Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (
More info?)
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 06:40:17 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:
>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:qj1t119gifteaturmg7habv5fjjdiai9d8@4ax.com...
>> >Well, I guess I used dragon as an example because every DM I have every
>> >played with has upped the difficulty of dragons to "extreme", given that
>> >they are the namesake of the game. Our party found themselves in a
>> >situation where an adult green dragon wasn't playing nicely with
>> >others(surprise surprise). The mage did a bit of research to determine
>if
>> >the party of (then) 5th level adventurers, 8 of them, could handle it.
>The
>> >answer was very clear: Not a chance in hell. I have a feeling that the
>> >dragon in question is going to have free reign for quite some time.
>>
>> An adult green dragon is a CR12 opponent. That's a TPK every time vs 5th
>> level characters.
>
>Yes, if there were 4 of them. I have been under the impression that CR
>ratings are based on the assumption of 4 party members. With 8 party
>members, theoretically, they should be able to survive an encounter with a
>CR10 monster, at least that's how I understand the CR ratings. Agreed with
>the TPK analysis, but still, it was closer than you originally thought.
Not really. The CR system gets really blown out of the water when you have
significantly different values. This is especially true of dragons. The
game makes a special point of telling the DM that giving characters a 4+ CR
opponent is asking for big problems.
An adult green dragon's fear aura requires a DC23 check, and 5th level
characters would be lucky to have a +6 will save bonus (and that would only
apply to high wisdom clerics and monks). A vast army of level 5s would
spend the entire fight cowering in terror while the dragon pelts them with
a DC25 reflex save acid cones, which will inflict ~42 points of unsaved
damage. That level of damage will reduce any non-fighter to a puddle of
goo, and most fighter classes as well. No level 5 could possibly survive 2
such applications, which with a good die roll on the dragon's part can come
within the space of 3 rounds. Not that it really needs such overkill. Its
27 AC means that only 16+ strength fighting classes could hit it on less
than a natural 20. It's 5/magic damage resistance means that the few blows
that land at all will inflict minimal damage. It could melee them with near
impunity.
An adult green dragon would inflict mass slaughter on level 5s in mind
boggling quantities and with incredible ease. Even if they brought enough
people to beat it, their casualty rate would be pyrrhic at best.
>This is personal opinion, of course, but dragons have always represented a
>special category of monsters in any campaign I've ever been involved in.
>They aren't simply "tough monsters to beat", they are the stuff that legends
>are made of. Defeating them is meant to cap an adventuring career, not
>simply be a milestone within it. I have always found that increasing the
>toughness of dragons and decreasing their frequency makes for an absolutely
>fabulous way to heighten the drama of the encounter, instead of making it
>just another run of the mill battle.
There is room for a lot of things. The ability to put in really *really*
powerful dragons is well within the rules. Great Wyrm Reds are a supreme
challenge even to a group of level 20s. Encountering weaker dragons can be
one heck of an adventure hook for later in the game. Dragons have possibly
the greatest potential of any standard monster to be influential in the
game world.
Check:
http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/archfr/wn for some really
fleshed out dragons. They are FR based, but the personalities are the
important part, and those are pretty independant of the setting.
>> >Except that in this game, as in life, "character building" is about
>> >overcoming adversity, in a variety of ways. If characters are advancing
>too
>> >quickly, they are obviously not EARNING their way, and they do not build
>> >real "character".
>>
>> Role playing is not about having your 10 year old wizard being forced to
>> rake the back yard because it "builds character".
>
>Yes, that's true. I'm not suggesting that people role play defeating that
>insidious pile of leaves in the yard(FIREBALL! *foof*! *yells* "ALL DONE
>DAD!"). What I am suggesting is that advancing too quickly does not allow
>the character to truly value his own mortality.
You haven't seen the casualty rate in a 3.x game...
>quite simply, they never get a chance to really know what the
>character is all about.
Hogwash. I know what my character is all about before the game even starts.
> They find it difficult to give depth to a character
>who finds that proper application of a sledgehammer neatly, if bloodily,
>fixes 99% of their problems. Without ever experiencing setbacks, it is
>almost impossible for a player to lend depth to a character.
The players you play with are bad role players.
>Characters that fight orcs at tenth level would receive pretty much the same
>experience reward for ogres, despite a fourfold increase in toughness,
>because the combat is similar, an asswhipping meted out by the party on
>whomever might cross their path. If the encounter does not garner the
>characters any new experiences from which to grow, the characters don't get
>much XP for the fight.
Characters in 3.x that fight orcs at tenth level recieve no experience
whatsoever. Unless there are a *lot* of said orcs (hundreds...and even then
the xp gain would be meager).
>These are just examples of the overriding concern which is that PC
>advancement that happens to quickly leads to a necessarily shallow
>character, because the player ends up focussing on the stats over the
>substance.
Your players, maybe.
>> 13.3 equal-CR encounters in one play session is quite a lot. Consistantly
>> obtaining a level per play session is going to be pretty rare.
>
>It's funny, that's just what I thought, but according to a previous poster,
>a campaign from 1st to 20th levels for a party of 4 is supposed to last 6
>months of weekly gaming for 6 hours. 6 months is 26 weeks, 6 hours a week,
>that's 156 hours, divided by 20 levels, that's 7.8 hours per level.
I don't know where that 6 month figure is derived from. There is no
reference to it in the manuals that I can recall. 13 significant battles in
a game session is, in my experience, a lot.
>Now, knowing that one campaign is resting at around 8 hours per level and
>one campaign is running for 32 hours per level, you tell me, which campaign
>do YOU think will have characters with more depth, more "character"?
Since, as I've previously stated, advancement speed has no correlation to
roleplaying, my answer is: Insufficient information. You could *start* at
level 40 and have tremendous depth of character, and you could take 10 play
sessions to gain a level playing 3 times a week for 2 years and end up with
shallow munchkins.
It all depends on the quality of the players.
>> And I reiterate that most people have little to no difficulty in
>> comprehending mechanics without playing them. I do not need to "get used
>> to" the improved critical feat after I take it. I completely and fully
>> understood exactly what it would do as soon as I finished reading the
>> relevant rules.
>
>Mechanics of combat are fairly simple to get used to, but if the first thing
>you choose to use as an example is a combat mechanic, that tells me all I
>need to know about what you consider "role playing". It's sad, really.
Combat is by far the most complex mechanical aspect of the game. The
ability to understand *that* means that the simpler mechanisms are even
easier.
You are being nonsensical. As usual.
>Obviously you haven't a clue what I'm talking about. I refer to the use of
>non-combat skills in interesting and unique ways to overcome obstacles that
>are not combat related.
What sort of gibbering moron would require gameplay time to come up with
such things?
The only system within the game where practical use in the game can provide
real insight would be with spells. Like a wizard figuring out to use cone
of cold to freeze casks of water and make a ton of money selling ice to
nobles. Some spells carry a great deal of flexibility which isn't always
immediately obvious.
> Using skills in situations where "apply
>sledgehammer here" simply won't work is what really shows the grasp a player
>has of the application of the mechanics, not of the mechanics itself.
Ironic, since you don't even USE mechanics for these situations if the
players come up with a good enough story. Why would people bother to even
try understanding mechanics that won't even be used? Your players just make
up a good story, and you allow it, whether their characters would be
capable of such a task or not. Bad roleplaying.
>> Hyperbole is certainly the way to make a convincing arguement. I also like
>> how you again try to attach roleplaying ability to advancement speed when
>> there is absolutely no correlation. I can roleplay with no game mechanics
>> at all, the inclusion of game mechanics does not impair me in the
>> slightest.
>
>Let's say you make a character at the beginning of session1, and play that
>character right away, and until lvl20. Unless you make some VERY rapid
>decisions about this characters motivations and backround, decisions so
>rapid that you would not be able to make all the necessary decisions to
>create a truly deep character in the seconds you would have, the character
>would start off as a very shallow characters, about as deep as the paper
>it's written on.
Since unlike you I know how to roleplay; all of those decisions are made
BEFORE THE GAME EVEN STARTS. The character guides the stats, not the other
way around. Events in the game can have an effect on how my character
develops, but nobody I know (except I guess you and your players) bases
their character on the most recent level-up bennie they've received.
>Next, you're advancing at almost a level a session if you follow the
>advancement as a previous poster laid out. This means that in order to
>accomplish this, you have to be "resolving mechanics", be it combat, skill
>rolls, ability checks, whatever, near constantly. In other words, you would
>not have time to actually do any *REAL* character development, as you would
>be tied up in character mechanics the entire time.
Kindly do not project your mental limitations onto me.
>> > It makes me want to vomit that it seems to be a clear concensus
>> >that roleplaying not involve what has been the mainstay of roleplaying
>games
>> >since their inception, the concept that a role must be played.
>>
>> That has not been the mainstay that I can ever recall. Since your
>> underlying premise is wrong, any assumptions you make on that basis will
>be
>> horribly flawed.
>
>Since I started in '83, I have played in numerous campaigns with a variety
>of folks, at all times since then. Never once have I played in a campaign
>where playing roles was not considered intrinsic to the game.
Roleplaying is intrinsic to the game. Playing a role (which to you means
play-acting a role) is not. It's a distinction which despite our sincerest
efforts, you have been unable to grasp.
> I have to
>wonder how long you have been playing,
I got the D&D basic box with the knight and wizard on the cover (back when
Elf was a character class) in 1979. I picked up the 3 AD&D "core" books
shortly thereafter. Nice try though.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram