I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[Hussar]

But, Herremann, here's the question. Ok, you only lost one PC. Did you go through six or more encounters before resting? Did you enter encounters at 20% of resources? What kind of characters were you playing? What additional rules were you using? These are all pretty reasonable questions that should be simple to answer and will likely shed a fair bit of light on why you did this.

I think that there is far more credence being given to player choice here than is realistic. You are going to get into combat encounters. That's inevitable. Particularly in a dungeon like RttToEE where you have literally hundreds of combat encounters.

Now, even with the most careful of play, you're going to get unlucky sometimes. You cannot get lucky every time. That bad guy is going to roll that nasty crit, you're going to fail a skill check and get smacked with the trap, the random encounter is going to find you. This is a fact of play.

Yet, the claim here is that all the baseline assumptions that are built into the game are apparently false and can be successfully ignored.

You guys can call it badgering all you like. As I said before, if I claimed to score 20 under par at golf, you can bet that I'd be called on for proof. Yet, when I ask for proof here, all I get is contradictions and vague assertions. The PC's were point bought, but, what was the actual point buy value? PC's could bluff through encounters, but, how exactly does that lead to bad guys surrendering (because, if you'll recall, that was the claim)? On and on and on.

It's funny. I said that combat in AD&D was far more forgiving than in 3e. Bill91 immedietely questioned me on it. Yet, it's pretty easy to prove. Monsters in 3e do about 4 times as much damage (they hit twice as often and twice as hard) in 3e and have about twice (or more) as many HP as AD&D monsters. Additionally, AD&D PC's can deal (at least up to about level 10) about twice as much damage per round as a 3e PC (fighter types anyway).

See, right there, I can point to facts about why I have the opinion that I do. These are verifiable. I could be wrong. Fair enough. Show me where I'm wrong.

But, as I said before, I keep trying to uncover facts and it's all just cobwebs and tissue paper.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

But, Herremann, here's the question. Ok, you only lost one PC. Did you go through six or more encounters before resting?

It depended. Because we were using high level characters (above 15th level ending in almost epic), you can kind of rest where and when you want. Conserving resources usually meant resting at about 40 to 50 percent of resources used. At that level, you can keep going, so long as the casters are conservative with the big stuff. You just have so many resources at your disposal.

Did you enter encounters at 20% of resources?

I played a wizard alienist and can verify that resources never got this low. He had so many resources, I made up about 8 spell selection sheets, depending upon the focus for the day. Otherwise, running a high level wizard was just impossible. Occasionally, you would have an all out encounter that sucked all the big stuff but they would be somewhat rare and to be purposefully avoided.

What kind of characters were you playing?

Typical party with an extra cleric (5 PCs). All high level.

What additional rules were you using?

3.5 core and complete only and the DM was regularly using the epic book towards the end.

These are all pretty reasonable questions that should be simple to answer and will likely shed a fair bit of light on why you did this.

Certainly. Chalk it up to PCs at very high levels.

I think that there is far more credence being given to player choice here than is realistic. You are going to get into combat encounters. That's inevitable. Particularly in a dungeon like RttToEE where you have literally hundreds of combat encounters.

A conservative party however can use a minimum of resources if that is their aim. I can't see too much wrong with a typical 4 to 6 encounters. I'm sure there were also times when the first encounter blew the party out of the water but this would be atypical from DA's description. I'm also sure there were times that they went past 6 encounters too. The thing with a large party at an average resource level of 20% is that you still have one or two characters that are OK in the frontline with those characters with resources almost used out the back. A good group controls things so they don't get easily ambushed so mix these together, I don't see any reason not to believe DA; even though I imagine other groups would play it differently.

Now, even with the most careful of play, you're going to get unlucky sometimes. You cannot get lucky every time. That bad guy is going to roll that nasty crit, you're going to fail a skill check and get smacked with the trap, the random encounter is going to find you. This is a fact of play.

And I'm sure it did, (even though it would not have been typical) and upon these occasions, the group may have had to bunker down.

Yet, the claim here is that all the baseline assumptions that are built into the game are apparently false and can be successfully ignored.

I think it would take a high degree of skill and occasionally luck for sure. A group focusing on not using resources though can stray a fair way from the baseline assumptions in my opinion (particularly at higher levels - if not quite the levels we did for RttToH.) Please understand, I'm not trying to be contrary here, I'm just imagining a group being able to accomplish this most of the time if that is their focus and style of play.

You guys can call it badgering all you like. As I said before, if I claimed to score 20 under par at golf, you can bet that I'd be called on for proof. Yet, when I ask for proof here, all I get is contradictions and vague assertions. The PC's were point bought, but, what was the actual point buy value? PC's could bluff through encounters, but, how exactly does that lead to bad guys surrendering (because, if you'll recall, that was the claim)? On and on and on.

I don't know. I'm just working on the same information as you are in this thread. Remarkable yes! Impossible... I sincerely don't think so.

It's funny. I said that combat in AD&D was far more forgiving than in 3e. Bill91 immedietely questioned me on it. Yet, it's pretty easy to prove. Monsters in 3e do about 4 times as much damage (they hit twice as often and twice as hard) in 3e and have about twice (or more) as many HP as AD&D monsters. Additionally, AD&D PC's can deal (at least up to about level 10) about twice as much damage per round as a 3e PC (fighter types anyway).

See, right there, I can point to facts about why I have the opinion that I do. These are verifiable. I could be wrong. Fair enough. Show me where I'm wrong.

Your not wrong (or at least those facts sound in the ballpark). But if you have smart players who can regularly control the field of combat (as DA alluded to), you minimize the damage that those creatures do. The biggest issue I have with 3e combat is the typical thoughtless rush to the middle style of hp attrition that it implicitly encourages. If however you ignore that, and control the battlefield and "what" gets hit, you can minimize damage significantly. I bet that DAs DM would have had a Dickens of a time trying to get full attacks on those PCs. Your numbers above are based on the enemy optimising their attacks and I am guessing that this did not happen that often in that campaign.

I suppose one thing that this assumes is that the DM plays his monsters in a consistent way. Too often, I have seen a DM looking to compete against their players good tactics by playing their bad guys better than they should. Perhaps DAs DM was most consistent in this regard, allowing good tactics to consistently reap benefits where a lesser DM would try too hard to "do something" against the PCs. If an enemy leader went down, chances are the morale of the enemy plummeted making those bluff/intimidate checks of value. I know this is how we play and expect to be rewarded (and how I reward my PCs when DMing).

But, as I said before, I keep trying to uncover facts and it's all just cobwebs and tissue paper.

I can understand and appreciate your frustration. For what it's worth though, perhaps you have been playing 4e and it's mathematical dynamic of forced attrition over a number of rounds and forget how forgiving (and quick) 3e combat can be if the PCs can effectively control the field of battle. I would still consider DAs play remarkable and highly effective and not something typical for most groups.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I don't have anything like your familiarity with 3E, and like I said upthread I don't know the module very well, but I do see where you are coming from.

In 3E, how hard is it to use Bluff to pretend to be a representative of a rival temple/node/whatever the RttToEE factions are called? That could be one way in which encounters are bypassed/dealt with.

The PCs were said to be a Ftr, a Wizard, a Ftr with 2 Clc levels, a Rog with 1 Sorc level, a Brb/Drd, a multiclassed Monk and a Ftr/Rgr/Div/SpSwd (#808). And the most valuable tactic was said to be spell conservation, and the use of spells to end encounters with the non-spell users then mopping up (#803).

Suppose a 5th level Fighter has a 16 CON, and therefore 15 (for stat) + 10 (1st level) + 4d10 = 47 hp. 20% of that would be 10 or fewer hp. I assume from what you say that it is not that hard for a 5HD monster in 3E to do 10 hp on a hit. I'm not sure what monsters are in RttToEE, but I'm looking at an ogre: it has +8 to hit and deals 2d8+7 damage. So a hit from one of them is autokill against that 5th level fighter on 20% hp.

Let's say that the fighter has full plate and shield for base AC 20 or so (I'm a bit hazy on my 3E armour types) and has +3 AC from magic (that seems generous to me for a 5th level fighter, but again I don't know the system or the module that well). That means the ogre needs a 15 or better to hit the fighter's AC 23. DA used the phrase upthread of "the fighter's playing the odds", and it certainly is a bit of roulette wheel to be a 5th level fighter on 20% hp against that ogre. (Even on half hit points the fighter will find a hit from it pretty severe.)

But the ogre is AC 16 - suppose the 5th level melee-types have +8 to hit or so, then they hit it two-thirds of the time - so 6 of them will do 4 hits a round, and provided they average at least 7 points per hit they'll drop it in that round.

And it gets better against a worg - CR 2 rather than CR 3 - which has one more hp but is only AC 18 with a +7 to hit for 1d6+4. It will take two hits, and so typically more than 4 rounds, to drop the fighter even at 20% hp. In 6 rounds (say) the fighter will hit it 3 times, dropping it if the fighter averages 10 hp or more on a hit (say d8 weapon +3 from stat +1 from magic +2 from specialisation).

3 worgs would be an EL 5 encounter, wouldn't they, and fairly easy for the melee types to deal with according to my maths. Two ogres, on the other hand - also EL 5, I think - would have to be expected to kill at least one fighter on 20% hp. How likely is a 5th level party in RttToEE to come across worgs? ogres?

 

[Rogue Agent]

OTOH, if you actually play to baseline assumptions, small group, 25-27 point buy characters, then suddenly "smart play" doesn't work.

When even the DMG tells you that it's not necessary to play strictly and exclusively by the "baseline assumptions", though, how relevant is that?

With that being said...

Yeah, funny thing going on here. You're grabbing at straws based on what RogueAgent said, while ignoring what DannyAlcatraz said about his DM adjusting the difficult of encounters upward to account for extra players.

DannyA is claiming that:

(a) The group was facing encounters 4 levels above their pay grade;
(b) Those encounters were actually being made even more difficult by their DM; and
(c) They were not being significantly injured in these encounters. (With significant injury being defined as 20% of their hit points.)

Even I'm having problems swallowing that package.

In the 1st-10th level range, a +5 CR adjustment on a creature will result (roughly speaking) in a tripling of their hit points, a shift from a 25% hit rate to a 75% hit rate, and a doubling of their expected damage output.

I'll accept that smart play can minimize risk. But at some point the monsters are going to get these guys into a fair fight, and then they're going to get their clocks cleaned.

I'd point out that this isn't just MY assumptions. These are the DESIGNER assumptions. If you're running EL=Par encounters, you shouldn't be able to do more than 4 per rest period, and that's assuming that you have a core healer.

Strategic play that significantly shifts encounters in your direction from Round 1 will increase that. You'll also see an increase in encounters if DM simulates morale effects for the monsters (having them break and run as the battle turns against them). Superior shepherding and expenditure of resources can also radically shift the daily limit.

On the flip side, a sandbox campaign makes it impossible for the GM to "enforce" any sort of "baseline".

And so forth. The thing is, the assumption (contrary to what the DMG and the designers of 3E actually tell you to do) that the only acceptable form of play is rigid adherence to an imaginary "baseline" results in what I've seen referred to as My Perfect Encounter design. It mandates that you railroad your players and strictly limit any sort of non-tactical or strategic approach to the game.

Once you

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Maybe his party is full of skilled optimizers with free reign to use any splatbook

PHB + first 4 Completes only, no Psi, no MIC, no SC.

Considering I've already discussed our party contains a multiclass Monk and my Whip & ShSwd TWF Ftr/Rgr/Div/SpSwd, I'm amused you would even think we had a bunch of optimizers. We have one player who remotely qualifies as an optimizer- the Wiz player- who prefers Metamagic over Crafting; doesn't even Scribe scrolls.

(a) The group was facing encounters 4 levels above their pay grade;
(b) Those encounters were actually being made even more difficult by their DM; and

You're making an erroneous assumption: AFAIK, no encounter was both above our level as written and subsequently adjusted upward in difficulty to account for party size. Our DM isn't that dumb. If an encounter was too weak for our party size, he would adjust it up. If it was higher level, he'd leave it be.

And again, some encounters we're avoided without fighting. For example, there is one with some kind of fire giant or fire elemental (or some such) we encountered while messed up. Him we avoided, and found another path to our destination.

 

[billd91]

Yet, the claim here is that all the baseline assumptions that are built into the game are apparently false and can be successfully ignored.

If that's what you are taking away from this discussion, then I believe you are misinterpreting the discussion. What I believe you should be taking away from this is: your mileage may vary on a number of factors - including play style. Baseline assumptions are just that - baseline assumptions. Individual tables will probably deviate from those in substantial ways. And yet they'll still be playing D&D as it was intended to be played.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How likely is a 5th level party in RttToEE to come across worgs? ogres?

I remember bandits/mercenaries, frogs, cultists, a dragon, elementals, divine casters, Tharizdun messing with the heads of my PC and the Ftr, a fiendish T-Rex or 3, giants (?), duregar...maybe a few ogres. Not too many worgs.

 

[LostSoul]

In 3E, how hard is it to use Bluff to pretend to be a representative of a rival temple/node/whatever the RttToEE factions are called? That could be one way in which encounters are bypassed/dealt with.

I think it depends on the DM. The various temples in the crater ridge mines all hate each other; I personally think that's something that could easily be exploited, while other DMs might make all NPCs paranoid and very likely to attack on sight.

That's why I like the reaction roll from B/X. Makes it easier for the DM to be impartial when judging this sort of material.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by pemerton
In 3E, how hard is it to use Bluff to pretend to be a representative of a rival temple/node/whatever the RttToEE factions are called? That could be one way in which encounters are bypassed/dealt with.

Some we did, some we didn't. And some we managed to fool until it was too late for them...

 

[Hassassin]

<snip ogre example>

Two ogres against a 5th level party is a good example. Your AC 23 and +8 attack are reasonable for a sword+shield Fighter at that level (though 25 and +10 wouldn't be impossible). Approximately 2/3 chance to hit an ogre, 1/4 chance to be hit. For damage lets say 9 (1d10 + 4), though this is probably too low.

Simulate combat between two fighters and two ogres. Straight up fight, no tactics, ogres go first.

Ogres do an average of 4 damage/round each, fighters do an average of 6. The first ogre drops on average after five fighter turns, i.e. it gets three actions of 4 damage average each. The second gets another two on top for a total of 32 damage from the both of them.

If the fighters go first instead its a total of six actions for the ogres, for 24 damage.

That damage is approximately 25% of the total hp resources of the two fighters. No other resources (e.g. magic items) from them were consumed, nor anything from the other PCs. No real tactics were used, the contribution of other party members was ignored, there was no surprise round.

I think you can imagine how a real party might have done *much* better than this <10% loss of resources.