@digitalelf
Great quote! I do wonder if Mr. Gygax's version of improving the rules meant both addition and subtraction? Perhaps he addressed that somewhere else? What I mean is, I wonder if improvement of a game was the availability of new classes and abilities, like Oriental Adventures, or if it was only adjustments to the mechanics themselves. In that case you might look at things like THAC0 in place of the more universal AC system that exists now. Is it improving a game to continue to add in new feats, classes, archetypes, spells, etcetera, ad nauseum, and then waiting to see how the players of the game discover the myriad strange ways those additions interact with the mechanics of the game as they already exist?
Or are all those additions not the game itself, but the material that any table might use to create their own game. In that case the "game" would be just the universal mechanics, and not the variety of sources that help players play the game with the kinds of characters and monsters, and in the setting that they desire. What I mean by that is, regardless of what character, archetype, feats, skills, etcetera a PC has been created with, the "game" says that when you are trying to hit something you roll a d20, add relevant bonuses (wherever they may come from), and try to overcome a target AC. <---- That is the "game." In which case Gygax's statements about improving the game would mean strictly looking at ways that the mechanics of actual gameplay can be streamlined for uniformity, ease of use, and make the most of contributing to a logical reality.
I find that quote particularly amusing in a game with optional psionics and rules for crossovers with Boot Hill and Gamma World in the core rules themselves.
From my recollection, whatever his intentions, no one actually played by the book, RAW, 1E AD&D. Even if they tried, there were far too many rules that were misunderstood, unclear or even contradictory.I don't think I ever understood initiative, for example. I'm pretty sure I still don't.
That quote may have been his original intent or a way of distinguishing between AD&D & Basic, but I don't think it ever had any relationship to reality.
As far as I could tell, you couldn't do it if you tried– because we tried! We had all the 1E books and we interpreted them as best we could, but they were built on earlier D&D which was built on Chainmail which was built on... (etc.) So there were a lot of baked-in assumptions that people who'd been wargaming since 1971 "just knew" that weren't in the rules anywhere.
-The Gneech
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@digitalelf
Great quote! I do wonder if Mr. Gygax's version of improving the rules meant both addition and subtraction?
Keep in mind that much of the reason for Gygax's introduction of AD+D was hardball corporate politics as much as "improving the game", He was looking to cut Dave Arneson out of the action.
1) Still no bonus to hit that you wouldn't have under any other "sneak attack" scenario. Remember, the goblin is totally oblivious to the rogue's presence. How does that situation not warrant a bonus to hit beyond a marginal +2?Worse, the goblin retained his shield bonus. How dumb is that?
The goblin would lose his Dex bonus and you'd get extra damage.
Yes, the shield bonus remains, since you still have to hit him where his shield aint.
You might as well say the Goblin should lose his armor bonus as there are places not covered by his armor and you'd hit there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the shield bonus remains, since you still have to hit him where his shield aint.
You might as well say the Goblin should lose his armor bonus as there are places not covered by his armor and you'd hit there.
That's not really how shields work. They're an active defence. You block with them.
Not in D&D.
Was reading the Conan RPG rules (1st Edition) and came across this:
The first and most important rule of Conan the Roleplaying Game is that if you do not like it, change it. Games Masters and players should work together to create involving, exciting and, above all, fun stories. As such, you do not have to memorise every rule in this book in order to enjoy playing Conan the Roleplaying Game.
BTW, if you're a Conan fan (and I think REH is still the best fantasy author we've seen yet), Mongoose's Conan (both editions), which uses the d20 OGL, is fantastic reading.
On an unrelated note, I backed the new Conan RPG, coming from Modiphius. It uses the 2d20 system, which I was totally unfamiliar with. I downloaded the quickstart quide from RPG Drive thru for free.
This is a very different way to play from D&D/Pathfinder. For me, at least. I didn't get most of it on the first try and am going to read it a few more times. Combat seems to be handled quite differently from old and new school.
I will say that I expect the Conan content aspect to be phenomenal.
On an unrelated note, I backed the new Conan RPG, coming from Modiphius. It uses the 2d20 system, which I was totally unfamiliar with. I downloaded the quickstart quide from RPG Drive thru for free.
This is a very different way to play from D&D/Pathfinder. For me, at least. I didn't get most of it on the first try and am going to read it a few more times. Combat seems to be handled quite differently from old and new school.
I will say that I expect the Conan content aspect to be phenomenal.
Roll 2 twenties and hope for low numbers!!!! UGH! That goes against every fiber of my gamer being. NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! Make it stop.
Roll 2 twenties and hope for low numbers!!!! UGH! That goes against every fiber of my gamer being. NOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! Make it stop.
Yeah, it was a strange read. That, and using a d6 for damage, with 1-2 and 6 resulting in damage...
The "Zones" idea was interesting and struck me as a bit more old schoolish than modern movement.
Doom Pool, Momentum, I figure there must be other alternative systems somewhat like this out there, but I've never seen one.
Once I get a handle on it and the Conan core rulebook comes out, I'll write a Black Gate post on the system. Definitely nothing like my RPG upbringing.
1) Still no bonus to hit that you wouldn't have under any other "sneak attack" scenario. Remember, the goblin is totally oblivious to the rogue's presence. How does that situation not warrant a bonus to hit beyond a marginal +2?
Worse, the goblin retained his shield bonus. How dumb is that?
a- The goblin would lose his Dex bonus and you'd get extra damage.
b- Yes, the shield bonus remains, since you still have to hit him where his shield aint.
You might as well say the Goblin should lose his armor bonus as there are places not covered by his armor and you'd hit there.
I've had this discussion before so I'll only point out the following.
a- The goblin, with a Dex of 10, had no bonus to be negated.
My rogue only gets "extra damage" if he hits. Seems to me being oblivious to your opponent would make you more likely to get hit, not guarantee you take more damage (a grazing blow is still possible when struck by sneak attack - except, of course, it's not because your PC always does more damage via sneak attack. This is also counter intuitive but hey, game rulz).
b -The shield is used in front and to the flank in the hand it is held in. How does attacking someone expressly and only from behind grant him his shield bonus? Srsly, how?
But all that aside, the real annoyance is the massive cost for my rogue (using gamist crunchy thinking here) to exercise his class abilities and being punished by the #umb#ss rules for .
Punished for being successful. When does that get fun?
I do not want to disparage another GM, ESPECIALLY for knowing and following the rules as written, because that's one of the areas of being a GM I excel at sucking at. However, if it were the case that a player at my table, and myself agreed that a character was getting hindered by doing things right, it would be the opening of a discussion to houserule it. Maybe in specific instances the shield bonus no longer applies? Maybe we discuss trying to add some facing rules. All I'm saying is, if we encountered something like this at a table I was running, and it was clear the player was losing enjoyment because of the rules, I'd actively discuss changing the rules for our table. Then we're still playing Pathfinder, but everybody is having fun. :)
There's a reason the famous +2 -2 GM intuition modifiers exist.
Isn't that how this conversation started?
Well, if the goblin didnt see you, you were "invisible" thus sneak attack.One (very early) experience with 3.PF - my rogue PC successfully snuck up behind a goblin, who was watching the battle elsewhere, and the GM gave the goblin his shield bonus to AC because "facing doesn't matter according to the rules". Also, because the goblin was already (technically) part of the battle, he had a slot on the initiative order and so, even though my rogue got the first attack, there was no surprise attack on the part of my rogue because (technically) the goblin wasn't surprised!
That same goblin, believing himself to be safely out of melee, is no easier to hit in total surprise from behind than if my dwarf was standing in front of him shouting a warning challenge before engaging in combat.
Really? Yep, really. The goblin even retained his shield bonus against the (theoretical) surprise attack!
That's just dumb. What's the point of the rogue's sneak and hide skills if your opponent's AC remains the same?
I know, I know!
My rogue was penalized with 1/2 move for being sneaky and 1/2 of that for being hidey (for a net 1/4 move) and he was a dwarf to begin with, so the combat was practically over by the time he got into position.
But the key point is my rogue missed his attack because the goblin still had his shield bonus. How could he have his shield bonus in that situation? The answer is, because there is no facing in 3.PF; again I know. That's just inane to the nth-degree though and totally unfun.
The DM for that particular adventure was (and I assume still is) very literal about RAW. And nothing in the rules (RAW) say he's doing it wrong, even though he obviously is.
Sorry if I'm replying to a older post in the conversation, but I don't get the 1/4 move thing? Why 1/4? You only move 1/2 speed while sneaked, where is the second penality comming from?
For the shield bonus, that was to simplify AC calculation. So yes in some case it might seem unfair but then it does solve the "Well I'm attacking from this angle" or the "Well my sword swing come from the other side because I hold it this way" problems. Two of which I have seen.
Finally, I might be wrong, but in your case not only was the goblin was flat-footed against your attack but I would also add this :
Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See Invisibility, under Special Abilities.
I guess it could be a question of how the GM understand and apply the rules. But, from my experience, rules should not interfere with the fun of playing the game. Within reason, of course.
Was browsing through Pathfinder's Strategy Guide, written by head Kobold Wolfgang Bauer. The book, which is pretty neat, is designed to help those new to RPGs (it's still got useful stuff for experienced players). I came across this sidebar:
THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE
The purpose of all the rules in the Pathfinder RPG is to help you
breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. There’s
no “right” or “wrong” balance of combat and narrative modes in a
Pathfinder game session. The right balance is the one most enjoyable
to your particular players and Game Master. The rules are your toolset, and you can adapt them to suit the type of play you most enjoy. Above all, have fun!
Specifically mentioning "combat and narrative modes,' it directly addresses balance in what we've been talking about as old school vs. modern approaches to RPGing. And it specifically incorporates that balance into the purpose of Pathfinder rules.
And it specifically supports Rannik's last sentence!
Welcome to Terquem and Rannik. And also to John Robey. I hope you'll have a shorter time span between posts this time around!
Seriously, it's great to see more folks engage in the conversations around this topic. We're near the end of Gygax' steps, so the conversation has drifted a bit, but I think the posts are still germane to those interested in the original posts about Gygax' steps to role playing mastery. And I think they're still interesting.
And I'll try to work in some other material from that book that wasn't part of the 17 steps.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I may not always post, but I read this thread every time there is an update. I appreciate the effort you are making here.
One of my personal issues is that I am one of those older players, I began running my own game at the age of twelve, in 1976, and back then things were different, and I don't mean, here anyway, different in the way we played, but more different in that we played in a bubble, a vacuum, our little group, and the one other group I knew in school that played almost never compared notes on how to play but mostly we just talked about how much fun it was.
And now, I am self conscious, (see this thread I started many years ago here My self Doubts
I still struggle with myself and sometimes think I should really just stop trying, I feel I am so much not smart enough to do this the way todays players are expecting.
Then I read comments in a thread like this and I see that I'm not the only one who struggles.
Terquem! I hear you cluckin' chicken. ;-) My own first gaming experiences were very much in that vacuum, and I didn't find out until I started GMing myself (after much hounding and coercion, but that's another post) that my AD&D GM was a sadistic SOB (still, I wouldn't trade those all night gaming sessions for anything).
I've also had a lot of self-doubts about my GMing over the years, but I've been the benefit of some very mature young players that put it to me like this: "Did you screw up the rule(s) in [insert situation(s) where I screwed up the rules here]? Yes. Would it have changed the outcome of that encounter? Maybe, but more than likely not. More importantly! Did everyone at the table have a raucous good time? YES!"
These boards might show you that your rules knowledge is suspect, I no longer harbor any delusions of my GM ruling prowess. But you know what else I've learned from these boards? The number of people actually willing to GM is a very small ratio in comparison to the wider community. If you are willing to GM, and have the blessing of people to game with (I lost that last year when I moved from one midwest state to another, and then out into the boonies) enjoy it! That's the point, just as Holmes post with the quote from the illustrious Mr. Bauer displays. The game is our game. It is Terquem's game, and MendedWall's game. If we run our tables completely differently than everybody else on these boards, and half the time are flying by the seat of our pants, that's OKAY! That's the game. That's what they've intended for us to do, take the rules and run. Just remember, if everyone is having fun (and don't forget you are part of everyone) then you are doing it right. :)
Certainly Gygax would say, "know the rules before you change them," but that's easy for him to say, he was dealing with a MUCH smaller set of rules, and he's the guy that created them! The amount of rules and their interactions for Pathfinder is nothing short of a physics textbook in my mind. I sucked at physics in school. I probably suck at adjudicating correctly, but I've gotten to a place as a GM where I do my best, and I keep the narrative and everyone's fun as the guide. If I straight butchered a ruling and applied +12 when I should have actually applied -56, I don't care! (As long as everybody had fun.) There's a lot of freedom in that. Take that freedom, I'm giving it to you as a free gift. :)
Terquem - I had players explaining stuff to me when I ran a couple of PlayByPost games here on the Pathfinder forums. And I had limited options to just the Core Rulebook!
I just ran a Swords & Wizardry session today at lunch for 3 players with a total of two sessions experience between them. I was trying to figure out the AC table (I'd been using the descending system, and this adventure used ascending). Nobody was an expert in this game. But the Cleric rolled a 1 and lost her mace while fighting a zombie. Everybody laughed!
I would just find the system/rule set you like and go with it, whether you're GMing or playing. And let the chips fall where they may. I plan on taking the S&W group over to Pathfinder after we finish Grimmsgate. Then I'll see which system they liked more - the older, rules-light one, or the weighty, complex Pathfinder one.
I try to reference things by Gygax' book because that was the idea behind this thread. But you need a sense of context for some of it. Like the ridiculous requirements in his Outline of Mastery.
I didn't work that hard on my Master's Thesis!
|
I still struggle with myself and sometimes think I should really just stop trying, I feel I am so much not smart enough to do this the way todays players are expecting.
I don't think you'd have much trouble meeting expectations. I think the biggest requirements are honesty about how you are running and the goal to have fun. I've sat down with some GMs and rolled with their playstyle simply because I trusted them.
I still struggle with myself and sometimes think I should really just stop trying, I feel I am so much not smart enough to do this the way todays players are expecting.
Then I read comments in a thread like this and I see that I'm not the only one who struggles.
You are definitely not the only one who struggles, Terquem. I do all the time. I don't have as many years on this planet as you, and definitely not as many playing tabletop RPGs (I started in 1996 with many many years of nothing). I have been working on a setting since October 13, 2003 (I think I finally have everything figured out, and just need to put that all to paper). I would absolutely LOVE to run games in that setting. It has seen revisions and conversions in those 13 years (from 3.0-3.5-Pathfinder-5th edition). However, I am shy as all get out, and apparently have terrible luck when finding games to play in. My playstyle is so very different from everyone I have come across in the number of games I have played (mostly over roll20). I see so many people playing murderous sociopaths, loners, or all around douchebags; who focus more on combat and shooting their combat modifiers into space than trying to make a character and getting into that character's head. Yes, I know they aren't mutually exclusive, but it seems to be for those I have come across. If that's what they consider fun, good on them. Hope they keep having fun. But that's not fun for me, and that's all I seem to come across when joining a group as a player.
So yeah, I struggle trying to motivate myself to get a group together and be the DM. The previous paragraph (which I know I rambled quite a bit) is why I have given up on Pathfinder for the most part. When my luck has given me people like that when I have tried Pathfinder, it makes me not want to play. I know it isn't the system's fault.
What I am trying to say is, you aren't the only one. I am starting up a 5th edition game with a "gaming community" I am part of, but even though I know they are good people, I still second guess myself on whether this is a good idea or not. I wonder if I am good enough to be a DM, if my communication problems will hinder any sort of fun. And with it being 11pm here, these thoughts and my doubts just get stronger. Hell, I even wonder if I should post this rambling jumbled mess of words.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quark, I hear you, but saying sling the shield across your back doesn't make any sense. The shield only provides a bonus when equipped (which is a gamist term, I know, but still has a recognizable definition). Whether you're "facing" the opponent or actively blocking with the shield, by the rules, is moot. I have to tell you, too, there have been a NUMBER of times that NPC clerics I've run with a group benefited from exactly that same scenario. Also, unless you're talking about a heavy or tower shield we're literally talking about the difference of +/-1, even if it's a heavy shield you're talking about the difference of +/-2. Those numbers are easily overcome by a good roll on the d20. Which is a significant part of playing the game! The d20 roll is supposed to lead to an uncertain outcome. It's okay to miss; even if you, the player, have done everything right to put your PC in the right position, you can still miss. I mean, I roll 1's ALL the freakin' time. Sometimes I feel like the only numbers I can roll on the d20 are five or less.
I understand it's upsetting to watch a character miss when you've done everything right, especially when you miss by only a digit or two, but you have to let it go. B!tching about it now, isn't going to make what happened any better, and it's only going to make you more bitter moving forward.
Also, I mean all of this with the utmost of respect. I know how frustrating it is when the dice don't do what you want them to do, but getting upset at the rules only makes things worse, unless you houserule it, in which case, you've found a solution and can move on happily. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One has to wonder why you get a +2 to hit for being invisible but not for successful Stealth use.
I think that's what Rannik was saying, that if you are not visible to your opponent you are, ipso facto, invisible, which garners a +2 to hit. That ruling would, of course, be up to the GM/table because in game terms "invisible" means something different than "unseen." Although the unseen servant is actually invisible in every sense of the word...
One has to wonder why you get a +2 to hit for being invisible but not for successful Stealth use.I think that's what Rannik was saying, that if you are not visible to your opponent you are, ipso facto, invisible, which garners a +2 to hit. That ruling would, of course, be up to the GM/table because in game terms "invisible" means something different than "unseen." Although the unseen servant is actually invisible in every sense of the word...
That's exactly what I was saying. In today's time, a well hidden sniper could shoot multiple ennemies combatant before the actualy find where he is. In a way, that sniper is invisible to the grunts who are being shot at without any magic involve.
Being flat-footed, for me at least, is not just being unaware of an ennemy. It's not being ready. You could have everyone in the same room when a fight start. But when one start attacking, even if he was visible, he can shoot some of the people before they can react.
In the exemple of Quark Blast. If he managed to get in postion without being seen by the goblin, this would allowed him to make his first melee attack as if he is invisible and the goblin would be flat-footed on top.
Invisibility, as I read it gives you a bonus on stealth. +20 in this case because he was moving. While the bonus is high, it also mean that it isn't perfect. So a goblin with a really good perception could have feel/smelled/heard/seen the dwarf crawl toward him.
At my table though, if player would have spend 4/5th of the battle crawling to kill a lone injured goblin that's not even participating in combat and therefore as no impact on the result, I would have said that it was a hit unless he would have roll less the 10 with all the bonus added.
|
|
Even then though it seems reasonable for there to be a difference between "It's hard to defend against this thing that's attacking me because it's invisible" and "I've got no idea there's even anything around that might attack me", but except for the lack of Dex bonus, there's no mechanical representation.
If anything, they got it backwards. Someone completely unaware should be easier to hit than someone who knows you're invisible and attacking them.
Punished by the rules for successfully using my PCs class skills and missing 4/5ths of the combat. I sat at the table for nearly an hour and watched everyone else have fun when the best move on my part would have been to ignore the class ability and charge into combat with the rest of the mob. That is, it was the best move to treat my rogue as a fighter with the (sometimes useful) sneak attack feat.I would expect a bonus that reflects the fact that the goblin had no idea my rogue was behind him about to attack.
Why do you know the goblin had no idea my rogue was behind him about to attack? Because you used the stealth RULES to sneak. The same RULES that say you get no bonus to hit (since the goblin has no dex bonus)but you do get sneak attack damage. The rules are a combat abstraction. And, like we said, the DM, using those same rules- could well have assigned you a +2 to hit.
And just why did you miss 4/5th of the combat? At most you should have had to move 1/2 speed to get best stealth.
Punished by the rules for successfully using my PCs class skills and missing 4/5ths of the combat. I sat at the table for nearly an hour and watched everyone else have fun when the best move on my part would have been to ignore the class ability and charge into combat with the rest of the mob. That is, it was the best move to treat my rogue as a fighter with the (sometimes useful) sneak attack feat.I would expect a bonus that reflects the fact that the goblin had no idea my rogue was behind him about to attack.
Why do you know the goblin had no idea my rogue was behind him about to attack? Because you used the stealth RULES to sneak. The same RULES that say you get no bonus to hit (since the goblin has no dex bonus)but you do get sneak attack damage. The rules are a combat abstraction. And, like we said, the DM, using those same rules- could well have assigned you a +2 to hit.
And just why did you miss 4/5th of the combat? At most you should have had to move 1/2 speed to get best stealth.
He mentioned earlier that the DM made him move at 1/4 speed (1/2 for moving silently, and 1/2 again for hiding), and being a dwarf, that's like 5 feet per round. Which, to be honest, is just BS, and a dick move by the DM. It might have been in the rules that Move Silently and Hide reduce your movement speed by 1/2 if you move while doing either, but to do reduce the speed by 1/2 twice is just absurd. Especially for a dwarf.
Hey all. I was going to PM some of you, but then I figured I'd just drop in and let everyone in this thread know, since you are all the people I was thinking about PMing anyway. DM Ancient is thinking of running an almost rules-less game on the PBP boards. His opening post makes it sound very interesting (to me anyway). I already stated my interest in the thread. Just thought some people here might be interested as well.
We had our second session in my S&W game last night. The party was undamaged, though the dwarf fighter marched up to a door covered with purple moss, yanked it open and was immediately rendered unconscious. The thief grabbed him with a grappling hook on the second try and the party dragged him out of the room.
The World of Warcrafter (playing a Ranger) again commented that she is still thinking like an MMO player and hasn't re-oriented herself to the pen and paper style. That's something I'm watching in the decision making processes.
I need to dig into the S&W rules. The Goblin Shaman had a Sleep spell, with no save. It can't just put the whole party to sleep, ending the adventure...
We had our second session in my S&W game last night. The party was undamaged, though the dwarf fighter marched up to a door covered with purple moss, yanked it open and was immediately rendered unconscious. The thief grabbed him with a grappling hook on the second try and the party dragged him out of the room.
The World of Warcrafter (playing a Ranger) again commented that she is still thinking like an MMO player and hasn't re-oriented herself to the pen and paper style. That's something I'm watching in the decision making processes.
I need to dig into the S&W rules. The Goblin Shaman had a Sleep spell, with no save. It can't just put the whole party to sleep, ending the adventure...
No elves or half-elves with sleep immunity, eh? Does the spell say that it only affects a certain number of HD of creatures? That seems rather odd that there would be NO save at all...
I need to dig into the S&W rules. The Goblin Shaman had a Sleep spell, with no save. It can't just put the whole party to sleep, ending the adventure...
At low levels just about any encounter can result in a TPK - whether by auto-win spells like sleep/magic missile or just by a series of not-that-unlikely rolls in regular combat.
FWIW, if I had a party all overwhelmed by a sleep spell, rather than ending the adventure I'd try and find a plausible rationale to change the adventure from "kill all the goblins" to "escape from looming execution and then kill all the goblins".
Thanks for the comments on the Sleep spell. Since everybody is 1st level, they were pretty much out of luck no matter what. I do like the "Not kill them" idea, at least. Maybe some Goblin torturing going on.
The party tried to kill the one awake Goblin with the Rogue and Ranger shooting at him with bows. If they had an instant kill, I was going to let them try to sneak up on the others and see how things went.
The Rogue had one of the worst-rolling sessions I have been a part of. He only had two successes, and he had somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 incidences. He missed both bow shots at the sentry, which resulted in a full blown fight - including that shaman.
I need to dig into the S&W rules. The Goblin Shaman had a Sleep spell, with no save. It can't just put the whole party to sleep, ending the adventure...At low levels just about any encounter can result in a TPK - whether by auto-win spells like sleep/magic missile or just by a series of not-that-unlikely rolls in regular combat.
FWIW, if I had a party all overwhelmed by a sleep spell, rather than ending the adventure I'd try and find a plausible rationale to change the adventure from "kill all the goblins" to "escape from looming execution and then kill all the goblins".
This absolutely. Take away their gear, put them in a goblin dungeon or other secure area, and maybe have them taken out one at a time and interrogated with nonlethal damage. At least it provides the opportunity to do something, and I've found that in these desperate situations players are far more likely to look "off the character sheet" for creative ways to succeed.
I also need to say, I would have houseruled that spell to have a Will save, for myself, if not for the PCs. There's nothing worse as a GM than to have a nice encounter all set up and have the PCs just wipe it off the game board with one spell. Obviously the players would feel the same way about their PCs.
BTW, instead of using the Sleep spell, I had the shaman use Charm Person on the fighter instead. It failed and the shaman was chopped down immediately thereafter.
Have no fear - I'm not taking a break from the thread again.
I'm going to be contributing to a new RPG column for BlackGate.com (I already write a mystery-themed one there) and I'm getting some stuff together before launch in a couple months. Today I was working on a post related to game balance/level appropriate challenges. I'm both for and against it.
Though I use Goodman Games' 4th Edition module, Forges of the Mountain King as an example of ridiculous unbalance at the beginning.
I didn't look into 4th Edition. Are characters overpowered at 1st level? One of the first encounters is with two undead Ogres with 88 hp (or so) each.
The first time they are killed, they rise again at half hit points. That seems like a heck of a way to start things off. Shortly thereafter, there is a live Ogre, with 112 hp.
That's awfully extreme, isn't it?