non Prime saves being "impossible" to make is a falacy.

[Arduin]

Mentzer put encounter balancing into his D&D which set acceptable limits to what groups could meet.

I competely disagree with you on this. In the wilderness section of Mentzer rules, depending on the terrain of course, you alomost always have a 1 in 8 chance of rolling on the dragon encounter table. Rolling on that table you had about a 50% chance of encounting a true dragon. You could argue that if you follow the letter of the rules, these charts wouldn't be encountered until 4th level, but still. Dragons and other powerful baddies at low levels, you got it!

~O

And, if your 1st level players tried to engage with said dragon (or, the dragon does) they'd have ~150% chance of being wiped out. So, either the DM "balances" encounters or, PC's become extinct...

[Julian Grimm]

Yeah, by being confrontational and repeatedly calling people idiots the entire post is ruined. All credibility was lost when that term was used.

Who have I called an idiot? Who? No one. I have only described situations in which a CK would be an idiot.

Your initial tone was combative and you basically said that those that see non-prime saves are impossible are idiots. You then repeated this again and again. You can split hairs all you want but it doesn't change things.

[Julian Grimm]

Mentzer put encounter balancing into his D&D which set acceptable limits to what groups could meet.

I competely disagree with you on this. In the wilderness section of Mentzer rules, depending on the terrain of course, you alomost always have a 1 in 8 chance of rolling on the dragon encounter table. Rolling on that table you had about a 50% chance of encounting a true dragon. You could argue that if you follow the letter of the rules, these charts wouldn't be encountered until 4th level, but still. Dragons and other powerful baddies at low levels, you got it!

~O

It's an optional rule in the RC. Pages 100-101.

[koralas]

...combat encounters of 5 or greater levels in difference can occur, but you better be sure of the numbers and the situation, or you will be getting a TPK.

***Warning old school module spoilers below***

Only if the only thing the characters can think of to overcome the encounter is force of arms. No negotiation, no offering of tribute, and no running away. All of these are tried and true methods of surviving the "impossible" save for that encounter. If you do not want to have this type of encounter, and want everything balanced out for the players so there is a much lower chance of failure, then so be it, run your game that way, C&C easily allows for it. However, if you want to run an old school campaign where you can run into that being/creature that will throw CL5+ saves at the party, and the players decide to just forge ahead and fight and end with a TPK, then that is fine, C&C allows for that as well. Players will eventually grow to realize that sometimes you can't fight your way out of every situation. In fact I warn my players about this in any campaign that I run. Life isn't always fair, and neither is the make believe life of a character in a RPG, the threat of character death is very real in any campaign I run, thankfully I have only ever had one TPK and the players, while upset initially, realized that it was errors on their part that lead to their demise, this was a group of 2nd/3rd level PC's venturing out alone against warnings not to by many NPC's.

Think of many of the old school modules, especially at low levels.

The Village of Homlett, 1st level characters has a 5th level cleric at the end, this after fighting through rooms of 6 level 1 guards with level 2 sergeant, and a room with 12 guards (level 1), 2 sergeants (level 2), and one lieutenant of level 4.

The module N1 Against the Cult of the Reptile God (Levels 1-3) has a 9HD Naga at the end with the abilities of a level 5 MU and level 3 Cleric.

Module U2 Danger at Dunwater (levels 1-4) has a Pan-Lung (Oriental Dragon) in it.

The Temple of Elemental Evil (levels 1-8) has a greater demon and a demi-god that could assail the characters.

The list could on. The moral is, the characters need to find a way other than combat to overcome these, or make sure they have lots of help. If the players decide to have the characters try a straight up assault, they deserve what they get. The CK/DM/GM's job is not to make things safe for the players, but to be a neutral arbiter of the scenario, and if you do something stupid you deserve to suffer the consequences.

[Omote]

Mentzer put encounter balancing into his D&D which set acceptable limits to what groups could meet.

I competely disagree with you on this. In the wilderness section of Mentzer rules, depending on the terrain of course, you alomost always have a 1 in 8 chance of rolling on the dragon encounter table. Rolling on that table you had about a 50% chance of encounting a true dragon. You could argue that if you follow the letter of the rules, these charts wouldn't be encountered until 4th level, but still. Dragons and other powerful baddies at low levels, you got it!

~O

It's an optional rule in the RC. Pages 100-101.

Thanks JG. I'll have a look at that. When talking Mentzer I don't really go by the Rules Cyclopedia as those rules were altered by Aaron Allston. I was going by the D&D Expert Rulebook, by Frank Mentzer. Either way, I'm still going to have a look at the RC to see the differences.

~O

[Julian Grimm]

IIRC the system appeared in either Companion or Masters. Of course I am working from memory and don't have the boxed sets.

[mbeacom]

"So, if you are the CK, and you throw something at the party that requires SAVES of CL 5 or higher, without verifying and making sure of what kind of numbers you are dealing with as far as your players saves go, I'll stick with calling that CK an idiot. "

I'm confused as to whether I"m being called an idiot or not. So please help me out so I can know for sure. I don't "throw" anything at my players. I build a campaign world and they are free to do/go what/where they want. There certainly exist monsters in this world that would require saves of CL5 and higher should the players either choose to go to, or should happen to stumble across, them, which I don't make an effort to prevent beyond giving them rumors or information that would otherwise be available to the characters in the world. Does this make me an idiot?

[serleran]

Comparatively speaking, saves and ability checks in C&C are far more difficult to make than in earlier forms of D&D, and d20. At least in most cases. An AD&D 1st level character has a hard time with many saves but by 7th level or so (depending on class), many are "do-able" and level of opposition is unimportant -- this leads to a somewhat easier time for players and yet there is continual complaint about "save or die" even when the chance of success is such that there is a slim chance of "die." d20, where there are "save or die" (I understand a lot of the spell effects that had this were modified in 3.5, like hold person which gives a save each round) usually has some sortof caveat to get around it, like a grace period or additional check or whatever before death actually happens. Both these systems have a limited coddling effect. They give the impression that characters live through any and everything... because they do. C&C doesn't go that way. Surviving is hard, maybe even impossible. That can be unacceptable. The problem really, as I see it, is that some want a system that supports super heroes and not mortals.

[Treebore]

"So, if you are the CK, and you throw something at the party that requires SAVES of CL 5 or higher, without verifying and making sure of what kind of numbers you are dealing with as far as your players saves go, I'll stick with calling that CK an idiot. "

I'm confused as to whether I"m being called an idiot or not. So please help me out so I can know for sure. I don't "throw" anything at my players. I build a campaign world and they are free to do/go what/where they want. There certainly exist monsters in this world that would require saves of CL5 and higher should the players either choose to go to, or should happen to stumble across, them, which I don't make an effort to prevent beyond giving them rumors or information that would otherwise be available to the characters in the world. Does this make me an idiot?

Let me clarify it for you. If I am calling YOU an idiot I will use your name. Now if you have personally done the things I describe as being things an idiot CK would do, then yes, you are an idiot CK. Only you know if this applies to you, so if you want to publicly admit it, its up to you. I freely admit I have done idiotic and stupid things, and not only as a CK/DM/GM, and here I am, moving on with my life.

Now let me try once again to clarify, we are all idiots at one time or another. Every last one of us, including me. I am perfectly fine with this fact of being human. I am fine with being called an idiot when I do something idiotic. Its only the truth. I like the truth. It keeps people honest. Then I do my best to learn from my idiotic and stupid mistakes so I can grow from it. In fact, I don't look at it as an insult when it is true. It is an accurate adjective being used at the right time. Often called a "fact".

So even though I have yet to call any single person here an idiot, now with the possible exception of mbeacom, and only he knows for sure at this point, I find it extremely curious how so many posters here want to insist that I have called them an idiot.

Call me crazy, but I was taught that in order to call someone an idiot, or any other name, you have to point them out, call them out by name, or in some other manner single them out and say, "Your an idiot." I had no idea that describing idiotic actions and pointing out people who do these idiotic actions are by default now someone who has been an idiot is the same as pointing at someone and saying, "Hey! You! (Insert name), you are an idiot!" I thought they were very different things.

So for those of you fixating on my daring to call idiots an idiot, feel free to call me an idiot if you feel the need. I assure you I can take it. My parents raised me to handle such things. So if you think I am an idiot for describing the actions of a idiotic CK, and calling it such, because that is what it is, go ahead. Call me an idiot if it makes you feel better. Otherwise I would rather stick to what is really the topic here, the incorrect perception that non Prime saves are overly harsh, nearly impossible, or even impossible.

So if you think I am wrong about non Prime saves, explain to me why.

If you need to get this idiot thing out of the way by calling me an idiot, do so and lets move back to the real topic at hand.

If you weren't able to read my full posts because you let the use of the word idiot hang you up, please go back and read my points as to why non Prime saves are not too harsh, or a form of impossible. Then if you still want to say non Primes are to harsh, etc... let me know why. I will likely have player in the future who will feel the same way, so would like to have a better idea as to why they feel that way ahead of time.

As for those of you who read my posts and stuck to the real topic, thanks.

[Julian Grimm]

Suddenly I don't feel so bad for scrapping the SIEGE Engine for a different system.

[Omote]

Nobody should feel bad for using the Siege Engine as is. Hell, even Treebore says you shouldn't!

~O

[Julian Grimm]

I'm getting Deja-vu here...This whole thing reminds me of posts I encountered when I used to hang out on K&KA. . .

[mbeacom]

I appreciate the attempt at clarity Treebore, but I didn't really get the answer I was looking for. I'll try to clarify my question.

Does my creating a world where threats exist that require saves of CL5 or higher (and where I allow my players to engage those threats if they choose) qualify me as "throwing" these things at my players? *(this qualifying me as an idiot CK).

And for the record, while I don't think you singled me (or anyone else) out as an idiot, I get what the other people are saying. That being, even though you've not called anyone an idiot to their face, you imply that people are idiots if they do certain things, which is a pretty subtle distinction. Anyway, I'm just curious if you believe that having a campaign world with high level threats that are accessible to the PCs is something idiot CKs do.

Now, don't YOU get hungup on the use of the word idiot. Because that's not what's key here. What's key is simply gameplay philosophy. You could easily substitute words like stupid, silly, wasteful, unfair, etc and my question would be the same.

[Traveller]

I'm getting Deja-vu here...This whole thing reminds me of posts I encountered when I used to hang out on K&KA. . .

I'd offer popcorn and sit back to watch the fireworks, but right now I'm having too much fun listening to Hurricane Sandy roaring above me.

It has been a long time since I encountered a thread filled with pure vitriol and callous disregard for others. Guess what? I can't say that any longer, because this thread is nothing but a black hole of wangst surrounded by an event horizon of excessive negativity. I honestly wonder if all of this negative bile spewing forth from Treebore in this thread is because the barriers between this world and the next are becoming weaker the closer we approach to Halloween?

This thread has been a clusterf**k from the first post due to the confrontational tone within it, and it's quickly spiraling down towards the singularity at its heart. Thus, I think at this point I'm going to drop out of the discussion. I have better things to do with my time, and I'd like to avoid stooping to Treebore's level any more than I may already have.

P.S. The title of this thread should read, "Non-prime saves being "impossible" to make is a fallacy."

[Treebore]

I appreciate the attempt at clarity Treebore, but I didn't really get the answer I was looking for. I'll try to clarify my question.

Does my creating a world where threats exist that require saves of CL5 or higher (and where I allow my players to engage those threats if they choose) qualify me as "throwing" these things at my players? *(this qualifying me as an idiot CK).

And for the record, while I don't think you singled me (or anyone else) out as an idiot, I get what the other people are saying. That being, even though you've not called anyone an idiot to their face, you imply that people are idiots if they do certain things, which is a pretty subtle distinction. Anyway, I'm just curious if you believe that having a campaign world with high level threats that are accessible to the PCs is something idiot CKs do.

Now, don't YOU get hungup on the use of the word idiot. Because that's not what's key here. What's key is simply gameplay philosophy. You could easily substitute words like stupid, silly, wasteful, unfair, etc and my question would be the same.

No, I don't think you can't do it. As I posted several times now, you CAN do a CL 5 or higher encounter, but unless you want to risk totally screwing up your game, you have to check the numbers to do the best you can to make sure you don't tank your campaign with one bad encounter, especially where saves are concerned. The level 2 party versus a 8 HD Troll I mentioned is an encounter I actually ran, and there was no TPK. I don't recall there even being a character death. So like I have posted several times now in this thread, you can do it, but you best be very careful and very sure of what the odds are, otherwise you risk tanking your game.

As to everyone getting bent out of shape over my using the word "idiot" notice the only one I directly call an idiot is me. I can handle it just fine. Sorry to see others cannot, even when no one else is even called an idiot. So my apologies to those who took offense, I saw no reason for anyone to do so, so did not anticipate this whole reaction.

As to your alternate word suggestions mbeacom, I suspect someone would have taken it personal no matter what word I used.

[Julian Grimm]

May be making a mistake, may have a misunderstanding of the system, and such comes to mind as a much better way.

[Kayolan]

There are some really thin skinned people here. So the man said idiot, so what?

[Treebore]

Yeah, I think I am going to return to posting in only the on line game forum. Its no fun if I have to worry about everyone's "word allergies".

[mbeacom]

I appreciate the attempt at clarity Treebore, but I didn't really get the answer I was looking for. I'll try to clarify my question.

Does my creating a world where threats exist that require saves of CL5 or higher (and where I allow my players to engage those threats if they choose) qualify me as "throwing" these things at my players? *(this qualifying me as an idiot CK).

And for the record, while I don't think you singled me (or anyone else) out as an idiot, I get what the other people are saying. That being, even though you've not called anyone an idiot to their face, you imply that people are idiots if they do certain things, which is a pretty subtle distinction. Anyway, I'm just curious if you believe that having a campaign world with high level threats that are accessible to the PCs is something idiot CKs do.

Now, don't YOU get hungup on the use of the word idiot. Because that's not what's key here. What's key is simply gameplay philosophy. You could easily substitute words like stupid, silly, wasteful, unfair, etc and my question would be the same.

No, I don't think you can't do it. As I posted several times now, you CAN do a CL 5 or higher encounter, but unless you want to risk totally screwing up your game, you have to check the numbers to do the best you can to make sure you don't tank your campaign with one bad encounter, especially where saves are concerned. The level 2 party versus a 8 HD Troll I mentioned is an encounter I actually ran, and there was no TPK. I don't recall there even being a character death. So like I have posted several times now in this thread, you can do it, but you best be very careful and very sure of what the odds are, otherwise you risk tanking your game.

As to everyone getting bent out of shape over my using the word "idiot" notice the only one I directly call an idiot is me. I can handle it just fine. Sorry to see others cannot, even when no one else is even called an idiot. So my apologies to those who took offense, I saw no reason for anyone to do so, so did not anticipate this whole reaction.

As to your alternate word suggestions mbeacom, I suspect someone would have taken it personal no matter what word I used.

My point was not whether or not I can do it. Of course I can do it. I was just curious if that qualified me for being an idiot CK in your mind. I was just trying to understand your view, not attack it. I don't really care what words you use, but where meanings are not clear, I'll ask for clarification. To your credit, you've attempted to give it. I will say though, that your responses and clarifications make it seem like you may not understand how I (and possibly others) prefer to enjoy our game of C&C. In your comment you warn me(?) that I need to make sure that if I don't follow your prescription, I may ruin my game. But that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Character death, even TPKs don't ruin my game. They are a fact of life for adventurers in the worlds my group and I create. We all know it and prefer it that way. If TPK was not a real threat, we'd have less fun. If character death wasn't a real risk, they'd not bother playing. Nothing about allowing CL5 or greater saves in my game will ruin anything. In fact, their existence is what makes it awesome.

[Omote]

I think some people took some offense to the word as many of the readers are CKs who fall into the scenario presented. I don't think any hard working CK wants to be called names, even if Treebore wasn't directly saying something like "Omote, you're an idiot." Clearly, Treebore wasn't calling anybody directly a such a name. But, I think the problem comes with how Treebore presents his argument. He takes a very direct approach and based on his extensive experience has formed his unbending opinion on the subject. I think that also caused some offense to be taken. Treebore's opinion doesn't leave any room from debate in his presentation, and on this message board we are used to bouncing ideas off each other with many different solutions.

I do not think Treebore meant any offense whatsoever, but he's certainly not appologetic in his views. This only enhances the seemingly confrontational argument style.

~O

[Julian Grimm]

My problem was initially the combative tone and no room for a difference of opinion. The idiot thing was the icing on the cake. I wouldn't call it thin-skinned to be bothered by this as it was more a breach of this being a polite and non-combative board.

[Dungeoneer]

Yes, I think that not having that danger of death and danger of TPK makes the game less fun, for me. However, I never let that get in the way of letting my players be big damn heroes, and if they want to go traipsing off into the dragon's den at level 1 then dang it I'm not going to stop them! I think a lot of it comes down to CK style, the group, and the kinds of stories you want told. I want to challenge my players, often in life or death struggles, and I want to do it thematically the way I want. I'm not going to make a level appropriate dragon necessarily, but I'm not going to hammer the snot out of them all the time just because they want to explore and be, well, idiots sometimes. It makes the times when the priest is on the floor, the thief is unconscious, and the fighter has to hold off the wyvern for two more rounds with little health left so the wizard can find the right phrasing to open the magic door all the more rewarding and memorable when they come out of it due to those times where it's been "kind of equitable" in terms of difficulty or power level.

[Ronin77]

I for one appropriate that not every one is good at every thing. That is why you need a party of adventurers.
If every one can pick locks easily you might not need a Rogue. If every one can track easily you may not need a Ranger.

Secondary saves are in the same boat to me.