Older Editions and "Balance" when compared to 3.5

[Votan]

Shaman may have the power of magic (or maybe not), but does that auto-mean the thinly clad bespectacled youth hiding behind the snorting ½-orc can wield such power? And given that the shaman may use divine magic & wear armour, where then is the auto-wizard logo?

[\QUOTE]

The logo is when he makes the strange noises and starts to cast a spell. In older editions of D&D (BECMI, AD&D) you declare spell casting at the beginning of the round and then roll initative. Any hit disrupts the casting and fighters do not get opportunity attacks.

In a world where most savage humanoid tribes have casters (and have an INT of 9+) then it is reasonable that they can guess that the guy casting an elaborate spell is bad news. Now, it is true that less informed opponents might not be able to figure out if the cleric casting Cure Light Wounds or the Magic User casting Sleep is larger threat.

Of course, game worlds may vary and any specific setting might have magic be exceedingly rare. But in the rules you can find magic users and clerics in both hamlets and small bands of humanoids.

It's counter-intuitive if you are used to 3E/4E, but spell disruption is easy in older editions and there are no mechanisms for casting quietly or without gestures (if the spell requires them as components).

 

[green slime]

Shaman may have the power of magic (or maybe not), but does that auto-mean the thinly clad bespectacled youth hiding behind the snorting ½-orc can wield such power? And given that the shaman may use divine magic & wear armour, where then is the auto-wizard logo?

The logo is when he makes the strange noises and starts to cast a spell. In older editions of D&D (BECMI, AD&D) you declare spell casting at the beginning of the round and then roll initative. Any hit disrupts the casting and fighters do not get opportunity attacks.

In a world where most savage humanoid tribes have casters (and have an INT of 9+) then it is reasonable that they can guess that the guy casting an elaborate spell is bad news. Now, it is true that less informed opponents might not be able to figure out if the cleric casting Cure Light Wounds or the Magic User casting Sleep is larger threat.

Of course, game worlds may vary and any specific setting might have magic be exceedingly rare. But in the rules you can find magic users and clerics in both hamlets and small bands of humanoids.

It's counter-intuitive if you are used to 3E/4E, but spell disruption is easy in older editions and there are no mechanisms for casting quietly or without gestures (if the spell requires them as components).

Ah yes, but what I was concerned about was the auto-javelin into a PC merely because he was ill-armoured, and inspite of there being other more immediate, threatening targets .

Secondly, I think another point should be that the DM in earlier editions was expected to have a plan of the antogonists actions PRIOR to the player declaring their intentions. If the wizard player hangs back for another round, fidgeting with his backpack, is there any reason he is suddenly designated "the primary target"? It doesn't make sense. Sure, if he starts casting a spell, and there are combatants not otherwise engaged in melee, they can try to harm the spellcaster before the spell goes off (initiative + casting time).

Otherwise, there had better be a better reason to start making the wizard's life miserable other than a kobold observing:

"Hey, dat fella in da back dere aint go no proper kit on! I'm gonna try snuff 'im while dat orc-breed tries ta bash ma brain in."

 

[ExploderWizard]

What has the average Kobold seen more of? IF the kobolds have seen and understand the power of arcane magic, AND understand the PC in question is a wielder of arcane power, are they not then more likely to panic and flee, rather than chuck a few ineffectual javelings?!? The wizard hardly has a notice on his forehead saying "1st level spells only (2, 1 used)".

The "average" kobold is defined by the gameworld that he lives in. The reaction to a worker of magic will depend on the experience of a given group of kobolds.

PC's facing kobolds are usually inexperienced. Those kobolds are kind of weak monsters but may or may not be inexperienced. Are the PC's going into a dangerous area where others have gone and failed to return? Perhaps those others who were not so fortunate provided the kobolds with a bit of battle experience?

If you want to kill the wizard, just do so. But don't wrap it up in a "spellcaster-logo" excuse. Because while the light-clad jimmy might be a dangerous (or a noble, or a merchant, or a scribe, or a human donkey, or a former captive, or a .... you get the idea) the axe wielding ½-orc most definitely is dangerous .

As DM I don't want to kill anyone. The kobolds may very well want to. The advantage of a tabletop game is that monsters can learn from experience and do not have to follow any set patterns of whom they should consider dangerous.

I'd argue, that much of what is normal in our world is normal in DnD, but the spotlight is on the unusual, because that is what makes for interesting adventures. I don't want a dishwashing skill challenge for 3rd level characters. In any edition of the game.

Who is suggesting such a thing?

The Kobolds should also have to "declare" (iow, the DM should think what the kobolds are trying to do, before he lets the players' intentions colour their plan). Additionally, there is a reason why kobolds are not top of the food chain...

If the kobolds have casters among their ranks who are preparing spells it is certainly fair to make sure the PCs are aware of any of this activity that they can perceive. What is good for the goose and all.

Furthermore, I'll reiterate: it is even less obvious that kill or be killed is the best solution to the situation at hand.

If we go back to a DnD situation, There are always other options:

1) negotiation
2) surrender
3) flight
4) capture

If we are rolling initiative and choosing targets then negotiations have broken down if they were even begun. Flight, surrender, or capture may still happen but are unlikely at the very beginning of an engagement unless one side or the other believes they have no chance to win the combat. This is what morale is for. Typical kobolds faced with strong attackers will usually break, thus the low morale score. Anything that wouldn't fight at all should just be listed as a non-combatant.

However DND, in all versions, has always had a majority of players that never negotiate, nor surrender, always pursue, and very seldomly show any form of mercy.

I just like to make it clear in my games: word gets around, and you reap what you sow. Regardless of version.

This is largely group dependent and independent of game system. If a DM constantly makes the PC's regret showing mercy then such behavior will certaintly stop.

 

[Dausuul]

The logo is when he makes the strange noises and starts to cast a spell. In older editions of D&D (BECMI, AD&D) you declare spell casting at the beginning of the round and then roll initative. Any hit disrupts the casting and fighters do not get opportunity attacks.

You also declare attacks at the beginning of the round. How come the wizard has to announce she's casting a spell and then all the monsters get to announce they're shooting the wizard? The way we always played it, everybody decided what they were doing, then declared it (on your honor not to change your decision if you happened to declare after an opponent), and then actions got resolved in initiative order.

Apparently the most dangerous clothing to wear, is non-armour, because you are then automatically a wizard, and doomed to be designated primary target by all manner of creatures.

Survival tips for wizards:
#1 Wear heavy armour (borrow the fighter's gear)

There are a couple of magic armors that can disguise themselves as normal clothing. I've always thought one of the best magic items for an early-edition wizard would be the opposite--normal clothing that disguises itself as armor. You'll give yourself away once you start flinging fireballs, of course, but it could buy you that crucial first round to cast your "auto-win" spell.

 

[green slime]

The "average" kobold is defined by the gameworld that he lives in. The reaction to a worker of magic will depend on the experience of a given group of kobolds.

Obviously. But to go from there to auto-javelin a lightly clad individual merely because he is not wearing armour?

PC's facing kobolds are usually inexperienced. Those kobolds are kind of weak monsters but may or may not be inexperienced. Are the PC's going into a dangerous area where others have gone and failed to return? Perhaps those others who were not so fortunate provided the kobolds with a bit of battle experience?

Excellent points, not arguing against my main point: without further explanation, auto-javelining travellers because of their lack of heavy attire is just wierd.

As DM I don't want to kill anyone. The kobolds may very well want to. The advantage of a tabletop game is that monsters can learn from experience and do not have to follow any set patterns of whom they should consider dangerous.

Indeed! And had any witnessed first hand the arcane spellcaster wreaking havoc and survived, I would expect them to attempt a ruthless vengeance. But such is hardly auto-javelining a traveller for wearing pyjamas.

Who is suggesting such a thing?

But it is "balanced". Except between editions.

If the kobolds have casters among their ranks who are preparing spells it is certainly fair to make sure the PCs are aware of any of this activity that they can perceive. What is good for the goose and all.

If we are rolling initiative and choosing targets then negotiations have broken down if they were even begun. Flight, surrender, or capture may still happen but are unlikely at the very beginning of an engagement unless one side or the other believes they have no chance to win the combat. This is what morale is for. Typical kobolds faced with strong attackers will usually break, thus the low morale score. Anything that wouldn't fight at all should just be listed as a non-combatant.

Right. But it is still a possibility. Even if you realise that you will win; you risk losing valuable resources (at the very least healing spells/potions) and time...

This is largely group dependent and independent of game system. If a DM constantly makes the PC's regret showing mercy then such behavior will certaintly stop.

IMX, it isn't the DM making the PC's regret showing mercy, its the PC's never showing mercy. Never accepting surrender, never taking prisoners. Completely bloodthirsty. YMMV

In one battle, a goblin tried to surrender to a player, the player chopped its head off, the next goblin committed suicide by throwing himself out the third story window. That made the player think.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Obviously. But to go from there to auto-javelin a lightly clad individual merely because he is not wearing armour?

Excellent points, not arguing against my main point: without further explanation, auto-javelining travellers because of their lack of heavy attire is just wierd.

Indeed! And had any witnessed first hand the arcane spellcaster wreaking havoc and survived, I would expect them to attempt a ruthless vengeance. But such is hardly auto-javelining a traveller for wearing pyjamas.

OK. Enough with the wardrobe targeting. This line of discussion has spun off of the premise that a sleep spell = autowin. If the jammie clad individual in question is not making movements that opponents may perceive as casting (sleep or otherwise) or perhaps pointing a big-batta-boom device (such as a wand) in their direction then such targeting will be much less likely to occur.

So the sickly looking robed guy in the back may not be a high priority target if he is observed going for a dart or dagger. Better?

 

[NewJeffCT]

Sleep is a potential insta-win. This is different from an auto-win. It's also much less of a big deal in old-school D&D, because you don't expect any individual encounter to take very long anyway, so the occasional insta-win does not break the game.

Ironically, I find sleep's insta-win potential to be a bigger deal in 4E than it was in AD&D or BECMI. It's less likely to happen, but because every enounter in 4E is a big set-piece battle, it feels much more anticlimactic when it does.

Interesting - I've found 4E to be have fewer big 'set piece' type battles than 3E and 3.5E. Combats seem to run quicker.

And, we had WAY more huge "set piece" battles in 2E than we did in my last 3.5E campaign. That was mostly because it was easier in 2E and combats of similar size took less time.

In 2E, the DM thought nothing of throwing 50-100 bad guys at us, and having 10-20 allies on our side for the battle. (i.e., the 20 sailors on our ship that was assaulted by 80 sahuagin; the 20 caravan drivers and 10 additional guards vs the 60 lizardmen & their 15-20 swampy allies)

I was a player in a 2E campaign that started off with the same low level adventure as the 3.5E campaign that I DM'd. As an homage to my old DM, I followed up the adventure with a big showdown in a local grove inhabited by a dryad. While the two groups got there differently, it was a similar showdown involving slavers, drow, orcs and giants as the bad guys. The big battle in 3.5 with me as DM involved about 1/3 the number of bad guys than did our 2E campaign (1 hill giant vs 3; 15 orcs vs 50; 5 drow vs around 15; etc) and I still had a near TPK when I DM'd the 3.5 game. However, it took 3 times as long to run the 3.5E combat as it did the bigger 2E combat... however, that was also partly due to my DMing a less experienced group and my not being a master of the rules of 3.5, either.

 

[green slime]

OK. Enough with the wardrobe targeting. This line of discussion has spun off of the premise that a sleep spell = autowin. If the jammie clad individual in question is not making movements that opponents may perceive as casting (sleep or otherwise) or perhaps pointing a big-batta-boom device (such as a wand) in their direction then such targeting will be much less likely to occur.

So the sickly looking robed guy in the back may not be a high priority target if he is observed going for a dart or dagger. Better?

Yes, much . But it is all part and parcel of the whole sleep issue. It never was an auto-win. It was a powerful tool. It requires some forethought and planning on when is an apropriate time to unleash it, and/or some risk taking. Which was one of the better parts of playing arcane spellcasters in pre-4th edition (IMO) : to do it properly required intelligence.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

Actually, it is possible to deal with traps as skill challenges in any edition of the game, just because it wasn't done so by many, does not mean the earlier editions of the game cannot do the same.

Skill challenges are a mechanical construct of 4E. BECMI and 1E had no skill system for anyone but the thief, so mechanically you aren't going to run traps as skill challenges approaching anything like 4E. Back when it was usually a 1-shot skill roll for the thief on the simple stuff like poison needles with an occasional talk-your-way-through-it option for the more elaborate room-sized traps, but there was not usually a mechanical element in those.

Also keep in mind that back then I don't recall anyone thinking of the thief making a roll or two to disarm a trap as a "minigame" or hogging the spotlight - it was his job - that's why we brought him along in the first place. They were kind of like an NFL kicker - a specialist brought in mainly for a few specific situations. If they managed to contribute in other ways, great. If they blew too many trap checks you dumped them and got a new one

 

[fanboy2000]

Skill challenges are a mechanical construct of 4E. BECMI and 1E had no skill system for anyone but the thief

D&D Rules Cyclopedia Chapter 5: Other Character Abilities details a fairly involved skill system.