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

[Micah Sweet]

Thinking about the place of minions in the game reminded me of this from 1e. I thought it was by DMG combat tables, but it is on page 25 of PHB under the table about fighter, paladin, and ranger attacks per melee round (that increase from 1 to 3/2 to 2 as they level):

View attachment 414377

Granted that melee rounds were one minute in AD&D because it "is not in the best interests of an adventure game, however to delve too deeply into cut and thrust, parry and riposte" and instead the "system assumes much activity during the course of each round". (DMG page 61). Still, a 20th level fighter getting 10x as many attacks against a 0-level (or d7 or less) monster than against a 1st level (or d8 or higher) monster shows how big of a difference that 1st level is.

I somehow knew the rule existed, but I have no recollection of fighters always (after1st level) taking multiple attacks against Goblins (d7) and Kobolds (d4). I wonder if that comes from starting with B/X and if those who started with 1e always did (and also used a lot of the combat rules in the DMG I don't remember).

To be fair, what you're describing is a fighter class feature, not a general monster rule.

 

[Cadence]

Wow I started with 1e and I don't remember that one. But then I talk to people who never used the surprise rules which made rogues and rangers stealth incredibly useful.

I was skimming the pages before the combat tables in 1e this morning and there are a lot of things I don't remember hiding, including some that still be around in later editions (albeit in different forms).

 

[Cadence]

To be fair, what you're describing is a fighter class feature, not a general monster rule.

Right. But I am guessing it might have been designed to catch the idea of the big hero being able to blow through the crowd of littler things. The magic using classes probably didn't need any help since they had picked up the big area affect spells that would have wiped out hoards anyway (and thieves kind of sucked at actual thieving, so why should they be good at combat).

 

[nevin]

Right. But I am guessing it might have been designed to catch the idea of the big hero being able to blow through the crowd of littler things. The magic using classes probably didn't need any help since they had picked up the big area affect spells that would have wiped out hoards anyway (and thieves kind of sucked at actual thieving, so why should they be good at combat).

You are forgetting one point of damage before your initiative and you lost the spell. Magic using classes in 1e needed all the help they could get

 

[Faolyn]

The bolded is far too deep in metagame-side thinking for my liking.

You have to think outside of just the game because it's a game, and you do this whenever you actually write up anything for the game.

If memory serves (this was 17 years ago!) the trap did something like 3d6 damage to anyone caught beneath it when the rocks came down. Most 1st-level characters in our game have between 5-12 hit points; and death is at -10 (at 0 or below you might be unconscious). The simple math there says death is unlikely but possible while getting knocked below 0 is fairly likely - if you get hit.

Then the dice took over. Natural 20 for the Ogre's "aim" with the trap; crit roll gave 4x damage, and the charaacters were bunched together. 11 points damage became 44 (I remember those numbers clearly!) and at 1st level there ain't nobody gonna survive that. Of a party of (I think) 9 at the time, 4 died on the spot and the rest fled. (after doing some recruiting they went right back there and took out that Ogre)

Same thing could have happened had the Ogre got a 4x crit on an attack, except it would only kill one character at a time.

But you still wrote those "nasty crit rules" into existence. AD&D doesn't have anything like that, just things like double damage or a second attack. You specifically created a crit table for attacks to be extra nasty and put in a very powerful trap against some 1st-level characters and made the trap an attack roll capable of critting instead of requiring a save or Dex check (both of which were things in AD&D). But somehow, letting the pirate captain call in reinforcements is unfair. Which I really don't get.

To the bolded: it's not my place to tell people how to play their characters. Full stop.

They can play their characters however they want at someone else's table. I don't have to GM for them.

Never mind that the infighting is where all the good stories came from, still told and laughed about today.

If "all" the good stories--or even a large chunk of them, assuming hyperbole--come from infighting, that kinda indicates to me that the actual game isn't all that interesting.

And for me, to start out the game not knowing if I can trust the people around me to not kill me or turn on me? I can't imagine why I would work with you. I may need your skill set, but that doesn't mean I need you. I'll find someone else who can do what you can do and is trustworthy.

 

[Faolyn]

Narrate something relevant as the DM, or ask for a check. The cat is background flavor, not something relevant to the resolution.

More importantly, the cat likely isn't a 20th-level PC.

(I mean, it could be, but it probably isn't.)

 

[AlViking]

Right. But I am guessing it might have been designed to catch the idea of the big hero being able to blow through the crowd of littler things. The magic using classes probably didn't need any help since they had picked up the big area affect spells that would have wiped out hoards anyway (and thieves kind of sucked at actual thieving, so why should they be good at combat).

Except action economy limits what you can do and if you accidentally blew a daily on a minion it really sucked. Meanwhile even the wimpiest AOE wiped them out.

To me the design didn't really fit D&D while simultaneously doing poor job of achieving their goal.

Given all that I rarely used them in my games. Did you?

 

[Cadence]

Except action economy limits what you can do and if you accidentally blew a daily on a minion it really sucked. Meanwhile even the wimpiest AOE wiped them out.

To me the design didn't really fit D&D while simultaneously doing poor job of achieving their goal.

Given all that I rarely used them in my games. Did you?

The part you quoted was supposed to be me talking about 1e' s fighters vs. 0-level opponents and tony monsters.

I played 4e very little.

I think when we've played 13th are the DM must have been telegraphing who the mooks are because I don't remember blowing dailies on them being a problem. I can imagine it being really annoying if one has no clue what was tough and what didn't.

 

[AlViking]

More importantly, the cat likely isn't a 20th-level PC.

(I mean, it could be, but it probably isn't.)

The point is that it could have just been a regular cat. Admittedly it would be easy to kill and has to get lucky to hit. But if it did the minion would die.

Better example is commoners that come to the aid of the characters taking out minions left and right by throwing rocks. I don't think it was ogre minions, I just don't remember what they were any more.