|
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071005
Ok, so let me get this straight. If I am standing in the center of a Great Wyrm Red Dragons Breath weapon with no way of hiding behind something or moving the huge blast of flame will actually miss me, unless he rolls high????????????????????????
WOW!!! Wish I had known that when we used to fire AT-4 in the Marines. Cause hell if I can just stand there and the fire will completely miss me then screw it, why run.
That my friends is stupid and completely unrealistic even in a fantasy world.
(Unless of course your a ninja... then maybe)
Ahem... yah I gotsta agree I know when I yell "backblast area all secure" most creatures tha knows whats good for them runs. Cause ain't no way they arnt gonna get hit.
A dragon making an "attack" roll against a static Reflex save is mathematically no different than a character making a Reflex roll against a static DC. Hell, both parties could make modified rolls and it wouldn't affect the odds significantly. This belief that whoever is making the roll is somehow in control of the situation is pure superstition.
|
Actually, if you have, say ten people in the blast radius, it makes a huge difference mathematicaly who rolls. Because it's either 1d20 with a hit/miss chance, or 10d20 EACH with a hit/miss chance. A HUGE difference mathematically.
And since the goal is to speed up combat, I highly doubt the dragon is going to roll for each target.
|
|
Yeah, I don't think so either.
Admittedly I have been playing for almost 20 years now. (Damn my brother and that little red box to hell) (Ok not really :) ) Yet it just doesn't seem right to be able to CRIT a fireball or even funble a fireball. (Though if it's a fumble then I'm calling a direct hit on the party with them flatfooted) By the same note I cannot see how someone standing in the middle of a breath weapon doesn't get a lil crispy (without some kind of ability better than a Reflex save.) Again in the Corps I actually and unfortunately got to see the effects of an AT-4 back blast on someone. Needless to say I never want to see something like that in person again, cause the only thing that didn't get toasted was the boots and they were smoking.
So I'm sorry if I can't buy into the whole, "Hey I'm a thousand years old and I just never got the hang of melting heroes." bit. I don't see how in the hell a dragon fumbles a breath weapon. What he forgot to breath. Damn, I knew I should have given him that auotmatic breathing feat!!!!
Think of it as less the dragon fumbling and more of the wizard conjuring a magical sheild or the fighter ignoring the brunt of it behind his armor or the ranger diving at exactly the right moment . . .you know, you've probably DM'd just flavor it. (if indeed a dragon can fumble or miss on its breath weapon)
I'm just saying that I can deal with half dmg... but it says if the dragon rolls a one he somehow completely missed the everyone who is dead center in front of him. Maybe it's just the Marine in me talking but it's just silly.
No, actually. It says: "The dragon might roll a 1 and automatically miss no matter how much tougher it is than you..."
And just two sentences prior, it establishes what happens when the dragon misses: "When a dragon breathes fire on you, it attacks your Reflex and deals half damage if it misses."
All it's saying is that a roll of one automatically 'misses', which is more or less the same as rolling a 20 on a save and automatically succeeding.
|
|
I'm just saying that I can deal with half dmg... but it says if the dragon rolls a one he somehow completely missed the everyone who is dead center in front of him. Maybe it's just the Marine in me talking but it's just silly.No, actually. It says: "The dragon might roll a 1 and automatically miss no matter how much tougher it is than you..."
And just two sentences prior, it establishes what happens when the dragon misses: "When a dragon breathes fire on you, it attacks your Reflex and deals half damage if it misses."
All it's saying is that a roll of one automatically 'misses', which is more or less the same as rolling a 20 on a save and automatically succeeding.
Yes, but whatDamitall22 is saying is it misses EVERYONE, which is quite statistically different from missing that one guy in the blast radius who rolled a 20.
Here's the thing. I don't get how one side miraculously escaping half damage with a roll or the other side miraculously missing every single target is any less game mechanicky. They're both pretty fake. They come from the wargame roots of the system.
Here's a dose of practicality. Why not just handle the situation as you would any other situation in the game? A gob of flame is flying toward all of you. Those of you familiar with the spell feel a sick plummet in your stomachs, knowing that when it hits, it will unleash a twenty-five foot globe of fiery death. The fighter swigs a potion of fire resistance and raises his metal tower shield and rushes forward as fast as he can to intercept the blast halfway and save his friends from the worst effects. The cleric holds out her hands to grab him back, shouting "Noooo!!" but the rest of the rest of the party restrain her and haul it to the far side of the room to try and get as far away as possible. Fwamph! Hot air blasts the party back into the bookcases at the far end of the chamber, burying them in a tide of heavy leather tomes, doing them a die 6 of falling damage each. Behind them in the greasy smoke and waving heat mirage lays the prostrate fighter with his shield over him, his body blackened and singed with skin splitting in places from the inferno...but due to the magic of the potion he imbibed, he stirs and painfully rises and picks up his sword.
Why couldn't magic feel more like that? Why are magic specific saves even necessary? They just have always felt like a cheap cop-out.
I can see it missing on a reflex "AC". Basically the nimble rogue leaps out of the way barely in time (but still takes half damage, mind you). What I dont see is, one roll for everyone, against the best reflex save, oops bad roll, no one gets hit, everyone, much like a chorus line of dancers leaps away.I could believe a dragon or whatever missing, easier.
Of course you know what this will mean
"AOE attacks all around, mage blanket the area with fireballs!"
"come on people, suppression fire!!"
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
If the system works the way I expect (from everything I've read) Area Attacks will work like this: Dragon breaths fire makes one check and compares the result to each hero in the area of effect. The dragon rolls high enough that his roll exceeds the Fighter and Cleric's Reflex DC but not the Rogue or the Bard's Reflex DCs. So the Fighter and cleric take full X damage, the Bard takes half-X, while the Rogue avoids all damage because she has evasion.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071005
Ok, so let me get this straight. If I am standing in the center of a Great Wyrm Red Dragons Breath weapon with no way of hiding behind something or moving the huge blast of flame will actually miss me, unless he rolls high????????????????????????
WOW!!! Wish I had known that when we used to fire AT-4 in the Marines. Cause hell if I can just stand there and the fire will completely miss me then screw it, why run.
Red Dragons... The new Stormtroopers.
Hmm, if it's one roll for an area attack, then yeah there is difference: it's like a single save roll for the entire party (but they each add their own modifier). Everybody shares in a critical or fumble. If only half the party makes their save, it will always be the half with the appropriate good save instead of usually. Is this necessarily a bad thing?
As for being able to 'miss' with a fireball: the evasion ability already allows for this. This is more cinematic than realistic, but again, is that a bad thing? If you're not going to make an attack/save for the fireball, why not just have flat damage?
I guess here's my thing. If you get a reflex save to escape a ray of death or a fireball with minimal damage, why not a sword or a big grudly giant fist, or a pile of falling rocks?
It's entirely an arbitrary mechanic designed by the Game Balance Boys who said "okay...so there's gotta' be a downside to magic, right?" Saving throws were the answer. You can jump out of the way of a ray of disintigration, see? But not an arrow?
It's all just a fakey way of imposing some kind of false game balance on everything. I just don't see it. I say get rid of the glass walls that are supposed to create "balance" and let things be what they are supposed to be in the descriptions. There is nothing lamer than tense action and excitement and players having to come up with cool ideas to get out of trouble being replaced by numbers and tie rolls. It would be like if there was a wisdom save to traps, so every time you ran into a trap there was no roleplaying element to overcoming them or even looking for them. It would be like:
*clatter* "You find a trap but disable it at the last second."
Yuck-yuck-yuck!
I guess here's my thing. If you get a reflex save to escape a ray of death or a fireball with minimal damage, why not a sword or a big grudly giant fist, or a pile of falling rocks?
And soon they'll all work pretty much the same way. It is arbitrary, because you can't - and don't want to - replicate reality.
There is nothing lamer than tense action and excitement and players having to come up with cool ideas to get out of trouble being replaced by numbers and tie rolls.
I don't think changing who makes the roll - where there already is a roll - creates this kind of situation.
I guess here's my thing. If you get a reflex save to escape a ray of death or a fireball with minimal damage, why not a sword or a big grudly giant fist, or a pile of falling rocks?
You do. That reflex save is called Dexterity bonus to AC.
I like the way this mechanic sounds a lot actually. I love the idea of being able to crit with a Fireball, or a dragon's breath. I also like the idea that you can critically miss as well.
It seems like a good idea to have the attacker rolling instead of the defender.
I am with the first two posters, but then I am a vet and a fire sign :)
And soon they'll all work pretty much the same way. It is arbitrary, because you can't - and don't want to - replicate reality.
I don't know that I don't want to replicate a certain amount of reality. Games are more fun the more real they feel, the more you can really stretch out in them, the more they feel the way they should. You can grab the dirt of it and squish it between your fingers. It feels like a great story. Lame mechanics don't make for a great story. They make for a frustrating one where you're constantly shrugging to your players and saying "Hey, look I know it doesn't make any sense, but look it says that things work that way here on page 23..."
Between that and a healthy dose of common sense reality, I'll go for the reality.
I don't think changing who makes the roll - where there already is a roll - creates this kind of situation.
I guess you're assuming I'm either on the pro or anti side of the 4.0 way of doing saves. The truth is I'm really kind of against any kind of cheesy save, no matter who makes it or if they already do or not. I think "saves" should be a matter of roleplay and adjudicated as would any other situation in game. Personally I would much rather characters just play through it. It just makes for a better story.
You do. That reflex save is called Dexterity bonus to AC.
Totally. I couldn't agree more.
I guess you're assuming I'm either on the pro or anti side of the 4.0 way of doing saves. The truth is I'm really kind of against any kind of cheesy save, no matter who makes it or if they already do or not. I think "saves" should be a matter of roleplay and adjudicated as would any other situation in game. Personally I would much rather characters just play through it. It just makes for a better story.
Then you've been 'against' a core mechanic that has persisted through all D&D's permutations. Basic, advanced, second edition, third edition, and now the upcoming fourth edition. It's not exactly something new or surprising.
|
|
Sure that saving throw mechanic takes a lot of work from the DM but it also generates some ridiculous situations:
Imagine a Dragon and in from of him 100 rogues. All are in the same level. 99 Rogues have Dex 16 one has Dex 18. Now it is just one roll of the die if a) all rogues will be affected fully b) 99 rogues will affected fully and one take half damage or c) if all take half damage.
Sound counterintuitive and unrealistic to me.
This mechanics will also assure that if a mass charm spell effects the cleric it will always effect the rogue and fighter too.
Same goes if it is Fortitude Save. If the Fighter goes down, so go all the other PCs. Or Rogues and Reflex.
Never again we will see a Rogue that is unaffected by the Charm and can rescue his Cleric Companion.
Of course, above examples assume that all PCs are on equal levels and have their best attributes on their main characteristics.
To sum it up, I know why they changed the mechanics and it will certainly help the DM but I do not like it very much.
Lame mechanics don't make for a great story.
My beef with D&D since I started gaming. I am glad to see others starting to come around.
Then you've been 'against' a core mechanic that has persisted through all D&D's permutations. Basic, advanced, second edition, third edition, and now the upcoming fourth edition. It's not exactly something new or surprising.
Eh. Sue me. Then it's been a crappy core mechanic for a long time then. I'm against all sorts of "sacred cow" game mechanics that stink.
* Armor that makes you hard to hit but doesn't actually protect you at all when you get hit? Gone. Armor gives DR rather than AC.
* Hit points that go up level by level until your character is this bloated tumorous mass of muscley flesh the size of a tavern? Gone. You get your racial hit point allotment (8 for humans) modified by your Con bonus. Want more? Buy Toughness!
* First level halflings with 12 hit points and half-orcs with 4. STOOPID! Hit points are by race, not class.
Yeah, my aversion to dumb mechanics is not new. I tend to like clean mechanics and smooth storytelling. The rules are just a means to that end.
|
|
I don't know that I don't want to replicate a certain amount of reality. Games are more fun the more real they feel, the more you can really stretch out in them, the more they feel the way they should. You can grab the dirt of it and squish it between your fingers. It feels like a great story. Lame mechanics don't make for a great story. They make for a frustrating one where you're constantly shrugging to your players and saying "Hey, look I know it doesn't make any sense, but look it says that things work that way here on page 23..."
In that case, your level 20 fighter just tore his rotator cuff when he picked up his 700 lb adamantine sword.
The wizards smells like a stinking cloud because heavy accodemic robes, no matter how magical, are not proper swamp attire.
Your cleric is away studying a new branch of theolgy called germ theory, and he will be back soon and ready to cure disease for you.
And the rogue, the poor poor sot, is being burried this evening because he died of ghona-syphil-AIDS
Hurray for the reality of high adventure
In that case, your level 20 fighter just tore his rotator cuff when he picked up his 700 lb adamantine sword.The wizards smells like a stinking cloud because heavy accodemic robes, no matter how magical, are not proper swamp attire.
Your cleric is away studying a new branch of theolgy called germ theory, and he will be back soon and ready to cure disease for you.
And the rogue, the poor poor sot, is being burried this evening because he died of ghona-syphil-AIDS
Hurray for the reality of high adventure.
Ah see now here we address the difference between realism with fantasy elements, and a dry historical campaign.
700 pound sword? Yeah, that's straight out. You bring that stuff to my table you get handed your stuff and laughed right out the door.
Stinky wizards? They exist sure, but mostly since prestidigitation can clean clothes it's not a thing. Most are urban creatures anyway since all the libraries are in town and wizards can afford to live there.
Germ theory? Man most disease is bad air, or curses from the gods, or spontaneous generation, or the result of taint from unnatural creatures. That stuff is real here, man.
And yeah, ever since the Book of Vile Darkness came out, the rogue has had to mend his ways--at least periodically--enough to merit a use of Cure Disease.
|
|
I don't know that I don't want to replicate a certain amount of reality. Games are more fun the more real they feel, the more you can really stretch out in them, the more they feel the way they should. You can grab the dirt of it and squish it between your fingers. It feels like a great story. Lame mechanics don't make for a great story. They make for a frustrating one where you're constantly shrugging to your players and saying "Hey, look I know it doesn't make any sense, but look it says that things work that way here on page 23..."In that case, your level 20 fighter just tore his rotator cuff when he picked up his 700 lb adamantine sword.
The wizards smells like a stinking cloud because heavy accodemic robes, no matter how magical, are not proper swamp attire.
Your cleric is away studying a new branch of theolgy called germ theory, and he will be back soon and ready to cure disease for you.
And the rogue, the poor poor sot, is being burried this evening because he died of ghona-syphil-AIDS
Hurray for the reality of high adventure
This is a bit off topic, but why does his sword weigh 700lbs? It should weigh about the same, as any other sword of it's type.
|
|
Then you've been 'against' a core mechanic that has persisted through all D&D's permutations. Basic, advanced, second edition, third edition, and now the upcoming fourth edition. It's not exactly something new or surprising.Eh. Sue me. Then it's been a crappy core mechanic for a long time then. I'm against all sorts of "sacred cow" game mechanics that stink.
* Armor that makes you hard to hit but doesn't actually protect you at all when you get hit? Gone. Armor gives DR rather than AC.
* Hit points that go up level by level until your character is this bloated tumorous mass of muscley flesh the size of a tavern? Gone. You get your racial hit point allotment (8 for humans) modified by your Con bonus. Want more? Buy Toughness!
* First level halflings with 12 hit points and half-orcs with 4. STOOPID! Hit points are by race, not class.
Yeah, my aversion to dumb mechanics is not new. I tend to like clean mechanics and smooth storytelling. The rules are just a means to that end.
Hit points are not just your physical health and mounds of flesh. They represent a combintion of luck, skill, morale, and physical health. Most of your hit points are luck or skill at avoiding potentially lethal blows or adrenaline and determination to shrug off pain and discomfort. Those last few hit points are your real, physical health.
Hit points are not just your physical health and mounds of flesh. They represent a combintion of luck, skill, morale, and physical health. Most of your hit points are luck or skill at avoiding potentially lethal blows or adrenaline and determination to shrug off pain and discomfort. Those last few hit points are your real, physical health.
That is a quote from the First Edition DMG IIRC. It made no sense back then, and it makes no sense now. If the last few HP were a true representative of your health, then why is your character able to function just fine with only one hp left, and then dying from another dagger scratch that brought him to -1 hp? If the last, say 5 to 10 hp should really represent your bodily health, then there should be penalties for losing even one of them - say, the last 5 hp are your physical health, then losing one should net you a -2 penalty on all rolls or something like that (look at rpgs without class levels to see what I mean - WoD or Ars Magica or Shadowrun come to my mind. You get penalties for losing your health, as it should be). The D&D hit point system never represented a realistic approach to a characters health, and never wanted to. The same is true for all other game mechanics in the game.
So accusing D&D rules of being unrealistic makes about as much sense as accusing politicians and used car dealers of bending and stretching the truth - it is part of the system. Now, the excess should be stopped, but you can´t expect it to stop completely.
Stefan
I agree with Stebehil. All game systems are abstractions of reality. The level of abstraction each person can handle before their suspension of disbelief is broken is a matter of preference.
D&D breaks my suspension, takes its wallet and starts dating its ex girlfriend.
Hit points are not just your physical health and mounds of flesh. They represent a combintion of luck, skill, morale, and physical health. Most of your hit points are luck or skill at avoiding potentially lethal blows or adrenaline and determination to shrug off pain and discomfort. Those last few hit points are your real, physical health.That is a quote from the First Edition DMG IIRC. It made no sense back then, and it makes no sense now. If the last few HP were a true representative of your health, then why is your character able to function just fine with only one hp left, and then dying from another dagger scratch that brought him to -1 hp? If the last, say 5 to 10 hp should really represent your bodily health, then there should be penalties for losing even one of them - say, the last 5 hp are your physical health, then losing one should net you a -2 penalty on all rolls or something like that ... The D&D hit point system never represented a realistic approach to a characters health, and never wanted to. The same is true for all other game mechanics in the game.
Stefan
While not a radical overhaul of the mainstream D&D hp mechanics, I do very much like what Monte Cook did w/ Arcana Evolved, w/ his rules for "Disabled, Dying & Death". It avoids the silliness of going full-bore at 1 hp, being disabled at 0 hp, and dying at -1 hp. There's a much bigger "Disabled" cushion, in short, and it's based on your actual Con stat.
I'm just saying that I can deal with half dmg... but it says if the dragon rolls a one he somehow completely missed the everyone who is dead center in front of him. Maybe it's just the Marine in me talking but it's just silly.
Well, I haven't been a Marine, so take this as you will, but I would think if you have a bunch of little critters running around you - (what would be the same relative size to a human? 1 foot tall?) - and they are all hitting you with swords, arrows, magic missles, and such, and you try spitting a gob of fire at these little critters which may or may nt be "dead center in front" of you... well, I'd say there's a 5% chance of missing them - especially considering if you are breathing fire in a cone, it makes it a bit hard to see your targets. :)
(Besides, I hope modern weaponry is a lot more accurate than some big lizard breathing fire.) ;)
Hit points are not just your physical health and mounds of flesh. They represent a combintion of luck, skill, morale, and physical health. Most of your hit points are luck or skill at avoiding potentially lethal blows or adrenaline and determination to shrug off pain and discomfort. Those last few hit points are your real, physical health.
Right. That's always been the stock answer. The problem is, you can't do damage to my luck. You can't stab or chop my skill or determination. Does a healing spell make me get my adrenaline or morale back? A lot of these things, things that turn a hit into a miss (like luck and skill) are a measure of AC (or Defense) and some of the others, like adrenaline and the ability to shrug through discomfort sound like the Barbarian DR or the definition of the Toughness feat (which is 3 extra HP which come from hardiness come from close scrapes with death and wearing yourself to burger).
Yes, the rules are an abstraction. Amen and I'm glad for a nice useful abstraction. The alternative is something like a medical report where you have to know every aspect of human physiology in every grisly detail--whereupon you should really be a doctor and be pulling down the big money.
My problem isn't when rules are abstract. It's when they're abstract and lame.
|
My problem isn't when rules are abstract. It's when they're abstract and lame.
But isn't the alternative something that would turn D&D into a Shadowrun-like system where a fight is really to be avoided because of the extreme lethality of it? To me, the point of D&D is to recreate those scenes from Conan (the Howard version, not the movie versions), Elric, Fahfard and the Grey Mouser, even scenes from LotR where epic battles are fought and the heroes survive to fight again the next day? I am not saying that the approach you advocate is bad (I love Shadowrun) but it changes the feeling of the game greatly. Combat would become something that would have to be carefully planned and ambushes organized after significant data gathering trips/spells to ensure the characters can tip the scales in their favor. At least that is the way we do it in Shadowrun where the weapons outstrip the armor by a fair amount and a single hit can kill you or hurt you so badly that the next hit certainly does. With odds like that, who would want to fight? I suppose it would drive more RP solutions to problems which is fine, but it does make a large section of the monster manual rather pointless. Well it would unless you weakened the monters signficantly so they posed no real threat to the PCs.
Hmm now that I say that, it sounds alot like the SW Saga Stormtrooper rules, something that keeps getting mentioned on this forum.
I think of Hit Points in terms of Buffy: The Vampire Slayer.
A few points of damage: Buffy is knocked back, but her hair and makeup are still flawless.
Some more damage: Buffy grunts, there's a loose strand of hair and smudge on her cheek.
Serious damage: Buffy is *gasp* bruised - it must be a climactic encounter.
I fully understand if hp are not realistic enough for some people, but they're not without precedent.
I haven't seen it. Between armor as DR (which really makes a big difference--shaving anywhere from 1-8 points of damage off of each hit) and the Base Defense Bonus that gives nimble characters like rogues and monks a serious boost to their Defense (same progression as Fighter BAB) it keeps the game feeling pretty heroic, but for solid reasons that make sense and are easy to narrate.
Seriously we lose characters now and then, but it's not like our games are crazy deadly. It works out pretty well for us.
Also, were I to try to run a Conan or LotR style uber-adventure with single characters mowing through hundreds of foes and the points of their spears breaking against their steely well oiled Fabio abs, I would most likely create a patch set of rules to reflect that over the top style. Most of our games are much more down to earth. Characters dish and take about what you'd expect. Magic does what it's supposed to. But all in all it's not one of those fires from on high grab the dragon by the horns and pike it on a mountain kind of game.
The problem is, you can't do damage to my luck. You can't stab or chop my skill or determination. Does a healing spell make me get my adrenaline or morale back?
Sure you can. To borrow Lich-Loved's Shadowrun analogy think of it this way. When you get damaged in most damage meter games, like SR or WoD, you take penalties to things you try to do. Hit points do this in a more abstract way. You don't think magical healing would give you back both adrenaline and morale? I have to disagree. I think that exactly what they do, along with healing the flesh. A character who has had damage removed from them would be more clear headed, would be in less pain, so less distracted. IMHO HP's work better for an epic game like D&D for the simple fact that sure one person to the next might not be more healthy, but they would have more experience, more training, a higher ability to "deal with the crap coming at them" than a lower level character. Think of your career soldier compared toa raw recruit. That's what Hitpoints reflect, something that stats and skills and even feats cant. I have never understood why people have a problem with that. It seems pretty obvious to me. *shrugs*
|
|
John McLane in Die Hard is for me the best example of Hit Point loss without Healing.
As the film evolves he gets more bruised and his shirt more dirty. But he still continues to fight.
See him as a fighter or paladin or whatever.
See the Nakamura Tower as a Tower/Dungeon and the Terrorists as the Monsters (with the rest of the hostages as NPCs).
McLane has almost no chance to cath a breath not to speak of resting but he still manages to take out the terrorists one by one.
|
|
I haven't seen it. Between armor as DR (which really makes a big difference--shaving anywhere from 1-8 points of damage off of each hit) and the Base Defense Bonus that gives nimble characters like rogues and monks a serious boost to their Defense (same progression as Fighter BAB) it keeps the game feeling pretty heroic, but for solid reasons that make sense and are easy to narrate.
Seriously we lose characters now and then, but it's not like our games are crazy deadly. It works out pretty well for us.
I dont want to threadjack here, but what do you do about lightly armored fighters, true Conan types? They lack the DR from armor, how do they handle combat without a pile of hitpoints to reflect their toughness? And FWIW, I can see that your type of system is workable; I am not degrading it, just curious 'tis all.
John McLane in Die Hard is for me the best example of Hit Point loss without Healing.
Hah, that's just great! For years I've explained the notion of Hit Points to players as "The Bruce Willis Factor" so it made me smile to see someone use the same analogy. :D
I dont want to threadjack here, but what do you do about lightly armored fighters, true Conan types? They lack the DR from armor, how do they handle combat without a pile of hitpoints to reflect their toughness? And FWIW, I can see that your type of system is workable; I am not degrading it, just curious 'tis all.
Prior to the announcement of 4E (at which point I stopped playtesting it) I did this by using the Defense Bonus (rather than Armor Class) couple with a Damage Threshold system (this was before the publication of SW Saga btw). The base DT was equal to a character's Fortitude save only they added their Charisma rather than Constitution bonus as the ability modifier (this was to reflect divine providence). Physical Armor added to DT as did the Toughness feat.
Any damage exceeding the DT would be taken as Wound Point damage whereas the rest was simply Vitality Point damage. It worked pretty well but I like the version used in SW Saga better now that I've seen it.
In addition, to simulate the Conan/Legolas factor, I allowed a +1 bonus to a character's Dexterity Bonus to Defense for every 5 points in Jump and Tumble. Since the Max Dex Bonus is always limited by the type of armor a character is (or is not) wearing, this kept things from getting out-of-hand.
|
|
I can see your point Grimcleaver. I guess some aspects of hit points are on the lame side. Scratch the the luck and replace it with fatigue. When someone is damaged in the game, say that they narrowly avoided a crippling blow and receive a scratch or bruise instead. As the fight wears on, the PC's get more and more fatigued and distracted by pain, which makes it more difficult to avoid deadly blows. Magical healing, removes or lessens the fatigue and pain in addition to healing the many cuts and bruises. When someone takes enough damage to become disabled or dying, describe the hit as a mortal wound (their skull is cracked, they are run through, have a huge gash across their chest, etc.). If you want to get really fancy, have them make saving throw equal to half the damage done when they are critted or they take a -2 penalty to everything, or use damge threshold and the condition track from SW Saga.
Hmm, if it's one roll for an area attack, then yeah there is difference: it's like a single save roll for the entire party (but they each add their own modifier). Everybody shares in a critical or fumble. If only half the party makes their save, it will always be the half with the appropriate good save instead of usually. Is this necessarily a bad thing?
Yes, it is a bad thing. Its somethng I've been tossing and turning around in my mind for a weeks now now.
1) Players no longer have the "illusion" of saving themselves. its FUN to have the chance to toss that saving throw die and see if you survive or not. It makes it FEEL like your fate is in your hands. yes mathematically vs. single targets the proposed 4.0 system is exactly the same, but why take the die out of the players hand?
--"Oh the dragons breathing again, well Joe Fighter whats your Reflex defense? Still 14? Damn my dragons breath attack roll is +14.. Eww...SOrrry, your gonna be taking full damage again..."
2) Its a hundred times easier to jack up the bonus to ONE ROLL as opposed to increasing the rolls of an entire party. I fear escalation factors here. ALl it takes is a few bad feats or spell modifiers and it will most likely be possible to make a Wizard or creature with a base "Magic attack roll" modifier to be well above the average parties reflex defense for a given level.
--Teflon Billy 4.0--
"Im the Hidden flame staff wielder fire specalist with my wand +6 of fire and fire specilization. Ohhh Loook my base MAB for a fireball is +18...Whats the monsters average save at this level? 12? Fireballs comming online!!"
Well thats how I see it. We all know there are lots of cheese weasels out there, the new edition will be no different.
I'm all for speeding up the game, but not at the cost of removing my percieved sense of control over my characters fate. Yeah YEah, i've heard the argoument "But AC is static! WHy don't you complain about that!" WEll, simple. most physical attacks ARE NOT AOEs.
Well, with all the new Maneuvers being added in in 4th edition, I guess they had to implement this change to static defenses. If its at all like the book of nine swords (WHich they keep quoting as a preview of 4th) every class is gong to have manuevers, many of which are AoE based. Even your fighter will be doing "dance of the wind" or some such nonsense throwing around AoE damage. So in the name of expediency (and not having to roll 200 saving throws every round of combat) I think thats why this new system has replaced player saving throws.
* Evil Grin* Well thats my 2 cents anyhow.
------FEAR THE OSQUIP--------
I really wonder exactly _how_ much this will speed up the game. It's not excessive die rolling that's the problem, it's obscure rules and the players not knowing rules pertaining to their characters that take time. And adjudcating rules. I am under the impression that a lot of the changes aren't exactly changing things drastically. An attack roll instead of a saving throw is the same, it just changes who's rolling the dice. Change for change's sake? Lame.
The only thing I'm positive about is if they manage to cut down on DM prep time. Then again, I only see a snowball's chance in hell of me switching to 4th edition.
I have to say the Bruce Willis way of spinning things isn't bad, though it's hard for me to justify someone taking 9 points of damage from getting smudges and a grungy shirt--nevertheless I think it's a heck of a lot better than the erroding nimbleness shield you get with the Vitality system which I think is just dumb and can't stand. I would still probably have to play in a group that does it really well and take it around the block for a couple of laps before I could get used to it. I really do hate level HP. Still, if run right I guess it might be able to work in a way that didn't make me die. I like a lot of your ideas.
As far as the question about how we run lightly armored characters (and I really don't want to threadjack this thread any more than I have) the thing to remember is that guys like Conan were't shirtless hulks running through armies with an axe at first level. Not that doing that will kill you necessarily--just that it's much riskier--akin to an average person with no combat experience going out without armor--a real risk. That said, characters get a Base Defense Bonus that progresses in the same three progressions you get for BAB based on how much a class excels at dodging and nimble escapes. Monks and rogues do best at this, unsuprisingly mages still do the worst. So take the right classes or be high enough level and you can get away with no armor because no one will be able to hit you. You're good enough at predicting where the blades will be that you can duck and weave around them. Most starting characters however are advantaged greatly by armor. Still even if a starting character gets the worst case scenario and gets hit by another average NPC (assuming no stat mod bonuses either way) then he can still take a hit or two without going down. The typical damage yield for a weapon is 1d8. He'd have to crit or max out his roll to take out the character in one hit.
Granted I don't run "muss your hair" style HP loss. There's big bleeding gashes and shock and broken bones and the whole deal, but you can live through a couple of good hits--usually.
This is not to say that players can't get bonuses for cleaver tactics and strategy. Sneaking up through the woods and disarming an opponent before he knows your there is still a much better way to fight than running at him with a big grin waving your sword around like a maniac (though that can really be fun too...)
Hey and it's not all weaker than canon. After all, there's always the half orc wizard with the 12 starting HP before Con modifier is added in. That alone has been a selling point for some folks.