I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[TheAuldGrump]

This is why I find these discussions so difficult. I mean, 4th level cleric with 7 HP. Ok. Now, how in the world is that anywhere near average? A cleric, even in B/E get's d6 or d8 hp? I forget which. But, either way, 4d6 averages to 14 hp and 4d8 averages to 20. So, your lethality has a lot more to do with the fact that your characters are runnign around with HALF their average hp. Heck, even your fighter is significantly below average.

So, how does that show anything? Yup, if your characters are running extremely bad luck, they die more often. Well, that's 100% true I suppose.

OTOH, if we actually wanted to talk averages, 3ed characters up to 10th level have pretty much the same average hp (maybe slightly higher since they start at max hp at 1st level) as their AD&D counterparts. After 10th? Sure, no problem. 3e characters get a lot more hp.

True, except for Con bonuses. It is a lot easier to get Con bonuses to HP in 3e.

Not really disagreeing, over all, but it can make a difference.

OTOH, the monsters average FOUR TIMES more damage. Do 3e characters have 4 times more hit points on average? And, let's not forget to actually compare apples to apples and the presumed 25 point buy character. Now, you've got maybe a 12, 14 Con, for +2 per HD. My 3e character on average has maybe 20-30 more HP by 10th level. Given that CR 10 creatures in 3e can deal out over 100 points of damage in a single round (something that NOTHING besides unique monsters can do in AD&D) I'm thinking that 3e characters are really not more durable.

But they can also put out a lot more damage in the same number of rounds. By and large characters got more deadly. But then, so are some monsters....

I'll stand by the idea that it's the SoD stuff that makes AD&D more lethal. Combat damage? Small potatoes.

And let us not forget 'Save or take a boatload of damage'. Fireball used to really be something to fear.

And often the fireball that killed you was from your own magic-user forgetting how big fireballs were when he cast his first one... My first bit of kindness as a DM - allowing the magic-user to not cast that fireball once he realized that it filled that 30' x 30' X 10' room, then flushed back down several hundred feet of 10 X 10 corridor....

Just a point about discussing game presumptions. I'm not, in any way, denying that Az (sp) or DannyA had the experiences they had. I totally believe both of them. I do think that what they claimed happened in their games really happened.

I have seen extremes go both ways - it was almost a given in one game that I ran that the party would face a young dragon, and get away singed but still well up in HP, but then would get slaughtered by four goblins with bows.... There used to be jokes that the BBEG would prepare for battle by tying banana peels to his feet, but his henchmen might as well have RPGs....

For some reason that problem never cropped up in 3.X, but I blame luck of the dice more than anything.

What I'm trying to drill down to is how.

Sometimes it is just luck of the dice.

Whenever this topic comes up, it can generally get pinned down to a combination of one or more of the following three elements:

1. Houserules. And, in here I'd include rule misinterpretations too.

2. Design choices by the DM. If the DM, in 3e, is using mostly classes humanoids, for example, then all the encounters are going to be on the weaker end of the CR scale. While the mechanics say a 5th level monk is a CR 5 encounter, I'm going to say it's not as dangerous as a Troll. There are loads of other ways the choices of the DM can facilitate specific playstyles.

3. Strength of the PC's. Point buy value is a good measure of this and I know I've harped on it a few times. When you have PC's that are running in the mid 30's (or higher) for their point buy value, they act at least a level higher than what it says on their character sheet. An entire group of this can really make a large difference, particularly up to about 10th or 12 level. Also, let's not forget group size which includes the PC's, NPC's, pets, helpers, and various other hangers on. This can also radically change how the group operates.

And, generally, these three elements do pin down most of the reasons why a specific group might have experiences which are different from the game assumptions. Look at discussions of 1e for extreme examples of all three.

For what it is worth, Pathfinder does not treat a level 5 fighter as a CR5 encounter.... So at least some folks agree with you on that.

That said, I have never used point buy, and I am stingy with rerolling characters, so the numbers can go either way.

The Auld Grump

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And often the fireball that killed you was from your own magic-user forgetting how big fireballs were when he cast his first one... My first bit of kindness as a DM - allowing the magic-user to not cast that fireball once he realized that it filled that 30' x 30' X 10' room, then flushed back down several hundred feet of 10 X 10 corridor....

*raises hand, eyes downcast*

I cast a ramped up DBF (from an artifact-level ring of spell storing) on some police robots in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, set on max delay, so we could get away.

Did you know they move 96'? We didn't...until it was too late.

They not only caught us before the DBF blew up, they got to hammer on us for 3 rounds too! There were multiple deaths, and we had to retreat from the adventure, carrying our dead...which included the cleric. We spent a lot of platinum getting everyone brought back.

And FWIW, that party was of high enough level that the adventure should have been, if not easy, only moderately difficult.

As for luck of the dice...

The Battle of the Brutal Slaughter of the Harpies

We were attacked by Harpies, and the quick-thinking Druid hit them with an Entangle as they did a strafing run through some foliage- snagged them all!

That was when the dice went sour.

We only had a few PCs with ranged weaponry- a guy with a bow, a guy with a throwing hammer, one with a sling, and the Wiz had a dagger.

The guy with the Hammer is venturing into the area of the Entangle to retrieve his hammer and the Wiz' dagger.

Most of the to-hit rolls were low. When we did hit, no attack did more than 3HP damage. We finish off the first Harpy just as the Entangle is starting to expire...

So the Druid does Entangle #2...and our futility continues. The dice continue to stay as low as a soldier under fire.

The guy with the Hammer is, by now, having to venture into the area of the Entangle to retrieve arrows that have missed. The PC with the sling is now using rocks.

Harpy #2 is near death but still fighting and Harpy #3 is untouched when Entangle #2 is expiring, so the Druid pops Entangle #3.

My PC and the hammer-thrower are apologizing to the Harpies- in character- for the cruel deaths that we are inflicting upon them...especially after the hammer-thrower retrieved the Wizard's dagger out of the still-living Harpy#2 so the Wizard could throw it again. But he doesn't leave the Entangle area until after he stabs the dying Harpy with that dagger to finish it off.

By now, all of the arrows have been used, either striking the Harpies or being broken downrange. EVERYONE ELSE IS THROWING ROCKS.

The last Harpy dies just before Entangle #3 does.

All of this time, our DM has been flabbergasted- absolutely red faced and flustered- at the action. "F$%^&ing Entangle! That spell is broken!" *rant*rant*rant*

To which the Druid's player huffily responded "Well, it was either that or Create Food & Water! The Harpies could have had a meal and a bath!"

LOLs abounded.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

This is why I find these discussions so difficult. I mean, 4th level cleric with 7 HP. Ok. Now, how in the world is that anywhere near average? A cleric, even in B/E get's d6 or d8 hp? I forget which. But, either way, 4d6 averages to 14 hp and 4d8 averages to 20. So, your lethality has a lot more to do with the fact that your characters are runnign around with HALF their average hp. Heck, even your fighter is significantly below average.

So, how does that show anything? Yup, if your characters are running extremely bad luck, they die more often. Well, that's 100% true I suppose.

OTOH, if we actually wanted to talk averages, 3ed characters up to 10th level have pretty much the same average hp (maybe slightly higher since they start at max hp at 1st level) as their AD&D counterparts. After 10th? Sure, no problem. 3e characters get a lot more hp.

OTOH, the monsters average FOUR TIMES more damage. Do 3e characters have 4 times more hit points on average? And, let's not forget to actually compare apples to apples and the presumed 25 point buy character. Now, you've got maybe a 12, 14 Con, for +2 per HD. My 3e character on average has maybe 20-30 more HP by 10th level. Given that CR 10 creatures in 3e can deal out over 100 points of damage in a single round (something that NOTHING besides unique monsters can do in AD&D) I'm thinking that 3e characters are really not more durable.

I'll stand by the idea that it's the SoD stuff that makes AD&D more lethal. Combat damage? Small potatoes.

In Basic, clerics get d6 hp. So average is 14. He has a 7 con, so that's -1 per level. Throw in a bit of bad luck on rolls and a seven is easy to get. And with 3d6 in order, it's pretty easy to end up with a crappy con. Hell, the elf had ONE hit point at first level And only then because one is the minimum.

Also, there are other reasons than hit points that make 3e characters tougher. A 1e character who really tries can get his ac to what? Let's see plate mail +5, shield +5 (the shield works only from the front and against up to 3 attacks a round assuming it's a large shield), dex of 18 is -12.

In 3e, there is no limit, really, other than the dm, and cash on hand. +5 mithril full plate, +5 shield, ( +5 rop, +5 amulet of natural armor, 20 dex, etc.

Surprise! A 1e surprise round can let opponents have up to 5 times their normal attacks a round. 3e surprise rounds grant the attacker 1 partial action.

You move, get hit, even use your dex bonus to ac and your spell is GONE in 1e.

20d6 fireballs.

3e characters also recover faster. Wands of CLW and twice as many spells helps in this respect.

3e characters can fire into melee.

3e characters can move and attack. This can help bring the opponent down faster.

You move, get hit, even use your dex bonus to ac and your spell is GONE in 1e.

20d6 fireballs.

Saving throws vs items.

The list goes on.

 

[Hussar]

It's interesting. JRRNeikalot's point actually doesn't prove what he thinks it does.

Presuming that your characters actually leveled up to level 4, shouldn't a system that is more lethal have culled these characters by now? When the entire group is below average HP, and some are actually HALF their average? Yet, they've not only managed to not die, they've managed to advance three times.

This does not say, "Very lethal game" to me.

But, let's keep going with this shall we?

Sure, -10 AC is as good as it gets for a PC in AD&D. But, look at the THAC0 for any non-unique monster. It tops out at about 7, not counting dinosaurs.

Heck, let's take a good example. 4th level AD&D fighter has a 1 AC. That's pretty easily done - plate and shield +1 by 4th level isn't out of line at all. An ogre has a 15 THAC0 and does a d10 points of damage. We'll use your 17 hp 4th level fighter if you don't mind JRRNiekalot.

So, Mr Ogre hits on a 14+, 30% chance of hitting and averages 5 points per hit. That means he has to attack the fighter about 12 times on average to drop the fighter. Note, this is a weak fighter, not a strong one.

3e fighter, 4th level, sword and board to make him as good as he can for AC. 3 points below average hp, gives him 27 hp (10+5*3+Con 13 for +4 - Remember 25 point buy value). Full plate+1, shield +1 and dex for another +1 gives him a 23 AC. Again, this is about as good as it gets. You might get it up to 25 if you really cheese weasel, but, this is pretty good.

Mr 3e Ogre has a +8 attack bonus and does 2d8+7 (average 16) points per hit. He's only hitting on a 15, that's true, he's actually hitting just a little bit less. But, he's also doing THREE TIMES AS MUCH DAMAGE. Or, putting it another way, he only has to attack about 6 times on average to drop the fighter.

Our 3e fighter dies in half the time.

As far as 20d6 fireballs go, well, I did say combat damage, not spells. Heck, are you honestly going to claim that monsters don't get a huge bump in magical abilities in 3e? Good grief, dragons go from casting minor magics to being ARCH MAGES.

----------

But, this really is all a tangent. The point is, JRRNeikalot's experience is actually nicely summed up in the three points I listed earlier. Why does he have the experience he has? Because of the point buy value. While you don't specifically have point buy characters, the fact that the party is below averages explains why you might think that a system is more dangerous than it really is.

JRRNeiklot, you are extrapolating from a single example and it's pretty easy to show why you get the results you get. Reverse it. Take a B/E group which gets lucky - 75% HP, high die rolls on all stats and watch what happens.

 

[Greg K]

Is it that difficult to have sessions where you can handle more than 5 encounters without resting . The suggestion for a good adventure (assuming tailored vs. status quo)

10% Easy (lower than party level) the party should be able to do these encounters all day
20% Easy if handled correctly otherwise may be challenging or difficult
50% Challenging = EC = Party level expected to use 20% of party resources
15% Very Difficult EL (1-4 levels higher than party)
5% Overwhelming: The party should run or will probably lose

If the adventure has 20 Encounters, the break down is:

2 Easy
4 Easy if handled correctly
10 Challenging
3 Very Difficult
1 Overwhelming


The very difficult are, probably, near the end, of the adventure because the players are expected to run from the Overwhelming making Very Difficult the most likely candidate for a "boss" fight.

Say the party faces:
1 Easy encounter: minimal resources used if any
2 Easy encounters if handled correctly: minimal resources used
4 Challenging encounters 80% resources

Assuming everything done right in the two "Easy if handled correctly" encounters, the players just did 7 encounters are expected to have 20% (or roughly thereabout) of their resource left, It may be a good time to rest, because another challenging encounter will probably result in deaths and a Very Difficult is even more likely to do so.

Yet, if they were to press on despite being at (or expected to be at) 20% of their resources, they might encounter the remaining Easy and/or Easy if handled properly encounters. If so, they may be able to handle 8-10 encounters before needing to rest if they were to handle those "Easy if handled properly" encounters. If my own experience with D&D is common (not saying it is), I suspect that encountering the Easy or Easy if handled correctly and, thus 8-10 encounters, might be more likely toward the beginning of an adventure as things often tend to get harder as the party moves further into it.

Regardless 7 encounters? I don't think it is that unreasonable to do at times if the DM is using a mix of ELs rather than just Challenging or Very Difficult (I have seen some DMs claim that they will not throw Easy or Easy if handled correctly encounters, because they believe they should always be pushing the party to the limit, but they are going against the default assumptions).

 

[tomBitonti]

2 Easy
4 Easy if handled correctly
10 Challenging
3 Very Difficult
1 Overwhelming

No "Normal" between "Easy" and Challenging?

Also, only "Easy" has a modifier "if handled correctly"?

And, no player control (except to run from Overwhelming) over which encounters they face?

I think a fixed and mostly random structure like this is what some folks rail against. You will have that in a dungeon crawl, but in an open wilderness (as typifying more of a sandbox style) or open city, the players will have a lot more opportunities to gather information about the possible encounters, to prepare, and to avoid high risk encounters.

TomB

 

[BryonD]

I have a very strong suspicion that these playstyles are being aided considerably by the playstyle of the DM. That the ability to play this way has a lot less to do with mechanics and a lot more to do with what the DM brings to the table.

Without getting into the weeds here, I think this statement is STRONGLY true in a wide range of circumstances.

At the end of the day DM play style is a bit more important than player style and player play style is vastly more important than the mechanics.

But it is also pretty much completely irrelevant to most insightful conversation. That is because when I am playing with a group, our play styles are there regardless. So the important factor is picking a mechanical system that work WITH our playstyles.

The controlling significance of player style does nothing to reduce the night or day difference that selecting quality mechanics still makes.

 

[Greg K]

'Tom,
The percentages and categories are the actual suggestions/recommendations in the 3e DMG for building a good adventure (and note: running from Overwhelming is the given recommendation. Players can choose to fight, but will most likely lose). My point was that following those guidelines from the DMG itself, it was not impossible to have sessions where the party could have more than 4 encounters in a session without needing to rest or resort to healing wands.

Now, as for using those recommendations, I never did use them (nor will I if I were to run 3e, again, for a group rather than Savage Worlds). I believe in building the same way that I did in 1e and 2e- use a mix of tailored and status quo. I, occasionally, use tailored (level appropriate) for an initial adventure or, afterwards, hooks, or specific encounters. When doing so, I eyeball based on my actual party. However, since I place a lot of things in appropriate locations and write them up before the campaign, there are a lot of status quo. And, since, it is up to my players to choose hooks I set up or those they create from their own background/motivation, It is up to the player's to do their research or use caution when choosing which hooks to follow.

Still, I think, the percentage table has its usage. It is a good guideline for new DMs. It reminds DMs that a mix of ECls is good if tailoring to the party and serves as a guide to pace the resource usage.

As for Wilderness or Sandbox vs. Dungeon crawl, I specified tailored (accounting for party level and composition) as opposed to status quo (things are where are appropriate for the world without regard to party level). I assumed that people read the DMG which discusses the two and understood the difference.

No "Normal" between "Easy" and Challenging?

Also, only "Easy" has a modifier "if handled correctly"?

And, no player control (except to run from Overwhelming) over which encounters they face?

I think a fixed and mostly random structure like this is what some folks rail against. You will have that in a dungeon crawl, but in an open wilderness (as typifying more of a sandbox style) or open city, the players will have a lot more opportunities to gather information about the possible encounters, to prepare, and to avoid high risk encounters.

TomB

 

[JRRNeiklot]

It's interesting. JRRNeikalot's point actually doesn't prove what he thinks it does.

Presuming that your characters actually leveled up to level 4, shouldn't a system that is more lethal have culled these characters by now? When the entire group is below average HP, and some are actually HALF their average? Yet, they've not only managed to not die, they've managed to advance three times.

Heh, The game has made it to 4th level, but there has been over a dozen casualties. The cleric has managed to survive by staying the hell out of melee. It's also a group made of mostly 30 year veterans of D&D.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

But, let's keep going with this shall we?

Sure, -10 AC is as good as it gets for a PC in AD&D. But, look at the THAC0 for any non-unique monster. It tops out at about 7, not counting dinosaurs.

Heck, let's take a good example. 4th level AD&D fighter has a 1 AC. That's pretty easily done - plate and shield +1 by 4th level isn't out of line at all. An ogre has a 15 THAC0 and does a d10 points of damage. We'll use your 17 hp 4th level fighter if you don't mind JRRNiekalot.

So, Mr Ogre hits on a 14+, 30% chance of hitting and averages 5 points per hit. That means he has to attack the fighter about 12 times on average to drop the fighter. Note, this is a weak fighter, not a strong one.

3e fighter, 4th level, sword and board to make him as good as he can for AC. 3 points below average hp, gives him 27 hp (10+5*3+Con 13 for +4 - Remember 25 point buy value). Full plate+1, shield +1 and dex for another +1 gives him a 23 AC. Again, this is about as good as it gets. You might get it up to 25 if you really cheese weasel, but, this is pretty good.

Mr 3e Ogre has a +8 attack bonus and does 2d8+7 (average 16) points per hit. He's only hitting on a 15, that's true, he's actually hitting just a little bit less. But, he's also doing THREE TIMES AS MUCH DAMAGE. Or, putting it another way, he only has to attack about 6 times on average to drop the fighter.

Our 3e fighter dies in half the time.

There's also the fact that 3e characters take out the opposition much faster. Feats like rapid shot and cleave thin out the numbers a lot faster. 3e characters also deal with a lot less numbers generally, too. The # appearing for ogres is 2-20. While I haven't seen that extreme, 3-18 hobgoblins can show up in the current adventure as wandering monsters. Or 1-4 were tigers if you prefer a smaller battle: 3 at 1-6, 1-6, 2-12.

Can 3e be as deadly as 1e? Absolutely, but straight out of the box, there's not a chance in hell.