people) have probably bee introduced to gaming electronically. Concepts such as fire and forget, running away, and making hard choices on character creation are rather foreign. Let's look at World of Warcraft as an example. You blow all of your mana? Ok, wait or drink some water. Pick a lousy talent? Burn some gold and pick a new one. Die? Run back to your corpse.

I don't have the time or the desire to teach my players the proper way to D&D. It would probably cause them to stop playing if I did.

But in doing these things for 4th, I hope they do not completely remove consequence for actions. I don't want the only differences in encounters being who you are fighting.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You shouldn't try to look at the absolute numbers between editions, at least in most cases.

Basically, the more granularity you want to ensure between levels, the higher the numbers must go - unless you're interesting in using fractions. But that doesn't fly well with the D20.

If I remember correctly, ability modifiers in AD&D or OD&D didn't occur before a value of 16 or 18? This single difference two D&D already accounts for 2 or more points of difference.
And more and more of these things crop up as we go through the subsystems and advance the levels.

The only number you might be able to compare directly are numbers related to advancement:
1) How many changes occur if you go up a level? (Hitpoint, BAB, Saves, Feats & Skills or Nonweapon Profiencies)
2) How often do you level?

I think both numbers are in fact higher in the 3rd Edition of D&D. I think the regularity of levelling isn't actually a problem. As a player, I like to level my character and get a few new "toys". What might be a problem is that you get to many new toys at once, meaning that you can't really experiment long with them, and forcing DMs to adapt their campaign and adventures to the changes (no more wilderness encounters if your wizard learns Teleport at level 9!)

I must admit I don't really see this changing much in D&D 4, but we'll see.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

You shouldn't try to look at the absolute numbers between editions, at least in most cases.

Where the absolute numbers do provide some insights is in the diminished impact of the things that haven't changed.
A wizard whacking an enemy with his staff for 1d6 damage (any edition) is a lot less effective if HP are much higher.
A squad of town guards with crossbows (1d6 in Basic, 1d8 in 3E) are much less effective in 3E than in Basic.
Fireball (1d6/level) is much less effective when enemy HP are so much higher.

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

A wizard whacking an enemy with his staff for 1d6 damage (any edition) is a lot less effective if HP are much higher.

Yeah, or a crossbow. I see what others are saying now about HP inflation being part of the problem. If a wizard hit 30% of the time with a crossbow, and his 1d6 damage was signification relative to the monster's HP, then it wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, that's not the case in 3e. Things like DR only exacerbate the problem.

 

[Rakin]

I'd hate to lose the fun of trying our hardest to set up a camp in a dungeon that can't be infultrated, or with our own traps, alarms and magically locked doors.

 

[papakee]

On the per encounter spell system:

I wonder what happens if the enemies just pursue the adventurers if they retreat? Do they have to get so many feet away (aka off the screen) before the encounter spells return? What about monster spell casters, could they slink away through a secret door and come back minutes later all 'spelled' up?

What about split parties? By leaving the encounter and returning, would the ones that left in combat get their encounter spells back?

What about being captured? Any need for a spellbook or prep time? How does one prevent a magic missile spell from being cast from a prison cell?

How about a siege? When the bad guys keep harassing the adventurers holed up in a barricaded room so they can get any rest to heal and regain spells.

Will anti magic field be nerfed so as not to upset the magic users ability to do anything?

Lots of questions. I'll be interested in seeing how these are handled.

If playing a spellcaster is so 'unfun' now why do so many people play them?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If playing a spellcaster is so 'unfun' now why do so many people play them?

Hope. Or their groups only start campaigns at higher levels.

And casters are fun. They're just less fun than they ought to be, and less fun than the other classes are at low levels.