Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5525657" data-attributes="member: 55271">There was a general weakening of lethal consequences, but I'll admit that, in this regard, I think the designers of 3E were largely modifying the game to match the common practice at many game tables. (I don't think I ever saw a lethal teleport at the actual table; largely because none of the groups I played in ever thought that would be much fun.)And, OTOH, 3rd Edition also saw the power of a lot of spells significantly decreased.In this, 3E was largely following trends that were first started back when OD&D morphed into AD&D. (The weakening of powerful spells and the softening of lethal consequences.)Next section is going to be a little "quote choppy" as I address each point separately...Looking at the actual historical numbers:OD&D: 7/7/7/7/7/7/3/3/2AD&D1: 5/5/5/5/5/4/3/3/2BECMI: 6/5/5/5/4/4/3/2D&D3 (Int 25): 6/6/6/5/5/5/5/4/4/4They aren't that far out of whack. And most of the skew happens around 18th level (where the 3E wizards pick up more 8th and 9th level spells).Quite a few scrolls in AD&D were actually cheaper than their 3E equivalent. (The cost of a scroll was basically 300 gp per level. Obviously 1st level scrolls are considerably cheaper in 3E, but higher-powered stuff outpaces the linear 1E guidelines.)Somewhere I read that Gygax suggested that the proper ratio of treasure-to-monster XP was 3:1. If that's true, then one can see that AD&D1 characters would have a lot more treasure than their 3E counterparts.People have also analyzed the published 1E modules and discovered a treasure acquisition rate that closely mirrors the wealth by level guidelines of 3E. Those numbers weren't plucked out of nowhere.In general, I think if you badly misread the DMG (as NeonChameleon has done) and create small packets of My Perfect Encounters(TM), then 3E breaks down badly. If you just use old school encounter design, 3E plays pretty much like every other edition of D&D from 1974-2008.YMMV.You do realize that doesn't say anything about the game being balanced around "the four encounter adventuring day", right?Like I said: When you make ridiculous, non-factual claims like that, it makes it very difficult to discuss anything with you.                      When you try to back up those ridiculous, non-factual claims with quotes that have absolutely nothing to do with the claim you made, it makes it very difficult to even take you seriously.Allow me to repeat myself: The DMG not only doesn't say that the game is balanced around the "four encounter adventuring day", the DMG specifically tells you not to design your adventures like that.I think we can all agree that when you play the game in the very narrow, very limited fashion that you say you play it, that the game doesn't work very well. But since the DMG specifically tells you not to play that way, I don't think the problem is the game. The problem is you.To be clear: There are other people participating in this thread who are discussing legitimate problems with the game. I don't think anyone in this thread is claiming the game is perfect, either.But you, AFAICT, are just spouting non-factual nonsense. I don't know if that's because you honestly never read the DMG or if you're just hoping nobody will notice. But, seriously, crack a book.</blockquote>

Verification