Going back to the high level 'death was too quick in 3.5' argument...What exactly is wrong with death being much more likely at high levels? In our groups we've always understood that with greater (ie high level) rewards comes greater peril (dear god the dragon just crit my pants off).
It forces people to start coming up with plans and working as a team or they die. I personally like the current death and dying rules because it inserts a slight pause in a players mind before heading into the great old wyrm's lair and initiating combat with the horrid thing before them.
You gotta ask yourself "Do I feel lucky?...Well...Do ya punk?"
Another stubborn 3.5'er here.
|
I like the setup, it might not be perfect but I think it will work.
I think the natural 20 to 1/4 hps might be a little high but it might work because most people will not roll that 20 very often and even if they do their still in trouble.
You have a fighter with a 120 total points and he 'revives' with 40 he have got about one or two more hits before he is dying again so this just gives him a chance to withdraw and get some really healing.
As far as all the monsters go I would play it that they just fail their three rolls and dye so the PC have three rounds to stabilize any monster they want.
Does these rules (in the original post)regarding death & dying apply to villain NPC's, monsters, etc. also; and if not, Why?
Going back to the high level 'death was too quick in 3.5' argument...What exactly is wrong with death being much more likely at high levels? In our groups we've always understood that with greater (ie high level) rewards comes greater peril (dear god the dragon just crit my pants off).
Well sure, but what if you don't want to play like a timid mouse, or spend 2 hours making plans for every encounter? Then you die a lot, which is undesirable, because then what happens when you do die a lot?
Either you get raised, you make a new character, or you stop playing. And any of those options aren't great if they happen all the time. I don't think anybody likes the idea that players should get raised all the time. Making new PCs all the time is a little silly too, especially for games where the story matters over the long term. You end up with situations where halfway through a quest, suddenly nobody who was even sent out on the quest to begin with is left. Plus there's the silly situation of "hi new guy, I know we just met, but let's all suddenly trust each other with our lives."
I know that in my current 3.5 campaign (level 13), there would be a death probably every session on average if there weren't spells like "delay death". And I don't like that spell.
My players like they way they're playing, and I do too. I don't want them to have to start treading on eggshells around every monster which can do more than 10 damage a hit. And I don't want to just have to say "sorry guys, it looks like high level D&D is too tough for you, let's just go back to 4th level for it to be fun again."
I'm not 100% on board the system in the article, but it sounds better that what we've got.
|
I like the general direction. It never made sense to me that it took a load of damage to drive a high level fighter to the unconscious/dying state but the same number of points of damage to kill every living thing once it hit zero. Ancient Red Dragon? -10 House Cat? -10 Fly? -10 Orcus? -10 Chuck Norris? -10 CON of 3? -10 CON of 103? -10
I am willing to give this a try. Seems like it might work out okay.
BTW - the whole roll-a-20 thing is okay with me if 4E defines HP as being some abstraction for endurance rather than physical damage. Think about the number of film heroes who, being on the edge of death's door, jump up and save the day. I believe this may be the reason for this part of the rule.
And here I thought that the nat 20 got you back up with 1 hit point...
Anyway, the jist of hit points seems to be interpreted in whatever way suits the context of the game best. Second Wind is another feature that follows in theme with the new negative hit points. Its more of a cinematic thing than randomized supra-regenerating.
As CWM said, its like in movies or other media where you think the hero is down and out, but they "arent quite dead yet". Works just fine for me.
|
I agree that death and dying could use some tweaking, and I don't really mind the proposed rules for this.
In my games we usually allow characters to go to -Con (which makes CON poison much scarier). But usually that let's them go to -12 to -16 before death, which can be good.
What I don't like is the rules building in DM fiat.
I have always been ABLE to make up rules for story purposes, or alter situations. But I think that too many DMs ABUSE the power, and this doesn't do anything to address that. When the players know that the monsters are playing with the same rules they are, they (rightly) think things are more fair. As the DM I can already DO anything, so accepting some limitations to increase the fun for the group isn't a big deal.
I may take a version of this into my current game, but these are the kinds of things that 3rd edition is good at adapting. No reason to switch for a new edition for it.
I must admit I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this rule just yet. Without seeing the rest of the system it's hard to guess how it will fit in. I find it a little distateful that monsters don't get this advantage as it seems to make hero automatically 'heroic' just by virue of having class levels. Having said this I can imagine few things more annoying as a DM than having to roll at random for all the monsters reduced to 0hp but not killed from every encounter. Imagine the scene the party walking out of the dungeon having defeated the final BBEG only to run across one lone minion they had already vanquished on 1/4 hp every 4 or 5 rooms. That just sounds a bit silly. Plus I can imagine at 'Cons having to waste preciosu time watching the party individually coup-de-grace every defeated individual.
Still it does seem to give the PC's an unfair advantage. While it does suck to lose a beloved character if there is no fear of death involved in your average combat then where is the fun in meat grindering (sorry about the invented word) your way though a bunch of minions just to get the BBEG who still probably won't manage to kill you. I sort of like the fact that if it all goes wrong you can end up dying in the most inglorious manner possible. Heck the varios obituary threads make for a great read. I just think it may lose the sense of danger and that would IMHO detract from the game.
Having said this there are definate benefits. One of my worst memories as a player was in a mid level combat where my character was knocked down to -1 hp in a BBEG fight and I had to wait 8 rounds for the party cleric to heal me. In real time this fight took 4 and a half hours and I got to do nothing but sit there and wait for someone to heal me. It was not fun. And of coarse because the other players knew I was only on -1 they were in no rush to heal me I just had to watch. The only excitment came when it was the monster go and I had to wonder if my character was this turn going to die in a manner which I could do nothing about.
While it's fair to say the guy playing our cleric was a bit of an ****hole I am sure I am not the only player who has had to watch a great combat from the sidelines just hoping that nothing accidentally steps in his character. In that situation I can see this new system being a big improvement over 3.5 but I am still not entirely sold on it. Guess I'll jut have to wait till 4E hits the shelves.
(Please forgive any spelling mistakes it 2am in rainy Brighton at the moment)
Things that are not PCs shouldnt be created based on the same rules that PCs are, they should be designed to serve the function that you as the DM wants them to perform. If you want them to be used for a social situation, then do that. If you want them to be fought and killed, do that.
What I'm getting from all the blog posts and D&D articles is that you only need to create what you will need, and not have to bother statting out entire blocks when you only need a small portion of it, and the NPC will work great.
As for the bit about monsters living and dying on the whim of the DM, I see no real problem with that. If, after a battle, the players want to check for survivors, then have one still alive (or allow someone a Heal check to revive one of them).
Thats really not all that hard to do, and the flexibility will let you avoid rules-lawyers since its DM fiat and not hard-wired into the rules.
This strikes me as utterly ridiculous and waaaay over the top. Eileen's right: if ever I play a 4e character he's going to have tights and a cape over his armor and maybe even a mask.
I dealt with this in my own campaign some time ago: A character is unconscious and dying if his hp total is -1 - -10 OR 10% of his max hit point total, whichever is higher. Badabing, badaboom, problem solved.
I can accept the 0 hp = unconscious and dying rule, though I dont think it was heinous enough to bother changing. In fact, I kind of like the idea of a character at 0 hit points desperately trying to make his way out of danger and knowing that one slip-up could mean his death. It's happened IMC, and it was both tension-filled and a lot of fun.
The whole idea of suddenly waking up with 1/4 of your hit points back is utterly ridiculous. Sure, people in the real world wake up from comas all the time, but they don't strap on armor and charge into combat as soon as they step outside the hospital.
The real flaw behind 3.x's death and dying rules was that it was far too easy to get reincarnated/raised/resurrected. IMC, this was another easy fix - the price for any life-restoring spell is 10 x the price listed in the PHB and the deity bestowing the spell (or his clergy) must approve. Again, badabing, badaboom, problem solved.
I applauded the thinking behind 3.x's various statements concerning realism's place in D&D, because at the time I thought they'd finally realized that no mechanical game system is ever going to adequately approximate reality. But this is going too far. It's not even believable, much less realistic.
I scoffed when the old 2e folks said 3e would promote munchkinism. I've since learned that I was wrong to do so, and I think what we're seeing here is the logical result of allowing that degree of munchkinism into the game. The 4e death and dying rules as described are thoroughly ridiculous, IMO - you munchkins out there can have it.
Sorry but I cannot help but imagine a scene like this using the information they have give us. Say said Fighter is reduced to –1, unconscious. Mean while each round a mook creature attacks it doing say 9dmg, which doesn’t seem unreasonable where a brute does 25-30. 4 blows later the unconscious fighter rolls a twenty. Bam, from –37 he/she is conscious and at 30 0f his 120 hit points! In a few years we will all joking about ridiculous dying rules of this edition.
Am I supposed to tell 4th edition players 'sorry you keep killing them, because they're only monsters, which means 0 hp is automatic kill time for them'? Or does the fact that a PC expresses a sudden interest in taking a goblin prisoner suddenly grant it access to negative hit points?
No, you are suppose to realize that these *story elements* are and have always been under the purview of the DM -- regardless of edition.
How many times do developers need to stress to people that rules are not to get in the way of the game?
Of course, if your players are interested in a goblin prisoner, it is ENTIRELY up to you as the DM if you want to give it negative hit points, have it surrender, etc. How do you handle it in 3.5?
You are not suppose to tell your players anything you don't want.
What is the difficulty in understanding this?
I am sorry if I am ranting but I fail to see how people do not grasp this concept.
Because many players and GMs don't like playing (or ruling) by GM Fiat.
Some of the best stories, plot twists, and characters came out of unexpected rolls of the die that changed the pre-conceived outcomes I had in mind. NPCs that I was inclined to save died b/c the rolls told me so, others lived or were left for dead b/c they still had negative hit points. NPCs I expected to be scene stealers died quick deaths, while minor NPCs went on to become major allies or adversaries.
And guess what - I'm a better GM for it. If a big baddie dies too early, I have to figure out how the baddie's organization/faction has to compensate. "Throwaway" NPCs became cornerstones of the campaign, all because I didn't arbitrarily decide "they're minor" or "they get plot protection". Yeah, I can use action points or fate points or what have you so I'm not entirely beholden to the dice, but even those aren't guarantees. Once my players realized DM Fiat was a thing of the past, their estimation of my GM abilities went UP not down.
I'm telling a story WITH my PCs, not FOR my PCs.
What's the difficulty in understanding this? ;)
So now everyone has more hit points, the monsters do less damage...
This is less than a 4th Edition character would have, but each [3e] monster attack is dealing a smaller fraction of the [3e] character’s total hit points....
That's all, carry on.
And...
Man we are gonna have to beat on that Dead Horse a few extra times now!
This strikes me as utterly ridiculous and waaaay over the top. Eileen's right: if ever I play a 4e character he's going to have tights and a cape over his armor and maybe even a mask.
I dealt with this in my own campaign some time ago: A character is unconscious and dying if his hp total is -1 - -10 OR 10% of his max hit point total, whichever is higher. Badabing, badaboom, problem solved.
I can accept the 0 hp = unconscious and dying rule, though I dont think it was heinous enough to bother changing. In fact, I kind of like the idea of a character at 0 hit points desperately trying to make his way out of danger and knowing that one slip-up could mean his death. It's happened IMC, and it was both tension-filled and a lot of fun.
The whole idea of suddenly waking up with 1/4 of your hit points back is utterly ridiculous. Sure, people in the real world wake up from comas all the time, but they don't strap on armor and charge into combat as soon as they step outside the hospital.
The real flaw behind 3.x's death and dying rules was that it was far too easy to get reincarnated/raised/resurrected. IMC, this was another easy fix - the price for any life-restoring spell is 10 x the price listed in the PHB and the deity bestowing the spell (or his clergy) must approve. Again, badabing, badaboom, problem solved.
I applauded the thinking behind 3.x's various statements concerning realism's place in D&D, because at the time I thought they'd finally realized that no mechanical game system is ever going to adequately approximate reality. But this is going too far. It's not even believable, much less realistic.
I scoffed when the old 2e folks said 3e would promote munchkinism. I've since learned that I was wrong to do so, and I think what we're seeing here is the logical result of allowing that degree of munchkinism into the game. The 4e death and dying rules as described are thoroughly ridiculous, IMO - you munchkins out there can have it.
D&D has always emphasized an action-type style. This change (and others) simply facilitate it. The problem with the 0 hit point thing is that it happens very rarely, so now you are out at 0 hit points. Instead of being impacted ONLY at 0 hit points (and never at any other point, ever), we get the Bloodied condition, which will trigger much more often than the old 0-hit point rule.
I like that, and at least we have a tier of conditions that is much more likely to occur than the usual, "you are either perfectly fine, or dying."As for real-life people coming out of comas? Well, D&D isnt about being a reality simulator, its more cinematic, and real-life people arent out being heroes and fighting monsters.
MY problem with death and dying in 3rd Edition is that its very easy to have it happen entirely on accident, especially at low-levels. A bad roll or two can outright kill someone in one hit. This is bad for the following reasons:
*The player must make a new character. If they had any kind of attachment to their old character, this can lead to a player who (rightfully) just remakes the said character, perhaps changing the name for good measure. After all, players should play what they want to play.
*The player must wait for a chance to be introduced to the party. Sometimes this can be very difficult or impossible to do. Sometimes, the player just gets to sit their while everyone else has fun.
*Sometimes, the DM sidetracks the campaign to introduce some lame "raise-quest" by which the rest of the party does a task to get the other guy raised (losing a Con point or level in the process). THIS is bad because then the player not only has to sit there, but also misses out on XP and other potential treasures in addition to dropping ever further behind due to the level/Con loss associated with it.
A system that can more reliably determine success or failure through player skill can be challenging and more rewarding instead of one that essentially randomly punishes the players for having bad luck. Hence, I like these new death/dying rules.
IMHO D&D has always been the WORST system to facilitate "cinematic" game play. D&D is as cinematic as a miniature game, no more, no less. And should that surprise you? The game is developed with miniatures in mind.
Want a cinematic game? Play d6/d10 systems. Its a trade-off: ambiguity (the d6/d10 systems) or crunchy number-driven strategy gaming (d20).
That said, I'm indifferent about the new death and dying rules. 3.X version blew, and 4.X does too. If I run the game (big IF by the way), this is definately going to be house ruled.
Bleh. I like a lot of the stuff for 4e, but I'm really having a problem with how mechanical consistency was a big design error in third edition. I like having everything on a pretty even playing field, being able to sink or swim on my own merits. The whole "mook monster" thing just bums me out. That said, there's other stuff that's been said that frames it in a way I don't mind--that rules exist to give NPCs as much or as little detail as they need.
What I hate is the idea that in a week's time a PC gains six levels and balloons into a swollen mass of HP rich flesh, while everyone else: hordes of maurading hobgoblins, evil archmages, ancient dragons, city guards and retired adventurer bartenders, alike stay exactly the same and have no special abilities whatsoever. The idea that PC's are special just by being PC's stinks.
The idea that monsters just die at 0 and PC's die at -80 is just another one of those dorky things.
The thing of all this that I object to most though is the idea that they had to make death inconsequential in order to make the game playable. Blarg! No. You make death death. Dead characters are dead.
Maybe, maybe you come up with dramatic, chancy magic that allows PC groups to go on quests into the Shadowfell to recover the lost soul of their dead friend, risking life and virtue to perform the necromantic deed.
But better than that, have a nice tear-filled funeral and write the character's deeds in an epic poem in red marker on the character sheet and then lovingly put it away.
By now I am sure most of you are as aware as I am that 4th Edition just isn't for me. So, I'll skip most of my thoughts on this article and save you all the trouble.
However, this:
—death is a mark of failure.
is a load of horse s*!!. Maybe even dead horse s*+%.
Am I the only person that has played characters that were trying to die? Preferably in the most glorious way possible?
Not to mention death can be a great teacher or motivator.
No, the logic behind this is a little skewed. It will probably work in the grand scheme of things, especially for the apparent target audience. But dying becoming more difficult in D&D just takes too much of the fun out of the game for me.
Am I the only person that has played characters that were trying to die? Preferably in the most glorious way possible?
As Antioch said, having PC's dying often only causes the game to get sidetracked, and can result it making things not so fun - which is the whole point!
As Antioch said, having PC's dying often only causes the game to get sidetracked, and can result it making things not so fun - which is the whole point!
And as I said, making it harder to die does make things not so fun for me - which is the opposite of the point!
And as I said, making it harder to die does make things not so fun for me - which is the opposite of the point!
Dude, you didn't just say that PC death is fun for you did you? As a DM I've always hated killing off PC's, but it's never led me to pulling punches. Which leads me to what I think you meant:
That death adds a feeling to the game that you enjoy (the feeling not the death).I'm not really sure what I think about this new rule, I can't really judge it until I see it in context. My gut tells me that what seems crazy and outlandish now (the huge number of negative hit points, getting up at 1/4 hit points with a natural 20 stabilization roll) won't seem that crazy when we see the rules. Don't forget that healing of some kind is probably going to be an 'at will' power of Clerics. If that is the case getting 'free' hit points isn't as big a deal as it is in the 3.5 environment were healing magic is a much more limited resource. It seems to me that the real resource in 4th isn't going to be spell slots but time. That is why no one will ever do that 'stabilize and kick' thing suggested earlier - spend 5 rounds doing that during a battle and you'll be mincemeat.
My prediction (based on nothing) is that it will be hard but not impossible for goblins and the like to kill PC's, but that the big guys like Dragons will still put the fear of the gods into them.
I like it.
It gives dying players something to do (roll a d20) with the real negative of them failing three times and dying, or their rolling a 20 and finding the inner fortitude to stand back up and get back into the thick of things. I can definitely see one of my players cracking a big-ass grin when he rolls that 20 and gets to contribute to the encounter again.
The larger pool of negative hit points will make it a bit easier for monsters or NPCs to target particularly hated fallen PCs without making sure they are completely dead by doing so (It will happen more often in my games, in other words, when before I would have tried to hold back when they were having some bad luck unless it was one of my "big" encounters or a story climax).
The monsters are dead at 0 hit points won't have any real effect, other than my not having to keep track of them. The PCs in combat aren't able to tell, in the midst of it all, if a fallen enemy is twitching because he's alive, dying, or dead and suffering from random nerve signals on his way out the door. If they start expressing an interest in one of them I can decide then if he should only be at negative hit points, or if it fits what I want to have happen down the road in the story.
Players may have larger hit point totals (including their negative hit point total) but this means that, on average, they will probably be able to tackle more encounters before being forced to take some serious time off to recover. And I'm sure playing around with the encounters, with multiple monsters, will let me find the "sweet" spot that I'm after, depending on the encounter.
Not a bad set of rules. I like them and the reasoning is laid out well enough so that DMs can change it without much worries at all.
|
The opinions expressed here are solely the opinions on DMrrostarr, and should not be used or rebroadcasted without permission of the NF..er..poster, all rights reserved....
"3) If you’re dying at the end of your turn, roll 1d20.
Lower than 10: You get worse. If you get this result three times before you are healed or stabilized (as per the Heal skill), you die.
10-19: No change.
20: You get better! You wake up with hit points equal to one-quarter your full normal hit points."
So let me get this right? If I have a PC that has a 100 hps at full and I dying at the end of my turn and I roll a 20, I suddenly get 25
hps, that apparently I pull out of my @ss and thin air and makes me feel all better and warm inside?
I'm ok with giving PCs more negative hit points(as I allow feats like Toughness to give you "bonus" negative hit points), but this is too much.
Also, if you are too dumb to realize that you are getting your @ss handed to you by a monster, then pull back out of the fight OR yell for the cleric to hurry his @ss up and get near you to heal you OR drink some healing... I am sure most people can see a pattern of how much damage a monster is doing to you, and realize when you need to get out.
SERIOUSLY??? WTF???? Does each book come with sunshine and lollipops too? The game is not about always winning....I think some people have lost sight of that... Death can be fun. When I am a PC I try to avoid death as best as I can, but if my guy dies, it doesnt mean i am out of the game... I dont get it...I really dont get it..... Maybe I am too old...i was gonna give this 4e a chance and at least read the first 3 core books, but after seeing this....I dont even want to see them.
Bleh. I like a lot of the stuff for 4e, but I'm really having a problem with how mechanical consistency was a big design error in third edition. I like having everything on a pretty even playing field, being able to sink or swim on my own merits. The whole "mook monster" thing just bums me out. That said, there's other stuff that's been said that frames it in a way I don't mind--that rules exist to give NPCs as much or as little detail as they need.
What I hate is the idea that in a week's time a PC gains six levels and balloons into a swollen mass of HP rich flesh, while everyone else: hordes of maurading hobgoblins, evil archmages, ancient dragons, city guards and retired adventurer bartenders, alike stay exactly the same and have no special abilities whatsoever. The idea that PC's are special just by being PC's stinks.
The idea that monsters just die at 0 and PC's die at -80 is just another one of those dorky things.
The thing of all this that I object to most though is the idea that they had to make death inconsequential in order to make the game playable. Blarg! No. You make death death. Dead characters are dead.
Maybe, maybe you come up with dramatic, chancy magic that allows PC groups to go on quests into the Shadowfell to recover the lost soul of their dead friend, risking life and virtue to perform the necromantic deed.
But better than that, have a nice tear-filled funeral and write the character's deeds in an epic poem in red marker on the character sheet and then lovingly put it away.
Since 3rd Edition, at the least, hit points have largely not been considered to be actual physical trauma, but a combination of things. All those hobgoblins, archmages, and ancient dragons are likely not adventuring around doing heroic deeds: the archmage and dragon in particular have probably been around for quite awhile and already have a load of various experience under their belts.
Having monsters just be presumed dead at 0 hit points is a good idea: now the players dont have to explicitly run around and stab everything to make sure they are dead. You can just move on with things and stop having to tell the DM to the point where it becomes assumed SOP.
As for the whole "death should mean death" bit, I have to say that when I go to play games that I play what I want to play. In a select few games (such as Team Fortress 2) I tailor my choice to what best serves the team, but thats a rare instance.
So, sure, if Bob the Fighter dies, you can bet I'm just gonna rewrite the name, keep the rest of the stats as is (maybe change overall appearance and hair color or something, but maybe not), and throw down Jim the Fighter.
Really, its like raising by another name. I'm just glad that in 4E having specific classes wont be so hard-wired in so I wont be tempted to make a cleric or rogue, "just cause we need one."
|
|
"Among other problems, this also meant that characters effectively had no way to “lose” a combat except by being killed. This removes a lot of dramatic possibilities for the story—for instance, the classic scene of the characters being captured and thrown in a cell from which they have to escape using only their wits and a pack of chewing gum (or whatever)."
Wasnt that the point of subdual damage or DMs railroading how the story goes??
"Characters had to feel that death was a possibility in order for combat to feel meaningful. If it seems impossible to be killed, much of the tension of combat disappears. However, if the majority of combats result in death (as is the case for a lot of high-level play in previous editions), the game is forced to reclassify death as a trivial obstacle in order to remain playable. 3rd Edition accomplished this with popular spells such as close wounds, delay death, and revivify—mandatory staples of any high-level cleric’s arsenal due purely to the commonality of death. But that removes the tension, and now what’s the point of death at all?"
How many spells slots do these designers think a PC cleric is going to spend of these spells? What about DMs and PCs that only use the core books, which do not have the fore-mentioned spells??
Dude, you didn't just say that PC death is fun for you did you?
Yes, I did. Not every time... But even when it isn't fun in itself, removing the possibility (or nearly so, like these rules appear to do) ruins the fun of the game for me.
And yes, I am quite aware that nearly no one - besides the half dozen or so I know - feel this way. Which is why I think this mechanic will do well in the edition.
But the claim that "[PC] death is a mark of failure" isn't quite right.
Do any of you really know how hard it can be to die in 3.5? I don't mean if you do everything wrong either. I mean if you do everything right as a player, just how hard it is to die? Try that for a challenge. A character that is hell bent on dying a valorous death, but is unwilling to cheapen it by making it any easier. You'd be surprised how quickly you can gain levels that way...
The opinions expressed here are solely the opinions on DMrrostarr, and should not be used or rebroadcasted without permission of the NF..er..poster, all rights reserved....
"3) If you’re dying at the end of your turn, roll 1d20.
Lower than 10: You get worse. If you get this result three times before you are healed or stabilized (as per the Heal skill), you die.
10-19: No change.
20: You get better! You wake up with hit points equal to one-quarter your full normal hit points."So let me get this right? If I have a PC that has a 100 hps at full and I dying at the end of my turn and I roll a 20, I suddenly get 25
hps, that apparently I pull out of my @ss and thin air and makes me feel all better and warm inside?I'm ok with giving PCs more negative hit points(as I allow feats like Toughness to give you "bonus" negative hit points), but this is too much.
Also, if you are too dumb to realize that you are getting your @ss handed to you by a monster, then pull back out of the fight OR yell for the cleric to hurry his @ss up and get near you to heal you OR drink some healing... I am sure most people can see a pattern of how much damage a monster is doing to you, and realize when you need to get out.
SERIOUSLY??? WTF???? Does each book come with sunshine and lollipops too? The game is not about always winning....I think some people have lost sight of that... Death can be fun. When I am a PC I try to avoid death as best as I can, but if my guy dies, it doesnt mean i am out of the game... I dont get it...I really dont get it..... Maybe I am too old...i was gonna give this 4e a chance and at least read the first 3 core books, but after seeing this....I dont even want to see them.
Again, its a cinematic thing. You can rationalize it however you like, whether you look to other media or just invent the worst possible analogy for how it functions.
It isnt always possible to run out of a fight that is going south. It is entirely likely that in 4th Edition situations where bad luck totally trashes your team will be a minority, and this wont be a huge issue. Frankly I'm hoping for that so I dont need to derail the overall story with cheesy ress-quests that a NPC of their level couldnt possibly perform with the rules-as-written.
As a player I'm looking forward to this rule because while I really cant remember the last time a character has died in any game I've played in, I do recall basically going home at that point because there was no point in sticking around to watch a game I couldnt participate in. Either that or going to watch some TV, reading a book, or playing another game that I could actually play (at the time).
I DO recall that most deaths occured in badly run Rifts games. I cant remember how many carbon-copy ley line walkers I went through because I really, REALLY wanted to actually get one to high-level magic.
|
|
"Having monsters just be presumed dead at 0 hit points is a good idea: now the players dont have to explicitly run around and stab everything to make sure they are dead. You can just move on with things and stop having to tell the DM to the point where it becomes assumed SOP."
But what if the PCs want to question a fallen monster that they hope is in the negative hp range but not dead?? Perhaps the story, needs to go on and the only way to do that is to question a bad guy, but oops, according to 4E, "it falls it dies!"
Do you just say Monster "X" appears to be breathing but barely, making that an exception to the rule? Do you make monsters have some neagtive hps?
I understand the annoying factor of PCs saying that they finish off a creature in 3.5E, but the easy method is to just take off the critters that are below -10 and leave the ones on that are -1 to -9. Yeah thats a little metagaming but now you eliminated all the time to take and say, I make sure everything is dead.
YMMV though
"Among other problems, this also meant that characters effectively had no way to “lose” a combat except by being killed. This removes a lot of dramatic possibilities for the story—for instance, the classic scene of the characters being captured and thrown in a cell from which they have to escape using only their wits and a pack of chewing gum (or whatever)."
Wasnt that the point of subdual damage or DMs railroading how the story goes??
"Characters had to feel that death was a possibility in order for combat to feel meaningful. If it seems impossible to be killed, much of the tension of combat disappears. However, if the majority of combats result in death (as is the case for a lot of high-level play in previous editions), the game is forced to reclassify death as a trivial obstacle in order to remain playable. 3rd Edition accomplished this with popular spells such as close wounds, delay death, and revivify—mandatory staples of any high-level cleric’s arsenal due purely to the commonality of death. But that removes the tension, and now what’s the point of death at all?"
How many spells slots do these designers think a PC cleric is going to spend of these spells? What about DMs and PCs that only use the core books, which do not have the fore-mentioned spells??
At low-levels some monsters, like orcs, can deal out enough damage that if you are already on the ropes that the next hit is going to just outright kill you. Of course, bad luck can do that in one hit anyway, especially if you are a soft character.
Now, subdual damage is an option, but only for some. An evil wizard tossing out lightning bolts and other high-damaging effects cant opt to go the non-lethal route, and such spells can easily just kill you outright (especially if they applied a Metamagic feat, or use a metamagic rod). Many monsters like orcs, ogres, and gnolls, probably arent going to bother taking you alive, either.Really, if the DM doesnt think about it, I wont feel bad since there are so many instances where it doesnt apply or make a lot of sense as-is.
Also, plot rail-roads are bad.
Moving on to the mention of death-trivializing spells, I can say that in every game I've played in, the guy that runs a regular cleric has ALWAYS snagged those spells as soon as he can, and they have saved our warblades life a number of times in Age of Worms thus far.
I have on a few occasions had to pull punches because I have more interesting things in mind for my players than killing off their character, all of whom have major plot ties in my campaign that I dont want to see ruined OR wasted. The only recourse early on was to invent some hackneyed plot device where they would have to STOP going through a doppelganger filled warehouse in order to hit up a House of Healing and pray that they could afford the asking price for a raise.
Of course, I could also invent some strange favor that they would want and somehow wedge it in with the overarching plot of the Age of Worms and the other original adventures I already pinned in there. That would add up to quite a bit of game time that Player X would miss, being dead and all. It could even add up to a few sessions, meaning that they might as well not even show up for a few weeks until everything is patched up.
"Having monsters just be presumed dead at 0 hit points is a good idea: now the players dont have to explicitly run around and stab everything to make sure they are dead. You can just move on with things and stop having to tell the DM to the point where it becomes assumed SOP."
But what if the PCs want to question a fallen monster that they hope is in the negative hp range but not dead?? Perhaps the story, needs to go on and the only way to do that is to question a bad guy, but oops, according to 4E, "it falls it dies!"
Do you just say Monster "X" appears to be breathing but barely, making that an exception to the rule? Do you make monsters have some neagtive hps?I understand the annoying factor of PCs saying that they finish off a creature in 3.5E, but the easy method is to just take off the critters that are below -10 and leave the ones on that are -1 to -9. Yeah thats a little metagaming but now you eliminated all the time to take and say, I make sure everything is dead.
YMMV though
As was explicitly stated in the article (which I'm sure you read),
"Sure, a DM can decide for dramatic reasons that a notable NPC or monster might linger on after being defeated. Maybe a dying enemy survives to deliver a final warning or curse before expiring, or at the end of a fight the PCs discover a bloody trail leading away from where the evil warlock fell, but those will be significant, story-based exceptions to the norm."
So, it seems that if a dead monster is pivotal to the advancing story, then the DM can always just rule that one or more is still alive. This "rules-off" approach is probably better than 3rd Edition, where a player could easily cry foul (whether or not its for the betterment of the game).
Of course, if there is only one way to advance the story, thats bad adventure design unto itself.
I agree there should be a greater margin for creatures with a high consitution or high base fortitude save, but not enough for them to survive the next volley or barrage directed at them.
|
|
"Among other problems, this also meant that characters effectively had no way to “lose” a combat except by being killed. This removes a lot of dramatic possibilities for the story—for instance, the classic scene of the characters being captured and thrown in a cell from which they have to escape using only their wits and a pack of chewing gum (or whatever)."
Wasnt that the point of subdual damage or DMs railroading how the story goes??
"Characters had to feel that death was a possibility in order for combat to feel meaningful. If it seems impossible to be killed, much of the tension of combat disappears. However, if the majority of combats result in death (as is the case for a lot of high-level play in previous editions), the game is forced to reclassify death as a trivial obstacle in order to remain playable. 3rd Edition accomplished this with popular spells such as close wounds, delay death, and revivify—mandatory staples of any high-level cleric’s arsenal due purely to the commonality of death. But that removes the tension, and now what’s the point of death at all?"
How many spells slots do these designers think a PC cleric is going to spend of these spells? What about DMs and PCs that only use the core books, which do not have the fore-mentioned spells??
At low-levels some monsters, like orcs, can deal out enough damage that if you are already on the ropes that the next hit is going to just outright kill you. Of course, bad luck can do that in one hit anyway, especially if you are a soft character.
Now, subdual damage is an option, but only for some. An evil wizard tossing out lightning bolts and other high-damaging effects cant opt to go the non-lethal route, and such spells can easily just kill you outright (especially if they applied a Metamagic feat, or use a metamagic rod). Many monsters like orcs, ogres, and gnolls, probably arent going to bother taking you alive, either.
Really, if the DM doesnt think about it, I wont feel bad since there are so many...
"An evil wizard tossing out lightning bolts and other high-damaging effects cant opt to go the non-lethal route, and such spells can easily just kill you outright (especially if they applied a Metamagic feat, or use a metamagic rod). Many monsters like orcs, ogres, and gnolls, probably arent going to bother taking you alive, either."
Actually, if you use splat books with the right feats, wizards can deal non-leathal damage with spells like lightning bolt.
Oh i agree DM railroading sucks, I dont use it when I DM, but thats how some people do it to advance their games....
EDIT
I said it before and I will say it again, it will NOT surprise me if they say the PCs can "save game" before a big fight...
Dude, you didn't just say that PC death is fun for you did you?Yes, I did. Not every time... But even when it isn't fun in itself, removing the possibility (or nearly so, like these rules appear to do) ruins the fun of the game for me.
And yes, I am quite aware that nearly no one - besides the half dozen or so I know - feel this way. Which is why I think this mechanic will do well in the edition.
But the claim that "[PC] death is a mark of failure" isn't quite right.
Do any of you really know how hard it can be to die in 3.5? I don't mean if you do everything wrong either. I mean if you do everything right as a player, just how hard it is to die? Try that for a challenge. A character that is hell bent on dying a valorous death, but is unwilling to cheapen it by making it any easier. You'd be surprised how quickly you can gain levels that way...
Speaking from the past game I played in, and the game I am running, incredibly easy. Maybe its because the cleric isnt actually a cleric, but a cleric/divine mind/sacred mind, or that the party entirely lacks a wizard. Maybe its because Age of Worms really just is very, very hard. I dont know, but the second battle the party got into (as a pair of fighters, cleric, and bard) went very, very badly.
Other battles that could have easily gone sour were when they fought the Faceless One, the cleric in The Hall of Harsh Reflections (and the mind flayer, for that matter), the Apostle of Kyuss, and a few other things that I cant remember. Some of those I kind of fudged results, and some just had the potential to end in disaster had I gotten a crit or they failed a save. This is a campaign where the players are either at the level intended for the game, or a level higher, and only one of them has what I would call a sub-optimal build and thats the cleric.
Of course, the bard and truenamer are able to often make up for the lack of overall healing, so I dont think thats a big issue.
In the last campaign I played, the DMs had fudged stuff on numerous occasions, often in ways that were obvious. Maybe it was the newbie players with their completely bizarre character combos such as the rogue/wizard/ranger/assassin, or the elven fighter/wizard who liked to use a crossbow and wear heavy armor.
All I can say is that recent experience has shown me that it can be much easier than people might think.
Reliance on plot-railroad is a sign of a new, or just bad, DM. Perhaps you have bad players who like to ignore "obvious" adventure hooks. Eh.
At any rate, yes, wizards can take a Metamagic feat to make their spells deal non-lethal damage, but thats in a very specific non-core book, and give the limited number of feats that characters get, I cannot imagine a typical villian who would ever, EVER, consider taking that feat. EVER. There are countless useful feats that should be prioritized above and beyond that one.
Basically, citing a single feat for all bad guys to take isnt a fix for the hit point problem that exists now.
|
|
Reliance on plot-railroad is a sign of a new, or just bad, DM. Perhaps you have bad players who like to ignore "obvious" adventure hooks. Eh.
At any rate, yes, wizards can take a Metamagic feat to make their spells deal non-lethal damage, but thats in a very specific non-core book, and give the limited number of feats that characters get, I cannot imagine a typical villian who would ever, EVER, consider taking that feat. EVER. There are countless useful feats that should be prioritized above and beyond that one.
Basically, citing a single feat for all bad guys to take isnt a fix for the hit point problem that exists now.
I agree, most wizards(99%) would NOT take that feat combo unless it serves a specific purpose..
Just curious...what is the "hit point problem" to you?
I havent seen a hit point problem is the last 20-odd years I have played this game. Only thing I EVER wished that the game had, even back to Red box days, was a hit location table like Top Secret S.I. had.....but that would have been a lil time consuming in D&D...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I've seen better, I've seen worse. The "three strikes and you're out" rubs me as a bit too slow, and does not take the amount of damage into account at all - a drawback. The "back to 25%" rule OTOH i am ambivalent about. It is good if you want to go the right back into the fray route - but do we want to go there in the first place?
All in all they could have done worse - significantly worse. I like the scaling threshold (even though -50% seems awfully generous), but not so much what happens after that.
I'd have to see it in play to really judge this.
There was a hit location table for OD&D (pre-1e) in Blackmoor. It was also where the assassin character class was introduced. (paizo has this on pdf) It was apparently not popular as I havn't seen a reprint of these optional rules.
The main thing I don't like about this is it would allow min/maxers the ability to forego any kind of rescue/response because they know that all they need is a crit (base 5% chance and increase with abilities and items already previewed) and everybody who is "dead" pops back up with 1/4 health, raring to go. Has any of the playtesters tried using a party full of clerics with every crit-increasable ability/item and seen what happens? Were they too busy gushing over how cool it was not dying? How long until a DM has a party of crit-healing clerics to say "This is a bit broken, what do I do?" Will this be fixed for DDI subscribers or in 4.5?
Maybe its because Age of Worms really just is very, very hard.
I'll grant you that. Having never played in any of Paizo's stuff, I can't comment otherwise. But given what I have gleaned from interacting with the authors here, and reading through some of RotRL, I can easily say that Paizo puts the Dragon back into D&D.
But still... I'm not saying anyone should agree with me, but if there isn't a real chance of character death, why even play through it? Just advance your characters the levels and say you won.
Also, to help readers understand my point of view, bear in mind I am a huge fan of the L5R game (1st or 3rd Edition). And it is pretty easy to get your character killed in that. The mass combat rules alone can be quite deadly. Ahh... The memories. :-D
How many spells slots do these designers think a PC cleric is going to spend of these spells? What about DMs and PCs that only use the core books, which do not have the fore-mentioned spells??
A high level cleric should spend a fair number of spell slots on these spells or he's not doing the clerics job. Once the spell slots run out the adventure is over and the PCs should call it a day and rest to get their return from the dead spells back.
Now if your just playing by the core rules then death, at mid to high level, is still not a problem. Lots of spells will bring you back, whats really the problem is money. for the player the choice comes down to weather they want to pay 25,000 gp and take a hit to their wealth by level or make a new character who has all their gold. Death is still trivial but gold has real value. Hence raising characters becomes an issue of economics and greed. Sure you could raise Bob the Magnificent for the 6th time but this is costing the party a fortune. Better to let Bob stay dead and wait for the new guy to appear at the bar loaded down with [level appropreate] magic items.
One can just imagine the eulogies for Bob the Magnificent. Bob was a mighty fighter and he gave his life for us...but after that 6th time he would have come back with only half his normal wealth by level allotment so the Gods communed to us that Bob did not want to be raised yet again and we should be on the lookout for a new member for our party who had full starting gold for a character one level below Bobs.
Not sure they'll fix this in 4th, it requires that spells like reincarnation get much rarer and I'm not sure they are willing to take that plunge but I hope they do. I'd be more then happy to have it so characters are harder to kill but death is final. Thats good Heroic fantasy IMO, it might take a hard fight to kill the brawny barbarian but once he's dead there is nothing left to do but sing songs to his valor and move on.
|
|
As a GM, I feel it is my job to put my players through the wringer. It's sort of a sadomasochistic relationship: the more I abuse them, the more they love me for it. In combat, that means beating the crap out of them without quite killing them. This will give them a bit more room for "badly beaten but not dead." It will also simplify bringing their down PCs back up, either during or after a fight.
My own house rule had been that NPCs and monsters could go to -10 HP or to their max HP in negative, whichever was less (negative). This makes it possible to kill a chicken with one hit, and to wipe out goblins and kobolds with relative ease.
So, with the above provision, I think I'll try out the new rule. Now that the group has a paladin of freedom (UA), this can allow them to be brought back up to consciousness with reliability.
I'm sticking with the 3.5 criticals (so far, anyway), but this looks good. Let's see how the rest of 4E plays out.
|
Roll a 20 and I'm automatically revived with more hitpoints! Cool! With these new rules, I think its time to revive the name my first long-term character had - he was an elf (fighter-mage), and his name was Logan....
|
|
I think there are two types of players.
Those who know like to use tactics and those who like to just storm into the room and fight.
3rd edition clearly caters to thos who like to use tactics. Clever players who like to use tactics can take on encounters with CR far above their level.
But that is not for everyone. Many players probably just like to kick in the door, storm in and hack away at the monsters.
I think 4th edition clearly caters to those.
Don't get me wrong, even if I do not care for the latter playstyle it is fun for those who like it and if 4th help to revify this, why not?
But this shows me again, that the 4th gaming philosophy is not for me.