Why the Modern D&D variants will not attract new players

[Hussar]

Which, as a perhaps-unintended side effect, also served as a means of keeping casters' power levels from getting too out of hand at high level...

Lanefan

Well, yes and no. Since most spells had no cap, the saving throw became moot in many cases. If they survived the first fireball, it still did so much damage that the second one took them out. Really, the saving throw didn't matter so much to the monsters because the monsters had so few hit points that a lucky die roll was enough to kill them regardless of whether they saved or not.

Or, put it another way, an 8 hd creature only has 32 hit points on average. A pair of 8 die fireballs is generally enough to mop the floor with most of the creatures.

I know that when I played 1e and 2e, I generally used 75% to 100% hit points for most monsters, just to keep them alive long enough.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, yes and no. Since most spells had no cap, the saving throw became moot in many cases. If they survived the first fireball, it still did so much damage that the second one took them out. Really, the saving throw didn't matter so much to the monsters because the monsters had so few hit points that a lucky die roll was enough to kill them regardless of whether they saved or not.

Or, put it another way, an 8 hd creature only has 32 hit points on average. A pair of 8 die fireballs is generally enough to mop the floor with most of the creatures.

I know that when I played 1e and 2e, I generally used 75% to 100% hit points for most monsters, just to keep them alive long enough.

Same here - particularly with solo monsters - but not just because of the casters. The warriors can give it out just as well.

3e had the answer here, if one wants to go to the trouble: give monsters the same Con. bonus to h.p. as PCs get. The average Giant, for example, is going to have about Con. 20 - a pretty big deal in 1e - so I have no problem at all giving them an extra 4 or 5 h.p. per die. That takes yer 8 HD creature from about 30-35 h.p. to about 65-70, still very killable but now it's at least gonna stick around long enough to provide some entertainment.

The other answer can sometimes be setting. If said 8 HD creature is in a small enough area that to fireball it means frying your own party as well then the tactics have to change a bit...

Lan-"topic? what topic?"-efan

 

[Hussar]

Same here - particularly with solo monsters - but not just because of the casters. The warriors can give it out just as well.

3e had the answer here, if one wants to go to the trouble: give monsters the same Con. bonus to h.p. as PCs get. The average Giant, for example, is going to have about Con. 20 - a pretty big deal in 1e - so I have no problem at all giving them an extra 4 or 5 h.p. per die. That takes yer 8 HD creature from about 30-35 h.p. to about 65-70, still very killable but now it's at least gonna stick around long enough to provide some entertainment.

The other answer can sometimes be setting. If said 8 HD creature is in a small enough area that to fireball it means frying your own party as well then the tactics have to change a bit...

Lan-"topic? what topic?"-efan

Heh, tangent? What is this tangent thing of which you speak?

The issue comes in even with spells like magic missile. I remember in one of the Gygax conversation threads, he talked about wanting to have a monster supplement similar to the original Unearthed Arcana to bump up the monsters as well and adding the six stats to monsters was one of the things he wanted to do.

42 hit point giants died like lemmings when we faced them in Against the Giants.

 

[amerigoV]

Heh, tangent? What is this tangent thing of which you speak?

...

42 hit point giants died like lemmings when we faced them in Against the Giants.

Ah, now that explains it. I was considering running AtG late in 3.5 and thought it was impossible. That explains why it was possible under the older edition. That does bring back to mind my 1/2-orc brothers that were dragon hunters via their two-handed swords (nothing like 18/x str + 3d6 damage in 1e - mmmm, those were the days). I loved chopping up them 1e dragons.

 

[Hussar]

amerigoV - IMO, probably the single biggest change going from AD&D to 3e was the MASSIVE bump that monsters got. When you look at those old AD&D modules and you see the encounter numbers, you really get a sense of how incredibly powerful AD&D characters really were. Sure, they could be killed, but, IME, to do it through straight up combat damage, you had to bury them under a small army to do it.

Save or die was something else entirely.

In 3e, a given creature of equal CR to a PC's level could (not easily, but could) outright kill a PC in a single round quite often, and could certainly do it in two rounds. The giants, especially, got a huge powerup. Everything from ogres and trolls (50 points of damage in a single round!) to true giants just got a massive power bump.

 

[MerricB]

amerigoV - IMO, probably the single biggest change going from AD&D to 3e was the MASSIVE bump that monsters got. When you look at those old AD&D modules and you see the encounter numbers, you really get a sense of how incredibly powerful AD&D characters really were. Sure, they could be killed, but, IME, to do it through straight up combat damage, you had to bury them under a small army to do it.

The bump for giants and dragons came between AD&D 1e and 2e, actually. Giants in 2E are far, far more difficult to kill than in 1e.

Cheers!

 

[Lanefan]

In 3e, a given creature of equal CR to a PC's level could (not easily, but could) outright kill a PC in a single round quite often, and could certainly do it in two rounds. The giants, especially, got a huge powerup. Everything from ogres and trolls (50 points of damage in a single round!) to true giants just got a massive power bump.

That was done at the design level, and backed off a bit for 4e. 3e really went in for the big set-piece battle against a single significant foe, and thus had to jump up the foes in order to make 'em significant. 4e goes more for battles against a varying (though usually fairly small) number of mixed foes, meaning each individual one doesn't need to have as much going for it. That said, 4e solos can also bring the heat when needed.

I've found solo monsters in 1e never have a chance, no matter how tough they seem to be on paper. But throw in even just a few minor idiots to disrupt the party's focus on the big guy and it makes a surprising amount of difference.

Lan-"tonight I'm a wandering tangent generator"-efan

 

[Hussar]

The bump for giants and dragons came between AD&D 1e and 2e, actually. Giants in 2E are far, far more difficult to kill than in 1e.

Cheers!

This is true, although, IMO, they didn't go far enough. Given that 2e characters also got a pretty significant bump in power between 1e and 2e, my experience was that even though dragons and giants did get a pretty big bump, they still went down easier than their 3e counterparts.

 

[MerricB]

This is true, although, IMO, they didn't go far enough. Given that 2e characters also got a pretty significant bump in power between 1e and 2e, my experience was that even though dragons and giants did get a pretty big bump, they still went down easier than their 3e counterparts.

The maths underlying 3e was extremely erratic. Get the right party, and the giants go down extremely quickly. Get the wrong party, and the opposite occurs. And sometimes you just have standoffs.

Of course, the difference between an AD&D fighter with a 17 strength and one with an 18/90 strength is also astonishing...

Cheers!

 

[Jhaelen]

Given that 2e characters also got a pretty significant bump in power between 1e and 2e, my experience was that even though dragons and giants did get a pretty big bump, they still went down easier than their 3e counterparts.

Ah, really? What power bump would that be? I have to admit don't remember anything of the kind.