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

[thedungeondelver]

There's an option here that isn't mentioned, and one that merits being part of the discussion, and that's stat drain. Case in point: last night during a foray into the third level of the TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL, the most illustrious cleric of the party, Jarlon Barakson, encountered the Lamia in her fungus garden (area 312 for those reading along at home, IIRC).

At any rate, he succumbed to the creatures charm and suggestion spells as well as the illusion of a Valkyrie-like fighter she projected, and leapt to her defense when the rest of the party, unswayed by her charms and spells, attacked her. Four times during the ensuing melee she touched the cleric, bringing him from a legendary WIS (of 18) to a rather more mundane 14.

The net result was the loss of all but two extra 1st level spells and the ability to ever cast 6th or 7th level spells, the 10% XP bonus, and any magical saving throw bonuses.

A restoration spell, so applied, would have restored the WIS points lost (per my house ruling, it is not explicitly so in the spell description). However, such a casting would cost 10,000 plus a like amount per level of the recipient. Thus each restoration spell would cost 70,000. Four of them, then, 280,000.

Other judges might deem that a single application of the spell would restore all lost ability points (after all, feeblemind destroys intelligence entirely, reducing the target to a "moron"), but still, 70,000 is nothing to scoff at!

This example only addresses the loss of a somewhat easily restored characteristic - what of a permanent loss of STR or CON? Hope for the acquisition of many librams, tomes or manuals? Or a willing magic-user to employ one or more wish spells depending on the loss?

So yes, I'd say that the loss of a characteristic is a greater (MUCH greater) threat than death, level loss or equipment loss.

 

[Hussar]

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".

If that wasn't the assumption, then why are 1e modules so chock a block with magic weapons?

Or, if it wasn't an assumption that you would have a number of magic weapons, why the restrictions on paladins? If no one would be assumed to have more than 4 magic weapons at any point in time, why were paladins restricted to 4 (and only 1 suit of armor and 1 shield) to the point where they became a fighter if they picked up a 5th weapon?

A major restriction is hardly a restriction if no one in the group reaches that limit.

Looking at the treasure types, you get about a 10% chance (give or take) of finding multiple magic items in nearly any lair. Given that the magic items tables heavily leaned towards magic weapons and armor, it's not terribly far out there to assume that the party will have picked up a handful of magic weapons by the time they hit 5th level or so.

While there was no spelled out assumption in 1e D&D (I don't know about OD&D - but, then again, Basic/Expert D&D was hardly light on the magic items either, they used pretty much the same treasure tables) that character level X would have a +Y weapon, it's not exactly a long shot by any stretch.

 

[drothgery]

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.)

Of course it's 2e talk; I never played 1e or OD&D, and it was certainly the default edition of D&D in the mid-1990s when I started playing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If that wasn't the assumption, then why are 1e modules so chock a block with magic weapons?

(Sigh)

We've already established that Gary and Monte's projections for level gain in 1e and 3e respectively were far different from what a certain module analysis would indicate. Why would it surprise you that this is any different?

Let me simply say that (1) expectation that everything in a dungeon would be found is not a property of Gygaxian D&D (which is a mandatory requirement for the level gain expectations being different, btw, as quoted by Gary and Monte), (2) items in 1e didn't necessarily last that long (what with even the humble pit trap potentially snapping your Holy Avenger in twain), (3) modules do not always represent the normative standard of play of the person creating the module, esp. when they are tournament modules, and (4) 1e does not assume that the person creating the module sets the normative standard of play. To a wide (but not infinite!) degree, DMs are encouraged to create a non-normative play experience!

Or, if it wasn't an assumption that you would have a number of magic weapons, why the restrictions on paladins?

This is a false dichotomy. You mistake not assuming that everyone would have X items with the assumption that no one would have X items. 1e makes neither assumption.

But, of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish.



RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

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

This represents a lot of the changes to adventure design that I am noticing. Creatures and treasure are no longer placed for the PC's to interact with, instead they are used as pieces in pre-conceived "scenes" that may or may not work for everyone. Including the combat statistics for a creature that the PC's may come into conflict with is different from writing up an encounter that assumes certain actions from the PC's, within a specific time frame and/or place.

 

[Ariosto]

Hussar: Your characters can venture, or be transported by trick or trap, from the first dungeon level to the second -- regardless of whether they possess magical weapons. The tables allow the possibility of encountering a gargoyle (maybe after meeting a rust monster) on that level. It is not the DM's job to hold your hand and keep you safe! It is the DM's job to provide a challenging and interesting environment to negotiate.

The table in the original set for incidental, random treasures yields magic 5% of the time at dungeon levels 1-3, going to 10% for 4-5, and so on up to 30% for the 13th level and deeper. "Naturally, the more important [not randomly distributed] treasures will consist of various magical items and large amounts of wealth in the form of gems and jewelry." There is no radical departure from these assumptions in AD&D.

It's typical Hussar rhetoric to make a leap of illogic from the observation that players, with luck and skill, quite often can equip themselves with magical swords -- to the conclusion that there is "an assumption that you would have a number of magic weapons", it being incumbent upon the DM to ensure such an outcome.

If you use the method in DMG Appendix P for generating a high-level party on the spur of the moment, then any character of 10th level or higher other than a cleric or monk will certainly have a magic dagger. Some other items may be assured as well, if the player chooses to "try for" them, and even have a chance of being better than +1.

That's an arbitrary convenience for "one-off" play at conventions, or otherwise when players lack characters of appropriate level (or don't want to use their own to tackle, say, the Tomb of Horrors).

There is nothing at all in Gygaxian D&D to keep a Dungeon Master from putting nasty monsters in the game-world! The players, not the DM, choose their characters' courses apart from occasional impositions of events beyond their control*. They are no more guaranteed perfect preparedness to overcome whatever problem the environment poses than the DM is guaranteed perfect foreknowledge about their paths through it.

*(most of which of course could have been avoided by different choices on the players' part -- but as a practical matter choices are not, and cannot, always be fully informed)

 

[JRRNeiklot]

There's an option here that isn't mentioned, and one that merits being part of the discussion, and that's stat drain. Case in point: last night during a foray into the third level of the TEMPLE OF ELEMENTAL EVIL, the most illustrious cleric of the party, Jarlon Barakson, encountered the Lamia in her fungus garden (area 312 for those reading along at home, IIRC).

At any rate, he succumbed to the creatures charm and suggestion spells as well as the illusion of a Valkyrie-like fighter she projected, and leapt to her defense when the rest of the party, unswayed by her charms and spells, attacked her. Four times during the ensuing melee she touched the cleric, bringing him from a legendary WIS (of 18) to a rather more mundane 14.

The net result was the loss of all but two extra 1st level spells and the ability to ever cast 6th or 7th level spells, the 10% XP bonus, and any magical saving throw bonuses.

Heh, funny you mention lamias. I'm currently running the Bloodstone series. The wizard in the party succumed to the lamia's suggestion to resue her, he escorts her to safety, with his arm around her shoulders, she lovingly caresses him, as he leaves the scene, and ends up with the loss of 3 wisdom points.

In the same campaign, he lost a staff of the magi to dragonbreath. but he never bitched, (well, besides complaining about rolling a one on a save) it's part of the game.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar: Your characters can venture, or be transported by trick or trap, from the first dungeon level to the second -- regardless of whether they possess magical weapons. The tables allow the possibility of encountering a gargoyle (maybe after meeting a rust monster) on that level. It is not the DM's job to hold your hand and keep you safe! It is the DM's job to provide a challenging and interesting environment to negotiate.

Sure, no disagreement.

The table in the original set for incidental, random treasures yields magic 5% of the time at dungeon levels 1-3, going to 10% for 4-5, and so on up to 30% for the 13th level and deeper. "Naturally, the more important [not randomly distributed] treasures will consist of various magical items and large amounts of wealth in the form of gems and jewelry." There is no radical departure from these assumptions in AD&D.

I stated quite clearly that I have no idea how OD&D worked. I never played it. No idea. But, I did play 1e fairly extensively. Throwing OD&D quotes at me doesn't really address my point because that's not what I'm talking about. If you would like to actually talk about the same game I am, that's fine.

It's typical Hussar rhetoric to make a leap of illogic from the observation that players, with luck and skill, quite often can equip themselves with magical swords -- to the conclusion that there is "an assumption that you would have a number of magic weapons", it being incumbent upon the DM to ensure such an outcome.

In typical Aristo failure of basic reading skills, he attributes things to me that I never said. Sorry, try again.

If you use the method in DMG Appendix P for generating a high-level party on the spur of the moment, then any character of 10th level or higher other than a cleric or monk will certainly have a magic dagger. Some other items may be assured as well, if the player chooses to "try for" them, and even have a chance of being better than +1.

So, wouldn't that mean that it's pretty likely that characters of a given level can be assumed to have a magic weapon?

That's an arbitrary convenience for "one-off" play at conventions, or otherwise when players lack characters of appropriate level (or don't want to use their own to tackle, say, the Tomb of Horrors).

There is nothing at all in Gygaxian D&D to keep a Dungeon Master from putting nasty monsters in the game-world! The players, not the DM, choose their characters' courses apart from occasional impositions of events beyond their control*. They are no more guaranteed perfect preparedness to overcome whatever problem the environment poses than the DM is guaranteed perfect foreknowledge about their paths through it.

*(most of which of course could have been avoided by different choices on the players' part -- but as a practical matter choices are not, and cannot, always be fully informed)

Completely agree. I never said that the DM cannot do any of these things and any interpretation that leads you to that is entirely your own.

However, I did say that the mechanics of 1e D&D certainly point to the idea that you will have magic weapons by certain levels. Not that you bought them, not that you are gifted by the DM. But that there is a pretty high chance that you will have them.

Again, look at the paladin. If no one in the group ever has more than 4 magic weapons, then the restriction of 4 magic weapons is meaningless. If everyone is assumed to have less than 4, then why such a strong penalty for having more? I would think that a hard coded limit of FOUR magic weapons generally points to the idea that at some point in the paladin's carreer, he will not only have 4 magic weapons, but will also have a chance of a 5th.

That would mean, to me anyway, that magic weapons aren't all that rare in the game. That a DM could probably assume that a party of given level should have magic weapons of some sort. Maybe not a specific weapon of course. But magic weapons.

Now, can the DM throw stuff at the party they aren't equiped to handle? Of course, that's certainly not edition specific. A DM can always do that.

However, trying to claim that magic weapons in the game were so incredibly rare that a DM could never assume that a high level party would have magic weapons is ridiculous. A 5th level 1e party with a handful of +1 weapons is hardly a major Monty Haul campaign. It's pretty par for the course.

That is, if you actually play by the rules of course.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, deep breath.

Put it another way. I have a party of six fifth level 1e PC's. 3 Fighters, a cleric, an MU and a Thief. All 5th level (or close enough - the thief might be 6th). The three fighters all have a +1 weapon, possibly one of them has a handful of +1 arrows. The cleric has a +2 mace. The thief has a +1 dagger. The MU doesn't have a magic weapon.

Is this out of line? Is this what you would consider normal or too much?

Me, I consider this pretty much standard in a 1e party of that level.

 

[Ariosto]

Sure, no disagreement.

Why not make like a cabbage and quit while you're ahead?

You objected to the statement that

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".

Your line was:

If that wasn't the assumption, then why are 1e modules so chock a block with magic weapons?

If those OD&D assumptions aren't "chock a block" enough with magic for you, then fine. The point is that I don't think magic swords are much rarer in AD&D, including in modules. There are plenty to go out and get if you can! I agree with your assessment of that state of affairs.

The trouble is that it simply and plainly is not any support at all for the position that you were arguing.

Neither is what you consider "pretty much standard in a 1e party of that level."

To salvage your back-pedaling right out of the thread's topic, I will observe that if you considered such kit "too much", then a rust monster or disenchanter might be fortuitous. Level drain, in similar light, could remedy "too little".