WBL in AD&D 2E

[Username17]

I don't have the 2E monster manual. But I know that in 1E AD&D, monsters were sorted by "level" (I though X). Did they get rid of that in 2E?

Those are "Dungeon Levels", not character levels.

Right, but they're still difficulty levels that you can (roughly) map to character levels, alongside the wonky "HD+special abilities+exceptional abilities" difficulty level in the 1E XP system.

No. They do not map to character levels. They map to physical location. Players are expected to judge for themselves what level of risk/reward they want and target dungeon levels accordingly. AD&D is also full of enough "sloping passages" that it bothers to tell you what the chances of various characters discovering them are. Sloping passages are a trap whose entire purpose is to change the risk/reward tradeoff from what the players are expecting without telling them. Because Dungeon Levels are even more weird and gamist in their way than Challenge Ratings are.

-Username17

[hogarth]

Players are expected to judge for themselves what level of risk/reward they want and target dungeon levels accordingly.

By that reasoning, CR also doesn't map to level-appropriate difficulty, because players can target high or low CRs accordingly.

[Username17]

Players are expected to judge for themselves what level of risk/reward they want and target dungeon levels accordingly.

By that reasoning, CR also doesn't map to level-appropriate difficulty, because players can target high or low CRs accordingly.

At this point I assume you are being intentionally obtuse. Challenge Ratings have an assumed target character level. It's the actual number. A Dungeon Level is just a region, and it doesn't have suggested character level targets. You're just supposed to go down into progressively harder dungeon levels fighting for progressively bigger treasures until you've had enough and chicken out. Gygax explicitly says that Dungeon Levels don't have suggested character levels for them.

Dungeon Levels as a concept are basically diametrically opposed to Challenge Ratings. They are explicitly not supposed to be tailored or targeted to characters of any particular power. Similarly, the wilderness encounter charts are based on terrain and climate region, and not on character power (assumed or otherwise). 2nd Edition AD&D did the same thing with its random encounter tables. They are based on where you are, not how powerful you are.

-Username17

[Ancient History]

Delve too deep, you get the balrog.

[hogarth]

Dungeon Levels as a concept are basically diametrically opposed to Challenge Ratings.

I don't know what to tell you, Frank. In my AD&D experience, it was blazingly obvious that higher level monsters were tougher and were more appropriate for higher level characters (with correspondingly better equipment) to fight.

If your group couldn't figure that one out, well....

[Username17]

Dungeon Levels as a concept are basically diametrically opposed to Challenge Ratings.

I don't know what to tell you, Frank. In my AD&D experience, it was blazingly obvious that higher level monsters were tougher and were more appropriate for higher level characters (with correspondingly better equipment) to fight.

If your group couldn't figure that one out, well....

Since you seem determined to be an asshole about this, riddle me this:

What level would your group have to be before they dared risk exploring a "Subtropical Forest"?

-Username17

[shadzar]

Dungeon Levels as a concept are basically diametrically opposed to Challenge Ratings.

I don't know what to tell you, Frank. In my AD&D experience, it was blazingly obvious that higher level monsters were tougher and were more appropriate for higher level characters (with correspondingly better equipment) to fight.

If your group couldn't figure that one out, well....

Since you seem determined to be an asshole about this, riddle me this:

What level would your group have to be before they dared risk exploring a "Subtropical Forest"?

-Username17

you are either completely missing the point or being stupid on purpose or accident....

dungeon LEVEL.. ergo think Diablo. the deeper you delve the harder it gets. this is how 1st edition rated monsters is what is being said. so you would find kobolds anywhere, but you wouldnt find a great wyrm on the first level.

level doesnt always men stairs or ladders are involved. in a forest there could be an entrance to a "dungeon" and that would be first level. then as you go deeper into the maze of undergrowth, you are going to tougher levels of that dungeon. think the silly facebook game that didnt have vertical levels, just horizontal ones.

1. dungeon means an area larger than a single room to be explorer and can be in the form of caves/caverns, a castle, a house, a city, a forest, a desert, etc.

2. level means a progression of steps from a starting point that is often weaker to an interior point that progressively gets stronger/tougher the further you go.

a forest is not a specific LEVEL, but is a dungeon, ergo why MANY things has those types of forests as their environment. so you can place them progressively along the levels of the forest dungeon.


RTFM!

[PoliteNewb]

Dungeon Levels as a concept are basically diametrically opposed to Challenge Ratings.

I don't know what to tell you, Frank. In my AD&D experience, it was blazingly obvious that higher level monsters were tougher and were more appropriate for higher level characters (with correspondingly better equipment) to fight.

If your group couldn't figure that one out, well....

Since you seem determined to be an asshole about this, riddle me this:

What level would your group have to be before they dared risk exploring a "Subtropical Forest"?

-Username17

1.) Depends...which random encounter table are you using? If we're talking 2E, it's probably one the DM made up himself, so unless he's a sadist, the answer is "any level".

2.) What the fuck do wilderness encounters have to do with Dungeon levels and monster "level" ratings, which is what Hogarth was talking about?

3.) Do you seriously think in later editions, using CR scrupulously, a newb DM isn't entirely capable of designing encounters that are either cakewalks or automatic TPKs? Because to me, that's not different...the DM needs to eyeball the encounter. Eyeballing a monster by what "level" it is or how much XP it's worth is no harder than looking at it's CR and judging it's capabilities, because CR is fucked up and no guarantee whatsoever that the monster is actually level-appropriate.

[Username17]

1.) Depends...which random encounter table are you using? If we're talking 2E, it's probably one the DM made up himself, so unless he's a sadist, the answer is "any level".

While I agree that many 2nd edition DMs didn't use the random encounter tables because they were hard to find, they did in fact exist.

2.) What the fuck do wilderness encounters have to do with Dungeon levels and monster "level" ratings, which is what Hogarth was talking about?

Because the Dungeon Level Encounter Tables are just encounters for regions. Next to those tables are tables for other regions, such as "Temperate Forest" and "Subtropical Forest" and shit. Many people suggested not adventuring outside until you got to high level because the wilderness encounters charts had very perceptible chances to hand out really big monsters.

3.) Do you seriously think in later editions, using CR scrupulously, a newb DM isn't entirely capable of designing encounters that are either cakewalks or automatic TPKs? Because to me, that's not different...the DM needs to eyeball the encounter. Eyeballing a monster by what "level" it is or how much XP it's worth is no harder than looking at it's CR and judging it's capabilities, because CR is fucked up and no guarantee whatsoever that the monster is actually level-appropriate.

I really have no fucking idea what the fucking hell you are talking about here. Hogarth claimed that AD&D implicitly implied a wealth by level system by having monsters that required weapons of certain calibers to harm. That you were expected to encounter those monsters when you had reached certain character levels and thus you were by implication expected to have weapons of such power when those character levels were attained.

And that is of course: total horse shit. Because in actuality AD&D had no wealth by level system, there was no specific or implied character level when creatures with various degrees of weapon immunity were "supposed" to show up, and you very explicitly were not expected to necessarily be able to harm any particular enemy that happened to appear. Literally every single premise of hogarth's syllogism is completely false, and unsurprisingly his conclusion is as well.

Now of course 3rd edition has some monsters whose mere existence is CR abuse, and in the hands of an unexperienced MC they can easily torpedo the entire game. But the game does have a Challenge Rating System. If a monster or trap is CR X, you actually can work back from that to say that it is therefore implied that characters of Character Level X should be able to have abilities and/or equipment that can overcome that challenge. Because that is what CR ratings are supposed to mean. Which means that hogarth's argument would totally work if he was talking about 3rd edition. The fact that the 3e Iron Golem has DR/+3 Weapons does imply that characters in 3e who have a level equal to or greater than the Iron Golem's CR are supposed to have access to +3 weapons. But no such inference is possible in either edition of AD&D because CRs as a concept didn't fucking exist.

-Username17

[Red_Rob]

Frank is totally right here. AD&D did not have any kind of rubric for monster or treasure appearance other than "The DM thinks you're ready for this". The monsters came in varying flavours of hard and the treasure in escalating orders of awesome, but when it came to what level characters were supposed to encounter either there was literally nothing other than the DM's eyeball.

Now, grognards like to wank on about how this was more "real" because there was no guarantee you could beat any encounter you came across, which encouraged more cautious play. This is of course utter bullshit, because having a ranking system doesn't preclude using any encounter generation method you want, it simply means you are more aware of when you are sending the party up against something out of their league. The fact the CR system isn't perfect is annoying, but it's better than nothing. Which is what D&D had for 30 years.

[Slade]

Frank is totally right here. AD&D did not have any kind of rubric for monster or treasure appearance other than "The DM thinks you're ready for this". The monsters came in varying flavours of hard and the treasure in escalating orders of awesome, but when it came to what level characters were supposed to encounter either there was literally nothing other than the DM's eyeball.

Now, grognards like to wank on about how this was more "real" because there was no guarantee you could beat any encounter you came across, which encouraged more cautious play. This is of course utter bullshit, because having a ranking system doesn't preclude using any encounter generation method you want, it simply means you are more aware of when you are sending the party up against something out of their league. The fact the CR system isn't perfect is annoying, but it's better than nothing. Which is what D&D had for 30 years.

I'm surprised people didn't hunt centuars to extinction since they gave gems worth lots of money that gave lots of XP.

[shadzar]

Frank is totally right here. AD&D did not have any kind of rubric for monster or treasure appearance other than "The DM thinks you're ready for this". The monsters came in varying flavours of hard and the treasure in escalating orders of awesome, but when it came to what level characters were supposed to encounter either there was literally nothing other than the DM's eyeball.

except for the fact that he and you are totally fucking wrong!

1e DMG page 47 discussed chance for encounters. the 2~20 (d8+d12) encounter chart per say, and when to check for encounters in specific types of terrain based on activity cycle of things in that terrain.

the special dungeons were what the DM threw at you, but the game world itself was set by what fit the world. a baby in a deepest darkest african jungle today doesnt just meet playful critters. a lion will eat that fucking human child in a second, not giving a shit if he was a level appropriate encounter. ergo D&D imitates life, for a LIVING world, not a daycare for the PC party to play in.

i seriously doubt most of you people have read the books for the claims you make, and there is no excuse since they are back in PDF and print forms now, go shell out the money and get copies to read and pay attention to.

again your shitty DMs you think are the game itself. sorry, you just fucked up playing with a shitty DM and letting him be shitty, or being a shitty DM yourself.

[Ted the Flayer]

Shadzar doesn't actually read what people say before he starts arguing against him, does he?

[koz]

Shadzar doesn't actually read what people say, does he?

Fixed that for ya.

[tussock]

Red Rob said AD&D monsters appear by DM Fiat. That is incorrect, they appear in part by random encounter tables (which the DM is encouraged to modify by fiat), and further by climate/terrain, commonality, and association notes in the individual monster entries.

Almost all DMs used a great deal of Fiat to save that mechanism from arbitrarily killing everyone every few days while otherwise being a bit boring. You can play with the random monster generation tables (given some degree of interpretative skill), but they're hard to survive and don't match the more "balanced" tournament modules that ended up getting published.

I totally heard good stories of people using the tables. PC deaths and TPKs abounded, but it's still a fun game by all accounts.

[K]

And that is of course: total horse shit. Because in actuality AD&D had no wealth by level system, there was no specific or implied character level when creatures with various degrees of weapon immunity were "supposed" to show up, and you very explicitly were not expected to necessarily be able to harm any particular enemy that happened to appear. Literally every single premise of hogarth's syllogism is completely false, and unsurprisingly his conclusion is as well.

It's not just that it had no WBL, but that it had no pretense of balance.

For example, the Staff-Spear (a staff that turns into a spear!) appears on the same random table as a Staff of the Archmagi, so any random treasure situation sometimes had players getting batshit insane magic items and other people getting staves that turn into spears.

Balance wasn't even a concept applied to RPGs until 3rd edition DnD.

[zugschef]

And that is of course: total horse shit. Because in actuality AD&D had no wealth by level system, there was no specific or implied character level when creatures with various degrees of weapon immunity were "supposed" to show up, and you very explicitly were not expected to necessarily be able to harm any particular enemy that happened to appear. Literally every single premise of hogarth's syllogism is completely false, and unsurprisingly his conclusion is as well.

It's not just that it had no WBL, but that it had no pretense of balance.

For example, the Staff-Spear (a staff that turns into a spear!) appears on the same random table as a Staff of the Archmagi, so any random treasure situation sometimes had players getting batshit insane magic items and other people getting staves that turn into spears.

Balance wasn't even a concept applied to RPGs until 3rd edition DnD.

that shit totally encouraged cheating in order to have fun. that's maybe the worst "feature" a game can have.

[tussock]

Of course balance mods were applied, it just wasn't spoken of much by the designers.

An OD&D Magic-User casts all his spells without chance of interruption or loss, while having basically the same hit chances and damage output of a Fighting-Man, and just a tiny amount less hit points. Greyhawk cut the Mages hit points while increasing the Fighters, cut their attack bonus while increasing the Fighters, increased the damage for Fighting-Man weapons while lowering Wizard weapons, gave damage bonuses for high Strength, and increased the power of magic items only usable by Fighters.

By 1st edition AD&D it takes a high-level Magic-User three days to recover their spells, their hit points are under half of a Fighters, they have shitty armour and weapon options, attack at -1 to hit for the first 5 levels, they can't have the good Fighter bonuses from Strength and Con, some of the spell list has been cut out into a separate class, the higher-level monsters have gained Magic Resistance and spells and other abilities that give them broad-based immunity to magic, the spells they get are randomly determined (with notes for the DM to help if the result is stupid) and can randomly change over time.

Fighters keep getting boosted, better Fighter-only (or at least non-caster) gear, better saves, better stats, etc. In 1985 Fighters get an effective doubling of their damage output at low levels. Huge increases to close-range missile attacks. Bam. Mages got ... nothing.

2nd edition toned down Rangers and Paladins, nerfed the shit out of the Bard, let Thieves get better at skills earlier, and tried to make the restrictions on Mages remain effective while being easier to play with so more people would use them. They added massive increases in fighter output across the edition, up to Grand Mastery with four attacks a round for crazy-high damage and instant-death critical tables for weapons. The expansion books for Wizards and Clerics in 2nd edition are full of optional RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR POWER.


3rd edition being "Balanced" is marketing bullshit. They've been trying really hard to make Fighters relevant while hamstringing the casters since 1975, and 3e reversed half of that shit and never gave it back.


Also, batshit insane power from random items is hella fun. A nightmare for DMs, but that's why they were encouraged to fudge all the rolls.

[Red_Rob]

Red Rob said AD&D monsters appear by DM Fiat. That is incorrect, they appear in part by random encounter tables (which the DM is encouraged to modify by fiat), and further by climate/terrain, commonality, and association notes in the individual monster entries.

Actually, I didn'tsay anything about DM Fiat. I said that there was no objective rubric of monster power to guide DM's when deciding whether a given monster was an appropriate challenge for a PC group. Sure, you had a random table for Tundra encounters or whatever that listed the chance of encountering Winter Wolves and Polar Bears, but whether that was an appropriate place for your group to go roaming around was a case of the DM cracking open the MM and comparing monster stats to the party.

The long and short of it is that until 3e there was little or no attempt made to codify monster power vs PC power, or lvl 7 PC vs. lvl 7 PC. CR and WBL represented a sea change in the mindset of D&D, a move away from the Gygaxian maxim that the DM was responsible for judging everything and their word was law, towards an acceptance that maybe an objective measure of challenge and reward lead to a better, fairer game.

3rd edition being "Balanced" is marketing bullshit. They've been trying really hard to make Fighters relevant while hamstringing the casters since 1975, and 3e reversed half of that shit and never gave it back.

I'm calling foul here. A high level AD&D Fighter may do more damage compared to monster hp, and have a better chance to avoid save-or-dies, but they still have no inherent ability to play the game. The enemies can still teleport and fly, death-no-save spells are still a thing, and the game still involves planar travel and fuck-you scale obstacles like flying castles. The reason this is so much more noticeable in 3e is that there is actually an objective measurement to compare the Fighter against. You can look in the MM and compare the Fighter to appropriate level monsters, and you can total up the WBL and say look, if you take items to shore up these weaknesses you have nothing left for weapons and armor! And of course, in actual games DM pity items and encounter sandbagging are a natural response to an underperforming character. It's just that in 3e you can actually point to the guidelines to show the Fighter has twice as much gear as he should, whereas in AD&D there are no guidelines.

Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards is a meme from before 3e. D&D casters have always been stronger, it just took 3e and the internet for it to become obvious and well publicised enough for most people to notice.

[Juton]

I'm calling foul here. A high level AD&D Fighter may do more damage compared to monster hp, and have a better chance to avoid save-or-dies, but they still have no inherent ability to play the game. The enemies can still teleport and fly, death-no-save spells are still a thing, and the game still involves planar travel and fuck-you scale obstacles like flying castles. The reason this is so much more noticeable in 3e is that there is actually an objective measurement to compare the Fighter against. You can look in the MM and compare the Fighter to appropriate level monsters, and you can total up the WBL and say look, if you take items to shore up these weaknesses you have nothing left for weapons and armor! And of course, in actual games DM pity items and encounter sandbagging are a natural response to an underperforming character. It's just that in 3e you can actually point to the guidelines to show the Fighter has twice as much gear as he should, whereas in AD&D there are no guidelines.

Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards is a meme from before 3e. D&D casters have always been stronger, it just took 3e and the internet for it to become obvious and well publicised enough for most people to notice.

Being able to do a few things adequately is much better than not being able to do anything. Aside from that level progression is much different in 2e vs 3e. In 3e you could expect to go from level 1 to level 10-13 in a few months, going at one session a week. In previous editions I have never heard of anyone grinding from level 1 to level 10. Even if campaigns lasted years the never seemed to get that high. So while the classes weren't balanced in 2e it was less of a problem because so few ever got to the point where caster dominance happened.

[talozin]

In 3e you could expect to go from level 1 to level 10-13 in a few months, going at one session a week. In previous editions I have never heard of anyone grinding from level 1 to level 10. Even if campaigns lasted years the never seemed to get that high.

Going from 1 to 10-ish was totally doable in AD&D, it was post-10th where stuff started to get slow. The exact point varied for each individual class but it was always somewhere in the 8-12 range -- up until then you'd advance relatively quickly. If you played through the entire Temple of Elemental Evil module, you would be around 10th level by the time you finished, assuming you had a group that was somewhat sanely sized. And that would take about a year.

In one early Dragon there was an article where Gygax said that pretty explicitly -- that the idea was you could go from 1-10 in about a year and then you'd gain a level or two for each additional year, with reference to how nobody in Greyhawk or Blackmoor had risen to a level out of sync with that pattern.

[shadzar]

Actually, I didn'tsay anything about DM Fiat.

THE HELL YOU DIDNT!

Frank is totally right here. AD&D did not have any kind of rubric for monster or treasure appearance other than "The DM thinks you're ready for this".

Just in case you decide to backpeddle and change your post. i have a screen shot and will post here later if needed where you explicitly mention or imply DM fiat with the bolded portion.

[Red_Rob]

Actually, I didn'tsay anything about DM Fiat.

THE HELL YOU DIDNT!

Frank is totally right here. AD&D did not have any kind of rubric for monster or treasure appearance other than "The DM thinks you're ready for this".

Just in case you decide to backpeddle and change your post. i have a screen shot and will post here later if needed where you explicitly mention or imply DM fiat with the bolded portion.

Oops.

No backpedalling needed. I guess I remembered wrong, I did explicitly say monster appearance was by DM fiat. My bad, that wasn't correct.