Why must numbers go up?

[MerricB]

In old D&D, one reason for having a lot of distinct variations on basically the same kind of monster (e.g., the "humanoids" ranging from Kobolds to Ogres) is to give players information they can use in assessing risks. It's sort of like being able to tell apart models of tank or plane in a World War 2 game.

Good point.

Cheers!

 

[Plane Sailing]

The procedures in the 1E DMG are more complicated than that in the 0E FAQ, but overbearing and grappling can be good ways to bring numbers to bear -- especially versus a heavily (or magically) armored foe.

Our rule was that if n attackers focussed on a single defender, they all get +(n-1) to hit.

Also note that, per the 1E PHB, ordinary orcs -- having a full 8-sided hit die -- are not subject to any more than a fighter's usual number of attacks per round (as opposed to one per experience level versus 0-level men, goblins, etc.).

Yeah, that's why I used Orc's in my example rarher than goblins, who would get mown down by high level fighters for that reason.

Cheers

 

[Meatboy]

Very broad and generally...

If the numbers don't change, the tactical game doesn't change very much. Would you want to play a tactical wargame over and over with the same units? For a while, sure, but it'd eventually get boring. You increase the lifespan, the "replayability" if you have some sort of change inherent in the system.

Numbers going up, psychologically, speaks to us as a positive thing, signifying growth and improvement.

Thus, you build a game where there's change, you make it so that change is basically increasing numbers.

Too true. I don't mind numbers going up I just want them to have meaning. Plus I think that adding tactical options is more in giving the characters powers or new ways to use powers not just bigger numbers and bigger threats or what have you.

 

[ExploderWizard]

One thing you can do as a DM though is plan things out differently.

Don't build encounters based on what level the players are. Rather, build the guards and such based on what they should be in the position they hold.

If your players try to raid a throne room when they're in heroic levels, they should be expecting to encounter guards that are at high paragon levels, maybe even low epic levels.

Make the enemies realistically powerful for their job.

Sure this puts a lot more risk on your players, but they'll learn that they cannot take on anything they want at any level they want.

Course, this style of DMing takes a lot more prep work as you're basically letting the players dictate where the story goes rather than you dictating the story you want to tell. I've found though that players often enjoy this far more than them playing an epic storyline that you came up with.

I know I'm probably not explaining this well enough though. But I have it totally pictured in my mind

See, for one thing, the prep work for this sort of campaign is pretty much you pre-building the sorts of guards, assassins, creatures, ect... your players will encounter in certain parts of your world. After you create all that, then you just make minor tweaks as the game progresses. Now yes, this is a LOT of work for a DM and most wouldn't want to go through with all that work, but I've found it makes the world seem more real and alive.

I personally was going to start building a world of this sort once Dark Sun was released. I don't expect to be ready to DM a Dark Sun campaign for months after the campaign guide is released, hell maybe even a year (depending how busy I am)

I was talking about game design and not so much my own campaign.

I run a largely sandbox style campaign. The PC's have opportunities of varying threat levels and they decide what to do. I don't dictate the story at all.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

The main difference in 1e and 3e that did somewhat help the Orc out was tracking facing, which made getting flanked signfiicantly worse in 1e than in 3e RAW.

Why? The only bonus for facing in 1e was a shield. At the absolute outside, you're looking at 5 points of AC (and that would be a +4 shield - by that time, it's probably not an issue) of difference between being flanked. Most of the time, being flanked meant 1 maybe 2 points of difference in AC.

It always seemed like a lot of work for not a whole lot of difference to me.

Tactical variety is all well and good but when the d20 roll becomes just kind of an add on to the hit bonus, things get ridiculous. Any target numbers expanding too far beyond the range of the die being used for resolution is approaching bloat. This doesn't mean that modifiers have no place in the system but it does mean that an AC of 30+ is just silly unless one were using a d30 to resolve hits.

Why? The only reason that would be true would be if you presume that all AC's are hittable. Or that any task at all is possible (even if remote) and that no task can ever be impossible.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In 1e, DEX bonus doesn't apply to AC against all attacks, for one.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why? The only reason that would be true would be if you presume that all AC's are hittable. Or that any task at all is possible (even if remote) and that no task can ever be impossible.

A task can be virtually impossible without making it rigidly numerically so.

An AD&D man at arms against an ancient red dragon is such a situation. Yeah he might be able to score a lucky shot but victory (unless the dragon falls asleep out of boredom) is pretty much impossible.

There are impossible tasks of course. Needing a magic weapon to score damage is one example.

Higher numbers just for the sake of higher numbers is pointless. If the difficulty of attaining a success remains a constant then there is no real improvement taking place.

 

[billd91]

In 1e, DEX bonus doesn't apply to AC against all attacks, for one.

Also, attacking from behind got the attacker a +2 bonus to hit (+4 if a thief).

If looking at a reasonably notorious NPC, Obmi from G3, his AC goes from -2 to effectively 5 if flanked (Dex of 16, +2 shield, +2 to being hit from behind). That's a 7 point swing.

 

[Ariosto]

Just to clarify, in 1E AD&D it's:

any flank or rear: no shield
rear flank: also no dexterity bonus
rear: also +2 to hit

The attacker's "to hit" bonus, I think, is indeed actually applied (as in the case of magic) to the target's "effective AC", or row on the combat matrices. This can matter because of repeating 20s. If a 0-level man attacked Obmi from behind, the shift in hit numbers would be only from 20 to 16 (not 13).

There are, of course, other potential considerations, not rules-set specific.

Consideration of facing was introduced in D&D Supplement I:

LFRO FRON RFRO
LFLA XXXX RFLA
REAR REAR REAR

It was phrased very poorly, but the rule appears to be, "When two or more opponents attack, only armor applies to attacks from the right and/or rear."

Besides a dexterity bonus to AC (for fighters only), that supplement also introduced weapon-versus-armor factors. Depending on particulars, a shield might be worth 2 points, or 0, instead of the usual 1.

The "two or more opponents" bit is notable. Plugging in facing considerations is conceptually a bit awkward with the more abstract basis of the old D&D combat scheme. It's an example of how we sometimes "zoom in" for extra detail, and press into service something that gets the job done.

"Attacks of opportunity", for instance, might seem at odds with supposedly facing another direction. That bothers me more in 3e than in 1e, because 1e doesn't have a nominal resolution of 6-second rounds and 5-foot squares. It works in 1-minute rounds (albeit divided into 6-second "segments") and 10-foot radii. So, it is the notion of a consistent facing that is more likely to stand out as odd.

It can work well if you've got people in close formations, or defending linear positions -- which of course would be the usual case in the historical situations that D&D's precursor Chainmail was meant to depict.

One general rule in the DMG, which a lot of folks don't apply, is that there is no singling out of specific opponents in a mass melee. That, I think, reflects better the confused turmoil more commonly meant by "melee" -- and likely to be the case in general hand-to-hand affrays in the dungeons.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just to clarify, in 1E AD&D it's:

any flank or rear: no shield

Shouldn't this be "right flank or rear, assuming shield on the left arm"?