Why D&D 2e is the BEST edition ever.

[JamesDixon]

Some of the weird notations. Fighters after a certain level get 5/2 attacks if they specialize, a kind of notation that is explained only once (in the dual wielding rules of all things)

Multiple attacks per round is explained under the Warrior listing of classes.

All warriors gain the ability to make more than one melee attack per round as they rise in level. Table 15 shows how many melee attacks fighters, paladins, and rangers can make per round, as a function of their levels.

Table 15 gives Warrior Level as one column and Attacks/Round as the second column. Normal unspecialized fighters and other warrior classes have 1 attack per round for levels 1-6, 3/2 rounds for 7-12, and 2 per round for levels 13+. 3/2 means three attacks for every two rounds. This is further explained in the DMG where it states that in attacks that are staggered like 3/2 that the first round the character makes 1 attack and in the second round they make 2 attacks. This is page 80 of the DMG Premium edition.

How incredibly flimsy your character can be. Past this edition you always got the max HP of your Hit Dice at first level, but in 2e you're only one poor roll away from being less durable than your average kobold or goblin

Almost all DMs, including myself, give players max hit points at level 1. It's our prerogative.

If anyone says the word "balance" in reference to TSR True D&D™ they're morons. There is no such thing and there never was a goal to make it so. This is why level 1 characters could get unlucky enough to have a random encounter with 10 HD monsters. How your players deal with it is the important thing. True D&D™ is unforgiving heroic fantasy. Your characters will die before they even make it to 3rd level in most cases if you play stupid. Only the smart players get their characters to advance to fourth and higher levels.

If you want balance then play Wiztards' DANDINO and let real players play the real thing.

 

[Erebus]

That association of nature with neutral (in AD&D's two-axis nine-alignment system, "true neutral") alignment still existed as late as the 1994 Planescape campaign setting.

Yes and no. The plane closest to nature in Planescape - the Beastlands - was NG (CG).

 

[Caim]

-Stat requirements: well you can't be a Wizard if you're a moron, and Paladins are supposed to be rather rare.

In general D&D (as most RPGs) is not just a game, it's also a system thats supposed to simulate reality on some level. This may lead to some solution that don't make sense from a pure gameplay perspecive. But RPGs (especially tabletop ones) are supposed to make you feel like you're taking part in an actual fantasy adventure. And if you don't sometimes take realisim over gameplay it will make the game feel more arbitrary and less real. Take random stat distribution. On one hand it's unfair, some characters will be better than others. On the other hand it makes perfect sense that some people are naturarly more gited than others. If you use point-buy then the gameworld will feel more artificial as everyone is somehow equally capable in general

Look, this is what really shits in my cereal. I understand that Paladins are supposed to be rare, but that is in-universe. As an adventurer you're already one of the brave, crazy few. There's a hard cap on how many druids there can be, wizardry is not something everyone can do and dudes who can bench entire boulders are rare. So why make an axis of DUDES WHO ARE ADVENTURERS and DUDES WHO ARE PALADINS, then roll to see if you are in the overlapping area? At this point the simulationism gets in the way of the actual game.

If anyone says the word "balance" in reference to TSR True D&D™ they're morons. There is no such thing and there never was a goal to make it so. This is why level 1 characters could get unlucky enough to have a random encounter with 10 HD monsters. How your players deal with it is the important thing. True D&D™ is unforgiving heroic fantasy. Your characters will die before they even make it to 3rd level in most cases if you play stupid. Only the smart players get their characters to advance to fourth and higher levels.

What is the smart move when faced with a fight you can't win? Run the fuck away. When your players are flimsy because of poor rolls and they have to dip from most fights are you even playing the game anymore? And sure you can throw dudes into the meat grinder and hope you come out on top, but at that point your heroic fantasy is a roguelike, and there's a stark difference between being a dude from a heroic fantasy and being just a class and a level.

 

[gurugeorge]

-Stat requirements: well you can't be a Wizard if you're a moron, and Paladins are supposed to be rather rare.

In general D&D (as most RPGs) is not just a game, it's also a system thats supposed to simulate reality on some level. This may lead to some solution that don't make sense from a pure gameplay perspecive. But RPGs (especially tabletop ones) are supposed to make you feel like you're taking part in an actual fantasy adventure. And if you don't sometimes take realisim over gameplay it will make the game feel more arbitrary and less real. Take random stat distribution. On one hand it's unfair, some characters will be better than others. On the other hand it makes perfect sense that some people are naturarly more gited than others. If you use point-buy then the gameworld will feel more artificial as everyone is somehow equally capable in general

Look, this is what really shits in my cereal. I understand that Paladins are supposed to be rare, but that is in-universe. As an adventurer you're already one of the brave, crazy few. There's a hard cap on how many druids there can be, wizardry is not something everyone can do and dudes who can bench entire boulders are rare. So why make an axis of DUDES WHO ARE ADVENTURERS and DUDES WHO ARE PALADINS, then roll to see if you are in the overlapping area? At this point the simulationism gets in the way of the actual game.

But it's not even simulationism - it's a false argument that a random stat distribution mimics reality, what would actually mimic reality is stat distributions suitable for mages being common among mages, stat distributions for fighters being common among fighters, etc.

IOW, anyone who chose the career of a fighter with 12 STR wouldn't last very long, the group of fighters is already self-selected.

This is particularly interesting because of the "grain" of it. It reminds me of the XCOM tweak that would randomize stats - ofc it just leaves a lot to RNG, becase the grain of a +1 or -1 at that level is huge, whereas in reality the difference between, say, recruits into the marines is not that great, it would be a fraction of 1 - like this guy is maybe 3 or 4% stronger, faster, etc., than the other.

If you're talking about a purely random stat distribution with a low total, then you're essentially just saying, "this guy is just a farmer, or street-sweeper, or whatever, a mental or physical weakling, totally unsuited to adventuring, combat, magic, whatever." And if by accident someone like that did get into an adventuring team they'd be a liability - although if they're amusing or charming or good company, etc., they could be a non-combatant mascot or something.

 

[Alex]

-Stat requirements: well you can't be a Wizard if you're a moron, and Paladins are supposed to be rather rare.

In general D&D (as most RPGs) is not just a game, it's also a system thats supposed to simulate reality on some level. This may lead to some solution that don't make sense from a pure gameplay perspecive. But RPGs (especially tabletop ones) are supposed to make you feel like you're taking part in an actual fantasy adventure. And if you don't sometimes take realisim over gameplay it will make the game feel more arbitrary and less real. Take random stat distribution. On one hand it's unfair, some characters will be better than others. On the other hand it makes perfect sense that some people are naturarly more gited than others. If you use point-buy then the gameworld will feel more artificial as everyone is somehow equally capable in general

Look, this is what really shits in my cereal. I understand that Paladins are supposed to be rare, but that is in-universe. As an adventurer you're already one of the brave, crazy few.

Not really. I mean, sure, an adventurer is (in most settings anyway) someone reckless doing something that most people would rightly avoid. But, that doesn't make him particularly capable. A lvl 1 fighter is not much (if at all) better off than the common city guard. And even a lvl 7 fighter, if he has an int of 7... Well, he may well be a huge badass that can kill ogres by himself... But the poor boy is still slow in the head and the average peasant may well laugh at him for being dumb.

There's a hard cap on how many druids there can be,

Only on high level druids.

wizardry is not something everyone can do

By RaW, anyone with int 9 or above could be a mage. He might not be a great mage, but he could become one.

and dudes who can bench entire boulders are rare. So why make an axis of DUDES WHO ARE ADVENTURERS and DUDES WHO ARE PALADINS, then roll to see if you are in the overlapping area? At this point the simulationism gets in the way of the actual game. (...)

The point of rolling for attributes is (though it is hard to find people who play it this way) to make your character a kind of bet. If you decide to roll attributes straight, 3d6s in order, then you will hardly see special classes such as paladins or rangers or bards in your game. But if you are using a more generous method, you may end up with some different situations. Maybe you have some good stats but not really great ones. Maybe you have many bad stats but 2 really good ones, etc. The minimum attribute requirements, together with the level limits and multi-class rules for demi-humans give you some Interesting alternatives. Depending on what you rolled, you could make a ranger or a paladin, bot solid choices that aren't too hard to level. You could make a multi-classed demi-human, getting abilities from 2 or 3 base classes as well as some racial powers such as infravision (nite that demi-humans have stat requirements as well). Or you could go for the long game and maybe try to make a character you will dual-class later on.

All these options are bets. In this kind of game, if your PC dies (and can't be brought back) then you start from level 1 again. This means that going for the long game can be just an exercise in frustration. You have to consider whether you want to try something that can take a really long time to pay off, such as a dual-class magic-user/cleric (or, if playing in Arthas, magic-user/psion), something more versatile such as a fighter/thief dwarf or something more limited but with good survivability such as a humble fighter.

 

[JamesDixon]

I understand that Paladins are supposed to be rare, but that is in-universe.

In AD&D 2E there are 6 methods to generate a character.

Method 1: 3d6 in order.
Method 2: 3d6 twice and keep the highest.
Method 3: 3d6 assign where you want.
Method 4: 3d6 twelve times and take the highest then assign where you want.
Method 5: 4d6 keep the highest 3 and assign where you want.
Method 6: Every stat starts with 8. Roll 7d6 and assign the dice as you see fit to your scores.

You also have the option to not take those stats that you roll and roll a new character. Yes, it's hard to get a paladin in many of those methods, but you can reroll until you get what you want.

At this point the simulationism gets in the way of the actual game.

D&D is not a simulation and never was meant to be one. It also predates the retarded GNS theory by 20+ years.

What is the smart move when faced with a fight you can't win? Run the fuck away. When your players are flimsy because of poor rolls and they have to dip from most fights are you even playing the game anymore? And sure you can throw dudes into the meat grinder and hope you come out on top, but at that point your heroic fantasy is a roguelike, and there's a stark difference between being a dude from a heroic fantasy and being just a class and a level.

This is why your characters will die. You think that every encounter is a fight. By default you have 3 options when handling an encounter. They are fight, flee, and parlay. Set your party stance to friendly with a character having a great charisma score for the reaction adjustment and you'll never get a hostile reaction ever. You proceed to parlay with the beings in the encounter.

These are the percentages for a 2d10 roll on the the reaction table's Friendly PC Stance column:

Friendly: 21% (2 or less to 7)
Indifferent: 42% (8 to 11)
Cautious: 30% (12 to 15)
Threatening: 12% (16 to 18)
Hostile: 3% (19 to 20)

If you have a Charisma of 15, you'll get a reaction adjustment of +3 which negates the hostile results. 16 gives a +5 which further removes Threatening from being rolled. 17 Charisma gives a +6 and 18 is +7. So the worst you will ever get on the reaction table is cautious.

With that part out of the way, you get experience for overcoming the encounter. Page 68 of the DMG Premium Edition it literally says, "The characters must be victorious over the creature, which is not necessarily synonymous with killing it. Victory can take many forms. Slaying the enemy is obviously victory; accepting surrender is victory; routing the enemy is victory; pressuring the enemy to leave a particular neck of the woods because things are getting too hot is a kind of victory."
"A creature needn’t die for the characters to score a victory. If the player characters ingeniously persuade the dragon to leave the village alone, this is as much—if not more—a victory as chopping the beast into dragonburgers!"

Experience is divided into HD value of the creature, story goals, and optionally individual rewards.

JarlFrank and his group faced off against 10 HD evil treants at level 1. They sent in 2 druids to parlay and I rolled a friendly result. They had a nice conversation then both sides parted ways. In another instance, the party came across magical jaguars that could speak. The party had set themselves to friendly and I rolled a friendly result on the reaction table. The jaguars conversed with the party to tell them that one of the former mains, now a gold dragon, was always on the shore in the evening sad about being transformed.

The very first encounter the entire group came across was wild dogs. They set their stance to friendly and interacted with the pack to start the process of taming them. Combat should always be a last resort when outnumbered and outclassed.

Play stupid and think that you have to fight everything and your character deserves to die. Play smart and use your brains to overcome the challenges then your character deserves to live.

True D&D™ is not balanced. It never was designed that way. It assumes that you're an intelligent person that can put together the clues given to you by the DM to overcome the challenges. In the encounter with the 10 HD evil treants I described all these various creatures that were much tougher than the party as being skeletons or partially consumed remains. You can read the encounter in my log about the campaign. The party put the clues together that these treants would wipe the walls with them. That's why they chose to talk to them. Since the party had surprise they could have also retreated from the encounter and still got the experience.

 

[zapotec]

In the third edition some people from ICE (rolemaster) worked on it and you got stuff like unified roll for mechanics, bit of hp bloat (without rolemaster lethality), roll higher than X etc etc

 

[JamesDixon]

In the third edition some people from ICE (rolemaster) worked on it and you got stuff like unified roll for mechanics, bit of hp bloat (without rolemaster lethality), roll higher than X etc etc

DANDINO 3.x is shit as is Rollmaster.

 

[JarlFrank]

3.5 is good but it's different from original D&D, so no longer the same game.

Doesn't make it bad, but it doesn't make it D&D.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Look, this is what really shits in my cereal. I understand that Paladins are supposed to be rare, but that is in-universe. As an adventurer you're already one of the brave, crazy few. There's a hard cap on how many druids there can be, wizardry is not something everyone can do and dudes who can bench entire boulders are rare. So why make an axis of DUDES WHO ARE ADVENTURERS and DUDES WHO ARE PALADINS, then roll to see if you are in the overlapping area? At this point the simulationism gets in the way of the actual game.

Because that way there is a limited amount of Paladins in the parties and also it's fair for the players since everyone has a chance to roll a Paladin from time to time. Think of Paladins as of Knights of the Round Table who found the Holy Grail. There's a bunch of exceptionally strong warriors, among them a few are practically demigods, and among these only 3 were able to find the Grail. And even Lancelot didn't manage to do it.

Also it's not really that detrimental to the game. Paladins are just fighters with extra spells. It's not like the players are losing out on anything important even if they never get to have one in the party.

 

[JamesDixon]

Look, this is what really shits in my cereal. I understand that Paladins are supposed to be rare, but that is in-universe. As an adventurer you're already one of the brave, crazy few. There's a hard cap on how many druids there can be, wizardry is not something everyone can do and dudes who can bench entire boulders are rare. So why make an axis of DUDES WHO ARE ADVENTURERS and DUDES WHO ARE PALADINS, then roll to see if you are in the overlapping area? At this point the simulationism gets in the way of the actual game.

Because that way there is a limited amount of Paladins in the parties and also it's fair for the players since everyone has a chance to roll a Paladin from time to time. Think of Paladins as of Knights of the Round Table who found the Holy Grail. There's a bunch of exceptionally strong warriors, among them a few are practically demigods, and among these only 3 were able to find the Grail. And even Lancelot didn't manage to do it.

Also it's not really that detrimental to the game. Paladins are just fighters with extra spells. It's not like the players are losing out on anything important even if they never get to have one in the party.

Most players play paladins wrong anyway. They use them as lawful stupid I slaughter everything that pings evil murderhobos. The highest stat required of the paladin is Charisma of 17. Why? Paladins don't get followers and can have only lawful good henchmen. The only other bonus for Charisma is Reaction Adjustment. With a 17 Charisma they get a +6 reaction adjustment to any encounter which means when the party is set to friendly there will never be any hostile reactions from NPCs. Thus, paladins are there for investigation, quests, and other things that require thinking over swinging a weapon.

 

[Cryomancer]

There is no such thing and there never was a goal to make it so. This is why level 1 characters could get unlucky enough to have a random encounter with 10 HD monsters

Yes!!!

Succubus in particular have a chance to summon a demon lord. Players in AD&D are expected to try(often in vain) to run when they face an enemy which they can't defeat or bargain. Players are leaving the safety of cities and trying to get wealth and dealing with the unknown. I don't have much experience as an DM however, in the few times which I DMed the worst thing was players wanting to be protected from their own stupidity by me.

One time our party was too cooky cuz "muh high level", and we got a noble angry against us. the noble hired a bunch of assassins and they, using a caster and a scroll of antimagical field, they disabled all of our powerful magical items and "buffs", attacked us while we where resting with poisoned arrows. We had no choice but to run and most of our party ended dead. The Assassins din't took a single point of damage in this encounter.

That encounter in AD&D is the consequence of our actions. In Dandino is "unfair and unbalanced";

here's a hard cap on how many druids there can be

Only for high level druids. A high level druid is more likely to be protecting a important grove than adventuring.

 

[RPK]

-Stat requirements: well you can't be a Wizard if you're a moron, and Paladins are supposed to be rather rare.

Agreed on the bit about the paladin. I liked the stat restrictions. one of the most fun characters I ever played was a fighter who wanted to be a paladin but didn't quite measure up.

 

[Cryomancer]

OTher thing which I really hate in modern TTRPG's, mainly PF1/2e and 5E is the lack of drawbacks/hindrances in kits.

For eg.

From Players Optiosn - Spells & Magic. Shadow mages get the following kit

Two opposition schools, so no fireballs. Very high requirements, so very few characters can become one. Enemies can be +10% likely to succeed or 20% more likely to fail depending on where he is. Now look to PF1e ShadowCaster. Only benefits and ZERO drawbacks. Same in 5E.

Even classless games tends to encourage drawbacks in characters.

Is encouraged in GURPS to add flaws to characters. Not only combat flaws, personality flaws, diseases and so on.

 

[JamesDixon]

OTher thing which I really hate in modern TTRPG's, mainly PF1/2e and 5E is the lack of drawbacks/hindrances in kits.

For eg.

From Players Optiosn - Spells & Magic. Shadow mages get the following kit

Two opposition schools, so no fireballs. Very high requirements, so very few characters can become one. Enemies can be +10% likely to succeed or 20% more likely to fail depending on where he is. Now look to PF1e ShadowCaster. Only benefits and ZERO drawbacks. Same in 5E.

Even classless games tends to encourage drawbacks in characters.

Is encouraged in GURPS to add flaws to characters. Not only combat flaws, personality flaws, diseases and so on.

Minor correction... Shadow Mages are a specialty school not a kit.

 

[MerchantKing]

My favorite part of 2e is the Gnome intelligence bonus.

 

[zapotec]

You certainly don't want to use creatures that are more powerful than those in the rest of your adventure!
AD&D Dungeon's Master Guide Chapter 11

Have you ever played the game?

 

[JamesDixon]

You certainly don't want to use creatures that are more powerful than those in the rest of your adventure!
AD&D Dungeon's Master Guide Chapter 11

Have you ever played the game?

That's page 132 and you took one line out of context.

Finally, as DM, consider the role of the random encounter. Such an encounter is not a part of the adventure being told; it hasn’t been worked into the plot and doesn’t advance the conflicts. A random encounter should not be the most exciting event of an adventure. You don’t want the players remembering only the random encounter and forgetting the story you worked to create!

Random encounters provide breaks in the action and can build or release tension. The characters are galloping after the desperately fleeing kidnappers. Suddenly a flight of griffins, attracted by the clamor of the chase, swoop down, aiming to make a meal of the player characters’ horses. The kidnappers may escape unless the characters can extricate themselves from the attack in mere moments! The tension level goes up.

Random encounters can also wear the player characters down in preparation for a larger, planned encounter. The uncertainty of the encounters adds an element of risk for the players. Will the characters be strong enough? A random encounter should rarely cripple a party (unless they are in a sorry state to begin with), but each one should weaken them a little.

It doesn’t matter if the player characters win every random encounter, especially not if they are down a few more hit points, spells, and magical items after each. Just knowing they are not at peak form and that they have expended their abilities on wandering monsters makes the players nervous.

For these reasons, you don’t want to use the most powerful and significant creatures when creating random encounter tables. You certainly don’t want to use creatures that are more powerful than those in the rest of your adventure!
Random monsters should be less significant than those you have planned.

This is great advice if you're running a normal game. However, I'm not running a normal game. I'm running a hex crawl when the players start at the beginning of the world. This is why the following rules exist for hex crawls.

On page 135 of the DMG Premium Edition for dungeons, "When constructing the encounter table, creatures with a greater or lesser power than the table being designed can be used. However, each level of difference between creature and table decreases the frequency of appearance by one (a common creature becomes uncommon, a rare creature would be very rare, and so on). Creatures less powerful than the given level seldom venture into such dangerous territory. Creatures more powerful are seldom met to ensure the player characters have a decent chance of survival. After adjustment, these creatures can be added to the table."

"In addition, there is a chance that an encountered creature will be more powerful than expected: When designing a 2–20 table, the 20 result could be “Use next highest table”; if a percentile table is used, 98–100 could bump the DM to the next table. Thus, players would never be assured of safety or good odds."

On pages 135-136 for wilderness encounters it says, "Unlike the dungeon tables, those used for the wilderness are not so neatly organized according to deadliness or power. One principle of wilderness adventuring (which makes it more dangerous for low-level characters) is that virtually any creature can be met—and often in sizeable numbers. This is a risk the players should be aware of before they take their characters out into the untracked forest."

Have you actually played the game?

 

[JamesDixon]

My favorite part of 2e is the Gnome intelligence bonus.

Did you forget about the Wisdom malus?

 

[MerchantKing]

My favorite part of 2e is the Gnome intelligence bonus.

Did you forget about the Wisdom malus?

You don't need WIS when you have high INT.

 

[JamesDixon]

My favorite part of 2e is the Gnome intelligence bonus.

Did you forget about the Wisdom malus?

You don't need WIS when you have high INT.

This is why Gnomes are an endangered species in most settings. The general lack of common sense is what does them in.

 

[MerchantKing]

My favorite part of 2e is the Gnome intelligence bonus.

Did you forget about the Wisdom malus?

You don't need WIS when you have high INT.

This is why Gnomes are an endangered species in most settings. The general lack of common sense is what does them in.

No. I'm pretty sure it's just antinanatism and griffins that are the problem, not the WIS penalty.

 

[JamesDixon]

No. I'm pretty sure it's just antinanatism and griffins that are the problem, not the WIS penalty.

Suuuuurreeeee

 

[zapotec]

You certainly don't want to use creatures that are more powerful than those in the rest of your adventure!
AD&D Dungeon's Master Guide Chapter 11

Have you ever played the game?

That's page 132 and you took one line out of context.

Finally, as DM, consider the role of the random encounter. Such an encounter is not a part of the adventure being told; it hasn’t been worked into the plot and doesn’t advance the conflicts. A random encounter should not be the most exciting event of an adventure. You don’t want the players remembering only the random encounter and forgetting the story you worked to create!

Random encounters provide breaks in the action and can build or release tension. The characters are galloping after the desperately fleeing kidnappers. Suddenly a flight of griffins, attracted by the clamor of the chase, swoop down, aiming to make a meal of the player characters’ horses. The kidnappers may escape unless the characters can extricate themselves from the attack in mere moments! The tension level goes up.

Random encounters can also wear the player characters down in preparation for a larger, planned encounter. The uncertainty of the encounters adds an element of risk for the players. Will the characters be strong enough? A random encounter should rarely cripple a party (unless they are in a sorry state to begin with), but each one should weaken them a little.

It doesn’t matter if the player characters win every random encounter, especially not if they are down a few more hit points, spells, and magical items after each. Just knowing they are not at peak form and that they have expended their abilities on wandering monsters makes the players nervous.

For these reasons, you don’t want to use the most powerful and significant creatures when creating random encounter tables. You certainly don’t want to use creatures that are more powerful than those in the rest of your adventure!
Random monsters should be less significant than those you have planned.

This is great advice if you're running a normal game. However, I'm not running a normal game. I'm running a hex crawl when the players start at the beginning of the world. This is why the following rules exist for hex crawls.

On page 135 of the DMG Premium Edition for dungeons, "When constructing the encounter table, creatures with a greater or lesser power than the table being designed can be used. However, each level of difference between creature and table decreases the frequency of appearance by one (a common creature becomes uncommon, a rare creature would be very rare, and so on). Creatures less powerful than the given level seldom venture into such dangerous territory. Creatures more powerful are seldom met to ensure the player characters have a decent chance of survival. After adjustment, these creatures can be added to the table."

"In addition, there is a chance that an encountered creature will be more powerful than expected: When designing a 2–20 table, the 20 result could be “Use next highest table”; if a percentile table is used, 98–100 could bump the DM to the next table. Thus, players would never be assured of safety or good odds."

On pages 135-136 for wilderness encounters it says, "Unlike the dungeon tables, those used for the wilderness are not so neatly organized according to deadliness or power. One principle of wilderness adventuring (which makes it more dangerous for low-level characters) is that virtually any creature can be met—and often in sizeable numbers. This is a risk the players should be aware of before they take their characters out into the untracked forest."

Have you actually played the game?

You forgot this part
This does not mean that wilderness adventuring should be impossible for low-level characters. It shouldn't be so deadly that they can't walk three steps before a flight of red
dragons appears and turns them to ash with one fiery breath! That's just bad refereeing.

Have you actually played the game?

 

[JamesDixon]

This does not mean that wilderness adventuring should be impossible for low-level characters. It shouldn't be so deadly that they can't walk three steps before a flight of red
dragons appears and turns them to ash with one fiery breath! That's just bad refereeing.

I love it when idiots like you quote something out of context.

Why didn't you include the full paragraph or section? It's because you're a moron.

This does not mean that wilderness adventuring should be impossible for low-level characters. It shouldn’t be so deadly that they can’t walk three steps before a flight of red dragons appears and turns them to ash with one fiery breath! That’s just bad refereeing. Low-level characters should have the opportunity to go on wilderness adventures that they can survive.

When taken out of context and leaving your players with only fighting as the resolution you end up with misrepresentation of the rules. This section deals only with random encounters. It does not deal with encounter reactions which is later on in the chapter. It presents the third choice players can take in handling encounters. That is by using parlay.

Are you honestly this stupid?

Have you actually played the game?

Yes since 1989 and you? When did you start playing? Never?

Since you're an idiot you can join the rest of the fucking morons on the retard list.