My, how the adventures have changed...


log in or register to remove this ad

delericho said:
For example, the Bluff/Sense Motive thing comes down to numbers - if the traitor his a higher skill modifier, the scenario goes down exactly as in 1e. If the poison does 3d6 Con damage instead of 2d6, the Rogue is dead, just as in 1e.

No I disagree with this, for two reasons.

1) Did anyone ever roll Sense Motive or equivalent in 2e?

2) Most rogues have a decent Con (around 12) nowadays, since it actually means something, so there's a better chance of surviving a 3d6 Con poison. (In fact, if the rogue was lucky and the DM rolled a six, they could have survived with an 8 Con.)

If the DM describes the Goblin Barbarian as "a slightly larger Goblin", that encounter works the same as before as well.

Except the large goblin wouldn't have had PC "class" powers. (Well, probably...)
 

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
No I disagree with this, for two reasons.

1) Did anyone ever roll Sense Motive or equivalent in 2e?

No. They probably assumed that the NPC was out to screw them over, and killed him straight off the bat. However, a 3e failed check in this regard is exactly the same as the 2e scenario - the PCs have no information, and must base their actions on that. Hence, the encounters play out the same way.

2) Most rogues have a decent Con (around 12) nowadays, since it actually means something, so there's a better chance of surviving a 3d6 Con poison. (In fact, if the rogue was lucky and the DM rolled a six, they could have survived with an 8 Con.)

Okay, make it a 4d6 damage poison. Or a 5d6 one, or whatever. It's all still just numbers - make the poison lethal enough and the Rogue dies.

And, frankly, I fail to see how the game easily modelling poisons of different lethality can be considered anything other than a good thing. Oh no, the Rogue might actually survive! :eek:

Except the large goblin wouldn't have had PC "class" powers. (Well, probably...)

So? That's 'behind the curtain' information. Frankly, it makes no difference if this Goblin is more powerful because it's using the 'subchief' category from the MM, if it's using advanced stats that the DM has homebrewed, or if the creature is built by adding a level of Barbarian to the class. All that the players know is "this Goblin is bigger and tougher than the rest".
 

delericho said:
So? That's 'behind the curtain' information. Frankly, it makes no difference if this Goblin is more powerful because it's using the 'subchief' category from the MM, if it's using advanced stats that the DM has homebrewed, or if the creature is built by adding a level of Barbarian to the class. All that the players know is "this Goblin is bigger and tougher than the rest".
Exactly. Old D&D modules had things like "The chief is much larger than the other goblins. He has 4 Hit Dice and receives a +2 bonus to attack and damage due to his great strength."

The goblins chiefs have always been more powerful. It's just a matter of how that extra power was implemented mechanically.
 

Original D&D (1974):

The party intends to make their way to a part of the 1st dungeon level that they haven't previously explored; the southwest quadrant of their map. After a bit of fruitless wandering around in the maze (and running away from some wandering monsters) they finally manage to find a passage that takes them in that direction. They meet a group of lawful gnomes who tell them that the area they are headed for is occupied by goblins, but the party isn't able to convince the gnomes to join them (mediocre reaction roll). Anticipating a large fight, the party decides to head back to town to hire some men-at-arms. The magic-user will also swap out the Charm Person he had prepared for a Sleep spell. The fighter's player calls his friend Joe who has a dwarf character and tells him "we're about to roust a big group of goblins, want in?" to which Joe replies "I'd love to but I've got a term-paper due in the morning that I need to finish. Kick some ass for me and leave a copy of your map behind so if you all get wiped out Fred and I can at least follow in your tracks in this Saturday's game and finish 'em off."

The next day the party re-enters the dungeon with 6 men-at-arms, and head quickly for where they left off before, trying to minimize wandering monster checks. The gnomes they had encountered the previous day are no longer there. The party soldiers on into the "goblin area" and meet twenty goblins. The magic-user takes out a few with a well-cast sleep spell, before retreating and doing little in the combat. The fighter and cleric perform more ably, but the bulk of actual fighting is done by the men-at-arms with the players serving as command figures -- the cleric has a high charisma, giving the men-at-arms a loyalty bonus, so he gives most of the orders. The fight takes a while (both in game, and out of game) - five combat rounds, which translates to five minutes in the game. But then, the goblins' morale breaks and the last 6 run away. 3 of the 6 men-at-arms also survived.

The PCs spike all the doors shut and leave 1 man-at-arms listening at each of the room's 3 doors for approaching wandering monsters (or the surviving goblins coming back with reinforcements) and proceed to loot the room and search the place for secret doors. They find a concealed door in one wall, which leads to a treasure chest. The players suspect the chest is trapped so the magic-user suggests standing behind rather than in front of the chest while he opens it. Alas, the poison arrow trap fires "up" rather than "forward" so the ref declares the magic-user was still in the arrow's path and was hit. He fails his save, and dies.

Opening the chest, they find a magic sword, but the fighter's player fears it might be of an opposite alignment so he's afraid to pick it up. He tries to order one of the men-at-arms to pick it up, but he refuses (and the ref notes that he will have a lower loyalty score going forward). Finally, the cleric's player convinces the fighter's player that since he's lawful and 65% of magic swords are lawful he'll probably be okay, and since they're only 1st level it's worth the risk. The fighter agrees and picks up the sword -- hooray, it's a lawful +1 sword!

One of the men-at-arms reports that he hears something approaching from the south passage, so the PCs take their loot, retreat back the way they came, and head home. It's been about 2 hours real-time so they decide to call it a night, even though the magic-user's player has his new character (an elf) rolled up and is ready to go. Next session their plan is to explore past the door in the west wall that the goblins fled through, because there's still pretty much blank space on their map in that direction and they don't yet feel confident enough to venture onto dungeon level 2.
 
Last edited:

RangerWickett said:
4th Edition? (snip)
That sounds awesome. Its the best advert for 4th edition I've seen so far.

RangerWickett said:
Inside the vault there is a +1 longs-, wait, the dragonborn fighter uses a pick? A +1 pick.
I've been doing that kind of thing in every edition I've ever run, except BECMI when I was only 10 and didn't know any better.
 

Nicely done, Wik.

In 2E, my players would have tied Finnaeus's hands and brought him along, using him as bait to draw out the monsters. If he survived, he would have been forced to open the chest.

Finally, the PC's would have stripped him naked and chased him back to town.

Ah, good times! :D
 

amethal said:
That sounds awesome. Its the best advert for 4th edition I've seen so far.

Agreed. If you cut out the snark and the obvious fallacies (for example, the ritual healing circles and excessive magical items), and remember that the players don't need to know the names of the monsters, that is the best adventure so far.
 


I like D&D but I'm not hardcore about it. For me, someone who likes a variety of RPGs, all four examples just provided the exact same play experience. The only real difference was how combat was resolved and various mechanics changes.

I guess that, no matter the edition, it's still D&D to me.
 

Remove ads

Top