Can someone please explain to me why there are so many posts from people demanding more realism in a fantasy game? I could have sworn this game has flying dragons and underground metropolises. Yet there are posts all over the place complaining about things like the hit point system isn't realistic, or that levels aren't believable. I don't see anything saying "You know, a malevolent flying eyeball just doesn't sit right with me".
What's the problem?
I think you have to separate the logic of the game system from the logic or internal consistency of the game world.
I can accept a fantasy world in which sorcerers, dragons, beholders etc. exist, even if this contradicts the physical laws of our world.
But the logic of the game system is quite another pair of shoes. A big creature like a giant is much tougher than a puny human - normally. But as the D&D Rules are written, a human fighter is at a certain level tougher than a giant, in terms of hit points. I think it is due to things like this that some people speak of an unlogical or unrealistic game system.
If you play D&D, that is part of the package. If you don´t want things like this, you should use other game systems, like GURPS or the Chaosium system, which don´t use levels.
I often play an german RPG called Midgard. It uses levels also, but slightly different: All creatures have a certain amount of Life Points, which are nearly unchangeable, and gain Endurance Points with every level. Most hits in combat wear down your Endurance, but only serious hits wear down your Life Points. If you score a Critical Hit, you may slay your opponent instantly or injure him seriously, no matter what level he is. The same is true for the PCs themselves. This system is quite realistic, and has no "superheroes" like D&D. Don´t get me wrong, I like both systems. D&D just has a higher power level overall, and is more high or heroic fantasy. It is a matter of taste which game system you prefer. Complaining about the unrealistic game system of D&D makes as much sense as complaining about how powerful your sports car is - it is just the way it is, no one forces you to use it, and you can always buy a compact car.
Stefan
All creatures have a certain amount of Life Points, which are nearly unchangeable, and gain Endurance Points with every level. Most hits in combat wear down your Endurance, but only serious hits wear down your Life Points. If you score a Critical Hit, you may slay your opponent instantly or injure him seriously, no matter what level he is. The same is true for the PCs themselves. This system is quite realistic, and has no "superheroes" like D&D.
Just because somebody's going to say it, and I may as well beat them to it: You can do the same thing in D&D with the Vitality and Wound Points system.
I think you have to separate the logic of the game system from the logic or internal consistency of the game world.
I can accept a fantasy world in which sorcerers, dragons, beholders etc. exist, even if this contradicts the physical laws of our world.
But the logic of the game system is quite another pair of shoes. A big creature like a giant is much tougher than a puny human - normally. But as the D&D Rules are written, a human fighter is at a certain level tougher than a giant, in terms of hit points. I think it is due to things like this that some people speak of an unlogical or unrealistic game system.
If you play D&D, that is part of the package. If you don´t want things like this, you should use other game systems, like GURPS or the Chaosium system, which don´t use levels.
In fantasy literature big creatures are killed all the time by the heroes in the books. From Moorcock to Tolkien the characters take down malevolent giants, gods, massive trolls and balrogs, and while some of the characters in their books are not quite "normal" neither are high level PCs. I know that what you said does not necessarily reflect your own beliefs, but you have pointed out one of the flaws in some of the people playing the game, not the game itself (with which I do have a few problems).
I like realism. A good friend of mine once convinced me to play a game called "Pheonix Command", which is about modern small-arms combat. I spent several hours makeing my character; he died in the first round of the first fight, without ever getting a chance to fire a shot. Realistic? Certainly. Fun? Not really.
I've seen similar things with other "realistic" games; has anyone ever played rolemaster for more than a few years without seeing a new character die from a critical hit, without ever really getting a chance to act? And the list goes on...
I've played "realistic" games of GURPS, set in the modern day, with 25 point player characters (that's dead average, to those of you that don't know the system). And, sometimes it is even fun for awhile. But, ultimately it is frustrating.
My point is, these are supposed to be games. Sure, the more there is realism and real-world logic to the physics, then the easier it is suspend our disbelief and immerse ourselves in the game. But despite what we think, we don't really want realism.
If you think you want realism in your game, then consider this: As height doubles, volume and weight increase by a factor of 8. This means that a giant of 18 feet, like a typical D&D cloud giant, would mass about 32 times as much as a normal man (around 5,000 pounds if proportional to a 156 pound man). A normal man with a Strength of 10 can lift roughly 2/3 of his bodyweight as a heavy load; a cloud giant with proportional strength should be able lift about 3333 pounds as a heavy load. So far, this matches the figures in the Player's Handbook rather well (c.f. page 162). Note that the x4 multiplier for the giant's size skews all this, making it proportional in lifting ability to a 156 pound human with a Strength of 20 (400 pounds, roughly 2.56 times his body weight). So, unless all cloud giants are massively thewed, this x4 multiplier for Size is not "realistic". But wait, there's more... Notice that the progression for damage is linear, but the progression for carrying capacity is not... a heavy load is roughly equal to the Strength attribute raised to the second power (squared), but even this progression is not stable. So, if damage is to be assigned in a linear way, and carrying capacity is to be indicative, then it follows that a cloud giant's actual Strength bonus, given the carrying capacity in the books, should be around +160. Even using the carrying capacity I've determined, it should be about +31, instead of the +12 given in the books. And, as for Hit points, consider that if a solid object doubles in thickness... well, trust me on this one that the HP should (realisticly) be about 336. But of course this would make giants into epic foes, and adventures like Against the Giants would become useless except for those players that run epic level characters (who, almost by definition, are not realistic).
At the end of the day, the only "realism" that matters is what drives the story forward and allows for the willing suspension of disbelief. No more, no less. Unless we want our games to devolve into an exercise in calculus, we would all do well to remember that.
Just because somebody's going to say it, and I may as well beat them to it: You can do the same thing in D&D with the Vitality and Wound Points system.
I didn´t know that. Where can you find these rules ?
Stefan
Hey Stebehil,
Vitality and Wound Points are covered on page 116 of the Unearthed Arcana book.
Thanks for the info.
Is the UA worth getting ? What is the opinion of the people here ?
Stefan
Thanks for the info.
Is the UA worth getting ? What is the opinion of the people here ?Stefan
I just purchased UA last week and I've already read most of it. Many fascinating alternative rules contained therein, such as the aforementioned vitality and wound point system.
I recommend it--lots of stuff you could use...I won't use 90% of the rules in UA, but the stuff I found was well written and thought out. It was worth the purchase. The alternate magic systems, simpler XP system and some of the alternate classes, such as the rogue who foregoes his sneak attack damage to get access to fighter bonus feats are really interesting.
Can someone please explain to me why there are so many posts from people demanding more realism in a fantasy game?".
What's the problem?
Well, to answer your question, the problem is suspension of disbelief. Its like a movie with cheesy special effects. I can pretend for a minute that space invaders are taking over earth as long as I can't see the strings holding up their space craft. I feel the same way about game mechanics. Smooth, cohesive mechanics that maintain internal consistancy help to enhance the fantasy world and make it seem more like a real place. On the flip side, clunky or inconsistant rules are like stings on the space ship. They disrupt the experience and make it harder to belive in an already fantastic world.
Game mechanics should be an aid to the GM. A tool both he or she and the players can use to help narate and construct a story. The should NEVER be a hinderance, something that the GM must take time to explain away through naration. The perfect game mechanics are those that you don't even notice due to their smooth integration into story, just like good special effects. The better they are, the more they blend into what is going on, become part of the world and cease to be something added on by the director.
I know that there are several games out there that are made to evoke specific moods and themes, such as 7th Sea and HKAT. These games have mechanics to represent this. DnD, at least to me, isn't one of those games. I have found that DnD benefits from a more realistic set of "physics" at least where human anatomy is concerned(not sure if that makes sense). Of course, perhaps DnD means somthing different to you than it does to me, and this may be the basis of our dissagreement.
The existence of magic and monsters does not throw all sensibility out the window. I've written before on the topic:
* How Important Is Realism In Fantasy?
* Wizards? In my mediaeval society?
There is realism, and then there is internal consistency. In other words, a world can be realistic with regard to itself, or realistic with regard to our own world, and each of these is a different thing.
Consistency is the key. Many people will agree that things must have a reasonable reason. Say there's a thousand storey high tower in one city. That's unrealistic by real-world standards, when we consider that mediaeval people didn't have the construction technology. It's realistic by fantasy world standards if we can explain it, the cliche of which is "a wizard did it".
This is a very subjective topic, and everyone will have their own opinion on what's "realistic".
There's physical realism, where "what we know about something" is violated. Personally, I can't stand spiked chains or many dire or double weapons, on a practicality level (spiked chain + forest encounter = self-entaglement). So they're not in my game. Falling damage is another example; a falling character's damage should follow a geometric progression. In the real world, falling thirty feet is far more than three times as bad as falling ten feet.
Also, everyone's got their idea of what D&D should be like. Greyhawk Grognards like me prefer the low-magic, low-powered AD&D style of play. When I get into a Forgotten Realms campaign, where every guard has a +1 weapon and you can drop in at the local magic shoppe and buy your power, it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Magic items aren't "realistic", but how a game handles them should be in line with the players' (and DM's) expectations.
Some gamers try to use this argument to nerf everyone else, or to build up their own character. I heard a monk's player exclaim that he should be able to beat any fighter in melee combat, since a Shaolin movie-monk would beat any European movie-knight. This is the most egregious usage of the "unrealistic" epithet.
Frankly, the hit point system (hell, the whole combat system) is unrealistic, especially when you start to throw monsters into the mix. If you look at it as an analogue for conflict resolution, instead of a blow-by-blow description of actual combat, then it's easier to accept.
Telas
"Realism" in a gaming sense, has little to do with whether or not there's monsters or magic (though the more life and flavor can be given to both, certainly the better since neither of them are nearly as interesting existing as naked numbers). Really what it comes down to to me is that roleplaying is telling a story--a real story, the kind that would be worth writing down, or making into a movie. I want a vivid, exciting, compelling story full of sweeping action and rich characters. This requires solid "realistic" mechanics that allow you to tell the kind of story you want to tell.
A certain amount of this comes down to physics, I suppose, in the sense that a character should not have so many "hit points" that they could be hurled off a cliff, or lit on fire, or run through with a sword, and still be fine. Mostly though it's about cinematics, that people die when they should, or succeed when they should, that magic feel right and dragons feel right too--but that two people going after each other with swords feel right. Now the giant thing is cool, and if I knew what the proper amount of strength per body mass actually should be I would probably mod that into my games too--but I don't so the provided mechanics seem resonable enough to me to be cinematically "realistic". Now granted if the above poster were able to likewise give an estimate on HP per size category he would earn immediate New Best Friend status, effective immediately.
I guess this is the thing. "Realism" in the gaming sense isn't about trying to make the game an unsatifying meatgrinder where characters get killed no sooner than play begins, nor is it about trying to purge the fantasy out of fantasy stories because it doesn't actually exist in our real-world physics. It's about making a story that feels like a great, fun story and doesn't feel like you're playing Monopoly or some cheesy tile based 80's video game RPG.
I'm pretty sure it was one of my comments in another thread that started this topic.
My intent was not to demand "no reality!" My intent was to point out the fact that in some cases, when it comes down to reality vs play balance, and the reality is not really a big deal, balance should win.
It comes down to the wuxia paradox. Should people realistically be able to fly around and walk on bamboo? No. But if it works in the game, you allow it. If the rules on such activity aren't totally realistic, but are the most fair they can be, then you roll with it.
In general, I feel there must be a modicum of reality in fantasy, because to truly have the escapist sensation fantasy offers, there has to be a realistic component to create familiarity.
I think the basic problem is that without some type of realism the players have trouble formulating complicated ideas predicated on their real world beliefs for a fanasy world that they havent really spent any time trying to understand the rules and how they differ. Lol, I do have one player who quite often tries to explain the Physics of the situation to me from his high school level education; hehe you should see the eyes roll around the room as me and my players consist of Engineers; electronic/robotic/laser techs; astrophysicists and whatnot down to this guy who plays a ranger and is a physical therapist. Sure realism has a place in the game to give us all a common understanding like which way is up but causes of things like gravity can be very different. As long as a GM has worked out the mechanics of his world and they can be investigated and learned; there is no problem as realism is only perpective anyway.
I think D&D works better with a certain amount of realism. In my group, one of the players often complains of the DM making us keep track of our rations, as well as the total weight of our character (gear and the character's weight). The player often complains that this is to realistic for a fantasy game. . .but she's perfectly okay with the fact that the epic level fighter with several hundred hit points could fall off of a skyscrapper, land, get up, move thirty feet, and attack. Oy. Everyone's got a different opinion of how much 'realism' should be in a fantasy RPG. Quite frankly, I think it's all up to the DM. I don't mind keeping track of how much food my character had, or being slightly concerned about falling though an old wooden bridge when the fighter wieghs close to four hundered pounds with all of his gear. I can also accept the fact that a man can wiggle his fingers, spout some gibberish, throw a ball of bat guanno at someone and cause a fireball. I think sometimes people get a little to hung up on the 'realism' thing.
I was in a game once when my halfling rogue wanted to jump onto a table to attack an orc. The DM ruled that the table was the same height as me and tried to bring relativity etc into the jumping rules.
Now realisticly, this makes sense but in a fantasy game, not so much. Anyone else get this?
|
Not to be snotty, but if the table was the same height as you, couldn't you run under the table, give the orc a poke in the femoral artery, and claim a concealment bonus? Unless you have one of those dm's out to teach you respec' for the laws of physics.
I know what you mean, though; as dm I would have allowed it because the image invoked by a hobbit up on a table trading blows with an orc would be cool. It's like Machiavelli said; fortune favors the bold.
But... if you fumble you get your foot stuck in a pot of gravy and fall all over the place; if the orc fumbles his axe gets stuck on the table, and you get a free shot at his face.
"Wait, you're having a salad? I cast Control Plants on his salad to make it give him diarrhea!"
At least among the players I know, "realism" tends to be more of a hindrance than a benefit to their play experience. Largely it may stem from how dire the personal need for escapism is. Immersibility is a key issue when trying to suspend one's disbelief to escape. Realism assists in immersibility.
"Okay, what's your Anti-Paladin's main goal in life; his big objective."
"Ummmm... get every wand in the book."
I don't have any problem with the realism in the game. My complaint was inspired by seeing posts all over the boards from people talking about how they don't like aspects of the game because they aren't realistic enough for them.
Like the hit point complaint. D&D is a heroic game. It works best when the players are doing over the top, remakable feats. It is pretty exciting to imagine a halfling standing up to a hill giant. In reality the giant would smush the halfling, but that's not fun to play. To make the game fun reality has to take a step back for game mechanics.
I started this just as a rant against the constant posts about how the game mechanics don't reflect reality. Yet not one of them has issue with the real fantastic elements. Why can they deal with magic, but not with the concept that levels provide an easy way to show advancement in a fantasy game?
Like the hit point complaint. D&D is a heroic game. It works best when the players are doing over the top, remakable feats. It is pretty exciting to imagine a halfling standing up to a hill giant. In reality the giant would smush the halfling, but that's not fun to play. To make the game fun reality has to take a step back for game mechanics.
Do I find the idea of a hill giant fighting a halfling a fun idea? Sure I do! But it's the thrill and danger of the encounter that makes me like it so much, the fact that the boulders whistling overhead would just crush the halfling into a nasty stain, and that in order to do damage to the hulking creature, the halfing grips him by his grimy rag clothing and begins to scale him like a mountain, shifting left and right to dodge collosal slaps and rocking to avoid getting shaken off, all the way up to the back of the creature's neck to begin working away at it with the weapons at his disposal until finally rewarded with a spray of arterial blood and the yawning sense of a giant pitching and falling beneath him.
You set the same thing up as the halfling and giant squaring off against each other, pounding each other toe to toe, back and forth, dagger to greatclub until finally the hill giant falls over dead because bizarrely he could take less damage. There's nothing exciting about that to me. There's nothing heroic, because the halfling ISN'T a halfling--he isn't acting like a halfling. In truth he's just a big pool of numerical values, a holdover from the days when gaming was young and gawky and wierd. This doesn't give me a thrill. It gives me a headache.
Again back to the magic, "realism" to me is the accurate portrayal of a world however it's supposed to be. If there are dragons, let the mechanics paint them the way they're supposed to be. If there's magic, let the mechanics paint them the way they're supposed to be. Ditto for the mechanics for fights and whatnot. If there's something in the setting that says that level really exists, that people balloon with new hit points every time they reach one, and that the heroism of the game is based on the fact that heroes are stuffed chalk so full of hit points that they're twenty feet in diameter and the consistancy of marble--then well you're setting is pretty goofball and if it were a movie, I would walk out.
Then again, there's really a movement where the story doesn't matter that much, that gaming's just an opportunity to nork around in one dungeon after another because everyone just can't get enough Diablo in their lives. If that's the case, then probably discussions of reality level are probably yeah a little more investment in things than you'd really care about. I mean if the story isn't important, then why bother right? Just roll the dice.
Page 25-28 of the DM Guide (DMG) has some variants for more realistic combat such as:
-Automatic hits and misses
-Defense roll
-Clobbered
-Massive Damage based on size
-Instant Kill
As for the subject that D&D isn't realistic, those are some official tips to make it more so. And there's always modern d20 adaptions for added realism. Since the DM has ¹nearly unlimited power over his gaming world, some imagination and iniative would improve the realism if that is what the group wanted to focus on.
---------
¹players
I started this just as a rant against the constant posts about how the game mechanics don't reflect reality. Yet not one of them has issue with the real fantastic elements. Why can they deal with magic, but not with the concept that levels provide an easy way to show advancement in a fantasy game?
I dunno, possibly because they see levels as foreign to their real life experiences (people don't have levels). I don't see much of a problem with using numbers like that to measure your overall power b/c...
-you have an IQ number to measure your intelligence
-your grade in education like high school freshmen or college graduate, is supposed to reflect your learning experiences
-your age is your level of maturity according to the ESRB
-belt system used in Karate to assess your abilities and Karate experience
I'd be easier to compare strength numbers then pounds per benchpress or number of sittups, I could just say "Str 8, and my Dex isn't much better."
As for the subject that D&D isn't realistic, those are some official tips to make it more so. And there's always modern d20 adaptions for added realism. Since the DM has ¹nearly unlimited power over his gaming world, some imagination and iniative would improve the realism if that is what the group wanted to focus on.
Thanks! Yeah I love this stuff. One of the big things I have always loved about d20 is how modular it is--take the stuff you like, drop in alternate rules to fit the mood of a certain setting and start playing. It's wonderful.
That's actually how this all started really, with some suggestions I use in my games to make them play a bit more like the action in movies and books rather than feeling wargamey/videogamey--dubbed "realism". The hope was to infuse some love into the game in ways that I thought made it play a lot better. The system I use has been dubbed the Grimcleaver system and is floating around here in a number of places.
This thread is sortova' response to that and related posts mostly by Kyr and Saern batting around possible changes to things that feel inconsistant or unrealistic in order to trim some of the clunk out of the RAW.
Thanks! Yeah I love this stuff. One of the big things I have always loved about d20 is how modular it is--take the stuff you like, drop in alternate rules to fit the mood of a certain setting and start playing. It's wonderful.
That's actually how this all started really, with some suggestions I use in my games to make them play a bit more like the action in movies and books rather than feeling wargamey/videogamey--dubbed "realism". The hope was to infuse some love into the game in ways that I thought made it play a lot better. The system I use has been dubbed the Grimcleaver system and is floating around here in a number of places.
This thread is sortova' response to that and related posts mostly by Kyr and Saern batting around possible changes to things that feel inconsistant or unrealistic in order to trim some of the clunk out of the RAW.
Awesome that Grimcleaver got so much attention :) I've been in groups that have done the opposite and made D&D more romantic. Game encounters as realistic as Anime or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon/Jet Li's Hero. Needless to say a lot of rules went out the window - for example, a talented on-the-fly DM, no dice or books, and 4-5 players including a few first timers.
Regarding realism in game, which I am actually a proponent of, I invoke the Usually Chain:
Realism USUALLY makes the game more complex, which USUALLY makes the game more complex, which USUALLY slows down the game, which USUALLY makes the game less fun.
So, if you can break the Usually Chain, awesome. If you can't, choke down your rage and deal with it. The game, regardless of how individual groups play it, is for one purpose: to have fun.
Just my two coppers. Although other people can use the usually chain if they like.
I think most have rolled their eyes while watching a movie, stating 'no one could ever do that'. Rule conciseness, balance, and the basic laws of physics being in place makes a nice framework in which to structure the game.
I think people worry too much about game balance. They worry too much about their characters being weak or losing a character. I think that's more of an obstacle and a headache than concerns for realism.
Roleplaying, at its core, is a bunch of people sitting around telling a fun story. Whatever makes for a good story. I think any story you can tell your friends about that makes them go "dude...that sounds sweet!" is the right kind of story.
One of the most fun RPGs I ever played was Star Trek: RPG from FASA. It was also the most "realistic" in the sense that combat was usually over in seconds, with disintegrated dust of PCs coating the bulkheads.
Most PCs had a CON of 60-80 and a disruptor pistol did 75 pts of damage, every time it hit.
Cover and concealment was not just your friend, it was your soul. Loved the game, had a blast, loved the absolute "pucker factor" you felt for your character every time a combat situation came up....even the powerful characters with high percentages in weapons never took any combat lightly.
If you were outnumbered 2 to 1....you freakin' ran or you were a red-shirt. It was a blast--we really used the S.T. pseudoscience to solve the game problems as much as we could.
I'm certainly not saying that D&D should be like that, but not every "realistic" game is necessarily boring.
That reminds me of when my friends and I played Top Secret. It had a much more "realistic" combat system. If you got shot in the torso or the head, you were toast. If you took damage to your arm, it was going to be useless, and if you got shot in the leg, you were immobile. Not automatically, but given the amount of damage firearms did and how many wound points you had in that area.
It was great for an espianage game, as it promoted stealth and planning, and not attacking until you knew you had an advantage, but that's just it. Some kinds of rules are more fun given what genre you are playing in, as the rules kind of support the "feel" of that genre.
The only problem I have is your EL3 group always runs into a EL3 monsters. How unrealistic is this.. Why is it only the EL1 Commoner has the bad day and stumbles upon the EL 13 dragon...poor commoners. Makes me Glad I am a 3 level fighter I don't have to run into the dragon for another 10 levels and if I don't want to I'll retire and open a Store and sell goods.
Top Secret/S.I. was great fun--much improved over the original Top Secret game. I remember that everyone took the toughness-2 attribute for those two crucial extra hit points in each body region.
D20 Modern isn't too bad--the fact that your "massive damage" threshold is equal to your CON score instead of the flat 50 points in D&D makes the game a bit more deadly.
The only problem I have is your EL3 group always runs into a EL3 monsters. How unrealistic is this.. Why is it only the EL1 Commoner has the bad day and stumbles upon the EL 13 dragon...poor commoners. Makes me Glad I am a 3 level fighter I don't have to run into the dragon for another 10 levels and if I don't want to I'll retire and open a Store and sell goods.
Yeah, that's the one thing I find annoying....I'm planning an encounter for my 13th level party and I keep asking myself how I can justify the fact that this entire castle has not a single man-at-arms below 5th level in it?
A couple of things about realism in the game:
1. Internal consistency is important, otherwise players start to question the DM and things just don't make sense. This isn't just about realism, but also how the rules work in the game. Certain things just have to make sense to us everyday mortals.
2. Battles and other stuff. Grimcleaver described the battle between the hill giant and the halfling perfectly. The onus is on the DM and players to impart realism into the game. Nothing is unbelievable if the DM and players can apply a bit of "creative realism" to the situation by using their imagination.
3. Variety. If you don't like the way a rule works and enough people in the group think it should be changed, then go ahead and change the rule if you think its more realistic. Don't want halflings jumping 30 feet into the air, then use the old 3rd Ed. Jump rules instead of the new rules and so on. Be sure you know what you are doing, though. Your small rules change can have an impact on the rest of the rules of the game. Some rules are unrealistic because otherwise things become much more difficult for the players or the DM. As someone already mentioned. Realism often = complexity = slowing down the game.
|
Thanks for the info.
Is the UA worth getting ? What is the opinion of the people here ?
I think the UA is one of the Top 5 books ever published by WotC. There's so much great stuff in there that is worth checking out that i'll use it for many, many campaigns to come. If i'd start to get into detail of the highlights i'd write pages of praise.
I love the book! If you're interested in different takes on existing rules or entirely new stuff to improve your game it is worth every cent. It is really refreshing and spiced up our games a lot. I'd never want to miss it...
I am a huge fan of the Grim & Gritty combat system. Where do I find the Grimcleaver rules?
Tam
Usually I inundate people with every detail of the system and they get overwhelmed and think it's really complicated when it isn't so I'll just give you the basics.
1. HP based on race, not class 4-halflings and gnomes 6-elves 8-humans and half-elves 10-dwarves 12-half-orcs. You add Con bonus as normal, but this doesn't go up with level--rather it only goes up when you get a Toughness feat or up your Con enough to raise your modifier.
2. Base Defense Bonus, your dodginess--based on class with classes like monk and rogue having the highest (basically the fighter BA progression) down to wizards, bards and sorcerers who have the worst (the wizard BA progression). This gets added to your Defense (AC).
3. No AC bonus for armor. Armor is treated as damage reduction equal to its AC bonus (ie. plate mail'll give a DR of 8).
4. Magic damage/healing is adjusted, taking the die type and adding number of dice as a flat numeric add (6d6 fireball=1d6+6 fireball)
That's the basics. There's more stuff, but that's all you really need. Mostly the rest are tweaks and rules of thumb that help smooth out wrinkles that result from the basic rules changes. No biggie. If you care to try them out I would encourage you to, we've been loving them and I'd always like some feedback!
I take it everyone plays half-orc wizards? d12's every level? Why would anyone want to play a halfling or gnome anything? If you're having fun with it, that's great, but I have to ask....
I take it everyone plays half-orc wizards? d12's every level? Why would anyone want to play a halfling or gnome anything? If you're having fun with it, that's great, but I have to ask....
Blarg no. The Intelligence hit makes half-orcs terrible wizards no matter what their hit die, and they have the worst Base Defense as a class of anyone.
Halflings and gnomes are usually stealth or range guys--and with physiology as large reason for that. This is not to say that a halfling with toughness or just a good solid Con modifier wouldn't do fine in combat. They're small and as such their base Defense is higher than anything else in the game--and with armor giving DR, Defense is hard to come by as a starting character.
That and remember decent armor will blunt most attacks significantly. Even studded leather eats three points off any attack. Armor makes it so weak attacks often do nothing at all, no matter what size you are, really benefiting the little guys most of all.
It really works a lot better than you'd think.
(Oh and I just caught something. It's not d12 every level--it's 12 hit points plus Constitution modifier, plus any feats. Period. It never goes up unless you buy toughness or get a better Con!)
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
The only problem I have is your EL3 group always runs into a EL3 monsters. How unrealistic is this.. Why is it only the EL1 Commoner has the bad day and stumbles upon the EL 13 dragon...poor commoners. Makes me Glad I am a 3 level fighter I don't have to run into the dragon for another 10 levels and if I don't want to I'll retire and open a Store and sell goods.
This is not the case in my games. The characters in the party were all level 9 and they came face-to-face with an ancient blue dragon in the middle of the desert who had been attracted by the sunlight glinting off the metal of the cleric's full plate armor. The dragon landed directly in front of them, paralyzed them with its Frightful Presence (except the cleric, who miraculously saved) and demanded the armor from him because he fancied it (it was +1 full plate and covered in gold embellishments). Naturally, the cleric complied. He didn't HAVE to, mind you. He could have been defiant and thought that there was no way the DM would send some CR 17 creature at them... he would've been wrong and he would have gotten the party killed if he'd refused to hand it over.
Another example was this human vampire with 12 fighter levels. The party was level 10 and they had seen him fight people before so they figured him for a level 12-14 fighter and they were right. However, I had been dropping clues that something was amiss about him. When it came down to it, the PCs learned that he was planning an assassination against a member of the local royalty. Instead of trying to report it to someone or having the royal guard deal with him, the party went to confront him all alone... and got DECIMATED. Only the elf ranger/wizard made it out alive and he promptly went to the cleric's temple and informed the high priest that there was a vampire in town. The local undead hunters turned out and, through combined effort, managed to bring this guy down.
Straight up confrontation should not always be the answer. Most of the time, sure, but sometimes the PCs CAN'T be the heroes. I like to teach my players that running away is occasionally the best plan. Not often, but sometimes. They had plenty of chances to flee the vampire in question, but they kept fighting thinking that 'he's gotta run out of hit points soon' but they were wrong.
Straight up confrontation should not always be the answer. Most of the time, sure, but sometimes the PCs CAN'T be the heroes. I like to teach my players that running away is occasionally the best plan. Not often, but sometimes. They had plenty of chances to flee the vampire in question, but they kept fighting thinking that 'he's gotta run out of hit points soon' but they were wrong.
See here's my problem. I've been in games like this and I always have to wonder how much this is just the DM strutting his badness for the players or working out his psychological inadequacies? My estimation is that as a creature becomes more powerful, it also becomes fantastically more rare. Its fine to have a dragon show up and demand the characters hand over their hard earned stuff or get killzored. Fine. But then it seems only fair that at least twice as often the opponents should be totally outmatched by the players and give them a chance to strut their stuff. The party's level 10? Have these badguys who are cool and ambitious and scary, but it turns out they're level 5 and the players just smash them in a one sided beatdown. I guarantee they'll love it! The problem is when DM ego gets in the way. It's like if the players get to flex their muscles and aren't scampering under a rock that the DM doesn't get to feel manly. Honestly players like to win, and love to kick butt. Conversely they really get tired of either scraping through every encounter half dead, spending every trick in the book just to live long enough to set up camp--or having to run lest their collective rears be gift wrapped and handed to them by some massive unbeatable muy macho baddy.
Granted maybe I'm off the mark in this case, but it's an attitude I've seen before that bugged me. My advice is to let the players school something at least twice (hopefully much more) before humiliating them by forcing them into an encounter that makes them run or die.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
...But then it seems only fair that at least twice as often the opponents should be totally outmatched by the players and give them a chance to strut their stuff. The party's level 10? Have these badguys who are cool and ambitious and scary, but it turns out they're level 5 and the players just smash them in a one sided beatdown. I guarantee they'll love it!
Oh, absolutely! I suppose I neglected to state the fact that, more often than not, the PCs are utterly superior to their opposition. Party of level 12s facing off against a dozen level 1 orcs, for example. Or a party of level 10s facing down a single ogre with basic gear. These things happen all the time. The PCs in my campaign are regarded as heroes across the country and when they have to run from something, it gets attention. I like to see them come up with ways to defeat a superior foe. Just because something is 4 or 5 CRs higher than the party level doesn't make it impossible, just tricky. I reward ingenuity in my games more than I reward simple hack n' slash monster kills. A wizard knew he was going to be taking on an evil outsider, so her prepared his spell list accordingly. He took out a CR 13 devil by himself... at level 8! He levelled from that experience alone because he proved that he knew what it would take and confronted the challenge. Just like in real life, some challenges are insurmountable and others are a cake-walk.
I dislike adventures where the bad guys just sit around waiting to get killed. My dungeons tend to be "fortified underground defensive positions" with integrated tactics and contingency plans against attacks, not just a flowchart to a series of vaguely connected individual combat encounters.
Oh, absolutely! I suppose I neglected to state the fact that, more often than not, the PCs are utterly superior to their opposition.
Personally, I tend toward a sometimes-usually-sometimes bell curve:
Sometimes the PCs go up against something much weaker than themselves; I like reminding them how far they have come in their power level. I don't think I've ever had a Player complain that an encounter was too easy!
Usually, I offer them level-appropriate encounters, because, to me, that's where a lot of the fun tension of the game comes in. The outcome of such a combat is in doubt, and the PCs must do well and try hard in order to succeed, but, if they do, they will probably win.
Sometimes, I present them with an opponent they cannot defeat. Most recently, I had a green dragon send the party on a mission. It was basically, "Do this for me or die." It was very scary for ME to do because I was afraid somebody would cop a paladin "We do not truck with evil" attitude and then I would have had to lay the beat-down on them, because that's what the dragon would have done.
Anyway, you sound like a fellow DM who likes it when the adventurers win, who throws in too-high AND too-low encounters to add to the game's realism, and who enjoys running a campaign based on the concept that the heroes are supposed to be heroic and that they can become renowned. There are too few of us, it sometimes seems.
Well put. I think sometimes we should realize that not every combat will always be perfectly fit to the situation.
Look at a movie like say, the Matrix. In the beginning agents are a serious danger, but Neo can handle them by the end. The fights are not always tailor made to them, but there are a lot that are.
That being said, most bad guys will probably have an idea of the relative power of any foes they plan on facing. So it is more likely they will be an even match, or be overmatched, in most situtations.
This is why I try to stress in many campaigns that there are some times that you have to run away, or make peace. Any time there is a chance to resolve anything in a fight, they will. So these alternating power levels will assist in problem resolution.
Realism couldn't hurt, and could provide much needed game balance.
For example weapons, why are weapons the way they are? Hardness checks, sunder, why not just use a percentile dice or a weapon hp system like Diablo?
Even the economics of the game don't make sense, why does a club cost the same amount as a quarterstaff? (Nothing.) Staffs are obviously better, so why would you pick a club? With an hp system, this could make sense to either choose a club or a staff.
And hp, hp is a flawed system, The Koga likes the mutants & masterminds system, that way throughout the entire game your health is the same (or atleast close to it.) the only thing that progresses is your abilities. As it should be..
Then again D&D as a whole is a very jank system. You'd be better off just using GURPS and slapping Dungeons&Dragons infront of it..