Older Editions and "Balance" when compared to 3.5

[Raven Crowking]

Sleep is an auto-win because there is no saving throw for it.

Let's not shift those goalposts!

Sleep as an autowin was supposed to automatically win an encounter unless the creature was specifically immune to the spell (such as undead or elves), and very specifically was supposed to autowin against anything a 1st-level (or low-level) magic-user was likely to encounter.

This belief is the result of a shallow reading/understanding of the spell and/or the rules.

The mitigating factors ("However, just because there's no saving throw to the spell, it doesn't mean that the scenario is an auto win. Because if there's more monsters than the spell can handle, those monsters might be able to wake up their sleeping friends.") are what prevent the spell from being an autowin.

If sleep cannot autowin against the scenario, one must wonder exactly how it can be classified as an "autowin". It is, instead, a big advantage over a single encounter (unless, as in my Moathouse examination, the GM really does hand out Rings of Automatically Casting Sleep At the Beginning of Each Encounter -- and, if she does, it is no fault of the rules that she does!), and provides the possibility of a situational win, if and only if it is used wisely.

If you look at the Moathouse encounters, you can probably see some cases where sleep would make a real difference to the PCs, and other cases where it might not. The magic-user who uses sleep in the later cases, and therefore doesn't have it for the former, will be a short-lived magic-user. IME, anyway.

No matter how you slice it, though, not allowing a save is not sufficient to make a spell an autowin. I mean, CAGI can be used to gain a big advantage, can't it? There is no save. Is it an autowin?



RC

 

[Dausuul]

Sleep is a potential insta-win. This is different from an auto-win. It's also much less of a big deal in old-school D&D, because you don't expect any individual encounter to take very long anyway, so the occasional insta-win does not break the game.

Ironically, I find sleep's insta-win potential to be a bigger deal in 4E than it was in AD&D or BECMI. It's less likely to happen, but because every enounter in 4E is a big set-piece battle, it feels much more anticlimactic when it does.

 

[AllisterH]

All it really does it gives the party a super really extra big advantage.

How is this NOT an auto-win?

You go from an even fight or even one slightly where the odds are agaisnt you to one where most likely the odds have heavily tilted in your favour?

If Sleep wasn't an auto-win spell, then all those articles, comments, questions in DRAGON that talked about and dealt with Sleep were my imagination?

Mending sure as heck never got as much attention, even Magic Missile never did.

 

[Voadam]

Also, considering sleep spell vs. the Moathouse, that's 16 encounters and 1 sleep spell the M-U has. Which one is he going to use it on? There's 13 where success is iffy and 5 that outright will have no effect.

He may autowin one, maybe two if the top level vs. dungeons are tackled with a rest between, but that's still an additional 14 encounters to survive.

Nobody took on 16 encounters in one day. Nobody cleared the whole thing at 1st level.

I remember it took the group I DM'd five assaults and I forget how many PC deaths and close calls to finally clear out Lareth after first coming upon him (granted I had him keep animating dead soldiers and spend his treasure on buying new security like shriekers in between their assaults).

 

[billd91]

How is this NOT an auto-win?

You go from an even fight or even one slightly where the odds are agaisnt you to one where most likely the odds have heavily tilted in your favour?

If Sleep wasn't an auto-win spell, then all those articles, comments, questions in DRAGON that talked about and dealt with Sleep were my imagination?

Mending sure as heck never got as much attention, even Magic Missile never did.

Sleep's a powerful spell, but if you're going to cling to the cannard that it's an auto-win despite the caveats people have brought up multiple times in this thread, there's not much point in trying to communicate here.

It's not an auto-win because there's no assurance that it can be deployed (remember the initiative rules and spell disruption) and there's no guarantee that it won't be relieved by additional creatures in the encounter. It's a powerful tool that can net a significant advantage, perhaps even a quick win, if circumstances don't prevent it from happening.

Seriously, the whole auto-win label should be relegated to the trash.

 

[Imperialus]

I played 1E for many years - all throughout the 80s and into the early 90s... the players in my group almost never used hirelings - they didn't want to give up a share of both the XP and treasure for a 5th wheel hireling.

Well in 2nd ed at least, Hirelings only gain a share of the group experience award. Its the individual awards that IME make up the bulk of experience earned. I tend not to give hirelings individual awards, and unless a hireling was particularly skilled or a longstanding member of the party they did not get a share of the treasure, but rather a flat weekly rate negotiated with the party.

Even in 1st ed or B/X a hireling earning 1/2 the experience of a PC and a 1/2 share of treasure made a lot of sense at low levels. It slowed your advancement, sure but it also increased survivability by a significant margin, which depending on the rules your DM used for replacement PC's actually sped up overall advancement. It's a more conservative playstyle, for sure, but certainly a valid one.

 

[green slime]

I would intelligent opponents acting the way average poeple would in a world where the rules were different. Let's consdier the sleep spell to be equivalent to carrying around a grenade. If wheezing Jimmy is carrying a grenade than modern folks would see him as the primary threat. Similarily in a fantasy world where the decision not to wear armor while adventuring is either a sign of reckless overconfidence or an "I am a spellcaster" logo.

Seriously? Does every commoner wander the world dressed in armour? the outlying farmer, taking his goods to market, dresses up in chain mail, and straps on a bastard sword, in case he gets waylaid by a band of nomadic bandits? The Noble, delivering a diplomatic message? The caravan merchant plying a trade route? Both the noble and the merchant would be accompanied by strong warriors, but probably wear attire more suitable to their station. How common is magic? How common is being brutally killed by a swordsman? What has the average Kobold seen more of? IF the kobolds have seen and understand the power of arcane magic, AND understand the PC in question is a wielder of arcane power, are they not then more likely to panic and flee, rather than chuck a few ineffectual javelings?!? The wizard hardly has a notice on his forehead saying "1st level spells only (2, 1 used)".

If you want to kill the wizard, just do so. But don't wrap it up in a "spellcaster-logo" excuse. Because while the light-clad jimmy might be a dangerous (or a noble, or a merchant, or a scribe, or a human donkey, or a former captive, or a .... you get the idea) the axe wielding ½-orc most definitely is dangerous

I'd argue, that much of what is normal in our world is normal in DnD, but the spotlight is on the unusual, because that is what makes for interesting adventures. I don't want a dishwashing skill challenge for 3rd level characters. In any edition of the game.

Futhermore, Jummy has to declare he is casting before initiative is rolled. Even if the grenade was not obvious in advance, it sure will be when he pulls it out. It doesn't mean that a grenade is bad (it is very, very good) but rather that it is never ideal to be the most obviosuly dangerous thing around.

Ask the people who had the displeasure of carrying flame throwers into combat . . .

The Kobolds should also have to "declare" (iow, the DM should think what the kobolds are trying to do, before he lets the players' intentions colour their plan). Additionally, there is a reason why kobolds are not top of the food chain...

It is not obvious that a grenade or a flamethrower is dangerous, unless you have seen the effect of one, or had one described to you. In the modern world, we are quite well informed of modern weaponry. How informed is a tribe of kobolds, eeking a living stealing from farmers' fields, and avoiding lizardfolk? Secondly, are you expecting to see it? Your concentration is divided amongst 4 or 5 antagonists, especially some rather large and threatening ones much, much closer to you. To continue your allegory: there is a M1 Abrams between you and the flamethrower guy, and it is heading towards you!! So Mr Al-qaeda guy, you gonna be cool and try to take a shot at Flamethrower guy, or hunker down in your foxhole and hope no one sees you, or maybe, just maybe you gonna run?

Furthermore, I'll reiterate: it is even less obvious that kill or be killed is the best solution to the situation at hand.

If we go back to a DnD situation, There are always other options:

1) negotiation
2) surrender
3) flight
4) capture

However DND, in all versions, has always had a majority of players that never negotiate, nor surrender, always pursue, and very seldomly show any form of mercy.

I just like to make it clear in my games: word gets around, and you reap what you sow. Regardless of version.

 

[green slime]

Apparently the most dangerous clothing to wear, is non-armour, because you are then automatically a wizard, and doomed to be designated primary target by all manner of creatures.

Survival tips for wizards:
#1 Wear heavy armour (borrow the fighter's gear)
#2 Get in the front line and stay there.
#3 Convince the ½-orc to stay naked in rear, for your own good.

Yep, makes perfect sense to me.

Sounds like it's gonna be a lot of fun!

 

[Nagol]

Seriously? Does every commoner wander the world dressed in armour? the outlying farmer, taking his goods to market, dresses up in chain mail, and straps on a bastard sword, in case he gets waylaid by a band of nomadic bandits? The Noble, delivering a diplomatic message? The caravan merchant plying a trade route? Both the noble and the merchant would be accompanied by strong warriors, but probably wear attire more suitable to their station. How common is magic? How common is being brutally killed by a swordsman? What has the average Kobold seen more of? IF the kobolds have seen and understand the power of arcane magic, AND understand the PC in question is a wielder of arcane power, are they not then more likely to panic and flee, rather than chuck a few ineffectual javelings?!? The wizard hardly has a notice on his forehead saying "1st level spells only (2, 1 used)".

Substitute club, quarterstaff, or long knife for bastard sword and padded/leather for chain mail and yes -- at least if the farmer knows he's leaving the King's Road and is at risk for hostile wandering encounters!

After all, wearing chain and carrying a bastard sword for a farmer is liikely to get him hanged as a bandit by the first patrol that encounters him.

The caravan merchant hires guards and gets the best armour (and maybe a decent weapon) that he can justify for the cost -- probably chain shirt or chain mail. To do otherwise is asking for trouble. He's have a nice suit in luggage for "down time" when hosting with more noble patrons, but he'd wear armour when traveling.

A noble would take advantage of his noble station to wear heavy armour and carry noble weapons (here's your bastard sword and likely plate -- at the very least chain); it's a way to advertise his station as well as a defence.

The kobold is likely to have seen the power of magic (arcane or divine is probably a quibble here) as his shaman/adept has it. It's not like the default campaign setting hangs a particular mystery around magic -- there are a lot of of casters in the population -- even hamlets and thorps have a very good chance of having a caster.

 

[green slime]

Substitute club, quarterstaff, or long knife for bastard sword and padded/leather for chain mail and yes -- at least if the farmer knows he's leaving the King's Road and is at risk for hostile wandering encounters!

Probably can't afford armour, and knives and quarterstaves are sure signs of wizardry, and get him javelinned to death, if we are to believe previous posters. Highwaymen and bandits have existed on the King's road until very late in historical times indeed in England (19th century), but equipping yourself and wearing armour, you better be ready to fight. More likely, the average farmer taking goods to market could probably get past the bandits by negotiating a reasonable price (sack of potatoes at most), but probably wouldn't even register as a mark at all.

After all, wearing chain and carrying a bastard sword for a farmer is liikely to get him hanged as a bandit by the first patrol that encounters him.

No argument there.

The caravan merchant hires guards and gets the best armour (and maybe a decent weapon) that he can justify for the cost -- probably chain shirt or chain mail. To do otherwise is asking for trouble. He's have a nice suit in luggage for "down time" when hosting with more noble patrons, but he'd wear armour when traveling.

Or probably not, depending on the circumstances. 1) it is very uncomfortable. 2) He's paying the mercenaries for guard duty, hiring another guard is cheaper than buying a set of arms and armour for himself. 3) In extremely dangerous areas, yes, he might wear armour himself. 4) But unless he is reasonably fit and skilled he'd may be better off unarmed: Fat, wealthy merchants can be held for ransom. Dead corpses cannot, and if he looks like one of the guards, he'll be treated like one of the guards, even if the rest of the guards run away. 5) It is bothersome wearing armour

A noble would take advantage of his noble station to wear heavy armour and carry noble weapons (here's your bastard sword and likely plate -- at the very least chain); it's a way to advertise his station as well as a defence.

Or probably not, that's what the klutz bodyguards (AKA "Knights") are for. Wearing armour is tiresome, bothersome wardrobe activity. Taking 60 minutes each morning to strap on the old plate isn't fun, and it starts to smell really bad after wearing the same armour for a few days. It doesn't look refined, and not everywhere you go do you want to like like a porcupine. It doesn't impress when you are riding around the countryside. In fact, wearing armour while examining your estates would probably be seen as a sign of weakness or insecurity. Unless you are expecting imminent battle, you wouldn't want to put the bothersome stuff on. Only wierdo maverick adventurers would wander around in armour constantly. Gold chains, stylish footwear and a proper collar supporting a well-groomed head better advertise station. Yes, the noble is more likely to have his sword along with him.

The kobold is likely to have seen the power of magic (arcane or divine is probably a quibble here) as his shaman/adept has it. It's not like the default campaign setting hangs a particular mystery around magic -- there are a lot of of casters in the population -- even hamlets and thorps have a very good chance of having a caster.

Shaman may have the power of magic (or maybe not), but does that auto-mean the thinly clad bespectacled youth hiding behind the snorting ½-orc can wield such power? And given that the shaman may use divine magic & wear armour, where then is the auto-wizard logo?

Just because the law of gravity pulls the apple to the earth, doesn't mean every semi-intelligent inhabitant understands the principle at work behind the apple's fall. Likewise the division of arcane and divine magic, and arcane spell failure in armour...