Remathilis
Legend
Badwrongfun has been declared; the thread is now over.
The mythical ideal of 1E?
- Thread starter thecasualoblivion
- Start date
Badwrongfun has been declared; the thread is now over.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Is being a bad roleplayer badwrongfun? Is being bad at it badwrongfun?
Just what are you declaring to be badwrongfun?
RC
Er, I think both Hussar AND JDBlatherings are right.
Take a look at this
Quasqueton not only listed the GP but also the TREASURE in terms of magic items that you could find.
Look at the treasure for both Keep and Village.
For KotB for example, by the end of the adventure, there's a good chance that the characters that can wear armour have an AC of 1 (if not -1) and that's WITHOUT if they had rolled lucky and had a defensive adjustment thanks to a DEX of 15+.
By the time you get to Against the Giants, there's a damn good chance that for a heavy armour-wearing class,having an AC of below -4 could be considered "normal".
Against giants, like Hussar said and matches my experience, a ranger or fighter could literally stand there in the middle and simply not get hit AT ALL thanks to the difference between the hitting power of giants and the armour class of said character.
Now where JDBlatherings might be remembering would be the thef and mage who couldn't get such a low AC. Looking again at the treasure table, there's ALSO a good chance that a mage or rogue wouldn't have an AC better than 4 and something higher would be not unexpected.
Take a look at this
Quasqueton not only listed the GP but also the TREASURE in terms of magic items that you could find.
Look at the treasure for both Keep and Village.
For KotB for example, by the end of the adventure, there's a good chance that the characters that can wear armour have an AC of 1 (if not -1) and that's WITHOUT if they had rolled lucky and had a defensive adjustment thanks to a DEX of 15+.
By the time you get to Against the Giants, there's a damn good chance that for a heavy armour-wearing class,having an AC of below -4 could be considered "normal".
Against giants, like Hussar said and matches my experience, a ranger or fighter could literally stand there in the middle and simply not get hit AT ALL thanks to the difference between the hitting power of giants and the armour class of said character.
Now where JDBlatherings might be remembering would be the thef and mage who couldn't get such a low AC. Looking again at the treasure table, there's ALSO a good chance that a mage or rogue wouldn't have an AC better than 4 and something higher would be not unexpected.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Q assumes that a party will find all that treasure in his analysis, which I do not think is justified. In 1e, treasure was placed in areas where it was unlikely to be found. A party might find X and Y, but miss A and Z, for example.
I would find it interesting to see a comparison that demonstrated what would be required to "greyhawk" those same adventures. Assuming that each combat took roughly 10 minutes time, and used up 10% of supplies before resting, and assuming that the party was a day away from the nearest town with a week's worth of food. And assuming that the DM was using wandering monsters, either using frequencies/charts in a given module, or as per the DMG, how long would it take the party to fully explore the given square feet of the module? How many times would they have to stop to rest? How many encounters would they have? What is the chance that they would survive this? And how many game years would pass from the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief to the end of Queen of the Demonweb Pits?
Needless to say, I think Q gives us some interesting stats, but I believe his conclusions are flawed.
RC
Raven Crowking
First Post
I've run tons of TSR modules for tons of groups, and there is definitely a "25-30% rule" at best IME for folks finding treasure.
Not only that, but as a player I've been beaten to death by hobgoblins, orcs, goblins, and kobolds, let along giants. 90% of my 1e PC deaths (with me as the player or with me as the DM) have been due to cumulative damage, or damage in one big wallop.
Disproved by Q. He explicitly refutes this in his thread where he notes that unlike the belief of treasure being in "hard to find" places, 90% of the treasure is easily accessible.
How? I can see this might be true with a mage or even a rogue. But anything that can wear heavier armour? Factoring out the effects of DEX, you have the following...
Plate mail by itself nets you an AC of 2. A shield nets you an AC of 1. Looking at the adventures Q posted, there's no reason why by the time you hit the Giants, your AC isn't at least -4. Before that, even at the very end of KotB, your AC is low enough that any of the monsters in the adventure will only hit you on a 16 or higher....
How the hell are you even getting hit?
Raven Crowking
First Post
Disproved by others. I, for example, explicitly refute this.
Um....You do know that hitting on a 16 or higher is 1/4 of the time. So, you should be expecting to get hit. Moreover, smart monsters use tactics to increase the odds of your being hit. Like ganging up on you. Or flanking you (which works in 1e). Or getting higher ground.
And, let's face it, against some monsters all it takes is a good hit or two. I can remember for example my 10th level thief-acrobat, who had good magic items, where I thought her high AC would protect her against a pair of hill giants.
I was wrong.
I think I lasted all of three rounds, but that was years ago, and I might be giving myself more credit than I actually deserve.....
RC
No you didn't. Q actually showed his "proof" in his work. Unlike you who have simply stated "oh it didn't work like that". The onus is on you to show HOW you could only find 25% of the treasure at best (be it gp or magic items)
And, let's face it, against some monsters all it takes is a good hit or two. I can remember for example my 10th level thief-acrobat, who had good magic items, where I thought her high AC would protect her against a pair of hill giants.
I was wrong.
I think I lasted all of three rounds, but that was years ago, and I might be giving myself more credit than I actually deserve.....
RC
Of course, you listed the THIEF-ACROBAT. One of the classes that explicitly couldn't use the heavier armour and you're using THAT as an example even though I already have mentioned twice that such classes could't tank?
Combined with the average damage most monsters did? Sure, a troll could potentially deal lots of damage but on average?
Celebrim
Legend
Q tends to cite adventure path style modules where treasure is being stuffed in simply to ensure that they level up to face the next module.
The placement of treasure in published modules such as GDQ, A series, and even ToEE simply doesn't reflect how treasure was to be placed according to the guidelines in the DMG and the MM. Hense, if you weren't playing campaigns that relied heavily on published modules, then 1st edition didn't in fact level up all that fast.
Similar Threads
