Game balance and 3rd edition implications

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

Please enough of the condescending attitude, it's really childish.

As is yours. And I think its worth noting that it is you who have lowered yourself to personal insults.

I don't understand why a "Grog" wants to put his fingers in his ears and go "nananananan" when he realizes that balance in 3.5 is the same as having dungeon levels in the 1ed DMG.

Thats right, thats exactly the sort of purile behavior I have been exhibiting, isn't it?
Its unfortunate you are incapable of a modicum of civility, that might permit you to make lucid arguments.

...such as "balance in 3.5 is the same as having dungeon levels in the 1ed DMG. "
Hmmm. Those level guides (and bear in mind the four different definitions of "level" in 1st Ed) were a useful guideline, no more. When you find statements expressing a similar philosophy of scenario design in 1E core rules to that already quoted above regarding 3E, including a consistent application of that philosophy in the published modules, you might have an argument.

All you have right now is acid and hate, and a contemptible manner.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

This happened all the time back in the day. The players would be fighting a creature, and be about to lose, and someone would say, "I throw my backpack at the creature and then fireball it -- the pack has 20 flasks oil in it, so they all burn and he takes an additional 20d4 of damage", or somesuch.

Ken

I would allow the above without problem - as long as he was aware that every time he fell the 20 bottles of oil would each have to save vs crushing blow to not break. Then any creature with the brains of a demented kobold could just toss him a torch. Or maybe he was carrying one himself...

 

[ThirdWizard]

I would allow the above without problem - as long as he was aware that every time he fell the 20 bottles of oil would each have to save vs crushing blow to not break. Then any creature with the brains of a demented kobold could just toss him a torch. Or maybe he was carrying one himself...

See... I don't like that at all. You're basically saying to the Player "Exploit the system, and I'll break the rules to screw you later." It should be that it either it works that way or it doesn't. Player actions shouldn't change the rules of the game. I would just say "No it doesn't work like that," if I don't think its in the rules, or "Yes it will work like that," if that's how the rules do work.

 

[MerricB]

Anyone who thinks 3e adventures are easy hasn't played or run enough of them. I run quite a lot of published (Wizards & Dungeon) adventures, and character death is an ongoing feature of my games.

Although Dungeon's Age of Worms is a poster-child for lethality (especially Spire of Long Shadows), some of the encounters in the Eberron adventures (especially Grasp of the Emerald Claw), and the recent big adventure The Red Hand of Doom are lethal. From experience playing the first two, and comments made by people playing the latter, PC death is par for the course.

The concept of encounter balance in 3e is the same as it was in 1e: encounters that must be overcome by the party must be overcomable! This doesn't mean they have to be easy, but if you're the sort of person that likes sending a 1st level party against a Great Wyrm Red, well I don't want to play with you.

Pick up a new adventure WOTC, Dungeon magazine, or new online adventure at wizards.com... usually every encounter through the whole publication is set at a single EL.

Hmm. That's a challenge!

The Coming Storm (Dungeon #136): 10th level PCs.
ELs: 13; 8; 10; 12; 11; 8; 12; 13; 10; 6; 5; 8; 9; 9; 8; 8; 12; 12; 9; 12; 11; 8; 4; 10; 13; 13; 7; 11; 6; 10; 9; 11; 14.

Voyage of the Golden Dragon (Wizards adventure): 7th level PCs
ELs: 10, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10, 9, 10, 9, 7, 8, 6, 6, 10, 4, 2, 11, 8, 7, 7, 6, 8, 12.

Red Hand of Doom (Wizards adventure): 5th+ level PCs. (First chapter only)
ELs: 8, 2, 6, 6, 2, 5, 5, 7, 7, 10, 7, 8, 7, 9, 11, 13, 12.

Sons of Gruumsh (Wizards adventure): 4th level PCs
ELs: 6, 4, 6, 4, 4, 3, 3, 6, 6, 1, 4, 6, 4, 5, 9, 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 7, 6, 6, 6, 5, 10, 4, 10

Given that those are four relatively recent adventures, I'd say you're absolutely wrong.

I've run Sons of Gruumsh. A PC died in one of the big encounters. I lost more than one in Grasp of the Emerald Claw. The Age of Worms has claimed several in the first 7 adventures - 3 PCs just in the last one!

I've seen encounters vanquished through sheer brilliance on the part of the players, and encounters that overwhelm the players because they acted stupidly.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

For the record, I find the whole stalagtite thing silly, and I would never allow that to work in my game. You can't throw stalagtites around like giant boulders. I find the very concept rediculous. What, did they break the thing off the celing, then all heave ho together to toss it at the roper while it sat there watching them? How far can you throw one of those things?

I agree. Giants can throw boulders due to their size and great strength. A human trying to throw a stalagmite? If they can do it then, why can't they do it in every encounter?

 

[Hussar]

I largely agree with SMD.

3E has some distinct positives (namely, d20 core mechanic). Unfortunately, the negatives outweigh the positives (complexity of skills, feats, spells, magic items, miniatures, etc.)

Regarding adventures, yes, the DMG recommends a mix of encounter strengths (and they even followed through in the very first adventures like "Forge of Fury"). However, WOTC adventures (also, Monte Cook 3rd-party stuff) have basically dropped that idea as time passed. Pick up a new adventure WOTC, Dungeon magazine, or new online adventure at wizards.com... usually every encounter through the whole publication is set at a single EL. I was totally stunned the first time I saw it, but that seems to be the current design expectation in practice.

...such as "balance in 3.5 is the same as having dungeon levels in the 1ed DMG. "
Hmmm. Those level guides (and bear in mind the four different definitions of "level" in 1st Ed) were a useful guideline, no more. When you find statements expressing a similar philosophy of scenario design in 1E core rules to that already quoted above regarding 3E, including a consistent application of that philosophy in the published modules, you might have an argument.

Sigh, Merrick beat me to it.

I've killed FAR more PC's in 3e modules than in any other edition. In the past year, running the World's Largest Dungeon, I've killed 11 PC's permanently and 6 semi-permanently. I'm averaging a PC death every 4 sessions or so.

Even if you only used EL=Party Level encounters, it's extremely easy to kill PC's. People who argue about this forget that a given CR creature can kill an equal level PC in one round. It's not likely, but it is possible. Considering that you have to fight so many times, anything which is possible becomes quite probable.

In earlier editions, creatures were generally so weak vs a character of an equivalent level, that you had to use masses of them to threaten the party. A troll, for example, could do about 25 points of damage max in 1e or 2e. A 5th level fighter, which is a pretty standard level for a troll, giggles at that kind of damage. A 3e troll can do almost 50 points of damage. Now our fighter is dead.

The idea that all encounters in WOTC or other people's adventures should be flatlined is simply not true. Heck, take a look at Adventure builder column at WOTC. That's how they are approaching adventure design.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

The concept of encounter balance in 3e is the same as it was in 1e: encounters that must be overcome by the party must be overcomable!

And that roper encounter in Forge of Fury is one that explicitly says is not meant to be overcome. It warns the DM that this is one of those encounters meant to teach the PCs to flee and not fight everything. Interestingly, my group of PCs defeated it with a 0-level spell and about 14 arrows! Heh!

 

[FireLance]

You know, I think I've finally narrowed it down. The underlying philosophy of previous versions of D&D appears to be "Let's see what happens". Players were routinely challenged with the unknown, e.g. new monsters with weird abilities, traps that trigger in response to seemingly innocuous actions, oddball effects that defy the known rules, etc. This encouraged caution on the part of the players. Neither the DMs nor the players had any pre-conceived ideas of how an encounter should go. This meant that players could overcome encounters through extreme luck, creativity, or fast-talking the DM into agreeing that whatever crazy scheme they came up with will work (this is often confused with creativity).

On the other hand, the underlying philosophy of 3e seems to be "This is what should happen." Players are given more avenues in the rules to acquire information - Knowledge checks to identify monsters and their abilities, Search checks to find traps, Spellcraft checks to learn about magical effects, etc. DMs, if not players, have a better idea of what individual encounters are supposed to do, whether the players have a good, fair or almost no reasonable chance of defeating it in a straight fight, and how the players are expected to overcome it (if at all). Players are expected to overcome challenges with their characters' abilities instead of their own creativity and persuasiveness. The net effect is to foster an attitude of increased confidence (or recklessness, YMMV) and propensity for action on the part of the players.

In a way, previous editions expected players to play through the process of being cautious, experimenting, and gathering information, while 3e short-circuits it through various checks so that the players can get straight to the action. Perhaps this is why 3e seems to attract more action-oriented players, or has brought out the action-oriented side of players who had gone through previous editions.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

And that roper encounter in Forge of Fury is one that explicitly says is not meant to be overcome. It warns the DM that this is one of those encounters meant to teach the PCs to flee and not fight everything. Interestingly, my group of PCs defeated it with a 0-level spell and about 14 arrows! Heh!

That's true. The problem is, it's a really poor choice of monster for that purpose, since its strands can easily make it impossible for a party to flee.

Ken

 

[ThirdWizard]

FireLance, you are right on the dot, I think.

I saw it pretty much summed up in another thread: the 10 foot pole.

And, there, in a nutshell you have the difference between 1e and 3e. In 1e, you poke, prod, test, re-test, methodolically searched, and then, when you were sure there was no trap, you summoned a monster and sent it through first just to be sure. That 10 foot pole was important.

That was considered good, smart, play. That was important. It separated the men from the boys, so to speak, and it was expected of veteran players.

Nowadays, in a 3e style environment, that attitude isn't encouraged. You don't state that you're checking the flume of the chimney, poking through the mattress, cutting open the beholder to look inside. You make a Search check. To some, that's holding players' hands through the dungeon. To others, it cuts through the boring checklist of things to do and gets back to action.

And, that's a larger metaphor for a whole new outlook on the game. I don't know that the two sides will ever see eye to eye on these issues. It's a style thing, its a core belief of what makes the game worth playing to some, perhaps.