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

[Treebore]

The problem wasn't so much with the magic though. The problem was the monsters simply couldn't do enough damage to be a threat to high level characters in 2e. Other than dragons, the most damage 2e critters could do was around thirty or forty points. Even that 10 die fireball averages to 35, 17 with a save. Yes, you didn't have 300 hit points, but, once you broke 100, there was nothing in the game that could reasonably threaten you on its own.

So, you wound up wading through armies of hill giants on your own.

Not so grim and gritty as all that.

OTOH, 3e characters, yes, have 300 hit points. But, the baddies at that point have a thousand hit point and do 100 points of damage per round. CR 11 giants can do that. And your not going to be breaking 300 at 11th level too often. By and large, most 3e creatures can drop an equivalent level character in a single round with lucky rolling. This simply wasn't true previously.

Maybe my perception is skewed since yesterday the minotaur with a greataxe clocked the PC barbarian with a crit and pumped out 55 points of damage in a single hit. Over a long enough span of time, the DM will ALWAYS get lucky and be able to do massive damage. The players have to get lucky in every fight to survive. The Dm only has to get lucky once.

I hope you are just hugely exagerating about the wading through an army of hill giants. That would never have happened in my games unless you snuck into their encampment at night, invisible (with multiple improve invisibilities available to you), and silenced, with a ton of death or 20 poison or a rot grub for each giant. Then you might have waded through an army of hill giants.

Generally speaking, under "normal" conditions, you were going to die if you fought an army of hill giants head to head.

Of course, I also gave class abilities to giants and other "monsters" long before 3E came along, even before 2E. Game balance didn't break down until about 23rd level, but that was because I wasn't afraid to do whatever had to be done to keep game balance. If that Hill Giant needed to have 12 levels of wizard to make him a threat, then he had it. If it wasn't in the rules I didn't care, because I knew it needed to be added to the rules in order for the campaign and game to remain challenging. So I did what needed to be done to keep the game viable no matter what the level. Same thing applies in 3E at Epic levels. You do what you have to. Whether the "rules" say you can do it or not.

There are two big rules for Epic, never allow immunities to anything. You can allow high DR to spells, such as 30, but never let it go higher. Once they hit 20th level do not let their higher levels add to their spell penetration or dispelling checks. Don't let SR go higher than 30. You can allow BaB and saving throws to increase, but that is it. I also strongly recommend you keep magic limited to a max of +10 in total enchantments. There may not be a max in human limitations, but there is in how much energy materials can hold.

Anyways, back to the OP. I seem to remember that CON bonuses were only added to each HD, not every level. Or am I remembering 1E?

 

[Hussar]

Ah, but Treebore, I didn't play in your game. I was only concerned with RAW. But, yes, I was exagerrating somewhat. The point is still true though. PC's in 2e ramped up in relative power to the enemies very, very badly. While you might not take on an army, it wasn't uncommon to take on a dozen by about tenth level.

 

[Treebore]

Maybe by RAW, Hill Giants definitely weren't very scary. It was those darn Stone Giants and their friggin boulders!

 

[Twowolves]

Some guidelines indicating ways to adapt encounters to any amount of players would have been very much welcome. I had 6 PCs in my last campaign, and I pretty much had to learn how to adapt CRs on my own. I felt like I was coming up with rough solutions (and was able to do so without too much difficulty) without being able to determine if I was missing some tools in the DMG or I was actually supposed to wing it.

So, since you learned how to adapt the CR system for 6 PCs on your own, why not share your wisdom with those of us still stumbling about in the dark?

 

[VirgilCaine]

So, since you learned how to adapt the CR system for 6 PCs on your own, why not share your wisdom with those of us still stumbling about in the dark?

Gee, this is surprising. Don't people know this stuff?

Double the number of PCs add 2 to the APL for determining encounters. That's something I've heard a lot.

I figured out:
6 PCs adds one to the APL. Each extra PC is 1/2 of an APL.

If your PCs have an average point buy value of over 30-40 points, add another APL.

I've got lots of players (three or four are out for the summer) and these have served me well.

 

[Odhanan]

Well, trouble is, that's not an exact science, VirgilCaine, even though your approximation is quite good. Personally, with 6 PCs that were all good at what they did, I usually was using APL+2 challenge ratings for average encounters with the Spellwardens.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Well, trouble is, that's not an exact science, VirgilCaine, even though your approximation is quite good. Personally, with 6 PCs that were all good at what they did, I usually was using APL+2 challenge ratings for average encounters with the Spellwardens.

Hey, I'd love some factory-fresh guidelines, too. Maybe we should have a petition to WotC for expanded guidelines for 4th edition. They've got 5 years, that a lot of time to figure things out.

 

[A'koss]

IME, high level characters in previous editions were less fragile than they are in the current edition. One huge difference people seem to forget is that Saving Throws in previous editions were easy to make at high levels (especially with all the cloaks and rings of protection you picked up in those 1st and 2nd ed modules), caster's level never factored into it and magic resistance was a lot easier to punch through too.

Yeah, PCs had lower HPs in previous eds, but so did all your foes as well. And less damage, weaker AC, fewer attacks and weaker hitting capability too. A group of 8th level PCs could clear out an entire hall full of Hill Giants. In 3rd ed, you are actually more vulnerable at higher levels than at lower ones due to increasing number of Save or Die / Nerf effects with high DC Saves, monsters who are virtually guaranteed to hit you every round (and often with PA boosts behind them) and with gobs of damage, easy fubaring grapples and so on.

Just my 2 bits...

 

[Treebore]

Yes, that is why I adopted the rule that only god-like creatures could save on a 1, 2, or 3, no matter what their modifiers were.

Plus 3E made a big mistake with allowing evade/improved evasion. Makes area effect spells paractically useless at high levels, especially since these feats can also be enchanted into magic items, so every class can do it. If anything in 3E can be called broken it is that feat/feat progression. Excuse me, class ability. Still broken.

 

[Treebore]

IME, high level characters in previous editions were less fragile than they are in the current edition. One huge difference people seem to forget is that Saving Throws in previous editions were easy to make at high levels (especially with all the cloaks and rings of protection you picked up in those 1st and 2nd ed modules), caster's level never factored into it and magic resistance was a lot easier to punch through too.

Yeah, PCs had lower HPs in previous eds, but so did all your foes as well. And less damage, weaker AC, fewer attacks and weaker hitting capability too. A group of 8th level PCs could clear out an entire hall full of Hill Giants. In 3rd ed, you are actually more vulnerable at higher levels than at lower ones due to increasing number of Save or Die / Nerf effects with high DC Saves, monsters who are virtually guaranteed to hit you every round (and often with PA boosts behind them) and with gobs of damage, easy fubaring grapples and so on.

Just my 2 bits...

If your talking the Hall of Fire Giants in the giant series, you and I played through a different module. I was playing a 12/12 fighter mage with 6 other players of comparable xp/power and we darn near got our butts handed to us. The DM didn't change anything either.

As for 3E at higher level, I find it a good thing that those NERF spells to increase save DC's are there, otherwise the characters would almost always make their saves, making spellcasters just about useless.

Your right about how frustrating things can be at high level, though. It is why I quit DMing 3E. One of many reasons.