OSR OSR Gripes

Sacrosanct · Jul 15, 2019

Umbran said:
With respect, this doesn't tell us anything until you also do a measure of how fast PCs are expected to *lose* hit points. If AD&D monsters generally did less damage, or an AD&D party dealt with far fewer monsters in a day, yes, it could be moot.

5e recovers not 3.5 times the hit points, but 3.5 time the ratio of hit points that are available. So in order to make that particular point moot (which again, doesn't account for additional healing such as healing kits, potions of healing being a common item, and more classes that can heal or class abilities that can heal), 5e monsters would have to inflict 3.5 times the ratio of damage compared to AD&D.

I.e., if a level 1 PC has 5 hp and the typical monster they face in AD&D does 1d6 points of damage, then the average damage (3.5) does 70% of damage to the available hit points. In 5e, with a level 1 PC having 8 hit points, that in order to hit the 3.5 times value in order to offset the 3.5 times increased healing rate, that same opponent a typical level 1 PC would face would inflict an average of 19.6 points of damage (3.5 times 70% of the 8 max hp: (.70% of 8 is 5.6, times 3.5 is 19.6). How many 5e monsters that level 1 PCs face do an average of 19.6 points of damage?

I would like to think that we can all agree even just from a cursory glance (no math needed), that the healing rate in 5e is way higher than in AD&D, right? Especially now with the math, even favoring 5e by not including things like healing kits, second wind, etc, it should be settled, correct?

Basically, with that example party I gave above, it would take the AD&D party 7 days to heal the same amount of damage that the 5e party did in one day. Going from 1 day to 7 days certainly isn't "moot" or inconsequential.

Tony Vargas · Jul 15, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
5e monsters would have to inflict 3.5 times the ratio of damage compared to AD&D.

Well, they hit more often than 1e monsters at low levels (and, thanks to BA, keep hitting at least some), and have more hps of their own as you go up levels, so stick around longer, inflicting more damage...
...doesn't sound too implausible.

Certainly, I haven't seen any 5e parties breezing through 21-encounter days.

Sacrosanct · Jul 15, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Well, they hit more often than 1e monsters at low levels .

I'd love to see your figures that monsters in 5e average 3.5x the ratio (or in the example above, that means 6x flat rate) the average damage of 1e counterparts. find out how often each monster hits on average in 5e compared to 1e (because I don't think they did hit more often with any significance), find out the average damage for each of those hits, and then compare. If the raw comparison is 6x higher than in AD&D, I'd eat my socks.

Honestly, I can't see why you are continuing to argue this. The healing rate and recovery in 5e is a lot higher than in AD&D, even when you consider 5e has higher HP in general. That's something that is blatantly obvious. Your unsubstantiated claims and handwaving of significant mathematical differences aren't helping your case.

Celebrim · Jul 15, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
But 5e is all-in on monsters that have huge numbers of hps compared to their classic counterparts, and a lot of damage flying around.

One of the things about the Monster Encylopedia series of posts by Echohawk is that it allows you to track just how much number inflation has occurred between 1e and 5e, and it's a rare monster whose hit points and expected damage/round doesn't scale with its edition number.

Tony Vargas · Jul 16, 2019

Sacrosanct said:
find out how often each monster hits on average in 5e compared to 1e (because I don't think they did hit more often with any significance), find out the average damage for each of those hits, and then compare.

Well, IDK, compare a simple, iconic Orc, for instance. In 1e, it hits a stereotypical 1st level front-liner in banded/splint & shield on a natural 17, for 1d8 (4.5) damage (0.9 DPR), and as a 1 HD monster has 1-8 hps, and was AC 6. In 5e, it hits a starting-package heavy armor PC in chain & shield (AC 18) on a natural 13, for 9(1d12+3) damage (3.6 DPR - 4.05 if you count the crit on a 20, which is standard in 5e, and wasn't in 1e), has 15 hps, and AC 13.

So, it does twice the damage, hits twice as often, and has 5x the hps, but is way easier to hit (attack bonuses are easy for PCs to come by in 5e relative to 1e).
Now, how fast you kill it is a whole 'nuther thing. A 1st level cleric or an unremarkable 1e fighter with a 15 STR and no weapon specialization does, on average, the 4.5 damage it takes to kill the average orc, and hits on a natural 14 - but, a high STR fighter 17-18/50, with specialization hits on a 12, while the 18/00 fighter w/specialization hits on an 10, and kills the toughest 8hp ordinary orc automatically.
In 5e it's not so varied. Your fighter or other melee-capable PC will have an attack bonus, +4 at least, probably (& only +2 dam), possibly as high as +6, but Duelist style can bring your longsword up to 1d8+6 on top of that. You won't ever quite one-hit kill the 5e orc ('cept on a crit, turnabout's fair play), but you'll hit it a /lot/, all the way down to a natural 7 (70% chance, neatly double the 1e baseline).

Oh, but when you do kill it, in 5e, it takes some kind of an dying swing at you, doesn't it?

So if, in both cases, you happen to kill it on one round, it attacks you once in 1e, and twice in 5e.

enjoy

… edit: TBH, I didn't expect that to work out...
What's really behind this, for me, is just my actual experience running both AD&D back in the day, and 5e until last year. The, IDK, "dynamics of play" and the "feel of running" were just so similar. I didn't run numbers, but I noticed 1st level parties would be struggling and desperate to rest just like in the olden days, that they'd face the odd unpredictable TPK, just like in the olden days.

The most noticeable difference wasn't in managing hps/spells over the course of the day, it was the built-in incentive to whack-a-mole healing vs the profound disincentive of Death's Door - or just Death - back in the day. That's where 5e shows it's millennial stripes.

pming · Jul 16, 2019

Hiya!

It's mostly a matter of expectations of play than of rules (or lack of). The key thing to OSR games is really "you don't like something, change it"...and, because there is a distinct lack of "interlocking rules minutia", you won't break anything 99% of the time. For your 2hp fighter...easy; just tell your DM "Can you re-roll my HP for me? I got a 2. I'll be dead the first fight and don't want to waste my time or anyone elses". Any DM (OSR or not) can see the logic in that request. In fact, IIRC, I think it was some version of Basic D&D that addresses this to the DM; something to the effect of "If a fighter or dwarf rolls 1 or 2 hp's, you might want to let them reroll...".

Anyway...Frog God Games did a rather excellent write up of what "Old School Gaming" was/is like and how that differs from what more modern gamers might be expecting. Here's a link to their page where you can DL it (PDF; free). https://froggodgames.com/frogs/product-category/free-stuff/

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Sacrosanct · Jul 16, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Well, IDK, compare a simple, iconic Orc, for instance. In 1e, it hits a stereotypical 1st level front-liner in banded/splint & shield on a natural 17, for 1d8 (4.5) damage (0.9 DPR), and as a 1 HD monster has 1-8 hps, and was AC 6. In 5e, it hits a starting-package heavy armor PC in chain & shield (AC 18) on a natural 13, for 9(1d12+3) damage (3.6 DPR - 4.05 if you count the crit on a 20, which is standard in 5e, and wasn't in 1e), has 15 hps, and AC 13.

So, it does twice the damage, hits twice as often, and has 5x the hps, but is way easier to hit (attack bonuses are easy for PCs to come by in 5e relative to 1e).
Now, how fast you kill it is a whole 'nuther thing. A 1st level cleric or an unremarkable 1e fighter with a 15 STR and no weapon specialization does, on average, the 4.5 damage it takes to kill the average orc, and hits on a natural 14 - but, a high STR fighter 17-18/50, with specialization hits on a 12, while the 18/00 fighter w/specialization hits on an 10, and kills the toughest 8hp ordinary orc automatically.
In 5e it's not so varied. Your fighter or other melee-capable PC will have an attack bonus, +4 at least, probably (& only +2 dam), possibly as high as +6, but Duelist style can bring your longsword up to 1d8+6 on top of that. You won't ever quite one-hit kill the 5e orc ('cept on a crit, turnabout's fair play), but you'll hit it a /lot/, all the way down to a natural 7 (70% chance, neatly double the 1e baseline).

Oh, but when you do kill it, in 5e, it takes some kind of an dying swing at you, doesn't it?

So if, in both cases, you happen to kill it on one round, it attacks you once in 1e, and twice in 5e.

enjoy

… edit: TBH, I didn't expect that to work out...
What's really behind this, for me, is just my actual experience running both AD&D back in the day, and 5e until last year. The, IDK, "dynamics of play" and the "feel of running" were just so similar. I didn't run numbers, but I noticed 1st level parties would be struggling and desperate to rest just like in the olden days, that they'd face the odd unpredictable TPK, just like in the olden days.

The most noticeable difference wasn't in managing hps/spells over the course of the day, it was the built-in incentive to whack-a-mole healing vs the profound disincentive of Death's Door - or just Death - back in the day. That's where 5e shows it's millennial stripes.

Once again, you are being disingenuous in your selection. I said a typical creature a level 1 PC would face. In 5e, they bumped the orc up significantly. Level one PCs would not typically fight a group of orcs on a one to one basis. You’re comparing apples to oranges.

Look, you’re arguing an untenable position. Not only can’t you back up your argument in an equal basis, but the book itself tells you that if you want a more OSR style of recovery, to use the optimal rules where recovery is way slowed down.

The fact that you continue to argue that the recovery/rest rules in AD&D are comparable to 5e, tells me you just want to argue for arguments sake.

Tony Vargas · Jul 16, 2019

I was more than half expecting I'd made some dumb math or table lookup error. ::shrug::

Sacrosanct said:
I said a typical creature a level 1 PC would face.

CR: 1/2.

the book itself tells you that if you want a more OSR style of recovery, to use the optimal rules where recovery is way slowed down.

I already mentioned that, yes. You want slower pacing, it's readily doable, no heavy rules-rewriting called for.

Celebrim · Jul 16, 2019

pming said:
'll be dead the first fight and don't want to waste my time or anyone elses". Any DM (OSR or not) can see the logic in that request.

Will they really? We're on like page 9 and you are the first person on the OSR side to suggest that. The first half-dozen all suggested that playing with low hit points where one hit will kill you was the source of the fun, and in some way or the other tacitly endorsed character funnels and the ultimate playability (or viability) of any character whether 2 hit points or not.

So while your answer makes some sense, I don't think it's grounded in reality. Further, if your answer does make sense, then it becomes a table rule of some sort the simplest and least time wasting version of which will be something like "max hit points at first level".

Anyway, I'm not really a modern gamer. I'm an "old man" (at least compared to the soccer team I coach or my kids). I've got a grognard membership badge.

This is one example of me being nostalgic: https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?580811-Revised-and-rebalanced-dragons-for-1e-AD-amp-D.

But consider both how nostalgic that post is and at the same time how many sacred cows it is willing to BBQ if the drawbacks outweighed the value of the tradition.

Umbran · Jul 16, 2019

Celebrim said:
Will they really? We're on like page 9 and you are the first person on the OSR side to suggest that. The first half-dozen all suggested that playing with low hit points where one hit will kill you was the source of the fun, and in some way or the other tacitly endorsed character funnels and the ultimate playability (or viability) of any character whether 2 hit points or not.

So while your answer makes some sense, I don't think it's grounded in reality. Further, if your answer does make sense, then it becomes a table rule of some sort the simplest and least time wasting version of which will be something like "max hit points at first level".

Or, the also not-uncommon "start at 3rd level".

Note that "a half-dozen people before you suggested X" does not actually mean that those half-dozen are representative. Using posts here for that is like using self-selected poll data - it does not represent what portion of people actually feel that way, as much as how strongly this small number of people feel about the point.