Hit point / damage gap in AD&D vs 3e

[Altalazar]

I think 3.5E scales to higher levels much better than previous editions, which sort of hit a plateau, as others have noted, and then things got somewhat funky.

3.5E is designed from the start to scale upward to EPIC and beyond. In many ways, 2E and 1E in particular were designed to basically max out in levels in the mid teens and then either voluntarily start over with new characters, or take all those fifteenth level characters through the Tomb of Horrors, and THEN start over with new characters.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

3.5E is designed from the start to scale upward to EPIC and beyond. In many ways, 2E and 1E in particular were designed to basically max out in levels in the mid teens and then either voluntarily start over with new characters,

Yeah, I don't think we ever had 1E PCs that went beyond the mid-teens. It was a different approach. OTOH, the Mentzer BECMI boxed sets did scale things through 36 levels. We got to Companion levels, once, but I don't think we ever got to Masters levels. (Incidentally, running CM1 was great fun.)

or take all those fifteenth level characters through the Tomb of Horrors, and THEN start over with new characters.

...or Isle of the Ape.

 

[A'koss]

We had two wizards in our party. One 8th and one 9th as I recall. The Giants were all dead after one round.

Now that's more like it.

3.5E is designed from the start to scale upward to EPIC and beyond.

Heh... no. 3e/3.5e is really only designed to behave up to level 20 (and one can argue it begins to seriously misbehave before even that.). The Epic rules are a kludge. They try to do the best they can in trying to extend what they have to work with in levels 1-20, but the game was never, never created with Epic Levels in mind. With any luck they will take a much closer look at being able to extend the game more elegantly in 4e.

Yeah, I don't think we ever had 1E PCs that went beyond the mid-teens. It was a different approach. OTOH, the Mentzer BECMI boxed sets did scale things through 36 levels. We got to Companion levels, once, but I don't think we ever got to Masters levels. (Incidentally, running CM1 was great fun.)

We've had lots of fun with that set as well and Test of the Warlords was always a favorite (I'm probably one of the very few who actually liked Earthshaker...). We've actually run games right through the Master Levels (I think Twillight Calling is the last in that series). Tried playing with the immortals rules for a while but could never really get into it.

...or Isle of the Ape.

I've actually had quite a few 1st ed campaigns hit into the high teens. I think the only 1st ed modules that went higher than IotA, was the Bloodstone series. But usually campaigns tended to peter out after polishing off Lolth (or vice versa )...

 

[MerricB]

I don't know where that comes from. Was there a overwhelming amount of customer data clearly showing that a huge number of gaming groups out there had four players at the table versus any other possible number of players?

Yes. Actually, the most common number of players was 4 or 5.

###

Just looking at the survey (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/wotcdemo.html), I came across this interesting piece of information:

            Typical     4 or More     Average Sessions
            Session     Gamers In     before Restart
            5+ Hours    Group         (New Characters)
Total       28%         62%           15.4
<=1 Year    10%         48%           8.8
>1-5 Years  14%         60%           12.9
(*)>5 Years 42%         71%           19.6

20 sessions per campaign is *not* that many!

Cheers!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

We've had lots of fun with that set as well and Test of the Warlords was always a favorite (I'm probably one of the very few who actually liked Earthshaker...). We've actually run games right through the Master Levels (I think Twillight Calling is the last in that series). Tried playing with the immortals rules for a while but could never really get into it.

I have all the boxed sets, including the Immortals set, and also Wrath of the Immortals (the overhaul of the Immortals rules), but I never really used either one. I got out Twighlight Calling the other day and was leafing through it. I always liked Tom Moldvay's slightly odd adventures, and was thinking about rolling up some Masters-level PCs for my players and running it.

Maybe some day. Right now I have so many irons in my gaming fire it's ridiculous. My gaming has really taken off, lately.

 

[RFisher]

So, what do you think?

Yeah. That's one of the things that led to...

Me, before the year 2000: PC power in D&D increases at a ridiculous rate! Other games are much better in this regard.

Me, after the year 2000: The way the power of PCs in old D&D plataeu'd at name level is quite refreshing.

But, let's face it, while hit points were a good hack on the road from Chainmail to D&D, every edition ends up with hp related weirdness.

 

[Hussar]

Yes. Actually, the most common number of players was 4 or 5.

###

Just looking at the survey (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/wotcdemo.html), I came across this interesting piece of information:

*snip for brevity*

20 sessions per campaign is *not* that many!

Cheers!

Whoa, and I thought I had a high turnover rate. Yeesh. 20 sessions would be about 6 months or so. Most of my camps have lasted longer than that.

This would explain to me why people think that they have played all the core classes and want somehting different. If people are resetting every three or four months, sure, you could blow through a LOT of characters that way.