Mechanics Cross-Pollination Thread

[Beoric]

You need a holiday.

This has been true for several years.

The book cost of armor includes a basic helm. Why increase the book cost?

The cost of armor and helms is detailed separately, so I assumed armor did not include the cost of a helm. Particularly since the choice of a helm theoretically makes a difference, and the two types of helms are different prices; if a helm was included, which variety of helm?

Grieves, vambraces, sabatons, etc. do not have separate prices listed, so I assume they are included with the cost of armor.

 

[Alexander Moonbeam]

As an aside, it really annoys me how useless helms are in D&D. Until you get into really heavy armors, the first thing you want is a helm, which in D&D provides no AC improvement. And arguably a shield might be even more important - historically it was added to kit before body armor - but it only adds one point of AC, whereas one would think it would be better than at least the inferior types of body armor.

I know this is the lazy option, but personally, I treat any suit of armor in my campaign as already including an appropriate helm. We don't treat pauldrons or greaves as separate items you need to buy, why should helms get special treatment?

It partly explains though why all the Jedi felt so uneasy about the clones. Although another big part of it was unease at having a massive professional army for the chief executive to play with. If Palpatine hadn't first engineered a massive war I don't know what they would have done with the clone troopers--freed them? Exiled them? Both?

I am imagining the Kaminoans, decades later, sending an email to Palpatine's successor about it. "Hey, do you guys still need this clone army we made you? They're eating all our food."

That email gets read by the chancellor's secretary's secretary, who searches her digital memos for "clone army for chancellor," doesn't find anything, and marks the message as spam.

 

[Hemlock]

Going back to the root purpose of this thread:

I’m starting this thread as a place where people who want to discuss mechanics can post. The intention is to identify the impact that mechanics has on the game, and how alternative mechanical systems impact the game in different ways. A corollary of this is to clarify the functioning of any mechanic under discussion, in order to facilitate meaningful discussion about the mechanic.

I posit that sharply increasing power curves from leveling up, a la high-level spells in *D&D, are problematic. I think we've discussed this before in various threads, but since this is a mechanics thread I want to state for the record that reserving 90% or even 70% of the rules of the game for PCs much more experienced than starting PCs puts unhealthy pressure on a campaign to either accelerate leveling (which can make the campaign feel unrealistic) or reduce lethality or both. It also potentially[1] introduces breakpoints into play where suddenly the DM must build adventures differently to accommodate new player capabilities like Teleport and Conjure Elemental, which may be partly responsible for the dearth of high-level D&D campaigns that didn't start out at high-level: it's sometimes hard to discard old DMing habits just because the PCs have levelled up.

Leveling up and getting better at things you can already do, or acquiring more capabilities that you could have had at first level but for the opportunity cost, is not necessarily harmful even if those capabilities are very, very powerful. For example, in OD&D, Charm Person is an extremely powerful spell[2], and remains almost as powerful even in AD&D. (It then gets progressively weaker down to its current 5E incarnation which is almost useless.) My argument is not that Charm Person is a problem at first level; but if it were available only when a wizard reached 9th level, that could create a problem: a player who is excited by the concept of building a spy network with Charm Person may want to rush through early levels of play until he reaches 9th level so he can start playing with the thing he actually wants. If the player dies at 7th level and has to start over, soft-hearted DMs may be tempted to prevent the death, or to allow a new character to start at 6th or 7th level, specifically so the player can reach their goal. If the character doesn't die, the DM may not be ready to revamp the campaign around a new and ever-expanding network of charmed NPC spies, and either the player gets frustrated or the DM gets frustrated. Arguably Charm Person at 9th level can be handled in a non-disruptive way--maybe you already have ideas for dealing with it--but the point is that when a large amount of game rules (spells) are reserved for high level, the game changes when you get to high level!

Contrast this with how D&D fighters tend to work: they get better at things, and better gear, but a 11th level fighter isn't playing a fundamentally different game from a 1st level fighter except with respect to traits gained unpredictably during play, like a magic sword that can cast Fireball 1/day or a divine curse that gives him the strength of ten men while the sun shines but knocks him unconscious at night. In D&D 5E fighters gain more and better abilities at high level, e.g. 15th level Eldritch Knights gain the ability to short-range teleport and Battlemasters get more Battlemaster maneuvers (semi-Vancian combat maneuvers like Disarm and Shove), but overall fighters still have a fairly flat power curve.

In Dungeon Fantasy RPG, powerful spells exist, but there aren't any spells that a starting wizard/cleric/druid is unable to start with if they sacrifice other spells to get all the necessary prerequisites. (There are a couple of spells which effectively "cost" 17 or so of your 30 total starting spell picks, but none that cost 31+.) Players can still get psychological rewards from the prospect of playing characters until they increase in power, but there's less pressure on the game itself to change into a "high-level" game because players who are sufficiently interested in a given trait already have it. If your artillery wizard dies just before he gains the ability to grant sapience to his illusions and send them out as spies, well, you can make a new wizard as an illusionist who is a master of illusions but not artillery--you can pick up the artillery spells later.

TL;DR flat power curves encourage players to focus on the experience of playing the game today, and not the hope of what their PC will be able to do tomorrow.

[1] Obviously this is not an issue if you've been building adventures all along which would not be ruined by Teleport or Conjure Elemental.

[2] Per https://greyhawk.fandom.com/wiki/Bigby, Bigby was earlier an evil low level Wizard who encountered Mordenkainen. The two wizards engaged in combat; Mordenkainen managed to subdue Bigby using a charm spell, and forced Bigby to become his servant. After a long time and several adventures, Mordenkainen managed to convince Bigby to leave his evil ways behind, and Kuntz ruled that it was safe to remove the charm spell, since Bigby had changed from an enemy to a loyal henchman.

 

[squeen]

I posit that sharply increasing power curves from leveling up, a la high-level spells in *D&D, are problematic. I think we've discussed this before in various threads, but since this is a mechanics thread I want to state for the record that reserving 90% or even 70% of the rules of the game for PCs much more experienced than starting PCs puts unhealthy pressure on a campaign to either accelerate leveling (which can make the campaign feel unrealistic) or reduce lethality or both. It also potentially[1] introduces breakpoints into play where suddenly the DM must build adventures differently to accommodate new player capabilities like Teleport and Conjure Elemental, which may be partly responsible for the dearth of high-level D&D campaigns that didn't start out at high-level: it's sometimes hard to discard old DMing habits just because the PCs have levelled up.

An interesting point, but I have to disagree --- at least with regards to AD&D. I don't feel that 70-90% of the rules are reserved for high-levels. While they may be a lot of discussion about the direction things can go at higher levels, those rules are mostly corner-case guidelines in the 1e DMG. Weird arcana when you don't need them, but wonderfully helpful when you do. They may be large in volume, but not in frequency...and that makes logical sense to me and does not apply pressure to "hurry up and get there". Remaining fair while not caving into PC desires/demands I think is the hallmark a good DM. For example, just because there is a listing for artifacts, does not mean you are obligated to place them in your world.

The notion that the playing field needs to change as PC get to higher levels and have access to teleport etc. is also well and proper in my estimation. It becomes a natural evolution from the mundane to the exotic. Every level-range has it's sweet spot for action, and that variety keeps you interested.

In my experience the power-curve in AD&D seems fairly flat. When all the rules are used, there are enough checks and balances so that death is always a real possibility. The PC rarely become super-human and invulnerable, unless it's through accumulation of magic items...which is a DM's self-inflicted wound. An intelligent enemy often has access to all the same abilities (and more!). As a player, even at name-level, we always felt quite vulnerable. Our DM was wonderfully adept at maintaining balance---the good with the bad. Swords that cut both ways.

Many years later, as a DM, the way the game grew to handle the evolving campaign was truly a wonder to me. If felt like I was walking in the footsteps of giants, and really appreciated the sensation and connection.

I know that many people want different things from an RPG, but I only wish I could convey my journey with 1e AD&D more succinctly, because it has been 5-star. I really am so enamored with the entire experience of two-decades of weekly play that any dissatisfaction with the system as a whole is so minor, it's hardly worth mentioning. Maybe I'm just easy to please. I also enjoy being challenged. Total mastery/success in a game is boring.

AD&D to me is just the three core 1e books with a small amount of cherry-picking of what came after (officially), plus a few adventure nuggets from the OSR. For campaign content, it's 90% DIY which is true now and back when I was a player in the 70's and 80's. We also stick to the four main OD&D classes, by and large. Over time, nearly all my attempts at rule-alterations have been discarded as unnecessary or failed experiments. I put my energy into creative world content, which can---in a one-off sense---be rule bending at times.

 

[Hemlock]

An interesting point, but I have to disagree --- at least with regards to AD&D. I don't feel that 70-90% of the rules are reserved for high-levels. While they may be a lot of discussion about the direction things can go at higher levels, those rules are mostly corner-case guidelines in the 1e DMG.

*snip*

AD&D has a lot of spells that I'm counting as rules. And I have to admit that I'm not 100% attached to my initial framing of the problem; I am open to discussing other hypotheses for player impatience to level and for high-level campaign fizzles too.

One trend I notice in 5E players including myself is that there's a lot of mental energy spent on character "builds" before play ever starts, like an Artificer who is planning to eventually take 3 levels of Ranger and 1 level of cleric, or wizards planning the best spells to take at each future level. This is true only to a lesser extent for AD&D: it may be fun to play a priest of Oghma and look forward to getting Mass Suggestion at level 9, or a metapsionicist who will (around level 7) acquire the ability to enslave defeated monsters to his will. But if we exclude psionicists, the AD&D concepts are basically one-liners ("half-giant gladiator") and the bulk of the mental energy is spent on actual play.

I conjecture two drivers for the difference between AD&D and 5E. One is that multiclassing in AD&D is simple and chosen once, at character creation, whereas in 5E it's a complex series of irrevocable decisions with permanent impact: this encourages forethought to avoid costly permanent mistakes. (For example, a Fighter 5/Barbarian 7 will always regret that 5th level in Fighter which gives him nothing; he'd be better off as a Fighter 4/Barbarian 8, even if Fighter 5 made perfect roleplaying sense at the time.) AD&D's equivalent is dual-classing, which isn't widely used due to strict attribute requirements and also I think because it delays gratification soooo much: it takes Str 15 Int 17 to create a dual-classed 9th level Fighter/10th level mage, but playing 9 levels as a Str 15 Fighter is very painful if you are actually itching to play a mage. And if you die it's all wasted.

Test for this hypothesis: this hypothesis would predict that squeen's AD&D game, which features players who are content to play at any level, probably doesn't see much dual-classing. If he does that's evidence against the hypothesis.

The second factor is something I alluded to with psionicists. Normally AD&D wizards have to find spells in play, like magic items, or research them. 5E wizards (and priests, and bards, etc.) have a much greater ability to predict what powers they'll be wielding at a given level of play. Just as AD&D fighters can't count too much on finding specific magic items, wizards can't count too much on finding specific spells like Wish and Magic Jar, and this may also reduce the amount of mental energy devoted to anticipating the future. Counter-argument: priests and psionicists can still predict their future power evolution and spell combinations (like Conjure Animals + Animal Growth) just as easily as 5E players can. If spells really are a driver of this live-for-tomorrow mindset, wouldn't it still show up in AD&D for priests and psionicists? Counter-counterargument: maybe, but psionicists don't exist in AD&D 1st edition which squeen is playing, and specialty priests don't either, only druids and clerics. And there are fewer spells overall.

How to test this hypothesis: I'm not sure. Ask squeen what his cleric/druid players do with their powers once they do get to high level? If they know awesome spell combos but aren't in a hurry to get to high level and use them, that would be evidence against this second hypothesis. If they simply don't use powerful spell combos, period, that is consistent with this hypothesis for why they are happy at any level, and weak (Bayesian) evidence in favor of it.

In my experience the power-curve in AD&D seems fairly flat. When all the rules are used, there are enough checks and balances so that death is always a real possibility. The PC rarely become super-human and invulnerable, unless it's through accumulation of magic items...which is a DM's self-inflicted wound. An intelligent enemy often has access to all the same abilities (and more!). As a player, even at name-level, we always felt quite vulnerable. Our DM was wonderfully adept at maintaining balance---the good with the bad. Swords that cut both ways.

It's not necessarily about superhuman invulnerability, although spells like Stoneskin/Ironskin and Magic Jar certainly do boost survivability a lot. It's also about offensive and strategic power. For example, Polymorph Other on a horse to turn it into a Silver Dragon, then cast a couple of Shadow Monsters spells to create some illusionary Flowfiends (or other monster with multiple strong attacks for its HD), then Enlarge the Silver Dragon and Haste them all to defeat the monsters you've already scouted out with Wizard Eye, and take the monsters' treasure.

You can have a DM who still makes you scared even when you know combos like this, but you're still far more powerful (and better at killing dragons/giants/etc.) than a player who's just relying on straightforward Ice Storm and Lightning Bolt while the monsters are actively attacking you. In that sense the power curve is real, especially if you do combine it with defensive spells like Magic Jar (and Sequester for your jar gem).

 

[Beoric]

TL;DR flat power curves encourage players to focus on the experience of playing the game today, and not the hope of what their PC will be able to do tomorrow.

I agree that games with flatter power curves prevent players from focussing on power acquisition, because that kind of power acquisition is not an option. I don't agree that games with steep power curves necessarily cause a focus on planning for a later "build"; none of my players do this, and even on the 4e CharOp boards it is only a few high-op players that seem to do this.

I also don't agree that flat power curve games are, by their nature, objectively better than steep power curve games. In the early 80s I was fascinated by the Gamma World setting, but could not get excited about playing the games largely because (IIRC) you didn't accumulate power in the same way.

I do think games like D&D could do a better job of dealing with high level play. I think the early systems presumptively transitioned to domain play which you hit "name" level, but there was very little guidance for how this was to be accomplished. The highest level game I ever played in was in my late teens/early 20s, and it was only notionally a domain game; we had strongholds, but didn't really do much with them except keep our stuff there. A couple of years ago I talked to my then-DM about it, and he said he had wanted to run a domain game, but just couldn't figure out how to do it.

That being said, the game changed significantly when we got to be high level, because the enemies shifted from monsters to NPCs, and they also had spells. And AD&D does not have a lot of magic that can easily be used to counter other magic. So yeah, we used teleport w/o error to flit everywhere, but we had no way of preventing our enemies from doing the same thing. It is a very different game from tracking your torches and your rations at 1st level.

So I agree in part with @squeen in that I think the power curve in AD&D isn't as steep as you think. This is partially because spells like sleep and charm are ridiculously overpowered; and partially because a lot of high level spells have serious limitations, and for a long time you get fewer of them. Also, many of the better spells are quite time limited, and there was a hard cap on the number of times you could cast permanency. Also, in AD&D you are supposed to find or be taught your spells; it isn't like later games where you just "pick" them as soon as you gain a level. So you might not get sleep until you are 9th level.

(Note Kanon Eberron is a lot like that; high level magic is rare to the point where high level wizards have trouble finding high level spells, and may have to fill those slots with lower level spells unless they find lost spell books or gain extraplanar teachers.)

I also think it helps as a DM to focus on the consequences of PC actions. Your silver dragon example just made me wonder why the horse-come-silver-dragon would want to fight for you. It remembers being a horse, but now has dragon instincts and is very smart. Why would a dragon fight for you in the circumstances? Does it figure out it is going to revert back? If so, is going back to being your horse a good gig for it, or would it be better off to fly off and find a situation where it will not be in combat all the time? If not, does it now want to take the treasure?

 

[Hemlock]

I agree that games with flatter power curves prevent players from focussing on power acquisition, because that kind of power acquisition is not an option. I don't agree that games with steep power curves (A) necessarily cause a focus on planning for a later "build"; none of my players do this, and even on the 4e CharOp boards it is only a few high-op players that seem to do this.

I also don't agree that flat power curve games are, by their nature, (B) objectively better than steep power curve games. In the early 80s I was fascinated by the Gamma World setting, but could not get excited about playing the games largely because (IIRC) you didn't accumulate power in the same way.

...


I also think it helps as a DM to focus on the consequences of PC actions. (C) Your silver dragon example just made me wonder why the horse-come-silver-dragon would want to fight for you. It remembers being a horse, but now has dragon instincts and is very smart. Why would a dragon fight for you in the circumstances? Does it figure out it is going to revert back? If so, is going back to being your horse a good gig for it, or would it be better off to fly off and find a situation where it will not be in combat all the time? If not, does it now want to take the treasure?

(A) I agree that it's not inevitable. More of a tendency than a simple cause, like how smoking causes lung cancer in 10-20% of lifelong smokers, but 80%+ of smokers still never get lung cancer. Presumably there are multiple factors that go into both trends. But almost no non-smokers get lung cancer.

(B) I'm not arguing for "objectively better," just "avoids certain kinds of problems," in the spirit of the thread.

(C) Obviously it depends. It's tough to drill down into an example, but for the sake of discussion:

1.) Maybe you know that the DM runs Silver Dragons as loners so you cast Charm Monster on the horse long before Polymorphing it.

2.) Maybe the enemy you're planning on attacking has a history of hostility to dragons.

3.) Maybe you negotiate with the dragon after its creation to request help. Silver dragons are traditionally pretty friendly to humans, and it knows you're its creator. Asking it to do you a small favor and help kill a demon (for example) is not crazy from a roleplaying perspective. It can fail, but so can anything in D&D.

4.) If dragons tend not to work with your DM there's no shortage of other creatures to choose from, some good-aligned and voluntarily helpful (ki-rin, planetars), others merely controllable and useful (trolls, mammoths).

5.) Coming up with reasons for a ki-rin, silver dragon, or planetar NOT to help you is a potential hassle for the DM along the same lines as explaining why Elminster doesn't just take out the bad guys, except the DM can't use the excuse of "Elminster's busy elsewhere." I.e. even if the dragon leaves, it still disrupted your campaign in a way that wouldn't have happened at lower levels. Obviously this depends on what you're doing--if you're just killing monsters literally for their treasure you'll get less sympathy from others than if you're trying to stop a necromancer from massacring the inhabitants of a peaceful village.

 

[Beoric]

The silver dragon example is only an example. The point is, the AD&D power curve may not be quite as steep as you think for a number of reasons, one of which is that many spells must be adjudicated narratively and can have unexpected consequences if cast in haste.

 

[Hemlock]

The silver dragon example is only an example. The point is, the AD&D power curve may not be quite as steep as you think for a number of reasons, one of which is that many spells must be adjudicated narratively and can have unexpected consequences if cast in haste.

Sure, it's only an example, but I think it's been shown that the "unexpected consequences" are still disruptive to a campaign and don't really lessen the power curve.

My takeaway here is that "not as steep as you think" just means "not as steep as I thought you were thinking it was." I get the impression you thought "silver dragon" was chosen as an outlier of some sort, but the point I was making would have been just a well served by Charm Monster + Polymorph Other (Troll). There are lots of monsters that are good in a fight when Enlarged and Hasted.

 

[squeen]

Sure, it's only an example, but I think it's been shown that the "unexpected consequences" are still disruptive to a campaign and don't really lessen the power curve.

My takeaway here is that "not as steep as you think" just means "not as steep as I thought you were thinking it was." I get the impression you thought "silver dragon" was chosen as an outlier of some sort, but the point I was making would have been just a well served by Charm Monster + Polymorph Other (Troll). There are lots of monsters that are good in a fight when Enlarged and Hasted.

I think @Beoric's point is a subtle but good one --- there are many hidden checks and balances in AD&D play that involves DM interaction. Not all elements of the game (e.g. charmed monsters) become compliant tactical weapons unless the DM also plays along. Having the grand plans of mice and men go astray is a hallmark of the original game.

Ultimately, that is what is mostly implied when taking about in "power curves" --- tactical power. But when D&D becomes mainly a combat engine, the game is already lost.

The thing is, those "consequences" are not as unexpected as you say (above). The progression mainly works, and the playing-field deftly morphs. The key is of course to use all of the rules and not hand-waive away everything that players find inconvenient to focus solely on video-game action or drama.

You mentioned Stoneskin, for exampled, which is a UA spell that is rather broken in my estimation. A clear PC-invented indulgence because of it's duration. I don't include most of UA...or any form of the (later edition) long-term, class distorting, mage-armor spells---except in very rare cases. One must be careful not to paper-over weaknesses. Everything and everyone must have one. 5e has, by and large, done away with that thinking--to it's detriment.

To answer a few earlier questions:

• there hasn't been any dual or multi-classing yet (and neither was there when I played OD&D)---but it is often talked about.
• there is no great hurry or focus to get to higher levels in order to "unlock" powerful magic (in truth acquiring magic ITEMS throughg exploration is the real short-cut...but they are an unknown-unknown and often come with drawbacks or limited usability)
• we never had much use for psionics --- it is not a class, just a mutation (with consequences, more bad than good)
• they are no builds. 3d6 in order...choose a class and race you qualify for. If you are not human, expect to hit the level limits.

Just as they are tyrant DMs, there are also rule-lawyer players who seek to subvert the game to their will. My advise is to avoid both at your table, and things will go beautifully. The game is magical when everyone buys in.

Player impatience to climb the power-curve falls into the second category in my mind. One DM tactic for world-weary "expert" players might be to alter all the higher-level spells ever so slightly so that they have no idea what precisely they'll do. Then the experience might revert from Machiavellian anticipation, to one of world-discovery...as it should be.

Live in the now. The journey is the destination...etc, etc.

 

[Hemlock]

Squeen, it actually looks like you're confirming the theory: a steep power-curve can have bad effects on play, and as predicted, someone who doesn't experience that issue (you) is running a game without things that cause a steep pre-plannable power curve (Stoneskin, spell combos, dual-classing, psionics).

We can agree to disagree about how useful Polymorph Other is, because the specific combo of Polymorph Other + Demi-Shadow Monsters + Enlarge + Haste isn't really the point. That's just one among many.

Ultimately, that is what is mostly implied when taking about in "power curves" --- tactical power. But when D&D becomes mainly a combat engine, the game is already lost.

In this case, I'm not talking solely about tactics, which is why I keep mentioning that creating silver dragons is disruptive even if they don't wind up joining any fights on the PCs' side. It's strategically disruptive. Creating cows out of mice is not tactically powerful but is very economically powerful: someone whose goal is to become an uber-farmer who supplies the whole region with milk will also experience their AD&D game changing around the time he hits 7th level (although we agree that yes, it depends on how easy it is to re-research Polymorph Other from scratch or find it, and in a game where spells can only be found in dungeons you probably won't have the predicted problems with player impatience because spells will act more like magic items). It's not just about tactical power.

P.S. I do think though that dungeons and dragons (including OSE, LL, Dungeon Fantasy, etc.) is at its best when players are in situations where violence is implicitly a potential solution to whatever problems they face. That is, it's terrific to have a game where the players are competing against each other to get elected sheriff of the space colony they founded, to see who's primarily responsible for protecting the colony from monsters. That kind of thing works great in D&D. But if they're competing against each other to become head of the school board, to see who's going to be in charge of hiring and firing teachers and revising curricula... if that's what your game is mostly about, you should be running it in the Mind of Margaret or something similar, if you want it to be any fun as a game.

 

[squeen]

OK. Glad I'm good for something!

One last thought about those "killer spell combos". I think it's useful to think of the campaign world like an ecosystem (or marketplace). An innovative mutation might get a lot of milage at the outset, but over time the environment adapts and you get less bang for the buck. It's up to the DM to make sure the world innovates/adjusts as well.

 

[EOTB]

This has been true for several years.


The cost of armor and helms is detailed separately, so I assumed armor did not include the cost of a helm. Particularly since the choice of a helm theoretically makes a difference, and the two types of helms are different prices; if a helm was included, which variety of helm?

Grieves, vambraces, sabatons, etc. do not have separate prices listed, so I assume they are included with the cost of armor.

Presumably a price for helmet, small was included because at least a few people lost their helmets when taking them off for the various reasons the game says a helmet must be removed to function, and the inevitable question followed.

But yes, armor comes with a helmet (small). (And the helmet, small listed is obviously a heavy armor-helmet, as it exceeds the cost of leather armor which also comes with its own leather headgear. But that is apparently very cheap to replace, so cheap that the cost is considered inconsequential).

 

[Hemlock]

OK. Glad I'm good for something!

One last thought about those "killer spell combos". I think it's useful to think of the campaign world like an ecosystem (or marketplace). An innovative mutation might get a lot of milage at the outset, but over time the environment adapts and you get less bang for the buck. It's up to the DM to make sure the world innovates/adjusts as well.

Well, yes, but it depends on how commonplace these things are, which ties back into other concerns like realism.

1.) If you have rules for levels 1-20, but practically no one including PCs ever reaches level 5+, then countermeasures won't be used unless they're cheap. (E.g. spend a few moments trying to Disbelieve illusions at the start of an important meeting would not be crazy even if only 1 human in a million, plus monsters, is able to cast illusion spells. Moments are cheap. Sheathing everything in lead is not cheap though and probably ought not to be done if high-level magic is rare.)

2.) If NPCs of levels 5-20 are common, then you have a different kind of problem: finding a niche for the players. Possible by e.g. running a classic dungeon crawl where PCs are motivated by treasure, and powerful NPCs have enough wealth already to not be motivated to do more dungeon crawls. In this scenario antimagic countermeasures "in town" (or in ancient ruins) are fully realistic and appropriate.

3.) If NPCs practically never reach levels 5+ but PCs do, then just like option (1), expensive countermeasures should be rare and PCs will have a lot of impact. Innovative mutations/tactics/etc. may cause changes in the world, but that's still a form of impact.

 

[EOTB]

I must disagree with Squeen here. Tactical combat is as much a pillar of D&D as is exploration and wonder. The game is a mix of all three. Something derived from war gamers was not attempting to downplay combat.

Saying the game is lost if combat is strongly emphasized makes as little sense as saying the game is lost if too much time is spent in exploration or wonder.

 

[squeen]

I must disagree with Squeen here. Tactical combat is as much a pillar of D&D as is exploration and wonder. The game is a mix of all three. Something derived from war gamers was not attempting to downplay combat.

Saying the game is lost if combat is strongly emphasized makes as little sense as saying the game is lost if too much time is spent in exploration or wonder.

I had originally written "solely" and then softened that to "mainly a combat engine". I guess that implies 51+%, but I was thinking even more.

I am referring to time-spent trading blows. Tactical combat is fairly quick in AD&D, but strategically it stretches much longer in planning and execution. I wouldn't count that necessarily.

Do you think that that spending 24.5% or less of your time exploring, and 24.5% or less interacting (with what you've found) is typical? It doesn't match with my comfort zone. Perhaps a third of each is a better balance?

Combat may be the crescendo, but the rest of the symphony is needed to build to that point---to give it relevance.

My caution may be exaggerated, but only because the pitfall is real and perhaps a path too commonly taken. It's the video-game influence: chop-chop-chop fight-fight-fight. OK, cleared the level---on to the next screen! That's not great D&D, to me.

 

[EOTB]

I don't think there's a set % granulated to that degree. The set % of my campaign will vary from your campaign, and people will self-sort to campaigns that match their personal %. D&D is intended to feature all three pillars, but some people prefer a spicy dish to a savory one.

you have the cut-screen video game players as extremes on one side, the story gamers on another side, etc.

In my own campaign, combat is pretty central simply because it's the thing that will end your party if no party member is very good, as a player, at it. So players might come up with their "95%" strategy - i.e., one they could pull out all the time and win 95% of the time - but eventually that 96-100 comes up because their favorite strat doesn't work against something they tangled with.

So I can let 95%ers win and not worry about people needing to be uncertain due to past experience or study becoming unreliable knowledge. The best players understand even perfectly reliable knowledge means never having enough resources to be ready for everything. The game is trying to be ready so you can win your conflicts convincingly (by combat, and sometimes by other means). Often it is by leaning into the gigantic variety of post-character generation combat complexity that this is accomplished.

 

[squeen]

you have the cut-screen video game players as extremes on one side, the story gamers on another side, etc.

Too true. Danger abounds.

 

[EOTB]

Well, yes, but it depends on how commonplace these things are, which ties back into other concerns like realism.

1.) If you have rules for levels 1-20, but practically no one including PCs ever reaches level 5+, then countermeasures won't be used unless they're cheap. (E.g. spend a few moments trying to Disbelieve illusions at the start of an important meeting would not be crazy even if only 1 human in a million, plus monsters, is able to cast illusion spells. Moments are cheap. Sheathing everything in lead is not cheap though and probably ought not to be done if high-level magic is rare.)

2.) If NPCs of levels 5-20 are common, then you have a different kind of problem: finding a niche for the players. Possible by e.g. running a classic dungeon crawl where PCs are motivated by treasure, and powerful NPCs have enough wealth already to not be motivated to do more dungeon crawls. In this scenario antimagic countermeasures "in town" (or in ancient ruins) are fully realistic and appropriate.

3.) If NPCs practically never reach levels 5+ but PCs do, then just like option (1), expensive countermeasures should be rare and PCs will have a lot of impact. Innovative mutations/tactics/etc. may cause changes in the world, but that's still a form of impact.

If there's one thing using the urban random encounter chart, and the various "men" groups in the wilderness, have taught me in AD&D, it's that there's a lot more high level characters floating around than most people's mental baseline.

 

[Beoric]

But yes, armor comes with a helmet (small). (And the helmet, small listed is obviously a heavy armor-helmet, as it exceeds the cost of leather armor which also comes with its own leather headgear. But that is apparently very cheap to replace, so cheap that the cost is considered inconsequential).

I can't find that rule anywhere. What I can find is this, from DMG p. 28:

It is assumed that an appropriate type of head armoring will be added to the suit of armor in order to allow uniform protection of the wearer.

In my view, the fact that helms "will be added to the suit of armor" means the helm is not included.

I had originally written "solely" and then softened that to "mainly a combat engine". I guess that implies 51+%, but I was thinking even more.

I am referring to time-spent trading blows. Tactical combat is fairly quick in AD&D, but strategically it stretches much longer in planning and execution. I wouldn't count that necessarily.

Do you think that that spending 24.5% or less of your time exploring, and 24.5% or less interacting (with what you've found) is typical? It doesn't match with my comfort zone. Perhaps a third of each is a better balance?

Combat may be the crescendo, but the rest of the symphony is needed to build to that point---to give it relevance.

My caution may be exaggerated, but only because the pitfall is real and perhaps a path too commonly taken. It's the video-game influence: chop-chop-chop fight-fight-fight. OK, cleared the level---on to the next screen! That's not great D&D, to me.

Time spent fighting can vary wildly. I have one campaign where the players are all Leeroy Jenkins all the time, and another where I just wish they would stop scouting and do something already.

If there's one thing using the urban random encounter chart, and the various "men" groups in the wilderness, have taught me in AD&D, it's that there's a lot more high level characters floating around than most people's mental baseline.

This is true. I actually have to nerf a lot of those NPCs because Eberron's baseline is a lot lower.