5th level characters vs a purple worm

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[WaterRabbit]

And party size. I can't emphasize this enough, but a tournament party (8 or 9 characters) was much less common in home campaigns. Sure, some were big! But many, if not most, were 3-6 players.

Funny thing about party size. I started playing AD&D in 1979. I played in two groups: one with my local friends about 5 of us total; and another at the YMCA.

At the YMCA there were two tables (and two DMs) and each was open to anyone who wanted to join. Each table had at least 8 players and often as many as 12 players.

-------
THACO wasn't a thing until 2e. Purple worms were truly terrifying in AD&D. I would have no problem running a purple worm against a party of five 5th level characters in 5e, but I would not create an ambush scenario and I would definitely set it up ahead of time to make sure the players would have plenty of options. I would not run it as a random combat encounter.

Asymmetric encounters are quite memorable. In AD&D our party encountered a Hill Giant at first level in a fort. It would have been a total party wipe, but my druid was able to get off an Entanglement that held the giant and we were able to wear it down with ranged attacks and kite it around the fort's walls.

Instead of whinging about there being a purple worm, either include or not. Create a memorable encounter around it or don't.

Also, but the numbers you presented I think it was 11 or 12 on the first table and 1 in 6 on the second? Wouldn't that make it a 1 in 36 chance of rolling the purple worm for each chance of an encounter?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Now, moving to the exact example. There are multiple problems with it. As already noted, A3 is a tournament module, and those characters are not necessarily a great choice. Moreover, in order to properly compare it, you'd have to do the following- get eight (8!) characters that are roughly the same levels in 5e and run them, using approximately the same "to hit" rolls. I don't want to spoil the math behind large parties in 5e, but ... 8 characters of 5th level or higher, with magic items, is pretty formidable in 5e. And that's before you get to the whack-a-mole issue.

I think it's safe to say anyone who is familiar with 1e will look at those NPCs and see they are extremely buffed over what a typical PC would be. Unless you're playing Monty Haul or something. The typical methods used for stat generation, and the items in the modules PCs would find from level 1 to level 5, simply doesn't support those NPCs as being representative

For a more accurate representation, I'd suggest using Rogue's Gallery

For example, some 5th level fighters:

S:12 I:8 W:7 D:9 C:7 Ch:10 HP: 33 AC: 3
S:12 I:10 W:7 D:11 C:12 Ch:13 HP: 22 AC: 4
S:11 I:8 W:9 D:9 C:8 Ch:6 HP: 25 AC: 5

level 6:
S:13 I:8 W:12 D:12 C:7 Ch:9 HP: 35 AC: 3
S:13 I:11 W:12 D:11 C:9 Ch:10 HP: 39 AC: 3

If those stats seem super low to you, welcome to 1e stat generation 3d6 in order. Even if you use 4d6 drop lowest, you're not going to get anywhere close to those NPCs mathematically.

Put those fighters in place of the NPCs used, don't have the PW waste the first round doing nothing, and have it attack the enemies in front of it, and that battle goes much differently.

 

[AtomicPope]

I recently picked up 5e conversion PDFs for the classic Desert of Desolation modules. Most of the conversion makes sense to me, but one thing that seemed odd is that they did a straight 'use the 5e monster stats' for purple worm encounters.

There are rules in "Out of the Abyss" for Purple Worm encounters with low level characters. Rather than a typical monster encounter it's treated as an environment. The PCs must move carefully, avoid revealing their location, and find a safe place to avoid the Purple Worm. Also, the PCs can just run and hope to escape the worm.

 

[dave2008]

While the Purple Worm wasn't the Tarrasque, it was one of the signature tough hombres in 1e. As far as this module goes in 1e, if you saw one, you would run; my confusion at your post is that the 5e version is *easier* IMO than the 1e because of the whole Big Bad problem that has been discussed here before.

I'm curious, other than the poison, doesn't the 1e purple worm suffer the same "Big Bad" issues as the 5e version?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[dave2008]

Great question! Yes, but no.

Yes in the sense that (absent special rules, and certain other issues like area attack and incredibly low AC) you have the issue of many v. one, without the benefit of an inverse ninja law.

That said, it's not the same as 5e for two reasons.

First, bounded accuracy. Whatever one might say about the benefits and drawbacks of bounded accuracy, I don't think that there is much dispute that the existence of bounded accuracy certainly benefits large number of lower level critters v. one very powerful critter.

Second, as has been discussed already, 1e's rules (to the extent they were enforced and were not house ruled against) regarding healing, death, and general character fragility, IN ADDITION to the large number of Big Bad abilities that caused, inter alia, level drains, death, etc. as opposed to 5e's "save or suck," combined with 5e's "whack a mole" issue, means that IME the issues are much more acute in 5e than 1e.

Put another way, Big Bads in 1e could be very dangerous and/or deadly. It is much, much, much harder to achieve that in 5e with a solo encounter, to the extent that you almost need either lair/legendary action, or lots of minions running interference, or (ideally) both.

Ok, so what you are basically saying is that 5e monsters do not do enough damage to threaten a group and/or do not have a high enough AC/HP to withstand their attacks. I agree with that. That is why I have a whole thread of monsters with more HP and higher DPR!

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Not only are you wrong again, you’re lying on top of it to boot. That’s certainly impressive. You couldn’t have used a term before the term was even coined. Sorry. Lots of people played 2e, used that term, and think they used it the whole time when they couldn’t have because it didn’t exist.

This is pretty impressive, because it's hilariously wrong in multiple ways. There's already been a cite, that you agree with, that shows that "To Hit A.C. 0" was a term used in the 1e DMG. Your insistence that no one could possibly have abbreviated a term already in use to it's obvious acronym by ditching the o, ith, two periods, and spaces before TSR did it in 1989 is... rather dubious. I really did do such an incredibly mental leap, as did other people. I was just going to let the absurdity of this claim stand on it's own, but I found documentation that your claim is incorect on this very website. http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?172142-Where-was-the-term-THACO-first-used

If I'm a liar, so are 4 pages of responders in that thread. The thread discusses the early use of THAC0, and points out that the term was actually used in a 1986 book and 1985 module, three and four years previous to the year you believe no one used it. Because the absurdity of this is amusing me, I will have to go check the 1985 module (I actually have it) and the Battlesystem rules if I still have them to see if they show a pre-1989 usage of the term. I may even post a pic of the use of THAC0 in a pre-1989 source just for the amusement value, since that thread pointed to several that I think I have (UK7, Battlesysyem, Dungeneers Survival Guide).

But moving beyond the weird idea that no one could think of making an acronym before TSR did, the argument that I must not have played in 1e rules because I used an abbreviation that was invented in 1989 when talking about a game in 2018 simply doesn't make sense. Even if we accept your premise that no one but TSR could have come up with the acronym before 1989, the acronym is almost 30 years old now. The idea that no one would ever use newer terminology in an older game that they played is just weird.

And they didn’t coexist any more than 1e and 4e coexisted. People kept playing 1e when it came out, but that doesn’t mean they were officially supported together for that whole time. Like I said, every time you post you display an ignorance of 1e. Now not only with rules, but with timelines as well.

This is more really weird claims; 1e and every edition that came out after 1e coexist, including 4e. The idea that this is something that someone would argue about is just wierd; the only way they wouldn't coexist is if 1e somehow stopped existing. You don't have to use rules together to apply improved terminology from one game to another. And people don't need official approval to apply more modern terminology to older games; 'heavy armor' didn't actually exist as a category of equipment in 1e (AFAIR), but refering to 1e armors that correspond to what are today 'heavy armor' as 'heavy armor' is not unusual.

And I find it laughable that you actually looked at those NPCs and think those are typical 1e PCs that anyone would have. Now I’m utterly convinced you never played 1e back in the day.

I'll note again that you don't provide anything but alpha-nerd bluster to support your claim of what was typical for PCs. Your games may not have typically involved PCs with 2 magic items by level 5, but you actually offer absolutely nothing to support that your games were 'typical'. And I'm really unconcerned by what you're 'convinced' of, since you're 'convinced' or weird things like the idea that no one could have abbreviated "To Hit A.C. 0" to THAC0 before TSR published 2e in 1989.

Or am I to assume by your most recent comment when you made your false claim to start this thread about how easy 1e was compared to 5e,

Side note: I never made the claim that 1e was easy compared to 5e. I claimed that one particular matchup (L5 characters vs purple worm) was much easier in 1e instead of 5e, on the basis of the singificant changes in the monster's stats over the years and lower party size in 5e vs 1e.

You aren’t citing actual rules. You’re making gross inaccurate assumptions, and massively shifting the goalposts when exposed. First it was “THAC0 was the exact same as the tables” and now it’s “well, anyone halfway intelligent knows...”

I have repeatedly cited actual rules, and my 'assumptions' were 100% accurate because they're based on simple math. I never made the claim that THAC0 was the exact same as the tables in general, just that it gives the exact same resut for characters and monster at the levels in question against the ACs in question. The 'halfway intelligent' phrase was also in that same post.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

First, that whole 1e/2e thing. Sure, it seems small and petty. And in many ways, it is! But it makes a big difference in play and in an approach to the game.

It's not just small and petty, it's factually incorrect. As I pointed out in my response to him, THAC0 was actually a 1e concept. Also, for other readers I want to note that while lowkey13 is slyly insinuating that I got the to-hit rules wrong in the shortcut I used, all of the characters are at levels where THAC0 + AC provides the exact same result as the table lookup; for these characters, only negative ACs would involve a deviation from the shortcut that I used.

Anyway, that gets to the whole argumentative issue. Normally, when someone posts a question and gets a lot of helpful responses, the OP usually doesn't spend all of his time arguing with the people trying to help him!

I like to discuss actual facts, and I don't consider people arrogantly posting false information to actually be helpful. I've provided actual numbers, examples, and cites. You and your pal Sacrosanct provide information contrary to documented sites, and back it with bluster, insults, and ad hominem arguments. The fact that I'm 'standing up' to you by dealing with real information instead of just bowing to whatever weird belief feeds your ego is not something that I'm in the least ashamed of. You're trying to present you and your pal as reasonable and helpful, but you're actually blustering bullies posting false information.

I mean, some might. But not people I'd like to chat with. As was noted, the OP just joined, I believe this is his first thread, and I wish him the best in the future because he has some good ideas- but man, that's not the way to come across, or pretty soon he'll be on everyone's ignore list.

If I end up on the ignore list of every person who believes blustering forum posters over documented facts, I will get far fewer worthless responses to my posts. I'm not sure why this is a bad way to come across if it's likely to improve my forum experience. (I doubt that it will, since Sacrosanct has already announced that he's done with the thread and returned, but one can dream).

Now, moving to the exact example. There are multiple problems with it. As already noted, A3 is a tournament module, and those characters are not necessarily a great choice.

It's interesting isn't it? I took a published set of example characters used in a module designed for basically the same level (actually slightly lower) as this one, and they trashed the encounter fairly easily, and were nowhere near the mythical TPK. And despite your and Sacrosancts insistence that they're horribly overpowered, they're actually pretty weak for 1e characters- none of the fighter types use the weapon specialization rules, which would give them a at least a +1 to hit, +2 to damage and (if I'm remembering right that you could double specialize with your first new proficiency slot) +3 to hit, +3 to damage with their primary weapon. So this supposedly overpowered party actually doesn't even use a straightforward rule that would give them a better bonus than their stats and magic items combined did!

Moreover, in order to properly compare it, you'd have to do the following- get eight (8!) characters that are roughly the same levels in 5e

If you read my initial post, I explicitly pointed out that one of the differences between 1e and 5e is that the assumed party size moved down from 6-8 in 1e to 3-5 in 5e. So you would actually have to use 5 (5!) characters for a proper comparison, or ignore one of the major differences in difficultly that I included in the comparison and explicitly pointed out in the first post.

2. Party composition. Much moreso than in 5e, again. If you have a Monty Haul campaign, with a lot of magic items (or a bunch of +3 items for 5th level characters) it will be easier.

It's rather interesting that you're being super nitpicky on one hand, but on the other hand claiming that the single instance of +3 chain in the example characters consitutes a "bunch of +3 items". One item is literally not a "bunch of" items. It just isn't.

*Again, it's all the subtle tells. I really think the OP tried to run his combat fairly. But did you notice that he had the PCs roll double damage for "crits" (see Blodgett, round 3). That was an optional rule starting in, you got it, 2e. The DMG actually says, specifically, no to these sort of optional combat rules in High Gygaxian.

OMG I got one rule wrong when quickly running a fight in a rule system that I last played a game in around 20 years ago. Clearly I must not have actually played, because everyone remembers every single rule from a specific system they haven't played in two decades. It's hilarious that you're claiming I'm being argumentative when you're posting this sort of thing.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Followed by specific ruling on individual issues. Again, when I read the posted combat exchange, I noticed that the Magic User kept hurling fireballs from a Wand of Fire at the PW, while others were engaged in melee combat.

First of all this is not accurate, the Magic User only hurled a single fireball, he did not 'keep hurling' them.

Hurling a fireball at a 60' long creature while it is engaged in melee with half a dozen humans who can move along its length to stay clustered together without hitting them is a trivial task. I didn't think it was worth specifying that the PCs in melee would move to stay relatively close together towards one end of the worm, leaving the bulk of the worm's body free. (Note that in both 1e and 5e, enemies don't get free attacks* for characters moving along beside them, it's only for leaving a threatened space in 5e or disengaging in 1e.) With the worm in a 30' long U shape (bringing both bite and tail to bear) and the characters fighting at the straight ends of the U, it's trivial for the magic user to target the fireball where part of it will hit the worm but none of it overlap any of the party. If this was too complicated of a tactic for your groups to figure out, or the source of some great controversy, well...

* Also note that I, and most other people that I have encountered, would use the term AOO for the free attack a monster gets on a character fleeing melee even though said term wasn't used in 1e. I deliberately didn't use it here just to avoid multiple pages of 'genius' argument that using AOO to describe something in 1e proves that I never played 1e.