"Looks like we're going to win this battle . . . in about 90 minutes from now."

[Hussar]

So you keep saying. Is it so hard to accept that there are people who have had a different gaming experience with the 3e editions than you? Or is it hard to believe that there were adventuring parties that used coordinated teamwork before 4e?
Quite frankly, I can't really see why it's so important to you that dannyalcatraz's experiences must be wrong or there's some deficiency in his campaign that doesn't make it 3e D&D.

Y'know, I had pretty much this exact same conversation with Psion in another thread. It turned out that the difference in our experience was due to using different monsters. He used a lot of classed humanoids and I tended to use a lot of critters. We came to a better understanding and it worked out fine.

OTOH, dannyalcatraz simply insists that there is no problem. That you can go into encounters running on fumes and reasonably expect to win. That you can "win the encounter before initiative is rolled".

Which is nonsense. The simple math fact is that max damage on creatures is about 10xCR. Since most PC's have significantly less than 10xLevel in hit points, you should be smoking PC's fairly often if they aren't backed up by significant healing.

I questioned how he got the results that he claims. The response I got was, "My players are playing smart." Which of course, tells me pretty much nothing. So, I ask for specifics. Again, nothing.

So, yes, it is hard to understand how people can have completely opposite experiences than me. I look at the math, I look at my experiences and the experiences of a fairly large number of DM's here at EnWorld, most of which say that 3e combat was extremely lethal. When people claim that all you have to do is "play smarter" to come up with radically different results, I am going to question it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Danny, you are talking about teamwork and tactics that are not related to power activation synergy...........stop that

I have to say we keep going long after resources get low too. We do sometimes bite off more than we can chew and guess what? Sometimes we actually die. Many adventures contain the feature story that other bands of adventurers have tried and failed to explore XXX, sometimes we end up playing those adventurers.

The thrill of walking into a combat when you are down on resources, and cannot (by the numbers) expect to win and still pull out a victory is worth (the characters) dying for. Every party dies, not every party really lives.

 

[billd91]

OTOH, dannyalcatraz simply insists that there is no problem. That you can go into encounters running on fumes and reasonably expect to win. That you can "win the encounter before initiative is rolled".

Not really. He says he's never seen the problem of stopping when the first caster runs out of spells in 30 years of playing. And, quite frankly, I've very rarely seen it as well. Our spellcasters have pretty much always been more judicious about blowing through their spells, probably a hold-over from 1e style playing rather than computer RPG playing.
And running on fumes, assuming those fumes are prepared spells of the spellcasters, doesn't say a whole heck of a lot about the gear your toting. If running on fumes means you're running low on those as well, then they do tend to pull out for a rest. But that's not what dannyalcatraz has ever been disputing.
I think part of this problem depends on what you consider "running on fumes".

Which is nonsense. The simple math fact is that max damage on creatures is about 10xCR. Since most PC's have significantly less than 10xLevel in hit points, you should be smoking PC's fairly often if they aren't backed up by significant healing.

A more important measure is probably expected damage rather than max. Sure, max damage comes up once in a great while, but expected damage is more likely particularly when the party has decent AC and iteratives/secondary attacks drop off from the initial attack bonus. For example, my giants are getting a lot of hits in with their first attacks - very few second attacks. Expected damage is much lower than max. It's calculated risk, sure. But a rogue with a wand of cure light wounds and a decent use magic device skill is a pretty good battlefield stabilizer and for little money.

So, yes, it is hard to understand how people can have completely opposite experiences than me. I look at the math, I look at my experiences and the experiences of a fairly large number of DM's here at EnWorld, most of which say that 3e combat was extremely lethal. When people claim that all you have to do is "play smarter" to come up with radically different results, I am going to question it.

Combat in 3e can be pretty lethal - but you can take a lot of measures to reduce that lethality. I'm reasonably convinced that smart play works very well, particularly smart investment in disposable magic items.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Combat in 3e can be pretty lethal - but you can take a lot of measures to reduce that lethality. I'm reasonably convinced that smart play works very well, particularly smart investment in disposable magic items.

You can divide "smart play" up into two types. The first is strategic play or what you do before the adventure starts. Buying the right items, taking the right feats, and using divination magics to make sure you've prepped the right spells are all strategic play.

The second is tactical play. Backing up your buddies, using spells at the right time, chosing which monster to go after first, and picking when to retreat are tactical play. Tactical smart play is stuff you do during battles, or at most between battles during the day.

I think the balance in 3e combat shifted a little too much to strategic smart play. When we spend 2 hours at the beginning of the game going shopping, crafting items, and deciding on a spell list, that's too much time spent. If we're going to do strategic stuff, I'd prefer a focus on figuring out where to go and what to do when we get there over how to win fights.

 

[Raven Crowking]

When we spend 2 hours at the beginning of the game going shopping, crafting items, and deciding on a spell list, that's too much time spent.

Gygax agreed with you. In the 1e PHB, he specifically suggests doing that stuff outside of game time.


RC

 

[AllisterH]

Using M:TG analogy, 3E is constructed, 4E is limited.

As a Limited fan primarily, needless to say, I really like 4E.

 

[billd91]

Gygax agreed with you. In the 1e PHB, he specifically suggests doing that stuff outside of game time.


RC

I agree. That sort of planning is for email, phone calls, and discussions over pizza.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Gygax agreed with you. In the 1e PHB, he specifically suggests doing that stuff outside of game time.

I'll leave aside the question about whether players have time to play the game outside of the time they have to aside to... well, play the game. (I obviously do because I'm screwing around on a gaming message board, but some in my group don't.)

But leaving that aside, stuff done outside of game is essentially a solo activity. It's the player planning stuff on his own, or at most a one-on-one with the DM. It's not a group activity. In 3rd edition once you get past 7th level or so, these solo activites, these strategic smart plays, become increasingly important.

I don't think that the important parts of a game should be solo activities. The things that decide victory or defeat in game should be done at the table when everyone is together, arguing about decisions to be made and praying for that nat 20 on the die roll. Teamwork ought to be the key to victory.

 

[billd91]

But leaving that aside, stuff done outside of game is essentially a solo activity. It's the player planning stuff on his own, or at most a one-on-one with the DM. It's not a group activity. In 3rd edition once you get past 7th level or so, these solo activites, these strategic smart plays, become increasingly important.

I don't think that the important parts of a game should be solo activities. The things that decide victory or defeat in game should be done at the table when everyone is together, arguing about decisions to be made and praying for that nat 20 on the die roll. Teamwork ought to be the key to victory.

It's not essentially a solo activity if you're emailing the whole group and starting group discussion that way.

 

[Hussar]

A more important measure is probably expected damage rather than max. Sure, max damage comes up once in a great while, but expected damage is more likely particularly when the party has decent AC and iteratives/secondary attacks drop off from the initial attack bonus. For example, my giants are getting a lot of hits in with their first attacks - very few second attacks. Expected damage is much lower than max. It's calculated risk, sure. But a rogue with a wand of cure light wounds and a decent use magic device skill is a pretty good battlefield stabilizer and for little money.

A wand of cure light wounds isn't helping when the bad guys are doing 100+ points of damage in a round, for one thing.

For another, you're right, most of the time, the monsters won't do max damage. But, considering the rather large number of attacks the DM makes over the course of a campaign, it WILL come up. And reasonably often.

Think about it. A standard level is about 10 combat encounters and some non-combat encounters. Give or take. 10 combats is about 40 rounds of combat. Figure at least three attacks per round from the baddies (and frequently many, many more) and you've got about 120 attacks per level. That's 6 crits, plus lots and lots of hits.

You are going to do max damage fairly often. Not every fight, nope. But, every few fights it's going to come up. The baddie rolls a pair of crits in a row, the baddies get two full attacks on the fighter without a PC coming up in between. On and on and on.

Like I said, one kill every three sessions. And that's letting them heal whenever they want. Because, it's great when the high AC fighter is facing that combat monster, but, once a while, it's the rogue and he dies. Or the DM gets lucky and the fighter dies.