>>44746832 He was already one of the best swordsmen in Menzo. by the time he decided to leave, on par with or beyond Zak, and Zak was one of the best weapons masters to ever live. The ranger levels came during his years of exile out of necessity plus a little training from mooshy after he came to the surface. The decade of hard training from the drow gave him most of the skills he needed to survive, the rest would be fairly easy for him to pick up. Plus this was from the Forgotten Realms CS, right? That was printed how many books in the drizzt series ago? Since then he's gone through some excessive shit.
>>44746936 >The ranger levels came during his years of exile out of necessity plus a little training from mooshy after he came to the surface.
No, that's where the barbarian level comes from. That barbarian level is also where he got his.... "Hunter?" persona. Not sure if that's exactly what he called it, but it was that mindless, berserking desire to stay alive.
>>44746980 I'm calling the ranger levels during that time period because 1 level of barbarian won't really do dick for survival in the underdark. Yeah, that's a major part of the hunter, but he HAD to pick up some tracking and survival ranger-style just to live longer than a month or two.
>>44746787 >Isn't level 16 a little too low I am sick of this entitled attitude amongst a lot of gamers today.
"What? We have to roll up level one characters? But that's so boring!"
"Man, are we only starting at level ten? Low-level campaigns suck."
"What do you mean you won't let me combine the five most broken aspects from various obscure splatbooks into a level one character using the 'Apprentice' optional rules? That's my right as a gamer!"
No. Fuck you.
In any sensible setting, commoners are level zero. Adventurers represent the chosen few with remarkable talents, the drive and ambition to succeed where others would only fail, diving blessings or a glorious fate. This is how they have the ability to far exceed what a normal person can achieve.
You might expect some really powerful NPCs to be level nine or ten - the archmage running a magic school, for instance, or an ambitious warlord who managed to unite the steppe tribes under his banner - and these are the cream of the crop.
Once you reach higher than that, you should become legendary. People probably sing of your exploits wherever you go, and normal challenges start to lose their lustre for you.
It doesn't matter how many nests of goblins, or minotaurs or whatever that you exterminate - they won't be a challenge, and you will need to quite determinedly seek ever more incredible goals. Global conquest, casting down the supernatural on their home planes, stuff like that.
>>44746787 >be dritzz >spend years training under master swordsman >called the best, in a city of masters >given powerfully enchanted blades >have inborn magic and natural resistance >have a huge panther magical pet that has human intelligence >gonna live for 1000 years >go to surface, add ranger skills to already impressive talents >get ass kicked by Artemis. >face him again, still can't kill him >and again...omg hate him!! >face him again.. Grrrrr he escaped >mfw a street rat human that started with nothing..is a close match after 30 yyears Bow to your human betters you drow fucksticks.
>>44747643 >Once you reach higher than that, you should become legendary. People probably sing of your exploits wherever you go, and normal challenges start to lose their lustre for you. Uh, this is kind of what happened to Drizzt. Granted, people don't exactly SING of his exploits, but he's quite well known throughout the Northern realms of Faerun, and he's now accepted despite his Drow heritage even by the most zealous paladins and elves.
>>44747643 He has, among other things, beaten a balor by himself. That's not something a level 16 martial should generally be able to do. This discussion is not - or at least shouldn't be - about entitled players(or indeed, any players). It's about the capabilities of an established character and how well they line up with the official stats.
>>44748751 Even when I was a fetus and thought reading those books was a good use for my time, it struck me how elves were either super special super magic snowflakes and utter, incompetent imbeciles, depending purely on what the plot demanded.
But then, this came from an author who wasn't very good to begin with, improved little over the span of 10+ years, and did most of his later work because he was somehow forced to.
>>44748993 You mean the blade that shouldn't even be able to HURT a balor except on a crit? Balor's have DR 15, neither of Drizzt's scimitars can pierce it being neither cold iron nor good aligned let alone both, and he doesn't have enough damage bonuses to deal more than 15 points of damage per hit unless I'm missing something(or 3.0 balors were significantly weaker than 3.5 version)? Of course, the stats for the scimitars are likely wrong as well, but by that statblock, he should have hard time being able to hurt a balor enough for it to consider him a threat, let alone defeating one.
>>44749057 Because the drow aren't much of a threat compared to something like orcs. They spend most of their time in the underdark too busy backstabbing each other to do more than a token raid against anyone living in the surface. And they live in the underdark. Sending an army there is a good way to lose an army, drow or no.
>>44747643 I had a DM who had a similar mentality. He then got angry at us for starting a merchant company in order to fund methodical excavation of his plot dungeon instead of just running in so he could rape us with his retarded traps and monsters.
>>44749057 In FR, elves did a good job of making themselves irrelevant on their own, and Drow don't have the numbers or the power to be a major threat. Books are kind of shit at illustrating how Drow would fare when dealing with a large surface city, since the humans are portrayed as naive, incompetent and ignorant for the purpose of drama, and two score good and neutral gods are apparently fine with minions of whatshername spider nobody rolling all over tens of thousands of their flock.
Also, angry genocidal neckbeerds are probably too niche a market for either books or games to cater to them.
>>44749629 >angsty teen girls >non-angsty teens(for the first half of the series, anyway) >people who like BDSM but are afraid to look at actual porn or try it themselves >teenage boys and people who want to watch shit blown up on big screen
Okay, I guess Harry Potter is kind of niche, but the rest are pretty big markets.
>>44749629 A handful of losers on 4chan who open any slightly elf-related thread to post 'boy I sure do hate them niggers' are a bit more obscure than a vampire romance flick, a competently reinvented British boys' school novel, light BDSM erotic novel and AAA capehsit.
>>44750105 It's not like there's anything new about that, either. Comic-based movies may not be a stable similar to, say, spy movies, but Avengers was hardly the first(or even second or third) comic-based movie that was a success. Plenty of people who don't actually read comics will go to see a movie about Batman or the X-men or whatever if they're at least passingly familiar with the hero(es) in question and it's hyped up enough.
>>44750156 You need to leave your basement more often. Everything you've listed is very popular. Popular enough to have high-grossing movie adaptations. 'Racial Holy War: Elf Edition' is not popular, not even here where we know what the fuck you're talking about.
>>44750635 >...but seriously, fuck starting at level 1. Pretty new to D&D here, but I thought that starting at level 1 was the default and anything else was against the rules. Now I feel stupid... What level does most people start at (I know campaign dependent), but I mean from your personal experience.
>>44750684 Starting at level 1 is the default, and also probably the best choice for people just learning the game. But there has been rules for starting at higher levels since forever, and starting at later levels is so popular that 5e even outright says that you should probably start at level 3 unless there are new players at the table.
>>44750684 Level 1 sucks because that's the level where you have to write up a new character because random orc #4 gets a crit on you. It's really not that unlikely to happen, it's too early in the characters' story to really get any drama from a group member dying and it's way too early to really have alternatives other than Greyhawking their shit and rolling a new one.
>>44750721 Lol >high school time >have a d&d group >parents give a $150 gift certificate to bookstore >I buy vamp books >first vTm game? Me, and 4 goth chicks and 1 longhair dude from another town >ask goth chicks to hang out after game >80% success rate in nailing goth chicks
>>44750592 Reasons. Hot, seductive, eternally young vampire boys that are actually 500 years old are popular with women. Cape comics make for good Hollywood blockbusters. D&D doesn't really have anything worth stealing or adapting by the entertainment industry, since it's a cheap derivative itself. The only D&D thing I could see getting into the mainstream through osmosis are drow and tieflings, as competition for the vampires in romance flicks.
>>44750801 >Level 1 sucks because that's the level where you have to write up a new character because random orc #4 gets a crit on you.
...man, you suck at games if that keeps happening to you. I've played plenty of level 1 characters, never lost a single one, for a number of reasons - mostly related to having friends who can stabilize me before I die, for example.
Having said that, my preferred starting level for most games is level 7: Seasoned adventurer with a number of adventures already behind him, but plenty of room left for advancement.
Conan around the time of "Queen of the Black Coast", basically.
>>44750812 I feel bad for kids who are into table top games these days. I see people complaining about being kissless virgins and shit when RPGs were the thing that got me laid the most in high school and college.
>>44750845 Nigga please, in 3.5 a CR 1/2 Orc crits an average of 13. At level 1 that can straight kill people dead. A level 1 Wizard could go from full health to -10 with one lucky crit.
>>44749057 Drow were practically shoot on sight on the surface, but their main cities were so far underground, and psychotically well defended, that nobody could really bother. The underdark is no place to take an army.
>>44750982 >So I suck because there's a mathematically possibility of getting one shot with no chance to stabilize?
You suck because you allow yourself to be in that situation at all. You're level 1, and therefore, frail - so take that into account with your tactics. Never be more than a move action away from your comrades excepting when the odds are extremely in your favor (the foe is a single injured kobold that's trying to flee, for example).
This isn't even metagaming; in-universe you're just starting out as an adventurer and will still be intensely aware of your own mortality, while you haven't yet built up the ego of being able to tear through hordes of schmucks that would lead you to take dumb risks, confident that you will survive.
>>44751069 Most encounters start at a distance of less than 120 ft. Assuming the orc gets lucky with initiative and assuming the terrain allows for charging, there's a very real chance of one PC being dead before any tactics become relevant.
>>44751074 Change in the way the game is played. When D&D first premiered it was *expected* that the vast majority of player characters would die at some point. Adventures like the Tomb of Horrors even included pre-rolled extra characters for just such a possibility.
The idea was that you would grow connected to a character that actually survived as he leveled up, rather than put too much effort into the character at 1st level when death was a nearly-sure thing.
>>44751120 The said change is caused by changes in the game itself. Until 3e, making even a high level character was a relatively simple affair unless you were using tons of sourcebooks and even then there wasn't that much more to add once you had your ability scores, race, class and possibly kit or spell selection or some other rather minor extras. In 3.x and later, making a new character - especially a higher level one - is much slower.
Every level of DnD is brutally lethal for people who don't assure fights go their way. Get information, scout ahead, make a plan, and then blitz the enemy before they can adequately react. If you're playing properly you should be completely prepared for each encounter, especially at levels where crit range is deadly.
Almost any proper CR appropriate encounter can be beaten by this method without a drop of blood by your party.
>>44751120 When D&D was first premiered there was no meta or 'D&D culture' and everyone played as they saw fit.
ToH was an intentional meatgrinder because it was made for a con, and parties were supposed to compete for who gets closest to the finish line. It's not a guideline for how to run a good D&D game, or indicator for how we used to play D&D.
The idea that you don't bother to name or describe your character until he has 40 hit points and good standing with local clergy is okay for a bear&pretzels game of clearing a dungeon, but kind of not conductive to roleplaying.
>>44751266 "No battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy." And all of that assumes that pretty much everything is going perfectly in the first place. As far as I'm aware, no first level character gets abilities that allow them to avoid all ambushes and if your GM is letting you plan every combat blow by blow before it even starts, he's rather terrible at his job.
It's actually not terribly likely. Most monsters critical only on a natural 20 (5%), and then have to confirm that critical. A 1st-level wizard can reasonably be assumed to have an armor class of 16 (+2 dex, +4 Mage Armor), so confirming the critical requires a roll of 16 or better (25% chance), after having already rolled a natural 20. Your typical monster that a 1st-level adventurer might encounter has an attack bonus average of +2, so you can bump that confirm chance up to 35%.
Now, I suck at math, but I'm pretty sure that to find the overall probability of the critical happening we multiply .05 times .35, which gives us .0175 - or a 1.75% chance.
While 1.75% is "very real", it is also "very small".
(Orcs are far more likely to score criticals thanks to both their higher attack bonus and their falchions giving a higher crit chance - however, a level-appropriate encounter of orcs (CR 1/2) for 1st level characters is only 2 orcs, verses a party of 4 adventurers. Simple action economy still weighs heavily in favor of 1st-level characters surviving).
>>44748751 >Bow to your human betters you drow fucksticks.
Tha's actually something that comes up in several books where elves and human exist side by side. And deep down, though they'd never admit it publicly, it's why elves, as a rule, are absolutely terrified of human civilization. They know they're being outpaced, outbred, outfought, out-advanced and just straight out outdone by the ever growing power that is humanity.
The main part is psychological. Elves, living so long and so individually powerful and capable, move slow as a people. A flight of whimsy for an elf can last centuries. They've achieved incredible power, secured their lands and built a powerful, long-lasting civilization, and essentially stopped there. Because if it ain't broke, why fix it? They're stable, prosperous, wealthy and secure.
Humans, on the other hand, are eternally in survival mode, and so are constantly pushing the boundaries of technology, magic, social engineering, tactics, ect. Humanity as a whole won't be satisfied until they're on top and secure there. And since there's always someone or something bigger, humanity will keep pushing.
The elves, and dwarves for that matter, know that they're need to get their game on if they want to keep up, or even just remain independent, if things manage to go peacefully at all.
>>44751341 If you're walking into ambushes, it's because of one or more of three things, in descending order of likeliness:
1. You suck at planning and recon as a player. 2. You chose the wrong job for your characters as a player. 3. Your GM is forcing (railroading) your characters or is playing a purposefully high lethal game.
If 1, get fucking good and send the scout forward and do some research. If 2, your characters with no PER ranks should not be the ones leading a caravan into unsavory hostile ambush spots. Hire a PER expert (sage) or get a different job that fits your skills. If 3, you joined the wrong game if you're bitching about this.
And since we're throwing around pointless quotes, "No enemy survives first contact with my battle plan" is what you should be aiming for.
>>44751266 >any proper CR appropriate encounter is where it breaks. Because low-level characters are permanently and irrecoverably fucked if they get jumped by something over their weight category, and they don't have many tools at their disposal to prevent things like that happening. Being tacticool only works when you are facing four CR1/3 kobolds in a cave and you're not in much of a danger anyway. Because the moment odds get a bit even, or someone screws up, or you lose some non-trivial resource to a bad roll, that swingy d20 is going to be what decides who lives or dies, not your preparation or tactics.
He raged in one book, had duel wielding (this is 3.0 so that's why ranger, though also because he's called a ranger a lot) and other than that he's just a fighter. No magic or animal companion (gwen is a magic item).
16 is pretty high level. I think they just made them whatever level they needed to be to have every single thing they ever did. Artemis was level 18 because they gave him 1 in ranger for all the duel wield, 1 in assassin because he's an assassin even though 1 level isn't worth much.. Then fighter/rogue because fighter is op.
Really you can't worry much about it, it's just something they threw together for that forgotten realms campaign setting book. It doesn't even tell you when those stats are for.
>>44747643 >"What? We have to roll up level one characters? But that's so boring!" It's boring because in D&D, level 1 is boring, and leveling up from level 1 is boring. Classes don't start to get their cool stuff until about level 5, in 3.5 at least.
>>44751397 Assuming default array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8), which 3.5 is built around, I assume your typical elf wizard looks like this:
STR 8 DEX 14 CON 12 INT 15 WIS 13 CHA 10.
Having said that, even a mere +1 DEX on a human wizard (-2 DEX +2 CON as compared to the elf), thereby lowering the AC to 15 (and thus being hit 40% of the time assuming a +2 attack bonus) only increases the chances of being subject to a critical hit to 2%. So the chance of a critical hit remains "very real" but still "very small".
>>44751432 So you're saying that first-level play isn't lethal as long as your GM caters to your every whim and makes sure you can't possibly lose as long as you make a good show. Gotcha. Does he actually make you roll dice or is he just letting you declare your every dice roll to be nat 20?
>>44751615 I'm saying that if you're not playing a game that intentionally starts with "YOUR CHARACTERS ARE TAKING SUICIDE QUEST FOR REASONS", and instead assumes you're playing characters with an inkling of self-preservation, then the onus is on you to make sure you survive. This includes backing off from quests that are too dangerous/not in your skillset, planning ahead, scouting ahead, gathering information, etc.
It does not require the DM to go out of their way to cater to you, only to not create a world that is intentionally devoid of options. If the DM is *going for that* and you *knew of that ahead of time* then complaining about it is sorta retarded on your part. If your DM was going for that and felt no need to inform anyone, it's bad communication, and if your DM doesn't want anyone to take a choice that doesn't go on his plotline, it's railroading.
>>44751696 I dunno, I'm just trying to justify it. Personally I would have rolled up Artemis as a Fighter/Rogue/Assassin, using one of the spare leveling feats (since so many feats are being provided by simply being a fighter) to grab Track.
>>44751704 And you're wrong. First level characters simply aren't that competent. Your scout isn't going to be able to walk into the enemy formation and gather intelligence every time without being spotted. Sometimes the enemy may be coming up from behind you or even from the sides, so the scout will be in the wrong place to spot them in the first place, and since you're emphasizing scouting so much, there's a very real chance that the party will not be at full strength when that happens. Just because the GM doesn't bend over backwards to make sure your characters are never in any real dangers doesn't mean that he's a railroading asshole, you're just an entitled faggot.
>>44751661 He's kind of right. The other guy is assuming some sort of sandbox where the party has all the time in the world to compensate for having shit stats and no immediate options and can simply opt to not do anything that seems risky. Which is a very nice kind of game, but really not representative of anything other than itself.
There's also the sad and hilarious attempts at being tacticool with low-level D&D characters, which only really works if you're not actually facing something dangerous and one character sheathing his weapon mid-fight to stabilize another is not a prelude to 'only the thief got out alive.'
>>44751848 >All gameplay takes place in wilderness with randomly spawning mobs in all directions Do tell me more.
Your players should be operating from a relatively safe hub, should be planning ahead and should be researching the enemy. Having basic knowledge on how to set up a headquarters and do research isn't something that is limited to level 1 or not.
>Your scout isn't going to be able to walk into the enemy formation And that's not needed, at all. Find a hill, set up on it, get some binoculars. Go read the rules on perception and stealth checks since you clearly don't know them, and look at the difficulty of spotting a level 1 with decent Dex (+14) and a maxed stealth (+4). Add any form of camoflauge. Now add the penalties per 10feet from trying to spot someone at distance.
Even an incompetent rogue can sit in place and take 10 all day to get decent info. The rest of the party can visit a library, gather information, or protect the rogue.
One day of information is often more than enough for threats at level one.
Unless your DM consistently forces you into a reactive position by throwing literal armies at whatever town you're making your base of operations, then you're absolutely safe to do this.
>>44751898 That's a custom monster, though. The default orc in the Monster Manual has a STR 17 and is using a falchion for 2d4+4 damage, or an average of 8 damage. That's enough to drop a wizard, but not kill him. This is assuming the orc can even get to the wizard: he has to get past the Fighter, the Cleric, and the Rogue first.
This is leaving aside that the wizard can put both orcs (again, an orc is CR 1/2, meaning a level-appropriate encounter is only 2) asleep using the Sleep spell most of the time. Orcs have a -2 Will save modifier and a Sleep spell can be reasonably assumed to have a DC of 13 (10 + 1 (spell level) + 2 (caster's stat modifier), which an orc makes only 30% of the time (the orc needs to roll a 15 or better).
>>44751928 I touched on that. Orcs are more likely to score criticals, but a level-appropriate encounter is only 2 orcs, verses an assumed party of 4 made up of a Fighter, a Cleric, a Wizard, and a Rogue. Simple action economy weighs in favor of the wizard surviving, particularly as long as the adventuring party follows proper marching order.
(Fighter up front, then Cleric, then Wizard, then Rogue, though depending on the situation it might be wise for the Cleric and the Rogue to switch places).
D&D 3.5 is built around baseline assumptions for its challenge ratings and leveling system and so on. The DMG for 3.5 says that it's okay to deviate from these assumptions BUT if you do it's gonna throw things out of whack.
>>44751977 I'm sure your characters will be very safe since they never take up anything more dangerous than farming, but I thought we were talking about adventurers here, not dirt farmers.
Researching can help, but it's not going to tell you that an orc is going to stumble upon you from north-west at 10:30 local time while you're in a thick forest.
Standing up on a hill either a)makes sure that all enemies in the area know where to find you or b)is very little to no use at all, since you're not in a wide open plateau where you can see any potential ambushes.
You can't take 10 while threatened, you most likely can't see all the enemies while standing still at one, perfectly camouflaged point, you also need to get to and away from that point and the enemies get to make multiple checks to each of your hide/move silently checks since there are more of them. Oh, and if you're just sitting there all day, there's more than even chance that someone eventually finds you by stumbling over you even if you're perfectly invisible.
>>44751951 General reasons parties take risks outside of their capabilities, in descending order:
>Player sense of invincibility Most common, which is your own damn fault >Player laziness See above >THOU MUST from the GM GM problem or don't complain if you knew this was what you were getting into >THE PROBLEM IS COMING TO YOU from the GM Same as above >"My character is an idiot who won't preplan" Then you don't deserve to complain when your character's idiocy gets them killed >Picking the wrong fucking job You have 3 full plate fighters, do not go on a sneakthief mission. >Actually low on resources and having to do a job AND having no marketable skills in the meantime This is really up there with "why are your characters dumb as dirt", and is the only reason you should ever take stupid risks; because your characters are dirt poor and are unwilling to live that life and would rather gamble on a stupid risk.
>>44752218 He's kind of right. The other guy is assuming some sort of sandbox where the party has all the time in the world to compensate for having shit stats and no immediate options and can simply opt to not do anything that seems risky. Which is a very nice kind of game, but really not representative of anything other than itself. There's also the sad and hilarious attempts at being tacticool with low-level D&D characters, which only really works if you're not actually facing something dangerous and one character sheathing his weapon mid-fight to stabilize another is not a prelude to 'only the thief got out alive.'
>>44752218 You forgot the most important one: The PCs not having perfect information, because it's a roleplaying game, not a tactical wargame. You're just repeating over and over again that you never get ambushed when you have perfect information, when the reality is that if your GM actually gives a crap about running an immersive and engaging game, you'll NEVER have perfect information unless you have the resources of a level 20 character to pour into getting it.
>>44752161 >Taking two days to scout is the equivalent of taking infinite time not adventuring Anon. >Making up a thick forest full of orcs that your players just decide to walk through with no information Pls. >Being in a spot far away enough that spot checks fail mean that everyone knows where you are ANON PLS >And because the information you get isn't perfect you shouldn't be attempting this at all gosh PLS ANON >You can't take 10 while threatened and you're totally threatened 100ft away in cover ANON >And lol random stumbling will definitely find someone because you didn't at all figure out patrol routes. Your character who is stealthed and camo'd totally would just sit there and let someone literally walk into them if so, because I know how all possible characters work. Also your rogue is definitely not going to take the surprise round if they are close to being found out and use their actual class ability to gain the edge in the ensuing trouble, both by having a surprise round and doing more damage. ANON PLS YOU'RE HURTING ME
>>44751590 Because in 3.0 you got duel wielding at level 1 from ranger. That's why they gave him the level. Y'all over thinking it, whoever made these just gave them everything they could to make them op and have the stuff they do in the books. Though the tracking idea is good and would have been clever.
>>44752289 You don't need perfect information, you just need to be vigilant about *getting* information.
If you can't get enough information to give yourself good odds of success, you *back off it like reasonable people* unless forced. If you are forced, it falls into one of the above GM reasons and really probably should have been brought up or discussed that the campaign will start with you in a town under siege, or escaping an area blind. If your DM is *forcing* you to take a quest that has nothing to do with your characters otherwise and is unsafe, that's a railroad son.
>>44752288 If your characters don't have the capability to act like reasonable human beings with some modicrum of free choice, that's because you chose a character with that problem or because you agreed to the GM's plan of making a game with that setup. See the list.
>>44752345 >>You can't take 10 while threatened and you're totally threatened 100ft away in cover
Eh...while I'm generally on your side, I feel the need to point out that "threatened" is a fairly broad term. If spotted, your character will be set upon by orcs; ergo you are in fact "threatened" by them, at least in my book.
Now, having said that, the MM orc has a Spot of only +1 (decreased to I think -8 due to distance - I don't remember the rules offhand but surely the first 10 feet of distance don't count), while a 1st-level Rogue (DEX 17, 4 ranks in Hide/Move Silently) has a +7 on Stealth checks.
So on average the orcs have a Listen/Spot result of 2 while the Rogue has a Hide/Move Silently result of 17. Even with the Rogue rolling a 5 and the orcs rolling a 15 (so H/MS of 12 verses L/S of 7), the orcs don't notice the rogue.
>>44752465 He's kind of right. The other guy is assuming some sort of sandbox where the party has all the time in the world to compensate for having shit stats and no immediate options and can simply opt to not do anything that seems risky. Which is a very nice kind of game, but really not representative of anything other than itself.
There's also the sad and hilarious attempts at being tacticool with low-level D&D characters, which only really works if you're not actually facing something dangerous and one character sheathing his weapon mid-fight to stabilize another is not a prelude to 'only the thief got out alive.'
>>44752547 He'll be able to gather at least a little. Say I'm a rogue and I spot, say, 4 average-sized campfires (don't need to make a check to see them due to the light). It's reasonable to assume that each campfire has between two and five orcs around it.
That means that there's between eight and twenty orcs.
And that means it's time for the party to...
1) GTFO and find backup; 1a) and trust that the DM isn't sending us on a suicide mission 2) Lean heavily on the party face and hope he knows Orcish or that the orcs know Common, attempting to figure out what the Orcs want and can they go away, please? 2a) and trust that the DM isn't sending us on a suicide mission 3) Charge in blindly and get ourselves killed 3a) but that's our own damn fault.
>>44752608 Stat boost that only bards can properly benefit from, also a hit to constitution on a character that is already bound to lag behind in hit points department. Darkness is handy at low levels, just gets you mistaken for a thick wizard on higher levels. Same for fairy fire. Darkvision saves you some equipment money. MR is massively overvalued, weaker than it seems because it's tied to your character level, and doesn't affect a broad variety of spells.
ECL+3 is way too much. It's not a Drow (monster) that jumps the party at level 4 and fucks them in the ass with SLAs, +3 gear and poison, it's an elf with some bells and whistles tacked on that will eventually cost tens of thousands of XP for literally no value in return.
I can't believe how much of a shit storm me saying level 1 combat is too swingy started. Holy shit. Even if there's only a small chance of it happening it's stupid as fuck that low level and high level are both rocket tag while mid level isn't. And everyone talking about level 1s scouting with binoculars and shit? What the fuck? Who actually plays D&D like that at level 1? Does your group actually pool together their starting gold to buy a single fucking spyglass instead of buying shit like rope, weapons and supplies?
>>44753070 There's this one retard who thinks he's being the Michael Westen of D&D when his DM seems to be handling him and his party with kids' gloves, there are a few of us other retards arguing with him, and the rest is probably trolls. Everything smart that could be said had been said hours ago.
>>44752639 This shit is so fucking stupid. The reason level 1 sucks is because even though it's very rarely likely to happen you can have a single fucking Orc charge into Wizard and one shot his ass dead with a crit if he wins initiative. You don't have to be out numbered, you just have to have quite a few rolls go badly.
I'm not arguing this will happen a lot, in arguing that when it does happen the punishment for it is so severe for something completely out of their control that the situations shouldn't even exist.
Imagine that there was a system where after you made your character and came up with a backstory and how you were going to roll play him you had to fill a d100 and if you rolled a 1 then fuck you make a new character. Everyone would say its ducking stupid and that's the situation with level 1 Wizards.
It encourages stupidly optimized builds too. I would never run a level 1 Wizard without improved init and Color Spray because I enjoy spending a lot of time making a backstory and I don't want it to be fucking ruined by a couple 20s being rolled by a shitty fucking Orc. If I start at level 3 and I'm in a low op group I might choose something else for my level 1 feat and I wouldn't instantly kit myself with all save and still lose spells because seriously, fuck that noise.
>>44753097 In 3.5, Darkvision only works out to a certain range, after which you're blind. A campfire provides light and thereby vision in an area larger than orcs (darkvision 60 ft) can otherwise see.
>>44753251 >you just have to have quite a few rolls go badly.
*quite* badly. As proven, however, it is statistically unlikely.
Even if we assume a typical orc (+4 attack, crit 18-20 (or 15%)) against human wizard (AC 15, as outlined above, so the orc needs to roll an 11 or better to hit, or 50%), he's still only scoring a critical hit about 7.5% of the time (.15 times .5).
>for something completely out of their control
Bullshit. The wizard could move. The wizard could be behind the fighter or the cleric. The wizard could be hiding, or behind a silent image. The wizard could have a summoned monster in the way. The wizard could have put the orc to sleep with a sleep spell. The wizard could have done a million things to protect his hide.
It is not the DM's job to keep the player characters alive, it's the player character's.
>Imagine that there was a system where after you made your character and came up with a backstory and how you were going to roll play him you had to fill a d100 and if you rolled a 1 then fuck you make a new character.
I think that system is called "Traveler", actually. And it's fun.
>>44753305 That's cool and all until the Orc rolls a 20, confirms it, and then rolls 2 4s on the Wizard with 5 starting health who played D&D for the first time. Then you have the option of fudging the rolls, which I'm sure is a great message to send to new players about how real the danger in the game is, or they make a new character while everyone gets to still play.
>>44753275 A campfire, especially in a forest, is not going to provide a very large radius of usable light. What it will do is be very visible and, at least for those of us without darkvision, completely ruin our night vision for a good while if we work near it. 60 ft from the fire in a forest you're not going to find it much use, let alone sitting next to it and trying to look at something 60 ft away.
>>44753382 >Bullshit. The wizard could move. The wizard could be behind the fighter or the cleric. The wizard could be hiding, or behind a silent image. The wizard could have a summoned monster in the way. The wizard could have put the orc to sleep with a sleep spell. The wizard could have done a million things to protect his hide.
>>44753382 Yes, if wins init he can win the fight, because level 1 Wizards have fucking Color Spray. I'm curious what ability a Wizard has to tell the DM that he casts sleep during the Orcs turn though, seeing as the Orc specifically won the fuckin init roll.
>>44753445 >Any of those needs him to win the initiative.
No, being behind the cleric or fighter simply requires proper fucking marching order. The wizard is squishy, to make up for the raw power he brings to the table. He should never be exposed to surprise melee attacks unless the party is just absolutely terrible.
The orcs have a ranged weapon, a javelin, but both their critical chance and their chance of rolling enough to instantly kill a 1st-level wizard is vanishingly small with those.
>Hasn't seen the powercreep that started with ADOM and Nethack and has slowly gotten worse and worse over the years >Hasn't seen the logical conclusion of this in games like Elona+ where level 127 things are considered /average/ and ants are stronger than liches due to level scaling, with human guards being as strong as dragons, to speak nothing of Warcraft
>>44753871 I think his point is that you're not talking out of your ass, you're launching ICBMs at Russia. You constantly take a perfectly ideal situation - passive level-appropriate enemy, no information hidden beyond the reach of low-level characters taking 10, no series of bad rolls, complete sandbox freedom with regards to time and other pressures - and trying to extrapolate general arguments from there. And you've been repeating the same irrelevant extrapolations over and over again, just adding more insults.
>>44754935 He's right though, it was shown how an Orc can straight up knock someone to -10 in one hit, but it was the Wizard's fault for not doing anything. But then it was brought up that Orcs get an initiative roll that they can win, but it's the parties fault that they didn't get a surprise round. More and more you guys are making a level 1 party sound like a group of Navy Seals.
The only reason not to start at level 3 is that it's easier for people new to the game to make level 1 characters. But you guys are making it sound like you need to play super fucking cautious and defensively at level 1. New players won't have the system mastery to do so and veterans should have no issue making a third level character. It's dumb. It doesn't even help you learn how to play because around level 3 there's only certain shit that can kill you on the charge and you're in a much better position to have the tools to face it.
You probably think that Giant Crabs have an appropriate CR too.
>>44748623 >>I start with a +3 bow of slaying, its a family thing This is the most mysterious thing in all of gaming to me. Who the FUCK has ever ONCE let a player get away with shit like that? Why would some fatbeard ever think he could get away with it, ever?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.