• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Playing 2e, 3e, and 4e at the same time: Observations

[MENTION=80916]elf[/MENTION]Witch On Diplomacy, I agree. It isn't a domination effect.

To their credit they didn't say it was. They said "I don't know the right thing to say to make him to do what I want, but my character does." Without diplomacy, oddly enough, they seem to make the effort to find out how to make the NPC do what they want.

As for the non-silver tongued PC's being able to do something, it is rendered moot by the DC system. The DM sets the DC, so if the DM doesn't like the dialogue an uncharismatic player provides, he'll set the DC higher and it will fail.

Diplomacy thus fails to perform its function.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I have to say as well that skill has little to do with it as to whether you can get stuck without resources in old school D&D.
False! Sooooooo false! Old-school D&D is generally designed so that you can gauge the threat level of opponents and retreat if necessary.
If you fight a mid-level spellcaster, half of your party can be disabled or dead simply because of unlucky rolls from two or three spells. Another guy can be greviously wounded because of a critical hit.
Why is no one meleeing the spell caster to disrupt his spells? What are your spell casters doing? Why didn't the thief scout ahead, spot the spellcaster, and pick pocket his spell components? Or give him a good ole' backstab?

Or, if the spellcaster is simply too uber, why fight at all? Avoid, or find away to parley if necessary.

And there aren't crits in old school D&D (pre-3e)..


So what do you do if you are in such a situation? If you are lucky, you have a magical item that can revive your party and restore your hit points. Then it is simply a matter of looking after your spells. It does however mean that the DM has to provide a magical item that can undo any problems. Having magical items to restore heath or shake off conditions instead of allowing the heroes to do it themselves just seems like a different way of filing the same rules.
The DM has no obligation to provide any such thing!

If the players treat every potential combat encounter like Charge of the Light Brigade . . . they reap what they sow.

If they fight a big, climactic battle and are half-dead afterword, sounds like "pushing on" isn't a good idea.
 

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], I suspect you are more lenient that I am in providing both hiding places to rest and providing opportunities to retreat. I'm a real hardass about it. If people fight in one room, people do hear it in the next room. Monsters do check on the various factions in the dungeon, and do patrols.

Generally, without teleportation, a secret room only known to a boss monster, or rope trick, it is very difficult to rest in my dungeons. You cannot clear a level and rest there, you cannot close and lock a door and rest in an active dungeon. Was I always this way? No, but 4e's healing surge mechanic allowed me to be this hard and still allow the game to continue.

Often times dice are fickle, and it is very easy to go from full resources to very depleted with a few bad rolls, especially when save or die is involved. Without some way of magically restoring health or disability, it is impossible predict when the players will fall short of resources.

Skill has nothing to do with it if you suffer a poison attack that saps your strength score and you have no way of neutralizing the poison or restoring strength. Skill has nothing to do with it if you fail a saving throw against finger of death and the party cleric is dead. Skill has nothing to do with it if the DM has a hot streak and destroys far more hit points than the cleric can restore.

So you need a way to overcome chance. Some people find it more realistic to have magic to restore hp or disability, and find it "videogamey" to have the heroes shake it off. I myself don't really see it.

Also, I find that if the DM makes it impossible for the party to extract themselves from a situation that bad dice rolls have gotten them into, I'm pretty sure more often than not that DM is going to be replaced. A DM who puts the rules system before the fun of his players is a poor DM in my books.
 

Combat length seems to be the controversial, so I'll return to it.

Even if your name is Flash Quicksilver, it is going to take you one minute assume your turn, roll your dice and calculate the effect. It is going to take another 30 seconds to a minute to move your miniature. If you have 5 players plus a DM it is going to take 5-10 minutes per round. Three rounds is a half hour, nine rounds is an hour and a half. So the difference as to whether it takes 3 hits to knock an enemy down or 6 hits is a big deal.

Wow. Ok, first of all, minatures are not always required. If the fight occurs in a simple corridor, I'm not breaking out minatures. If I do, I agree that its basically a 5 minute delay. For the moment, let's assume minatures are on the map.

I'm the DM. I have six players, plus me, and there are generally 10-12 combatants in a fight.

When it is a players turn, if they show hesitation in declaring their action, I beginning counting down from 6. They've had in most cases several minutes to think about what they want to do and prepare that action, and delaying at this point is considered by me to be very rude. If I get to zero, they are assumed to have delayed to the end of the initiative order. Combat is supposed to be intense and furious, not a carefully thought out chess match. To the extent that it is chess, it is speed chess and I expect players to act accordingly and move minatures with similar dispatch and confidence.

Players are expected to be able to declare their action in a few seconds, and throw and report the dice in a few seconds more. If they have multiple attacks, they better throw them all (with the understanding that we've previously agreed which dice represents which attack) and not waste time about it. It shouldn't take but a few more seconds for me to relate the outcome of the attack while recording it in my notes.

If this sounds hard nosed, then I agree that it is hard nosed. But in my experience, players rapidly come to understand and appreciate why I run my table this way - especially if they are forced to endure playing at some other table where players are allowed to spend 5 minutes on their turn and it might be 10 minutes before they can act again. In particular, being lenient like that only encourages boredom, and bored players stop paying attention and as a result end up unprepared to act when their turn finally gets back to them.

I try to show similar dispatch when resolving the actions of the foes. I roll dice for every similar foe at once, order them in a standard fashion, and can generally resolve what the 4-6 monsters do in barely more time than it takes a slightly dithering player.

As long as we are talking about keeping the game moving, another rule I keep in place is you can't cast a spell unless you know what it does, if you have to look it up in the rulebook, you can't cast it. This ensures players look up rules in between their own turns rather than during them.

I'm probably going to implement a rule that you can't cast a buff unless you have the buff cards for it, just to keep the bookkeeping from eventually overwhelming me.

Setting up miniatures will generally take 5 minutes to lay the tiles or draw the map and to lay down the relevant minis if the DM is prepared. It will also take a few minutes to clean up. Even if you are an efficient DM, that is still going to be a half hour loss each night from simply handling and dealing with minis.

So don't deal with mini's. Most combats can be handled abstractly. Only bring out the mini's if there is some significant tactical element to be emphasised.

One of the biggest time sink for 3e though has to be movement and attacks of opportunity. We spend more time arguing about that in our 3e game than anything else. Are the players just being difficult? Perhaps.

Yes. And they know you'll tolerate it.

If you load up on the things that slow down 2e combat however (spells and high AC) it becomes just as slow as all the rest.

I didn't ever really play 2e by the rules, so I can't speak to this, but if you bring the tactical options from 1e in - simultaneous declaration, to hit vs. AC, weapon length, etc. even if you have good bookkeeping so that you aren't constantly cross referencing between multiple tables (my 1e stat blocks often included to hit vs. each PC) combat can still bog down. However, it wasn't subject to the worst problems of either 3e or 4e, which is status/buff/debuff tracking, so it never bogged quite like either of them can.
 

[MENTION=2425]Gentlegamer[/MENTION]

Why did no one disrupt his spell? The fighter rolled a 1, and dropped his sword. He spent the next round picking it up. The thief was blocked by another monster, and the cleric was already a duck because the enemy spellcaster won initiative. The wizard and the thief managed to carry the day, but not before the caster hit the fighter with another killing spell, or a disabling spell that makes him useless.

Despite all the skill in the world, luck has a way of screwing with everyone. Now perhaps we shouldn't be such pansies, but it took 9 months of real time to get to 6th level, and now all the accumulated backstory and work the DM has put into his campaign is going down the crapper. Unless the DM allows the thief and wizard to escort the dead fighter and duck to a place where they can receive restoration magic, then they are sunk. Either the DM looks the other way and allows the heroes to escape, they have a magic item that can undo the damage, or they simply will die because of the dangers of trying to reach a safe haven. I am fairly confident that this will happen often enough in the default rules that the DM who chooses option 3 all the time will be a DM who is replaced.

So don't tell me that people don't use and need a restoration ability of some sort. Whether you find it in a magical item or in the PC's own abilities is merely a question of taste.
 

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], I suspect you are more lenient that I am in providing both hiding places to rest and providing opportunities to retreat. I'm a real hardass about it. If people fight in one room, people do hear it in the next room. Monsters do check on the various factions in the dungeon, and do patrols.

Eh, I mostly run published stuff. Generally the PCs cannot rest safely in a dungeon unless it's a non-organised dungeon and they have both cleared out a large area, chosen a resting place carefully, and set guards/wards. They can usually retreat in a non-organised dungeon though - why not? And if they retreat back to town they can then rest safely.

In my organised dungeon areas, monsters certainly react to incursion, move to reinforce, etc.

Any of my players reading this can confirm that 'lenient' and 'S'mon' are not words that go together. :) Actually after defeating the party again in tonight's game (2 PCs captured, 1 fled) I lamented on the train home that I wish I could be a bit more lenient, adjusting fights to party strength and such. But I have a very "what's there is there" mindset which doesn't really allow that.
 

[MENTION=463]
Skill has nothing to do with it if you suffer a poison attack that saps your strength score and you have no way of neutralizing the poison or restoring strength. Skill has nothing to do with it if you fail a saving throw against finger of death and the party cleric is dead. Skill has nothing to do with it if the DM has a hot streak and destroys far more hit points than the cleric can restore.

So you need a way to overcome chance.

I just let the PCs die. Lots of DMs do, although I'm probably more to the 'killer DM' end of the spectrum these days. But even more moderate DMs commonly allow the possibility that either bad play (lack of skill) OR bad luck may indeed lead to PC death/defeat.
 

Also, I find that if the DM makes it impossible for the party to extract themselves from a situation that bad dice rolls have gotten them into, I'm pretty sure more often than not that DM is going to be replaced.

Again, this is not my experience. IME players generally accept that bad luck can lead to PC death. They only object if they feel railroaded into PC death. If it was the result of their choice & the luck of the dice, they normally accept it as part of the game.
 

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] Actually, I'm not the DM in the 3e game, and I am indeed more likely to put my foot down than this DM. However, I would generally think that most DM's and Players are amateurs at playing D&D and generally are more relaxed about it than you or the previous poster who is an arrow bard. If this is a place where the amateur players get tripped up, it is probably a bad rule.

I also think you might find a minute to be longer than it is. Take this 3e exchange, speak it aloud, and count yourself on a clock.

DM: Dave, your turn.

Dave: Okay, I cast fireball on those three minotaurs in the back of the room.

DM: Okay... I think you can get them all. What is your save DC?

Dave: 18.

DM: Fail, fail, success.

Dave: Okay, they take..... *roll 6d6 and count up the numbers* damage.

DM: So half damage would be....

Dave: *x amount of damage* damage for the minotaur who saved.

DM: Okay, Leonard you're next.

If you roll the dice and say the words, giving a reasonable amount of time for human pauses and comprehension, you'll find that is about a minute long. That's for a simple fireball hitting a few targets. This doesn't count spells that take longer like figuring out buffing or draining levels or ability scores. This doesn't count a 30 second debate about positioning (which even in your efficient players are going to have once and awhile) or figuring out exactly where the area effect spell falls (which 4e sped up immensely with square cube spell effects).
 

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] - With published adventures (where I didn't have to throw away my own prep work), with no ongoing plot, and players who don't mind throwing away months of work developing a character on the single roll of die...

Well, I guess I could run OD&D as written. ;)

But my players generally want to achieve things, and I want to achieve things, and we're just not nihilistic enough to throw away a year long project like that. If someone does, generally their campaign is considered to have come to and end, and someone else is always ready to step into the DM's chair to run their own campaign. Billy wants to run Oriental Adventures, Chuck wants to run Star Wars, Jennifer wants to run WoD, Emmet wants to run In Nomine but no one else wants to etc. etc.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top