D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

4e tried to introduce actual mechanics outside of combat via Skill Challenges, but botched the presentation (a common flaw with 4e), and anything good it did communicate got lost in the hate parade. Since then, 5e has done absolutely nothing to change this, and has in fact tried to compress as much of itself as it can into the spells system, where essentially all non-fiat, non-combat mechanics are stowed.

WotC's version of 5e has done as you say. I would argue that other versions of 5e have done a much better job utilizing mechanics outside of combat without always resorting to magic.

 

[Eric V]

You keep trying to "prove" that other people's opinions and preferences are somehow wrong. How about trying to accept that we just have different viewpoints?

That is not at all what he's doing. @Hussar can correct me if I am wrong, but fwict, if he got a response of "Yeah, it doesn't necessarily make sense, but me and my group just like it this way," he'd nod his head and say "fair enough." No, it's the arguments (especially with their inconsistencies) that he seems to take issue with, not the preferences. Honestly, who cares what any of our preferences are? They just are. Arguments can be right or wrong, though.

 

[Maxperson]

Your statblock is not absolute in any real way. It changes all the time. There's an entire leveling system that changes your statblock routinely. Never minding things like level drain, magical/mundane enhancements, situational modifiers, etc.

And mechanical symmetry is a myth. It's certainly mythical in AD&D. What is the wisdom score of an orc? How much experience does a dragon have? How, exactly, does an orc suddenly gain a boatload of HP, Strength and attack bonuses the second he becomes a chief? What if that orc chief is young or old? On and on.

Statblocks are an abstraction of a snapshot in time. Your statblock might be X right now, but, tomorrow, it might be Y. And, again, 4e D&D was very clear on the notion that the mechanics were absolutely NOT meant to be used if the PC's were not present. If you're applying cats to minions, that's your fault for not using the system as written or intended.

Never minding that in AD&D, an ogre can have 5 HP. Looks like a minion to me. Let's not forget, as well, that a 1st level fighter can kill an AD&D ogre in one round without too much difficulty. Weapon Specs and a longsword is 28 points of damage in a single round. More than enough to kill most ogres. Add on a percentile strength and now Mr. 1st Level Fighter can quite reasonably kill an ogre in a single round.

Easy. An orc has 4d6-L wisdom score unless the DM uses another method of determining stats. We know this because monsters can have class levels and to be a class in AD&D requires being created like a PC, which means all 6 stats.

As for how much experience a dragon has, that only matters if the dragon has a character class. Experience is life is different from experience for class levels.

Now, for that 5 hit point ogre. The average ogre in 1e has 19 hit points. That's your standard, healthy ogre. If you come across one with 5 hit points, it's going to be a child or decrepit old ogre, not some "minion" ogre that Gygax had no concept of, because it doesn't show up anywhere in the AD&D game. The odds of encountering an ogre like that are pretty slim. Around 1 in 4000 slim. Kinda hard to throw bunches of those at the PCs.

Your 1st level AD&D fighter is almost surely going to be smooshed by any ogre he encounters.

 

[AlViking]

That is not at all what he's doing. @Hussar can correct me if I am wrong, but fwict, if he got a response of "Yeah, it doesn't necessarily make sense, but me and my group just like it this way," he'd nod his head and say "fair enough." No, it's the arguments (especially with their inconsistencies) that he seems to take issue with.

The arguments are based on subjective preferences, opinions and point of view.

I don't see adjusting a combat before the encounter starts as being at all the same as adding a cook (or any other complication) due to a failure of a check as being at all the same. One is adjusting the number of creatures to hit the target difficulty I had in mind, the other is changing the fiction because of a bad roll, adjusting things not for balance purposes for narrative purposes. It would be like adding a second wave of monsters in during the middle of a fight or doubling the BBEG's HD in the middle of combat.

How is it different? It's different because in my completely subjective opinion it is.

 

[Cadence]

You really don’t see how claiming that D&D doesn’t do any one thing good comes across as claiming it’s piss poor?

I mean, it's no Level-Up ;-)

 

[Maxperson]

I think quantum was negative by us. While we ultimately recognized some aspects of d&d as possessing that quality as well, we doubled down on there being something we intensely disliked, some subset of quantum that we were trying to describe by quantum.

We didn't double down on quantum being what we disliked. We simply separated who engaged in it as what made it acceptable or unacceptable to us. The traditional DM has to engage in it in order to create. Players do not and should not, at least in games that I like to play and run.