|
Post by Probie Tim on Aug 18, 2016 6:49:12 GMT -8
I've been re-reading my AD&D second edition books lately; I'm trying to quell the gamer ADD which has beset me since landing in Happy Jack's lap. Anyway, I came across a few tidbits yesterday which I'd forgotten about that, as I think about it, are probably contributing factors to the modern day criticism that D&D combat drags on and on and on.
First off, in second edition (and I believe first edition, although I didn't check) hit point bonuses for high Constitution halt at 10th level (9th for warriors and priests). After that level, you don't get to add your Con bonus to your hit points as you advance.
Secondly, at 10th level (again, 9th for warriors and priests) you stop getting a new hit die with every level. After that, characters get a fixed number of hit points based on their class; warriors, for instance, get 3 hit points per level after 9th level.
So in 3rd, 4th (I think, I often pretend 4th never happened), and 5th editions, a 15th level fighter would have 15d10 hit dice, with Constitution bonuses for each level. But in 2nd (and, again, 1st I assume) editions, a 15th level fighter would only have 9d10 hit dice, plus 18 hit points, with Constitution modifiers only to level 9. Looking at pure averages, assuming a Con modifier for HP of +2, that's 113 hit points for the 3E/4E/5E character, and only 86 hit points for the 2E/1E character.
Fewer hit points, of course, means shorter combats.
Anyway, just a quick observation.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 18, 2016 10:21:59 GMT -8
I can confirm the same was true for 1e as well Aaron
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2016 22:07:39 GMT -8
I've been re-reading my AD&D second edition books lately; I'm trying to quell the gamer ADD which has beset me since landing in Happy Jack's lap. Anyway, I came across a few tidbits yesterday which I'd forgotten about that, as I think about it, are probably contributing factors to the modern day criticism that D&D combat drags on and on and on. First off, in second edition (and I believe first edition, although I didn't check) hit point bonuses for high Constitution halt at 10th level (9th for warriors and priests). After that level, you don't get to add your Con bonus to your hit points as you advance. Secondly, at 10th level (again, 9th for warriors and priests) you stop getting a new hit die with every level. After that, characters get a fixed number of hit points based on their class; warriors, for instance, get 3 hit points per level after 9th level. So in 3rd, 4th (I think, I often pretend 4th never happened), and 5th editions, a 15th level fighter would have 15d10 hit dice, with Constitution bonuses for each level. But in 2nd (and, again, 1st I assume) editions, a 15th level fighter would only have 9d10 hit dice, plus 18 hit points, with Constitution modifiers only to level 9. Looking at pure averages, assuming a Con modifier for HP of +2, that's 113 hit points for the 3E/4E/5E character, and only 86 hit points for the 2E/1E character. Fewer hit points, of course, means shorter combats. Anyway, just a quick observation. Interesting. Now if only they kicked those effects in much earlier than 10th...
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on Aug 19, 2016 14:53:03 GMT -8
Second Ed, as I remember it, was very much the "you're a dirt farmer who just picked up a sword" game.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Aug 19, 2016 17:46:09 GMT -8
O.o
That was very much not my experience.
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on Aug 20, 2016 5:18:21 GMT -8
I'm comparing it to 4E/5E, of course. Hell, 4E, you can start out with upwards of 40 HP at level one, no?
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Aug 20, 2016 5:52:20 GMT -8
I still don't see the link. It's not like all nobles had to be tenth level or higher. HP had nothing to do with your character's background, and everything about how lethal the designers wanted things to be.
Fourth and Fifth edition had higher starting hp because one of the two most common house rules was to skip to level three for survivability -- the other, being some sort of alternate stat generation, usually a variant on 4d6 drop the lowest. The designers figured since it seemed the vast majority of groups seemed to be playing it that way, that they might as well design for it. The same thing with the extra powers, and at wills in 4e. The complaints about mages (at low levels) was that they basically had one good fight in them, and then they were basically done. At wills allowed the mages to be magical all the time. That's why they were kept for 5e.
|
|
sbloyd
Supporter
WHAT! A human in a Precursor service vehicle?!
Posts: 2,762
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller; Dresden; Mage
Favorite Species of Monkey: Goddamnit, Curious George is a CHIMP not a monkey! Stop teaching my daughter improper classification!
|
Post by sbloyd on Aug 20, 2016 6:08:05 GMT -8
I don't mean LITERAL dirt farmers. I just mean that 1st level folks were fairly unskilled, and were fairly frail.
As far as one-shot wizards go, yeah. The one-spell-and-you're-done thing was always a bother.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 23:25:40 GMT -8
I still don't see the link. It's not like all nobles had to be tenth level or higher. HP had nothing to do with your character's background, and everything about how lethal the designers wanted things to be. Fourth and Fifth edition had higher starting hp because one of the two most common house rules was to skip to level three for survivability -- the other, being some sort of alternate stat generation, usually a variant on 4d6 drop the lowest. The designers figured since it seemed the vast majority of groups seemed to be playing it that way, that they might as well design for it. The same thing with the extra powers, and at wills in 4e. The complaints about mages (at low levels) was that they basically had one good fight in them, and then they were basically done. At wills allowed the mages to be magical all the time. That's why they were kept for 5e. At wills allowed everyone to be (insert power source here) all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 24, 2016 2:22:01 GMT -8
I don't mean LITERAL dirt farmers. I just mean that 1st level folks were fairly unskilled, and were fairly frail. As far as one-shot wizards go, yeah. The one-spell-and-you're-done thing was always a bother. Very true. The 'one shot' wizard was an exercise in resource management and team play that appealed to the likes of Sim City and Civilsation players (micro manage your resources and plan for the long game ie: survive (work with the team and have them protect you) till you can cast fireball). Aaron
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Aug 24, 2016 2:48:05 GMT -8
Got slightly derailed there, sorry....
I disagree with your conclusion, Tim. The complaint about slowing combats seems to me to strike before tenth level, so it would be before the cut off of older editions. While, it's certainly true that after tenth the problem would grow in later editions, the root seems to occur before that.
Now, I saw this problem in 4e where you began with what amounted to several levels worth of HP at first level -- suggesting that HP may be a part of the equation. I, personally, don't see them dragging to the level that Stu experiences in 5e, or earlier editions.
Stu often mentions when this comes up that he seems to notice a lot of analysis paralysis (my interpretation, not his words) during players turns. Suggesting that it's a surfeit of options (especially coupled with the rise of HP) that may be the culprit. Although, personally, I've not encountered this too often, myself. More often in my experience, delays arise from the tactical situation (who to hit, rather than what to hit them with), which should occur across the board in games.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 24, 2016 6:44:27 GMT -8
Got slightly derailed there, sorry.... I disagree with your conclusion, Tim. The complaint about slowing combats seems to me to strike before tenth level, so it would be before the cut off of older editions. While, it's certainly true that after tenth the problem would grow in later editions, the root seems to occur before that. Now, I saw this problem in 4e where you began with what amounted to several levels worth of HP at first level -- suggesting that HP may be a part of the equation. I, personally, don't see them dragging to the level that Stu experiences in 5e, or earlier editions. Stu often mentions when this comes up that he seems to notice a lot of analysis paralysis (my interpretation, not his words) during players turns. Suggesting that it's a surfeit of options (especially coupled with the rise of HP) that may be the culprit. Although, personally, I've not encountered this too often, myself. More often in my experience, delays arise from the tactical situation (who to hit, rather than what to hit them with), which should occur across the board in games. I would agree that the inclusion of feats/at wills etc probably contributed more to the extension of combat playtime. I'd also add the inclusion of increasingly differentiated codified strategies also lengthened combat (dodge/stance/attacks of opportunity) as well as reducing the 'abstracted' 1 minute round to a less 'abstracted' 6 second round (which breed even more combat moves to replace the previously more free form narrative of interpreting the results across 1 minute of combat. . . NB: that being the intention though it did still tend to devolve into 'I roll I miss') Aaron
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2016 21:59:10 GMT -8
Got slightly derailed there, sorry.... I disagree with your conclusion, Tim. The complaint about slowing combats seems to me to strike before tenth level, so it would be before the cut off of older editions. While, it's certainly true that after tenth the problem would grow in later editions, the root seems to occur before that. Now, I saw this problem in 4e where you began with what amounted to several levels worth of HP at first level -- suggesting that HP may be a part of the equation. I, personally, don't see them dragging to the level that Stu experiences in 5e, or earlier editions. Stu often mentions when this comes up that he seems to notice a lot of analysis paralysis (my interpretation, not his words) during players turns. Suggesting that it's a surfeit of options (especially coupled with the rise of HP) that may be the culprit. Although, personally, I've not encountered this too often, myself. More often in my experience, delays arise from the tactical situation (who to hit, rather than what to hit them with), which should occur across the board in games. I haven't found analysis paralysis to be an issue. It just takes a considerable amount of time to make 2-3 attacks and damage rolls each (even with macros). Even using a macro I'd say your looking at 5 seconds an attack (and this is blazing fast). Add on 10 seconds to count squares and move, plus any attacks of opportunity or readied actions and your be lucky to be out under 30 seconds a person. It's more likely to be many times that long. Even at 30 seconds each, that 3 minutes to get through six players. At a minute each (still moving punctually) it's doubled to 6 minutes. And this doesn't even include the monsters! It could be over 10 minutes a round of combat with ease. Who wants to wait for ten minutes to get to go again? This assumes low numbers of attacks. Aoe attacks or characters such as monks (my level 12 monk could make 9 attacks a turn if conditions were right) could make this take much longer. The monk I referenced above I could ever play without a computer. A full hit sequence involved rolling over 60 dice! Add modifiers to them all in addition and by the time you are done you need an adding machine and a counter to keep track of what attack number you are on. you should have ample time to think about your move while all this goes down (maybe get a snack or take a nap while you are at it).
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 25, 2016 1:30:32 GMT -8
Got slightly derailed there, sorry.... I disagree with your conclusion, Tim. The complaint about slowing combats seems to me to strike before tenth level, so it would be before the cut off of older editions. While, it's certainly true that after tenth the problem would grow in later editions, the root seems to occur before that. Now, I saw this problem in 4e where you began with what amounted to several levels worth of HP at first level -- suggesting that HP may be a part of the equation. I, personally, don't see them dragging to the level that Stu experiences in 5e, or earlier editions. Stu often mentions when this comes up that he seems to notice a lot of analysis paralysis (my interpretation, not his words) during players turns. Suggesting that it's a surfeit of options (especially coupled with the rise of HP) that may be the culprit. Although, personally, I've not encountered this too often, myself. More often in my experience, delays arise from the tactical situation (who to hit, rather than what to hit them with), which should occur across the board in games. I haven't found analysis paralysis to be an issue. It just takes a considerable amount of time to make 2-3 attacks and damage rolls each (even with macros). Even using a macro I'd say your looking at 5 seconds an attack (and this is blazing fast). Add on 10 seconds to count squares and move, plus any attacks of opportunity or readied actions and your be lucky to be out under 30 seconds a person. It's more likely to be many times that long. Even at 30 seconds each, that 3 minutes to get through six players. At a minute each (still moving punctually) it's doubled to 6 minutes. And this doesn't even include the monsters! It could be over 10 minutes a round of combat with ease. Who wants to wait for ten minutes to get to go again? This assumes low numbers of attacks. Aoe attacks or characters such as monks (my level 12 monk could make 9 attacks a turn if conditions were right) could make this take much longer. The monk I referenced above I could ever play without a computer. A full hit sequence involved rolling over 60 dice! Add modifiers to them all in addition and by the time you are done you need an adding machine and a counter to keep track of what attack number you are on. you should have ample time to think about your move while all this goes down (maybe get a snack or take a nap while you are at it). So, looking at Probie Tim's observation, we have two very different aspects that both contribute to long combat times in later editions. 1) Total length of combat, in real time, from first to last round - this would be influenced by the likes of Hp by virtue of altered total attrition value; and 2) Length of individual combat segments, in real time - which would be influenced by the likes of math, increased number of action options and/or analysis paralysis affecting total attrition rateA toxic combination Aaron
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2016 1:44:38 GMT -8
Probie Tim should change his name on the forum back to something with Tim in it. He ain't just the new guy to me, he deserves his actual name.
|
|