"Accident of Math"???

[MerricB]

I agree with your general analysis, but I think this example is a poor one . . . shouldn't an Ogre be able to take down a 4th level rogue in straight combat quite easily?

Well, easily - yes. With one hit? No. Let's face it, your average rogue will want to get into melee to backstab/sneak attack, and if that fails to take down the ogre, failure shouldn't equal death.

In AD&D, your 4th level rogue probably had about 14 hp, and the ogre did 1-10 damage.
In 3e, your 4th level rogue has about 17 hp, and the ogre does 9-23 damage!

I definitely think that there's too much of a damage explosion on the lower ends of the scale.

Cheers!

 

[helium3]

Yes, if you want to understand what James means by 'an accident of math'.

I personally recommend that you don't try, but instead just try out 4th Edition and see if it's fun. And if it is, don't worry too much about how it got that way. Because that way lies madness ...

Dude. I spent two quarters in grad school studying for a PhD in Chemical Engineering. I'm fully acquainted with Madness, thank you very much. We're good friends, actually.

 

[SWBaxter]

Those of us who liked 3.0e, liked 3.5e better, and are hopeful for 4e are kind of sick of having people claim we said things which we did not say.

Unless you're part of WOTC's marketing machine, then I made no claims about what you're saying. So your criticism is delicious in its irony.

Of course, if by some chance you are a member of WOTC's marketing department, then I stand behind what I said 100%: stop demonizing old editions, it makes you look desparate.

 

[helium3]

High level 3e can work fine, but it really begins to look wonky once a few supplements get added as they distort behaviour at high levels even more.

Cheers!

You aren't kidding here. You should see what one of my buddies did with a venerable 19th level kobold sorcerer and a combination of feats that let him break the two spells per round barrier.
You really start to see why they nerfed haste.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Well, easily - yes. With one hit? No. Let's face it, your average rogue will want to get into melee to backstab/sneak attack, and if that fails to take down the ogre, failure shouldn't equal death.

Well, I don't think a rogue should be maneuvering into hand-to-hand combat with such a monster to begin with, but that is probably not totally relevant here.

Should a 4th level rogue be able to take down an Ogre with one hit? If he makes his sneak attack (weapon damage plus 4-24 damage) he very well could. It looks like it could be a "one hit" situation either way. Those are the risks a rogue takes on if he wants to "fight with the big boys," so to speak.

In AD&D, your 4th level rogue probably had about 14 hp, and the ogre did 1-10 damage.
In 3e, your 4th level rogue has about 17 hp, and the ogre does 9-23 damage!

I'd say the 3e rogue would probably have about 21 hit points (minimum 13 Con), but you are quite right . . . the Ogre deals too much damage for its "level." This is a consequence of applying both larger weapon size damage and damage bonus from high Strength to the monster.

I definitely think that there's too much of a damage explosion on the lower ends of the scale.

I agree; I'm all for monsters being a "legitimate threat" but I think 3e went a little to far, mostly as a result of applying the "same rules as characters" to monsters principle.

So, as I said, I agree with your generaly analysis, but I think using a rogue in your combat example is not the best way to go. Comparing the "fighting classes" to monsters of their own level and see how the numbers line up is more useful, in my opinion, and will be a better illustration of your point. Of course, this is based on my opinion that not all classes should be able to "hang" in combat; combat is not and should not be the cardinal upon which game-play balance turns in D&D.

 

[hong]

It seems to me it'd be more accurate to call it an "accident of design". It ain't the math's fault that a lot of people feel the design only works well over a subset of the level range, after all.

It's the designers' fault that the maths is at fault.

 

[MerricB]

Should a 4th level rogue be able to take down an Ogre with one hit? If he makes his sneak attack (weapon damage plus 4-24 damage) he very well could. It looks like it could be a "one hit" situation either way. Those are the risks a rogue takes on if he wants to "fight with the big boys," so to speak.

Correction on the numbers - a 4th level 3e rogue does weapon damage (say 1d6+1) plus 2d6 damage, or 3d6+1 damage. The Ogre has 29 hp. So, 4-19 damage won't take out the Ogre in one hit. It's more of a group thing.

Cheers!

 

[Rystil Arden]

Well, easily - yes. With one hit? No. Let's face it, your average rogue will want to get into melee to backstab/sneak attack, and if that fails to take down the ogre, failure shouldn't equal death.

In AD&D, your 4th level rogue probably had about 14 hp, and the ogre did 1-10 damage.
In 3e, your 4th level rogue has about 17 hp, and the ogre does 9-23 damage!

I definitely think that there's too much of a damage explosion on the lower ends of the scale.

Cheers!

Remember, though, that most Rogues that expect to go toe-to-toe have at least 12 Con. 10 Con on a melee Rogue will get you killed at any level in most games I've seen. 12 Con gives about 21 HP. That will survive the ogre's attack a large majority of the time (the Ogre may do 9 to 23, but the chance of rolling either 22 or 23 is only 1 in 12 because of the normative tendency of the 2d8).

 

[Nifft]

Unless you're part of WOTC's marketing machine, then I made no claims about what you're saying. So your criticism is delicious in its irony.

You weren't posting here for US to read? You were posting here for WotC only?

At least one of us is somewhat confused.

Oh well, enjoy your irony. Cheers, -- N

 

[Gentlegamer]

Correction on the numbers - a 4th level 3e rogue does weapon damage (say 1d6+1) plus 2d6 damage, or 3d6+1 damage. The Ogre has 29 hp. So, 4-19 damage won't take out the Ogre in one hit. It's more of a group thing.

You're right on the sneak damage. *head slapping smiley*

Do you see what I mean about using rogue as your combat example, though?