Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[ExploderWizard]

Oh sure, and different people will prefer different implementations.

Yes, and thats fine. No problems.

Generally true, with one notable exception: magic weapons.


Seeing as characters couldn't damage a significant number of mid-to-high monsters at all without magic weapons, it's safe to say it was a basic assumption of the system that characters would posses them.

I know for sure that the red dragon didn't require magic weapons. It is also safe to say that if the DM decided not to use a lot of these monsters then magic weapons could be more rare ( a style preference). At a minimum, the bonuses from such weapons were not as important against all foes of a given level range.

Find me a classic AD&D module intended for mid-to-high level PC's that didn't tacitly assume the PC's had enchanted ironmongery.

Module A4. The PC's are 6-7th level and begin the adventure pretty much nekkid and without spellbooks. By the end of the adventure they have to face the BBEG group of slavelords with whatever gear they can cobble together after a daring escape.

 

[Ariosto]

"Needs magic to hit" is a qualitatively exceptional feature, which would be the same if applied in 4E. (For example, minions are qualitatively exceptional in their invulnerability to damage from a "miss".) The AC range -- and, the ultimate point, the range of chances to hit -- is quantitatively quite another matter.

The arithmetic is very different, as (pretty naturally) are the consequences. This ties in with the range of hit point scores ... and eventually gets us minions as a "patch".

 

[Mallus]

.If memory serves, neither the Red Dragon nor the Beholder require magic items to hit them.

But many AD&D monsters did, correct?

In 1e, the need for magic to hit was eliminated by not using specific monsters, or by adjusting them to remove this property.

Sure. I didn't mean to suggest you couldn't change the requirement. Only that the requirement represented an escalation in the creature's defenses.

 

[jgbrowning]

There is also, perhaps, a distinction to be drawn between a commoner -- or a squirrel -- with 1 hp and an ogre minion? At least, I hope there is!

And don't forget about the level 23 Angel of Light minion. Limiting the discussion of the minion concept to the weakest of the weak in a world is misleading if one wants to understand the effects of the rule.

And there is also the distinction that, although the same term is used to represent toughness (hp), the scale of the toughness is different in different games. This makes a creature with 100hp have very different location on the toughness scale in relation to other creatures in the different rules sets. The term isn't what's important, it's the ratio to all the other creatures in the system that that term represents, that's important.

The meaning of hit points is not the same in the different itinerations of the game - so 1hp of toughness in 1e does not equal 1hp of toughness in 4e (nor does 50hp in 1e = 50hp in 4e, nor 100 hp in 1e= 100 hp in 4e) because the number only has meaning in relation to the totality of the creatures in each system, and is not a separable concept. Equal numbers don't mean equal toughness when scales are radically different.

This is more easily conceptualized when comparing the 23 lvl minion against a squirrel or a bat or a commoner, rather than comparing commoner to commoner.

joe b.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But many AD&D monsters did, correct?

I guess that depends upon what you mean by "many". I would say that the vast majority did not.

Which is true, but also not relevant to my point that the monsters PC's faced tended to get tougher as they went up in level.

No.

It would be true if, say, all the powerful monsters needed magic to hit, but the weak guys did not. AFAICT, monsters in AD&D need magic to hit only if there is a folkloric/fictional reason for it. Thus, the wraith needs a magic weapon to hit because the Nazgul did in LotR, and the gargoyle does because it is made of stone. The werewolf can be hurt by magic or silver, because that is in keeping with Gygax's sources.

But a gargoyle is not a lich, by a long shot. Magic weapons being needed to hit isn't based on monster level.


RC

 

[Mallus]

I know for sure that the red dragon didn't require magic weapons.

My memory can be a little wonky, I just turned 40 (40 is the new 2X20). I assume it's going to get worse from here...

It is also safe to say that if the DM decided not to use a lot of these monsters then magic weapons could be more rare ( a style preference).

This is true, but I think using the term 'style preference' obscures an important point: many DM's used published modules, or at least parts of them. Many of these modules featured monsters that required magic to hit, which in turn carried the assumption that PC's had those weapons. And the decision to use modules wasn't just a stylistic preference, it was a time and work-saving measure.

I'm sure you could remove the need for magic weapons in AD&D modules. I never saw it done.

Module A4. The PC's are 6-7th level and begin the adventure pretty much nekkid and without spellbooks.

Is that Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords? It's a good one... but an outlier. It begins with a fiat capture of the PC's, and, more importantly, it contains magic items for them to find/win as they go through it. It rapidly conforms to the expectations that I claim are present.

 

[Ariosto]

In 4E, a character gets +1 per 2 levels to AC. That is entirely separate from any bonuses for ability score or magic items.
In old D&D, there is no such factor.

In 4E, a monster's AC (if designed per DMG p. 184) is a base of 12, 14 or 16 (depending on role) ... +1 per level.
In old D&D, there is no such formula. Most monsters, regardless of level, have ACs within the range possible to a 1st level character based on (non-magical) armor, shield and dexterity.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My memory can be a little wonky, I just turned 40 (40 is the new 2X20). I assume it's going to get worse from here...

Ha! Youngster!



Happy belated. I'm going to be 43 this year.

Is that Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords? It's a good one... but an outlier. It begins with a fiat capture of the PC's, and, more importantly, it contains magic items for them to find/win as they go through it. It rapidly conforms to the expectations that I claim are present.

Sorry, but you were specific about expectations that the PCs had magical ironmongery....and this is a good example. Indeed, any module without creatures that require magic weapons to hit is a good example.....how do you imagine that AASL "rapidly conforms" to your expectations?


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is more easily conceptualized when comparing the 23 lvl minion against a squirrel or a bat or a commoner, rather than comparing commoner to commoner.

Well, this is a nice example - most of the time, the 23 lvl minion will win. The same can happen if you have a 40 hit point ogre against a 4 hit point Kobold. Most of the time, the Ogre will win. Exception luck can have the Kobold prevail.

The difference is the number of rounds to get there, but then - with hit points there are a lot of scenarios where I can - regardless of dice rolls - never kill a creature in one round (let alone one hit).

 

[jgbrowning]

Well, this is a nice example - most of the time, the 23 lvl minion will win. The same can happen if you have a 40 hit point ogre against a 4 hit point Kobold. Most of the time, the Ogre will win. Exception luck can have the Kobold prevail.

The difference is the number of rounds to get there, but then - with hit points there are a lot of scenarios where I can - regardless of dice rolls - never kill a creature in one round (let alone one hit).

I wasn't comparing creatures in a fight, I was considering their ability to take damage in relation to all other creatures in the game system's abilities to take damage.

joe b.