Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 4865240" data-attributes="member: 3586">If there is, could you find the issue number for us, please? I'd like to read that article. I certainly remember Gary talking in the AD&amp;D DMG about how early D&amp;D games didn't suggest limits on magic item placement, and so lots of campaigns just used what the tables suggested and broke as a result.Mind you, I have the feeling that the discussion of &quot;low magic&quot; that Gary has in the DMG is aimed specifically at new (1st level) campaigns; once the medium to high levels are reached, magic items became a lot more frequent. As the years have gone by, I've become very suspicious of a lot of the interpretations of Gary's advice in the AD&amp;D DMG; it seems to me that Gary often was talking about quite specific issues which have been then made more general by the readers.With regard to the threat of low-level monsters in AD&amp;D: I do agree with you to some extent. I do feel that hit points determine longevity in AD&amp;D far more than AC, although it was terribly easy for a DM to break the AC system by just giving out a couple of good magic items. Or through a fighter with very good stats.In 4e, low-level monsters are far more successful as threats than in 3e. 3e had an incredibly steep power curve; so much so that I was of the opinion by the end that an ogre was a TPK at level 2, a threat at level 3, and a walkover by level 5. That's a terribly short period of usefulness. In 4e, the useful levels of a monster are extended to far more than 3e.However, ignoring minions, a low-level monster in 4e, despite possibly being a credible threat, may well survive too long against higher level PCs. The goblin skirmisher (1st level) has 29 hp. An 11th level rogue can one-shot that; most other PCs won't without using encounter powers. This is a clear disconnect from how it worked in previous editions, although this isn't always a bad thing.Cheers!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MerricB, post: 4865240, member: 3586"] If there is, could you find the issue number for us, please? I'd like to read that article. I certainly remember Gary talking in the AD&D DMG about how early D&D games didn't suggest limits on magic item placement, and so lots of campaigns just used what the tables suggested and broke as a result. Mind you, I have the feeling that the discussion of "low magic" that Gary has in the DMG is aimed specifically at new (1st level) campaigns; once the medium to high levels are reached, magic items became a lot more frequent. As the years have gone by, I've become very suspicious of a lot of the interpretations of Gary's advice in the AD&D DMG; it seems to me that Gary often was talking about quite specific issues which have been then made more general by the readers. With regard to the threat of low-level monsters in AD&D: I do agree with you to some extent. I do feel that hit points determine longevity in AD&D far more than AC, although it was terribly easy for a DM to break the AC system by just giving out a couple of good magic items. Or through a fighter with very good stats. In 4e, low-level monsters are far more successful as threats than in 3e. 3e had an incredibly steep power curve; so much so that I was of the opinion by the end that an ogre was a TPK at level 2, a threat at level 3, and a walkover by level 5. That's a terribly short period of usefulness. In 4e, the useful levels of a monster are extended to far more than 3e. However, ignoring minions, a low-level monster in 4e, despite possibly being a credible [i]threat[/i], may well survive too long against higher level PCs. The goblin skirmisher (1st level) has 29 hp. An 11th level rogue can one-shot that; most other PCs won't without using encounter powers. This is a clear disconnect from how it worked in previous editions, although this isn't always a bad thing. Cheers! [/QUOTE]

Verification