Is OD&D “broken” at any particular level?

[Finarvyn]

When we played OD&D back in the 1970’s we naturally felt like the “sweet spot” for the game was somewhere in the 4th to 8th level range. “Warriors of Mars” suggests that those rules cap out at level 12 and that level 13 was reserved for John Carter, and I guess we applied that as a guideline to OD&D as well.

Malchor's thread to extend XP charts up into the 20’s makes me think about the scale of the game and whether or not it is “broken” at any point. (https://odd74.proboards.com/thread/15869/magic-user-fighting-capability-progression?page=1&scrollTo=265195)

Experience Points are an interesting mechanic. Accumulation of XP as a measure of character advancement is a logical tool, but doubling the XP for each level gained has an interesting effect of causing a gradual slow-down. Quick advancement early, slow advancement late, but after “name” level the advancement rate changes to a linear scale instead of a doubling one. The added twist (perhaps ignored by many) is that a character of level above those of the monsters earns a fraction of potential XP, which means that one has to continue fighting tougher opponents in order to avoid a condition where XP advancement essentially grinds to a halt. Perhaps what is “broken” here is that monsters really cannot continue to become tougher – once you pass dragons and then demons and perhaps gods, what else is left to defeat?

Hit Dice are not broken. The progression of HD can be fast or slow, can be all d6’s or funky dice shapes, but there is nothing in the HD mechanic which is broken. Accumulating piles of hit points may change the lethality of the monsters needed to make the game interesting, but I don’t think that “breaks” the game fundamentally.

Combat is clearly broken at some point because of the limitations of the d20. Part of this can be overcome in the system if the AC of the monsters grows at a similar rate to the attack bonus of the characters so that a similar percentage to hit is maintained. Otherwise the system gets “broken” by the fact that a character becomes too powerful for the d20 and the thrill of hit-or-miss becomes the monotony of always-hit.

Fighting Capability as a mechanic is also limiting. The problem is that Hero, Superhero, and Wizard are pretty static tiers based on levels 4 and 8 and (?). I am never sure where to place “Wizard” on the chart and often approximate around level 6, but I’m not sure any of the charts ever quite say how wizard compares to either Hero or Superhero. In any case, this tiered progression is okay for lower levels but eventually we get to “Superhero plus something” or “Wizard plus something” and those plus numbers eventually dwarf the tiers, which breaks the system.

Spells cast is a mechanic which can break the game as well. I have found in 5E that after a certain level my wizards have more spell slots than there are rounds in a combat. OD&D has a different set of rules for resting and regaining spells cast, but the concept is still the same. At some point the wizard (or cleric, or whatever class) has to have so many spells that running out isn’t a problem. Or, if one ignores the Greyhawk expansion and sticks to Men & Magic one finds that with only 6 spell levels for wizards (or 5 for clerics) that the progression eventually caps out. Greyhawk pushes the boundaries a bit more as the number of spell levels changes to 9 (or 7) but the concept is the same and at some point the pattern in the rulebook fills up all of the spell slots and either a new pattern needs to be established or the spellcaster simply stops gaining more spells. Thus, this measure of the game is broken at some point. (The exact level for this can be debated.)

Thieves are clearly broken because (1) there is a maximum level to the class, and (2) eventually all of the skills cap out at 100%. Advancement beyond that becomes pointless.

What do you think?

[waysoftheearth]

Interesting topic Finarvyn

A handful of observations, off the cuff, from my perspective:

Experience points: from memory, the experience reduction is by dungeon level rather than by monster level. Hence higher level players are encouraged to operate on deeper dungeon levels (reinforcing the pull of bigger treasures on deeper levels). I don't know if it's broken, but I agree there is a change after Top Level. Perhaps what is at odds is the discrepancy between the XP clerics need vs the other classes post Top Level. As it is, clerics will eventually gain three levels for every one M-U level which will have implications on the spells per day chart.

Hit Dice: The main thing that is potentially broken about HD for me is that large/massive monsters prolly don't have enough of them to fairly represent their size/mass/prowess/threat versus men. This exaggerates the potential of men, which i guess is why it's fantasy
Also worth noting that HD relate closely to Fighting Capability vs mooks.

Combat: I agree combat is an arms race between attack and defense, and that ultimately you want a relatively stable hit probability for evenly matched foes at any level or tier. I also agree that absolute numerical ACs and to-hit adjustments are problematic because a) improvement is implied by escalation (greater deviation from that stable/base hit probability), and b) you can't continue to escalate infinitely within any finite range (e.g., 1-20). Personally, I believe a qualitative approach (i.e., "man" or "hero" etc. FC) doesn't need to have this specific issue (albeit, it might have other issues instead).

FC: I'm not sure why FCs are limiting? Can we not introduce arbitrary FCs, call them whatever we like, and rank them however we like? Perhaps if we are trying to convert FC into a d20 matrix, or some other die-based matrix, it becomes limited by that die range. But the question is then: why try to convert an open system into a more limited system? FWIW, my solution for representing Wizard FC on the alternative matrices is that Wizard is equal to Superhero vs. enchanted/magic-using opponents, or otherwise equal to hero.

Spells: Agree that the unlimited growth of spells per day model is a problem. Also the quadratic nature of spell power in 0e is a problem (which I think was fixed to some extent in 5e). Magical types ideally need some limitation other than the spells per day table imposed so that spell use continues to be a finite resource to be prudently managed.

Thieves. Mmm. I agree that the % skill system is broken. It is also problematic that lowbie thieves are so ineffectual at their primary game (and this encourages stat inflation and min-maxing). Fundamentally, this is essentially the same problem as with the d20 combat system; that it tops out and then what? The same problem can likely have the same solution: i.e., a qualitative rather than quantitative approach to resolution.

just my 2 c.p.

[Finarvyn]

Great thoughts, waysoftheearth and they are all logical. They all point to the same conclusion that lower level D&D is probably "better" but I do like the notion of trying to extrapolate the level charts way up to see what we wind up with.

As to the FC question, even adding more arbitrary FCs doesn't seem to fix the problem to me, but it's better than "wizard +56" or somethig like that. The extra tiers of FC don't help unless we can come up with extra tiers of monsters.

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 15, 2023 4:36:29 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

As to the FC question, even adding more arbitrary FCs doesn't seem to fix the problem to me, but it's better than "wizard +56" or somethig like that. The extra tiers of FC don't help unless we can come up with extra tiers of monsters.

Hmm, in my mind there are couple of relevant difference between a ranked list of FCs (tiers of FC) and a (theoretically infinite, but practically finite) numerical series of to-hit adjustments...

Named tiers relate to something in the fiction. Man, hero, superhero... these are actual figures with specific capabilities in the fiction, so "man" FC is intuitively meaningful and relatable to the kinds of things a "man" could be expected to do. On the other hand, THAC0 15 or an attack adjustment of +4 are arbitrary mathematical data points. They are meaningless in the fiction itself.

So, if the name of a FC tier tells me something, then two FC rank names side by side tell me right away who is better, equivalent, or worse in a contest without recourse to a stat sheet or adding a bunch of numbers. E.g., I intuitively know that a hero should beat a man in a fair fight, cos I know that a hero is "better" than a man. Granted this doesn't tell me in minute (5% increment) detail how much more likely one figure is to hit another. But perhaps that detail isn't all that important?

Perhaps (thought experiment territory now...) I could live with a fixed probability to hit (e.g., 5-6 on a d6) but throw a number of dice determined by tier (e.g., 1 die per flunky, 2 dice per man-at-arms, 4 dice per hero, etc.)? This doesn't "top out" at any arbitrary limit. And if I need too many dice all at once, I can say the red dice are each worth 2, 4, or however many regular dice to keep it practical

[hamurai]

When you use XP for gold in a strict sense (as described in M&M), XP are clearly broken, aren't they? When your campaign steers away from dungeon exploration and looting and into politics and management of a barony, you'll hardly battle monsters for gold, so you can't get any XP at all. Even overcoming a death maze of traps and looting it would yield no XP as no monsters are fought, so XP in M&M don't make a lot of sense. Of course, playing the first few levels of OD&D, you probably won't recognize the issue, as even a few bigger treasures will be enough to make the PCs level up, but if you'd have to haul tens of thousands of gold out of a dungeon to make the players feel like they made a little progress, it's just ridiculous.

In combat, I think the thrill shifts on higher levels - it's no longer about if you hit or not, but more about avoiding really deadly attacks like insta-death rays and the like. The Saving Throws are taking over the role the To-Hit rolls had in early play. Clever usage of protection spells will enhance the experience for MU players, which I think doesn't make combat broken, just different.
(That's no different in 5E, by the way. When you reach 4th level, you'll start fighting enemies with multi-attack regularly, and then you'll suddenly have to focus more on defense than offense, at least until your characters catch on and level up. Enemy abilities are still a huge game changer and the fact that you might have a +10 attack bonus doesn't help if the enemy can control/charm you with an ability which you can counter with a WIS save, which you have at -2, maybe.)

My big issue with spells has always been the inability to adjust the spell selection to the adventure. You memorize and when you do it wrong, you can't help a lot. I think that's why so many players want to focus on combat spells, because combat is the single sure thing that's going to happen. But utility spells like Levitate, Wizard Lock, Water Breathing.... Will situations arise when you can use them? If not, you wasted a spell slot. The issue gets even bigger when the spell list is increased. 
5E amends this somewhat with spells slots instead of memorization, which is much better in my book. But still, you have to memorize spells.
By the way, Finarvyn why would more spells slots than rounds in a combat be an issue in 5E? You usually don't regain them until you take a long rest, which probably doesn't happen that often? I've mostly played spell-casters in 5E but never felt like I could spam my spells (except Cantrips, of course).

Thieves are only broken if you take the %-chance as fixed. The early chances of 15% or 20% are so low that often enough a thief player will not be able to contribute anything to the adventure on early levels, while there's no danger left on higher levels with a 100% chance. Once you start applying modifiers, it's perfectly all right. Easy locks will give a bonus of up to +50% (e.g. a lock made by giants will be huge and easy to manipulate, if you know how it works), while hard locks will be at up to -50% for half-magical locks made by the tiny hands of an expert pixie locksmith, for example. The same is true for traps, of course.
Also, only at last (14th) level will all skills be maxed out.


I agree, the sweet spot is between levels 4 and 8, Hero to Superhero. The characters are competent enough that a single bad roll usually doesn't mean the end (exceptions exist, of course), but not yet super-powerful so enemies are hardly a challenge any more. Many interesting monsters exist which share these levels, so encounters can have a great variety and keep being interesting.

[geoffrey]

Hmmm.

I do not think most of this is a problem.

Magic-users, clerics, and anti-clerics continue gaining spells pretty much into infinity. I don't even know what level a magic-user would have to be to be able to memorize more than the 10 spells in the book of 9th-level spells, but even after that he could research and create more spells.

Saving throws and attack rolls all make sense to me, up to infinity. A 64th-level fighter? He attacks as a 16th-level fighter.

Thieves do in fact top out at 14th level in regards to their skills.

But everybody keeps rising in hit points, to infinity.

But what do the very high level PCs fight? How about...

very high level NPCs
veritable armies of monsters they would laugh at in small numbers
carrion crawlers! "OK, your 39th-level magic-user has to make 24 saving throws before he can do anything."
Talos!
Mars mounted upon Talos's shoulders!
King Kong
dinosaurs
giant versions of microscopic life
giant versions of the critters fossilized in the Burgess Shale
sea monsters
Cthulhu
the Shining One
the Metal Monster
true giants
true dragons
kaiju
giant robots
a demi-lich
24-HD elementals of every variety
an elemental swarm
Juiblex (or other demon princes or lords)
the chromatic dragon
the Titans
the vast dungeon in Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness

Also don't forget to "cheat": "You are surprised by 30 spectres. They can fly more than twice as fast as you can run away. Touch! Touch! Touch! Double level-drain! Double level-drain! Double level-drain!" Heh.

I think that the very high levels are as fun as any other.

[atlantean]

For me, there was nothing in the LBBs that Greyhawk supplement didn't fix.

[Finarvyn]

Mar 15, 2023 8:46:18 GMT -6 hamurai said:

By the way, Finarvyn why would more spells slots than rounds in a combat be an issue in 5E? You usually don't regain them until you take a long rest, which probably doesn't happen that often? I've mostly played spell-casters in 5E but never felt like I could spam my spells (except Cantrips, of course).

My comment doesn't make sense without context. Most of my high-level play experience in 5E from Adventurer's League, which tends to be a short roleplay followed by three combats and then wrap-up. Within this format the long-term effects of rests don't seem to come into play but instead it's a matter of how many combat rounds for each of the three encounters. I typically try to use my cantrips a lot early on and then switch to spells as we get closer to the "big bad" at the end, and almost always I find spell slots remaining at the end. Perhaps I need to go to levelled spells earlier, but at those levels cantrips are usually doing 2d10 damage or something similar.

As a game master I achieve the opposite, as I can control the resting rate and my players always blow the big spells early and then lament that they are down to cantrips at the end. I suppose it comes down to play style, and I've always been one to conserve resources whereever possible when I play a character.

[Finarvyn]

Mar 15, 2023 8:46:18 GMT -6 hamurai said:

When you use XP for gold in a strict sense (as described in M&M), XP are clearly broken, aren't they? When your campaign steers away from dungeon exploration and looting and into politics and management of a barony, you'll hardly battle monsters for gold, so you can't get any XP at all. Even overcoming a death maze of traps and looting it would yield no XP as no monsters are fought, so XP in M&M don't make a lot of sense. Of course, playing the first few levels of OD&D, you probably won't recognize the issue, as even a few bigger treasures will be enough to make the PCs level up, but if you'd have to haul tens of thousands of gold out of a dungeon to make the players feel like they made a little progress, it's just ridiculous.

Part of my solution here is to "cheat" and take a page from Warriors of Mars, which has tables for non-combat XP that one can earn:
** XP based on HD of monster
** XP based on level of opponent slain
** XP based on level of opponent captured
** XP based on items captured, such as ships
** XP based on rescuing princesses and the like
** oh, yeah, also XP based on treasure acquired

In other words, I agree with your premise that giving XP for treasure alone is a doomed path as characters move from the character levels and into the Baron levels. Once a character gives up on general adventure and seeks to achieve campaign objectives then clearly those objectives need to be tied to XP rewards. I feel like D&D and other RPGs tends to avoid that aspect of the XP system.

Actually, even monster kills (or opponents defeated) would be a much better XP system then gold, in my opinion, since gold is a reward of its own. Gold can be converted into castles, magical weapons and armor, or other benefits which can make the adventurer better prepared to face additional foes. I keep intending to come up with revised XP charts that remove gold entirely from the equation but I never seem to get around to doing this.

Think about Star Wars for a moment. Luke starts as a level-1 flunky and totally botches an encounter with bad guys in Mos Eisley. Then he has adventures on the Death Star, achieving some goals but certainly not gaining any wealth, and escapes to come back later in an X-Wing to fight against Imperials and then destroy the Death Star. In the second movie he's more accomplished but still struggles against the wampa ice creature, but fights AT-ATs with some success, and Vader with minimal success. In the third movie he is even more accomplished and fights some more creatures and eventually confronts Vader and Palpatine. Star Wars is a series of adventures where monster kills and goals achieved far outweigh actual gold (galactobucks?) earned. Any money or titles or lightsabers (or other stuff earned along the way) represents a reward in itself and doesn't need to translate into XP earned.

Just pondering out loud. Longer post than I intended when I started.

[Finarvyn]

Mar 15, 2023 9:08:01 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

But what do the very high level PCs fight? How about...
<snip da list>

Geoffrey, I used to think that I wanted to play at your table. However, once I saw your list I'm not so sure anymore. You are an evil man, indeed. That is one heck of a list.

Clearly you are correct. When I think of monsters I tend to fall in the "bigger and badder" category, so moving from humanoid style creatures to big nasties to bigger nasties, and so on. A few carefully chosen powers can really turn a party on end and make them wish they had avoided the encounter rather than pursue the thing.

I would love to sit around a table and just brainstorm with you guys. The creativity at this place is really special and I wish I could just sit and take notes when you guys throw ideas into the conversation. If the "exalt" feature was still around, I would be exalting you guys over and over.

[hamurai]

Mar 15, 2023 13:28:05 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

My comment doesn't make sense without context. Most of my high-level play experience in 5E from Adventurer's League, which tends to be a short roleplay followed by three combats and then wrap-up. Within this format the long-term effects of rests don't seem to come into play but instead it's a matter of how many combat rounds for each of the three encounters. I typically try to use my cantrips a lot early on and then switch to spells as we get closer to the "big bad" at the end, and almost always I find spell slots remaining at the end. Perhaps I need to go to levelled spells earlier, but at those levels cantrips are usually doing 2d10 damage or something similar.

Ah, right. With that context, I totally agree.

Mar 15, 2023 13:28:05 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

... I've always been one to conserve resources whereever possible when I play a character.

Same here Although I must admit, I cast more freely when I play a pure "utility" mage - when I encounter a scene where Spider Climb or Jump (as examples) are of help, I just use them, because the amount of scenes involving a chance to use these kind of spells are usually very low.
I tend to keep an AoE attack and/or control spell up my sleeve in case som encounter goes very wrong, but since I switched out the combat spells for utility spells I've been having more fun as a spell-caster. Everyone can deal damage, but many spells leave the group and often enough the DM amazed at what the spell can do, and how helpful it is when used in the right way and situation.

[hamurai]

Mar 15, 2023 11:58:27 GMT -6 atlantean said:

For me, there was nothing in the LBBs that Greyhawk supplement didn't fix.

The d4 Hit Die for Thieves was something I didn't understand at all. Which is probably explained easily, because I only really started playing D&D with AD&D 2E where the Thief included corsairs and highway men and other fighty variants, and were tougher than MUs. It took me a while to realize that the OD&D/GH Thief was just more or less a nerdy expert in lockpicking who'd rather get in and out without any encounter at all.

[delta]

I'm curious, two things I don't understand here, maybe you could clarify:

Mar 14, 2023 18:23:33 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Spells cast... if one ignores the Greyhawk expansion and sticks to Men & Magic one finds that with only 6 spell levels for wizards (or 5 for clerics) that the progression eventually caps out...

Thieves ... there is a maximum level to the class...

Note that:
- Vol-1 p. 19 has a rule for expanding spell slots arbitrarily to any character level.
- Sup-I p. 9 has a rule for assessing thief XP to any arbitrary level.

Maybe you mean something else?

[Mordorandor]

Mar 15, 2023 8:46:18 GMT -6 hamurai said:

When you use XP for gold in a strict sense (as described in M&M), XP are clearly broken, aren't they? When your campaign steers away from dungeon exploration and looting and into politics and management of a barony, you'll hardly battle monsters for gold, so you can't get any XP at all.

I often think that OD&D could not withstand the primal, evolutionary forces its creators tapped into when they conceived and drafted a mini-game within the context of a larger war game. The endless possibilities sundered those initial restraints very quickly.

Still, that's why I like to say, if the OD&D framework doesn't work, you may want to play Etiquette & Espionage, the newest supplement to Papers & Paychecks.

But I think that's sort of the holy grail right?

What is the most satisfying way to enable the conceit of the same identity ("character") evolving through various experiences in the same/similar "world?"

Can one system do that, or must it be (and even, can it be) that a player can have a character evolve through the same/similar "world" through the use of various mini-games, each session appended to each other and played in vastly different ways from week to week? 

[Punkrabbitt]

I think OD&D is broken many times in many ways. But that's a feature, not a bug. If anything doesn't work right for your particular game, the intent semms to have been for you to change it. Get those creative juices flowing!