Alzrius
The EN World kitten
Huh, maybe I was asking about the specifics of what it took to keep a dragon subdued (beyond the general guidelines given there)? It was quite a few years ago now.

Huh, maybe I was asking about the specifics of what it took to keep a dragon subdued (beyond the general guidelines given there)? It was quite a few years ago now.
I think the breath weapon was the main reason to deal damage to the dragon, since it's damage was based on the dragon's current hit points (I think, it's been awhile).I was always confused by the subduing rules because they didn't seem to offer any downside over regular combat but I think I just had a breakthrough.
Was the idea that an attempt to subdue only lasts one round? So if PCs Alice, Bob and Curly manage to position themselves to melee simultaneously, and they all manage to hit doing 20/80 damage, there is a 25% chance that the dragon will submit. But if the roll fails, they wasted the round, did NO damage that counts towards ending the combat, and their next attacks don't cumulatively increase the probability of subdual.
I'm not sure if that interpretation is what GG had in mind, but it makes for a more interesting risk/reward scenario.
This is about expectations.
In most modern games players don't bother making backup copies simply because the concept "taking away my spellbook" just isn't a thing. It does not happen. Nobody even considers it.
However, if the DM is clear about there being an actual risk of "caster - spellbook separation" that'd be okay. Or more like, not exactly okay, but I could live with it.
But unless the DM and players go way back, we're talking about pretty extreme levels of clarity here:
My monsters WILL try to take away your spellbook so you MUST keep backups.
Anything less than this level of clarity maybe could fly back when 1E was new, but definitely not today.
There is an example in the Monster Manual that makes clear the subdual probability is cumulative.I was always confused by the subduing rules because they didn't seem to offer any downside over regular combat but I think I just had a breakthrough.
Was the idea that an attempt to subdue only lasts one round? So if PCs Alice, Bob and Curly manage to position themselves to melee simultaneously, and they all manage to hit doing 20/80 damage, there is a 25% chance that the dragon will submit. But if the roll fails, they wasted the round, did NO damage that counts towards ending the combat, and their next attacks don't cumulatively increase the probability of subdual.
I'm not sure if that interpretation is what GG had in mind, but it makes for a more interesting risk/reward scenario.
1e says "The breath weapon causes damage equal to the dragon's hit points (half that amount if a saving throw is made)". It is not explicit whether that means current or maximum hit points. (Moldvay basic does clearly say that it's current hit points.) The DMG (p. 67) makes clear that 25% of subdual damage is real, so if the breath weapon is based on current HP, it ought to be at least partly reduced. However, the example of subdual in the MM shows the breath weapon doing damage equal to the dragon's max HP, even though the dragon has already taken 67 subdual damage (and so the breath damage should be reduced by 17 if based on current HP).I think the breath weapon was the main reason to deal damage to the dragon, since it's damage was based on the dragon's current hit points (I think, it's been awhile).
5e's spellbook rules are, IMNSHO, anemic and inadequate. By the RAW, it appears that a wizard could hold literally every spell that exists in a single spellbook.First of all, how does one afford to make a backup spellbook? At what level will you have the money/time to do so? Second of all, where do you keep it?
The main difference is, I think, that the cost of AD&D spellbooks is front-loaded. You pay 5000 gp for either a 50-page traveling spellbook or a 100-page regular one, but then there's no cost of scribing spells into it. Starting with 3e, the spellbook itself is cheap (15 gp in 3e, 50 gp in 5e), but actual scribing costs money (100 gp per spell level in 3e, half that for making a backup; 50 gp per spell level in 5e with a 10 gp per spell level backup cost).5e's spellbook rules are, IMNSHO, anemic and inadequate. By the RAW, it appears that a wizard could hold literally every spell that exists in a single spellbook.
Pathfinder 1E, I'll note, lowered the cost of writing spells into spellbooks by quite a bit, making it [spell level squared] x 10 gp.Starting with 3e, the spellbook itself is cheap (15 gp in 3e, 50 gp in 5e), but actual scribing costs money (100 gp per spell level in 3e, half that for making a backup; 50 gp per spell level in 5e with a 10 gp per spell level backup cost).
My main complaints are that you can put any number of spells in a spellbook, there's no concept of how long it is or how much a blank one costs (unless a mundane blank book is adequate, which is not to my taste), and you can't prepare spells that you haven't put in your own spellbook. No wizard under these rules should have a library, they should just have a single book.The main difference is, I think, that the cost of AD&D spellbooks is front-loaded. You pay 5000 gp for either a 50-page traveling spellbook or a 100-page regular one, but then there's no cost of scribing spells into it. Starting with 3e, the spellbook itself is cheap (15 gp in 3e, 50 gp in 5e), but actual scribing costs money (100 gp per spell level in 3e, half that for making a backup; 50 gp per spell level in 5e with a 10 gp per spell level backup cost).
They do seem to have missed writing how many pages any one spell takes up though in 5e.