And Tomb of Horrors truly was terrifying. Those hideous words: "no save allowed".
Tomb of Horrors is quite possibly the absolute worst example of pre-3.PF lethality there is. It in no way exemplified the average difficulty of adventures written in that era.
It was specifically written to be unreasonably lethal. It was made as a competition game for a convention and was so popular that it was eventually published as a module for use at home.
Citing Tomb of Horrors as an example of 1.0 adventures and how lethal they were would be like saying the Atomic bomb was typical of ordnance dropped in World War 2.
Note how whenever someone wants to show how deadly that era was, Tomb of Horrors is the go to. It is still infamous today and I bet at least 60% of the folks on this forum have never even read it or played it.
The REAL reason pre 3.0 stuff was deadly was that characters had drastically fewer hit points back then. When your average wizard had 25 Hit points at level 10 you were a lot more careful. If you were an extremely hardy one with a high con, your average could be as high as 35-45.
Who these days would play a level 10 wizard with 45 HP? That same wizard would have 58 HP at level 20 by the way in pre 3.PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I played it. The actual history was that some of Gygax's players were bragging about how unstoppable their PC's were. Hubris. It was designed to show that Hubris was a bad trait in Pc's, then later used for a con game, then etc. Not as a real dungeon.
Mind you, I use the term "Gygaxian trap" around here to indicate the kind of fiendish traps that simply "taking the hit" won't work with. Traps were a much bigger threat. But no, things weren't all that more lethal...mostly.
...letting someone play a druid/bard combo is a bad idea (underpowered characters are a problem too).
Well, it's not the most "optimal" character, by any means. However, you could make a decent character with the right choices (druid 3/bard 4/mystic theurge is a better spellcaster than a straight bard, as well as having spontaneous summon nature's ally and some key buffing spells, for example). Definitely requires a certain level of system mastery (such as knowing not to choose an animal companion with Nature Bond) to pull off, though.
Even "underpowered" characters can be OK, if 1) they are played in more of a support role, 2) are still given opportunities to shine (i.e., as the party "face" for a druid/bard), 3) the other characters are also "underpowered," and/or 4) the GM compensates (which the GM often needs to do, even for "powerful" characters).
The REAL reason pre 3.0 stuff was deadly was that characters had drastically fewer hit points back then. When your average wizard had 25 Hit points at level 10 you were a lot more careful. If you were an extremely hardy one with a high con, your average could be as high as 35-45.
Well, that cut both ways: The monsters, etc. also had a lot less hp. In the 1st Ed AD&D Monster Manual, the highest hp creature only had 200 hp (Demogorgon, one more than Asmodeus' 199). People talk about "rocket tag" in 3.x/Pathfinder, but in 1st Ed fireballs and other blast spells were powerful options that caused significant damage; "kill the magic user first" was the cardinal rule in (PC) party vs. (NPC) party conflicts. Low-level play was also quite lethal, just because characters had so little margin for error (a 1st level magic user, for example, could only cast a single 1st-level spell per day, with no bonus spells for high Int; clerics could get bonus spells for high Wis, but you needed 15+ to get any and you couldn't spontaneously switch them for cure spells or heal using channel energy). PCs had to watch out for "tough" monsters (that usually had a built-in weakness that could be exploited, if the party was prepared; trolls were very difficult to fight without fire, for example) and could still be mobbed if the magic user didn't thin out the minions, but fights were mostly quick affairs where the party slaughtered the cannon fodder before facing the BBEG (or the cannon fodder delayed the party long enough for the BBEG to escape, which many players hated).
That started to change some in 2nd Ed. Overall, both the PCs and the monsters got boosts from 1st Ed to 2nd Ed, but (apart from a few exceptions) the PCs got a slightly bigger boost; several monsters (dragons and giants, particularly) got significantly tougher in relation to the PCs, though. 1st Ed dragons and giants were a bit of a joke if you could survive long enough to reach "name level" (around 9th-11th level) and had access to the right protective spells or some key magic items (or had a ranger in the case of giants); 2nd Ed dragons and giants were nasty foes.
Most of these complaints are genuine (albeit well-known) problems when explained correctly, eg:
We have a poorly optimized rogue, an optimized fighter and a couple of battlefield controllers, and the fighter makes the rogue seem useless in combat.
or
Power creep from new books makes old APs seem too easy.
or
Game balance seems to fall apart at high level play.
or
There is a PC with unhittable AC - any sensible enemy would retreat immediately.
or
My ultimate boss fights are over anticlimactically in six seconds.
This.
RD is taking a lot of these threads out of context and not fairly judging them for what they are: requests for help in keeping the game challenging from new GMs.
So what if a noob needs help coming up with challenges for a newly leveled-up party? So what if that same noob needs help challenging a powerful fighter? So what if he needs help understanding how to keep the mobile monk engaged and interested?
Pretending all of these threads are made by people who somehow don't understand that a fighter kills things, is just some sort of confirmation bias. You want to think "kids these days" are dummies, so you find "proof" of it and start a thread removed from any real evidence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do my best to come to each post in every thread in the forums with the base assumption that the poster is being genuine, forthright, and honestly seeking to understand, explain, and/or clarify the issue they're posting about.
I have no way of knowing if the poster is 8 years old or if they're 50 with big thumbs typing their post up on a over-zealous auto-correcting smart phone. Nor do I care.
If I think I can help, I'll post. If someone else has posted what I consider a good response, I'll try and remember to like that response. If I don't think I can help or I can't see any way to read the poster other than being disingenuous, then I do my best to just move along. It doesn't mean I won't try and defend my position but I'll do my best to keep it to defending the position rather than letting my comments leak into the attacking-the-poster realm. Standard base-level forum ethics. :)
I do wonder if there's a phenomenon here where people feel vaguely dissatisfied if the players never TPK because they've been conditioned by video games. On a computer, if you complete a game without a single reload, its clearly far too easy. In tabletop RPGs with no do-overs, you either win every time, or the game is stopped in its tracks. How do you tell if the game is hard enough?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do wonder if there's a phenomenon here where people feel vaguely dissatisfied if the players never TPK because they've been conditioned by video games. On a computer, if you complete a game without a single reload, its clearly far too easy. In tabletop RPGs with no do-overs, you either win every time, or the game is stopped in its tracks. How do you tell if the game is hard enough?
There's a couple answers to this, I think, but as always, the meta answer is...it depends on the group. That sounds like a bit of a cop out but it's really one of the primary advantages tabletop games have over video games, so it's worth keeping in mind.
One answer is that the game is hard enough if the group doesn't feel safe.
Death is only one type of failure. Failure to accomplish goals in time to prevent events is another way. In this system one answer is that the game is hard enough if the PCs have a real chance to fail to meet these goals.
Another answer is that the game is hard enough when you have PCs dying every Xth encounter.
And on and on.
Find a method that maximizes the fun of the group and roll with it.
Good luck and good gaming!
|
I've been seeing a lot of odd threads lately on subjects such as...
...seeking help for problems that, well, aren't problems at all.
What the heck is going on? What has changed in peoples' perceptions that these could ever be considered problems rather than FEATURES OF THE GAME?
I'm not sure. Maybe it's just the ones posting online, but some folks are convinced it's their job to "stop" their players from playing their class, ban entire books, nerf items, and overall play an entirely different game than the rest of us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You sound like an experienced player and would know this. A new player (the quote was mentioning a new DM with new players) probably doesn't know this. The huge amount of info in the PRD might convince a new player that they do know what they're doing, though....letting someone play a druid/bard combo is a bad idea (underpowered characters are a problem too).Well, it's not the most "optimal" character, by any means. However, you could make a decent character with the right choices (druid 3/bard 4/mystic theurge is a better spellcaster than a straight bard, as well as having spontaneous summon nature's ally and some key buffing spells, for example). Definitely requires a certain level of system mastery (such as knowing not to choose an animal companion with Nature Bond) to pull off, though.
One thing I've learned over the years is that skill at the table in making the appropriate tactical choice for that particular situation is often better than having the "biggest numbers." Sure, having "big numbers" is important; but doing one thing well and several other things adequately is often more useful long-term than doing one thing superbly and everything else poorly. At some point, your character is going to be unable to do their "one thing" and not be able to effectively contribute without "other things."
Also, new players and GMs shouldn't be afraid to fail at times. Trial and error is a large part of learning how to play, rather than just "build" characters. It also allows them to develop their own styles and explore various aspects of the system. Eventually, if they stick with it, they'll be the "grognards" dispensing wisdom (or yelling "Get off my lawn!"); or at least recruiting and training new blood into RPGs.