Which one do you prefer your character suffer? Death vs Rust Monster vs Level Drain

[billd91]

In 3e, perhaps. Pre 3e there were no assumptions that you had any sort of a magic weapon for an encounter. You might have a +5 sword or you might have a stick. You are no more gimped by losing the sword than a first level character is by not starting with a holy avenger.

Not really. AD&D assumed you had magical weapons by the time you were fighting golems, some undead and extraplanar creatures and so on. 3e just made the assumptions of the system more explicit. They were already there in previous editions.

Nevertheless, while your combat ability may suffer some gimping in any edition by the loss of magical equipment, that's all part of playing the game. You gotta learn to roll with the punches.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Not really. AD&D assumed you had magical weapons by the time you were fighting golems, some undead and extraplanar creatures and so on. 3e just made the assumptions of the system more explicit. They were already there in previous editions.

Having monsters that could only be hit by +X or better weapons in the game is not the same thing as assuming that they will be used, or that those weapons will be available when they are used.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

I will second what Raven Crowking wrote about assumptions. It was up to the player to make it most likely that getting into situation X coincided with being prepared with equipment Y and Z. Likewise, it was up to the player to manage resources such as hit points; a character of any level could get down to so few as to make a single blow deadly.

The original set was more or less oriented toward the d20 range in terms of combat matrices. Without detailing the peculiarities of how magic shields and armor worked, suffice to say that at most the best would normally require a roll of 20 for a low-level character or the weakest monster to hit.

 

[drothgery]

Having monsters that could only be hit by +X or better weapons in the game is not the same thing as assuming that they will be used, or that those weapons will be available when they are used.

Except that said monsters are a large majority of those woth enough XP that you don't need to kill them in job lots to advance beyond low levels (without copious amounts of arbitrary role-playing XP).

Using a monster that requires a +x weapon to hit when PCs expected to fight with weapons do not have +x weapons is either creating an encounter where you expect the PCs to run away, an encounter where you expect the PCs to die, or an encounter where you expect the fighters and thieves to sit back and watch the wizard kill the monster. The last type of encounter might be quite common in mid-level and higher AD&D, but I don't think it's all that fun for the non-wizard players. And the first two might be okay as a change-up (especially if you want to send the PCs on a side trek where they get a +x weapon), but not as a regular event.

 

[Ariosto]

Except that said monsters are a large majority of those woth enough XP that you don't need to kill them in job lots to advance beyond low levels (without copious amounts of arbitrary role-playing XP).

That's 2E talk! Apart from that odd edition, players in pre-WotC D&D scored points primarily by securing treasure. (That's to the extent that they actually went by the books, such that edition -- or even "D&D" title -- would be some indicator.)

Using a monster that requires ...

That is true enough if one is designing something like a tournament scenario -- and the "playing through modules" mode of campaigning, which has been increasingly common, is indeed close enough.

It does not appear to me, though, that Gygax assumed such a constrained situation when composing the AD&D volumes. It was, quite simply, a matter of scenario design rather than of rules. There were no guarantees of getting magic items by certain levels. The possibility that players might run into monsters too tough to beat, and count themselves lucky just to retreat, was on the other hand at least very strongly implicit.

The need for magical weapons was a special qualitative factor, not a general requirement just to have a decent chance to hit (and even with magical armor, high-level combatants tended to hit very frequently). Current (as opposed to maximum) hit point level was key, and recovery could take considerable time.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Tough choice for me. The one I really would hate would be Level Drain. Always hated the concept personally and was the main reason I rarely used level draining creatures in my 1E-3E days.

In the end I choose Rust Monster. Gear is just gear - always a chance to find more (and why i never get attached to any particular weapon or magical device). Death sucks but it does come with the bonus of being able to make another character which is one of my favourite parts of the game!

 

[billd91]

It does not appear to me, though, that Gygax assumed such a constrained situation when composing the AD&D volumes. It was, quite simply, a matter of scenario design rather than of rules. There were no guarantees of getting magic items by certain levels. The possibility that players might run into monsters too tough to beat, and count themselves lucky just to retreat, was on the other hand at least very strongly implicit.

There's no guarantee of it in 3e either, but 3e makes the assumptions inherent in designing encounters explicit where before it was implicit. 1e, for example, says that the DM should spend time putting appropriate balanced magic items about the campaign with their purpose in mind. And one of those purposes is "... the general betterment of player characters to enable them to expand their adventuring capabilities because they are skillful enough to face greater challenges if they manage to furnish themselves with the wherewithal to do so."

Yes, PCs have always been able to run into stuff they can't handle, particularly when they are unwary or not mindful of what they are doing. But the DM is also advised to place treasures for the purpose of enabling PCs to overcome challenges down the road.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Using a monster that requires a +x weapon to hit when PCs expected to fight with weapons do not have +x weapons is either creating an encounter where you expect the PCs to run away, an encounter where you expect the PCs to die, or an encounter where you expect the fighters and thieves to sit back and watch the wizard kill the monster.

I always expect more creative thinking from myself, and encourage the same in my players. The last time I used an encounter that required a +X weapon to hit, the PCs lured the creature (a stone guardian) onto an unstable area of the floor. Not having the best tool for the job is hardly the same as having no way to complete the job.

You could have added that the PCs parlayed with the monster to your list, you know. Some of the best sessions I've ever been involved in have included talking to monsters.

You could have said that the PCs had to trap, trick, grapple, or otherwise defeat the monster without actually harming it.

Also, it is a real misunderstanding to assume that placing monster X means that the DM assumes that the players will take action Y. It is my job as the DM to place monster X. It is the players' job (collectively) to determine the appropriate action Y.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

And one of those purposes is "... the general betterment of player characters to enable them to expand their adventuring capabilities because they are skillful enough to face greater challenges if they manage to furnish themselves with the wherewithal to do so."

Yes, but from Gygax's own play anecdotes, we know that Gygax assumed PCs would be aware of, and possibly run into (if they were foolish or unlucky) things that they could not handle; seeking out the means to handle those things was part of what the original game was about.

Thus

But the DM is also advised to place treasures for the purpose of enabling PCs to overcome challenges down the road.

isn't necessarily what is implied by the text you quoted. The DM is advised to place treasures that allow PCs to have an opportunity of bettering themselves. The DM is not advised to hand the PCs this treasure. The purpose of "furnish[ing] themselves with the wherewithal to do so" is the players' purpose, it is not the DM's purpose.

The DM provides opportunity only in 1e. It is up to the players to recognize it and seize it. Treasures do not teleport around until found. There is no amount of treasure that you must have by level X or the DM is wrong. What the players have, they have because they have earned it. If they have not earned it, too bad. The DM is not responsible for ensuring that they follow a wealth-by-level guideline. So long as the campaign milieu itself isn't damaged by its inclusion, anything goes.

Gygax most definitely did not assume that PCs would automatically have magic weapons when they needed them. He assumed only that an opportunity would exist. If the players failed to take advantage of it, well, as one poster says, "The slaughter will continue until play improves".


RC

 

[Storminator]

I chose death. Not because it was easy to recover from, but because I always had a folder full of PCs to play. So if my PC died we divvied his stuff up among the survivors and rolled another PC into the party. Loot, that was waaaaay more important than any PC.

And level draining was just annoying - a long, drawn out prelude to death really.

PS