Has D&D become too...D&Dish?

[SSquirrel]

Older editions definitely required you to have lots of magic. Look at how many creatures were unable to be dmaged except by a +1/2/3/4/5 magic weapon. Loads of them. Some people hate that 3E clarified some of the previously schizophrenic rules and guidelines of the older systems, but I prefer the clarity. I like the idea of magic shops, b/c where the hell else are you going to sell this boatload of magic you get? We always got tons of magic items in older adventures too. Look thru Keep on the Borderlands sometime. It's ridiculous.

Settings like Ptolus and Eberron are actually making great use of an old Dragon article that was one of the greatest Sense of Wonder pieces I'd ever read in direct relation to D&D. It was an article devoted to what happens when you have a magic using society and the changes in society. I believei t had several of the talked about things like invisible guardsmen, bans on detection, continual light streetlights, teleportation circles for shipping, etc. I'm sure someone with an old Dragon archive disc set can find it.

Things like that were what always really interested me and I wondered why they didn't do that in the game. Now they do. The game has actually finally reached the expectations I had when I was 12. Interestingly enough, 3.5 has also moved a bit more away from the "must have magic items to damage this creature" thing. Yes incorporeals still need magic, but the old DRs are switched to item material now. I haven't looked thru many 3.5 MMs so I'm not sure how many/if any of the "Must have a +1/2/3/4/5" monsters are left.

 

[The Shaman]

Older editions definitely required you to have lots of magic. Look at how many creatures were unable to be dmaged except by a +1/2/3/4/5 magic weapon. Loads of them.

Loads of them?

I'm not sure which "older editions" you're referencing, but aside from most demons, devils, and undead and the four basic elementals, there are only a handful in the 1e MM - the peryton, the intellect devourer, and the aerial servant come to mind. Most of the monsters in that book can be harmed with normal weapons, and a few with either silver, iron, or blessed weapons in lieu of enchanted ones.

Of course, a dungeon master isn't obligated to use monsters that can only be hit by magic weapons in any edition.

 

[Banshee16]

The assumptions are tied into the rules, however. Monster design, something I'm focused on rather heavily at the moment, is tied completely into the wealth system. Monsters of CR X must take into account that the PCs *will* have X,Y,Z abilities. So, we're designing monsters using these assumptions, and if DMs disregard those assumptions, then how are they to use the monsters we've designed with those assumptions?

If my module has to include Xgp in treasure, no more, no less, how can anything interesting ever be found? Every room conforms precisely to the wealth by level and wealth be EL system...that's the assumption affecting gameplay. It is and always has been my biggest problem with the d20 system is that these assumptions *do* explicitly affect the way the game is played. In the old days you could have monty haul DMs and parsimonious ones...nowadays everyone's stuck in the same old mold, forced into it by the assumptions of the rules.

Bingo. When my Planescape campaign shifted from 2nd Ed. to 3rd Ed., it fundamentally changed....the opponents and challenges had changed, and my history as a "stingy" DM with respect to giving out treasure etc. started making the game really not work too well at times. In the end, I had to start piling on the magic items to level things out.....something I hadn't done in the previous 4 years of running that game. Other measures helped as well, such as changing opponents etc. But it took major tinkering, whereas before, it didn't. And the "tone" of the game definitely changed.

Banshee

 

[Hussar]

Talk about magic items and spells....In every edition of D&D, there has been a lot of magic lying around, but in pre-3e D&D, the assumption was that the PCs would only recover a fraction of what was available to be found. Because character levels didn't rise like rockets, there was no inherent balance issues caused by playing a low-magic game. Now, mind you, in 3.X, you can play a low-magic game by using lower CR monsters, which will have the added benefit of slowing down level progression, so this isn't as hardwired as it seems at first blush. Yet, the XP value of any creature is based upon the assumption of a fairly rigorous arsenal.

Pre-3e D&D characters carry torches...they can blow out, get dropped, cause pockets of flammable gas to explode, and are generally messy. 3.X characters carry sunrods. There is no downside to them. And yet, again, it is easy to remove sunrods from the equipment lists.

These are myths that have already been busted. Why do people keep bringing them back up. Quasketon's excellent module examinations show that progression from 1st to about 10th level is almost IDENTICAL from 1e to 3e.

And, going through those old modules, the treasure wasn't well hidden and there certainly wasn't an assumption that you wouldn't find most of it. 99% of it was out in front and obvious.

And, I don't know about anyone else, but, Continual Light was a 2nd level spell in the games I played. No group over third level EVER carried a torch.

 

[The Shaman]

These are myths that have already been busted. Why do people keep bringing them back up. Quasketon's excellent module examinations show that progression from 1st to about 10th level is almost IDENTICAL from 1e to 3e.

Quasqueton makes a number of questionable assumptions in these "comparisons," Hussar. I wouldn't accept the conclusions as definitive.

 

[Hussar]

Wizards took so much more XP to gain levels than the other classes (especially at high levels), that high level wizards were relatively rare PCs compared with fighters and thieves.

Again, this is false. Wizards at high levels need less xp than any other class other than rogues. At early levels wizards were tough, but, at high levels, they were bumping levels faster than just about everyone else.

Loads of them?

I'm not sure which "older editions" you're referencing, but aside from most demons, devils, and undead and the four basic elementals, there are only a handful in the 1e MM - the peryton, the intellect devourer, and the aerial servant come to mind. Most of the monsters in that book can be harmed with normal weapons, and a few with either silver, iron, or blessed weapons in lieu of enchanted ones.

Consider for a second how much of the monster manual you just tossed out there. Undead, demons, devils, elementals, gargoyles, and a couple of others. Pagewise, that's what, about a quarter of the Monster Manual? And a fair chunk of any of the higher level creatures?

Of course, that's also ignoring the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual 2.

There were a fairly large number of creatures that needed +x or better to hit. Majority? Of course not. But a fair number nonetheless.

Oh, and clerics in Scarred Lands Rock.

 

[The Shaman]

Consider for a second how much of the monster manual you just tossed out there. Undead, demons, devils, elementals, gargoyles, and a couple of others. Pagewise, that's what, about a quarter of the Monster Manual?

Leaving three-quarters of the monsters that can be battled effectively without using magical weapons.

And a fair chunk of any of the higher level creatures?

Even the most miserly dungeon masters usually manage to hand out a +1 or +2 magic sword by 8th or 9th level. The number of monsters that can only be hit by a +3 or better weapon is pretty small, if memory serves.

Of course, that's also ignoring the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual 2.

Sadly I don't have either of those books anymore, and I don't remember those critters as well as I do the first MM, I'm afraid, so I can't say for sure.

Then again, both these books were late to the party - somehow we managed to play for years on the first monster book alone.

 

[Hussar]

Quasqueton makes a number of questionable assumptions in these "comparisons," Hussar. I wouldn't accept the conclusions as definitive.

Sigh, I always spell his name wrong.

I also noted that in those threads, he never once gave a single xp point for any of the magic that was in the module. That would MORE than make up for any questionable xp practices. IME, the majority of xp came from cash and magic. Killing stuff was just a side benefit.

Or, to put it another way, when a module has over a million gp's in it and you get 1 xp for each, you get lots, and lots of xp.

/edit - about the magic items in 1e and 2e.

I've said this before and I'll repeat it here. A 1e and 2e paladin was limited to TEN magic items. TEN. That means that every other character was assumed to have more than ten. A limitation which applies to everyone is hardly a limitation to any one is it?

The idea that 1e and 2e characters weren't walking around with a Christmas tree full of magic goodies is just so far removed from my experience that I have trouble believing it. For a "standard" six person party in 1e to have enough magic for the paladin to feel the pinch means they should be toting around over SIXTY magic items.

Then again, I still remember fondly my 1e paladin with his hammer of thunderbolts, girdle of giant strength and gauntlets of ogre power care of the G series adventures. Nothing like being able to kill ancient huge red dragons in a couple of rounds.

 

[The Shaman]

I also noted that in those threads, he never once gave a single xp point for any of the magic that was in the module. That would MORE than make up for any questionable xp practices....Or, to put it another way, when a module has over a million gp's in it and you get 1 xp for each, you get lots, and lots of xp.

Among the questionable assumptions are (1) the assumption that the adventurers will loot every single item of value from the dungeon or other adventure site and (2) the assumption that the training rules as written are not in effect.

 

[The Shaman]

I've said this before and I'll repeat it here. A 1e and 2e paladin was limited to TEN magic items. TEN. That means that every other character was assumed to have more than ten.

Forgive me, Hussar, but that's a non causa pro causa fallacy - you just shot your own argument in the foot.

The idea that 1e and 2e characters weren't walking around with a Christmas tree full of magic goodies is just so far removed from my experience that I have trouble believing it.

Then again, we've established that your experience is a bit removed from the rules of the game as well.