1st Edition AD&D, random monsters question

[Balance]

@Lynn_Bodoni

Nitpick: Kenders are fine as a character race in a series of books. Aggravating, but they have their uses. However, as a PC race in a game, they WILL break the game. They are not team players. Even if a player wanted to play a kender as a team player, the racial tendencies will prevent it from happening.

How about a team composed entirely of kender?

Without going into the whole story of a long-ago campaign with a rather fractious party, I offer this kender-related anecdote:

The mount of the party leader–a ridiculously overpowered paladin–was killed while the leader was elsewhere, in a way that left nothing behind but a small pile of white powder. The kender thief and the wizard were the first to discover this, and the wizard went to fetch the paladin, foolishly leaving the kender behind. When they returned, he noticed that the pile seemed rather smaller, but didn’t become too alarmed as the bereaved paladin began preparing to resurrect his steed. (I told you he was ridiculously overpowered.)

The he spotted a trace of something pale on the kender’s face. On his nose, to be exact. His eyes widened and he grabbed the paladin, shaking him to break his concentration.

“You can’t resurrect it–it’s in the kender’s head!”

[tracer]

@Ethilrist

Any 1st Edition DM worthy of the term “Dungeon Master” could clear the table and wipe out the party any time he wanted to.

“Rocks fall, everyone dies” is not a sign of worthiness…

[Lynn_Bodoni]

@Mister_Rik

This is where my old D&D group ran into trouble. The DM didn’t write his own adventures - he used published adventures. Which were designed for groups of 4-5 players. Then he would allow the group to grow to 7-8 players. But he never adjusted the encounters accordingly. So the XP and treasure intended for 4-5 players got divided up between 7-8 players. This meant leveling and gearing did not keep pace with the progression of the adventure. So we’d be just blowing through encounters for a little while, then suddenly we would find ourselves facing encounters that were designed for level 7 characters (because that’s where the writer expected the party would be by that point in the adventure), but we’d all still be level 4, and woefully undergeared, and lacking the skills/feats the adventure writer assumed we’d have by that point. So we’d get our asses handed to us repeatedly, and die, and lose a level on resurrection, and never catch up.

Yeah, I think that DMs were specifically warned that they should read through the adventure first, and then consider the party that was to play it, and make adjustments where necessary. So in your old DM’s case, he should have just about doubled everything, monsters and treasures alike, and then subtracted maybe 10%.

I’ve had a lot of fun in published adventures, but only if the DM had read the adventure beforehand and tailored it to the party.

[Ludovic]

@Balance

How about a team composed entirely of kender?

Ooooh boy that reminds me of my only DMing foray in the past few years. I was making a hand-rolled world and hadn’t made much of the Dwarven culture, but included it for those who couldn’t get enough of teh beard. So everyone of course played a dwarf. Worse, I hadn’t thought about their theology at all, so everyone played a dwarf cleric. In an adventure I had which was heavy in the undead :smack: Needless to say I was not recently experienced enough to handle such a confluence of bad events.

[glee]

@hogarth

In 1E AD&D, there was the idea that if you were engaged in melee and you moved away, then your opponent got a free attack. That’s like a proto-Attack of Opportunity.

Page 70 of the 1st Edition DMG (paraphrased, because Gygax was wordy!):

‘Breaking off from melee’

…fleeing the melee allows a free attack, as if the creature fleeing were stunned. The fleeing creature may then retreat.

@Ethilrist

Any 1st Edition DM worthy of the term “Dungeon Master” could clear the table and wipe out the party any time he wanted to. Most fights, I had to come up with reasons for the monsters not to slaughter the party, so if somebody wanted to stand up front in big, shiny armor and soak up some damage, I let him do it. Plus, the whole idea of “solo adventuring” brought out the basic gaming rule of thumb: “Don’t split up the party.”

I agree that any DM can wipe out* any party, but I don’t agree this makes for a ‘worthy’ DM.

My group send in monsters than can be beaten by reasonable play, with the monsters using their abilities according to their intelligence + bravery.
So a bunch of goblins just attack en masse until half are dead, whilst a group of Ogres led by a Magic User have tactics…
*Cloud of Darkness
Move: 36
Area: 100’ x 100’
HP: 1,000
AC: 0 (+1 weapon or better to hit)
Automatically hits all opponents within itself for damage equal to its current hit points
Regenerates points equal to damage done by itself

[Lynn_Bodoni]

@Ludovic

Ooooh boy that reminds me of my only DMing foray in the past few years. I was making a hand-rolled world and hadn’t made much of the Dwarven culture, but included it for those who couldn’t get enough of teh beard. So everyone of course played a dwarf. Worse, I hadn’t thought about their theology at all, so everyone played a dwarf cleric. In an adventure I had which was heavy in the undead :smack: Needless to say I was not recently experienced enough to handle such a confluence of bad events.

I’ve rarely been a DM. On one of my first attempts at it, everyone in the 6 or 7 (can’t remember now) member party wanted to play a thief, either straight or multiclass.

From then on, I made it clear to players that I couldn’t handle having more than 1 or 2 thieves in a party. I’m sure a more experienced DM could handle this, but not me.

[Maus_Magill]

@glee

I agree that any DM can wipe out* any party, but I don’t agree this makes for a ‘worthy’ DM.

My group send in monsters than can be beaten by reasonable play, with the monsters using their abilities according to their intelligence + bravery.
So a bunch of goblins just attack en masse until half are dead, whilst a group of Ogres led by a Magic User have tactics…
*Cloud of Darkness
Move: 36
Area: 100’ x 100’
HP: 1,000
AC: 0 (+1 weapon or better to hit)
Automatically hits all opponents within itself for damage equal to its current hit points
Regenerates points equal to damage done by itself

My brother once decided to “attack the DM.” It did not go well for him.

[glee]

@Lynn_Bodoni

I’ve rarely been a DM. On one of my first attempts at it, everyone in the 6 or 7 (can’t remember now) member party wanted to play a thief, either straight or multiclass.

From then on, I made it clear to players that I couldn’t handle having more than 1 or 2 thieves in a party. I’m sure a more experienced DM could handle this, but not me.

1. I agree that new DMs will appreciate a ‘classic’ party e.g.:

Paladin (LG)
Fighter (LG)
Fighter / Cleric (LG)
Cleric (LG)
MU (LG)
Fighter / Thief (LN)

So the party is ‘well-behaved’, has plenty of Fighting power (and lots of hit points), a couple of healers and only one each of MU + Thief for the novice DM to cope with.
Presumably there will be a standard marching order and set watches.
I’m sure both the DM and players will enjoy this.

2. Having said that, my highly-experienced group once had a campaign where we all played members of the same Thieves Guild!
   We needed quite a few multi-class characters and one ‘hired’ Cleric (who concentrated solely on healing + defence):

Thief
Fighter / Thief
MU / Thief
Illusionist / Thief
Cleric / Thief
Cleric (usually made Invisible by one of the spellcasters)

it was tricky to write for, and risky to play.
But it was a real laugh to have animated discussions about how to maximise our chances of being undetected until we could unleash our backstabs. (And a retreat option was vital…)

[Chronos]

I don’t know, there’s a lot to say for a party where two of the characters are thieves and the other two are not. We had a lot of fun talking about the paladin behind his back in Thieves’ Cant.