Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jolt" data-source="post: 9867603" data-attributes="member: 18142">Yep, I largely agree.  If you have unlimited time to pick a lock, you're eventually going to pick that lock.  A lot of the problems people had with 1E came from changing the assumptions of the game.  There's nothing wrong with that, but if you change the assumptions you changer the game.A cautious party never fell victim to basic traps or missed secret doors.  1E assumed that you were always looking for these things and you had items like 10' poles to poke ceilings and the floors ahead of you.  That's why, in 1E, it took 10 minutes to move 10'; it assumed you were talking the time to do all that.  It was risky to go quicker, but there were advantages too.  Moving quicker meant fewer wandering monster checks.  Why is that important?  Because wandering monsters rarely had treasure and treasure is where the big XP gains came from.Even at base level, treasure generated a lot more XP than killing monsters.  Plus, XP from treasure could be increased by as much as five times the base amount depending on how risky it was to get.  A lot of DM's eliminated XP from treasure feeling that the treasure itself was enough of a reward.  That's fine, but again if you change the assumptions of the game, you change the game.  Without XP from treasure, leveling (especially after 3rd) really slows down.  Also, if killing is the only way to gain XP, you've removed any desire to not kill from the PC's.  People complain about 1E being all murderhobo, but it wasn't.  It was DM's saying that murder was the only way to gain XP and then acting shocked that PC's wanted to murder.  Skip an encounter?  Pft, screw that.</blockquote>

Verification