And yet that isn't 100% accurate. The thing is, if during a combat, an 8th level fighter is down to 10 hps and is still standing on the front line taking hits, that is not a fault of the system, that is a fault of the player.
You may not get a choice. A cloud giant (CR 11) gets three attacks, and does an average of 32 points of damage on a hit. A fighter could start the round with 74 hp, take two hits, and now be at 10 hp. The next hit will kill the fighter outright.
In that case, the fighter's better off if the giant rolls high on damage--if the fighter drops to -2, the giant's likely to find another target for the last swing rather than pulping the fighter past -9. That's a perverse incentive in 3.5; it's often better to be at -2 than 2 hp.
Compare with 4e, where a fighter with at least 74 hp can go to -37. Now the fighter can heroically stand their ground and hope the cleric can get to them before they get hit again. It's a lot more fun to make valiant stands when you're not guaranteed to die from them.
Really because I always thought 3.5 had things like coup-de-grace, area attack spells, and creatures getting several attacks in a round (which means they could spare 1 or 2 to finish off the guy on the ground). It seems to me that it was quite possible to be finished off while unconscious.
Possible, but I never played with many GMs who went out of their way to kill players. There are some creatures who might target unconscious characters with attacks while there were other targets (Ghouls, maybe? Starving animals?) but it almost always makes more sense to go after the moving targets first.
I have two states for my PCs, alive or DEAD! I don't use this negative hit points crap. Resurrect someone, pop up and get back in the fight! Imagin what the game would look like if every monster had a healing alotment, and could be reduced to negative half their total hit points. This rule is so bad that the fix for it it to have one set of rules for PCs and one for monsters? This is insane. One of my personal rules as a DM is: If the PC can do it, the bad guys can do it.
This was the original rule in OD&D. It was spectacularly unpopular. So unpopular that the "optional" rule in the 1e DMG allowing characters to go down to -10hp became a de facto standard.
And -10 worked... for 1e D&D, there even the worst monsters in the game usually couldn't take you from half-alive to stone-cold dead in a round. In 3e, though, the high level game is spectacularly unbalanced that way. The odds that your character actually lands in the -10 buffer goes down and down as you climb in levels. At 15th+, you'd consider yourself damn lucky if an attack took you to -1hp instead of 1hp- at least an opponent is unlikely to hit you while you're down if somebody else is left standing. If you're at 1hp and a 15th level barbarian lets loose, kiss some xp goodbye.
AZ Rogue's post is missing..... hmmmm.
Really? Which one?
I'm not sure anymore. I'm so confused and scared.
Someone hold me.
(It was on the top ten so I came in to look but it just wasn't there. Like pale green pants with nobody inside them.)
But of course if I can find Perry's White Lightning (Dark Chocolate ice cream, white chocolate streaks coated with Mint), I will not pass that up either.Your words ... intrigue me, sir. I've never heard of this White Lightning.
A company named Perry's names it. I've only ever seen them in Western NY state.
You may not get a choice. A cloud giant (CR 11) gets three attacks, and does an average of 32 points of damage on a hit. A fighter could start the round with 74 hp, take two hits, and now be at 10 hp. The next hit will kill the fighter outright.
In that case, the fighter's better off if the giant rolls high on damage--if the fighter drops to -2, the giant's likely to find another target for the last swing rather than pulping the fighter past -9. That's a perverse incentive in 3.5; it's often better to be at -2 than 2 hp.
Compare with 4e, where a fighter with at least 74 hp can go to -37. Now the fighter can heroically stand their ground and hope the cleric can get to them before they get hit again. It's a lot more fun to make valiant stands when you're not guaranteed to die from them.
Well if you have a DM that has creatures that can autohit on all attacks, that is a much worse problem.
Possible, but I never played with many GMs who went out of their way to kill players. There are some creatures who might target unconscious characters with attacks while there were other targets (Ghouls, maybe? Starving animals?) but it almost always makes more sense to go after the moving targets first.
And 4th edition has what, a lot more exploding monsters that die, so now it looks like the DMs can eat their cake and have it too. They can ignore the unconscious person and still kill them when the monster explodes. Sounds ... fun.
EDIT: I might add (no pun intended), that if the problem is that the math is "too hard", then I have to wonder why any negative hps are kept. As a math teacher I can say, especially for lower performing students, negative numbers tend to confuse some people. If the effort is to get away from math, making it easier for those that are not good at it, these seems like a bad idea to keep it. And worse, you end up working with it even more with the larger range of negatives available in 4th edition.
Thanks Kruelaid. I'm not sure which post is missing, but it's all good. It couldn't have been that important if I don't notice that it's gone!
DMcCoy1693, man, that stuff sounds good. If I ever manage to head to that end of the world I'll have to remember to make that one of the "sights".
Pres Man, the larger negative hit point pool is, simply, to keep a PC from being killed outright from one big hit or blow from a monster. He can still die from bleeding, or if the DM decides that the monsters would target prone and unconscious targets. It's not a super solution and the "problem" isn't some big game-breaking thing (-10 hit points were fine for years, right?), but it does do what it's meant to do so it serves that purpose at least. :-)
Pres Man, the larger negative hit point pool is, simply, to keep a PC from being killed outright from one big hit or blow from a monster. He can still die from bleeding, or if the DM decides that the monsters would target prone and unconscious targets. It's not a super solution and the "problem" isn't some big game-breaking thing (-10 hit points were fine for years, right?), but it does do what it's meant to do so it serves that purpose at least. :-)
Yes, but if math is hard, then adding in more negative numbers, a concept that alot of people that are bad at math are even worse at, seems counter-intuitive.
Pres Man, the larger negative hit point pool is, simply, to keep a PC from being killed outright from one big hit or blow from a monster. He can still die from bleeding, or if the DM decides that the monsters would target prone and unconscious targets. It's not a super solution and the "problem" isn't some big game-breaking thing (-10 hit points were fine for years, right?), but it does do what it's meant to do so it serves that purpose at least. :-)Yes, but if math is hard, then adding in more negative numbers, a concept that alot of people that are bad at math are even worse at, seems counter-intuitive.
I think it depends on priority. Math being "hard" (I hate it when I hear that, heh) wasn't, I guess, as high a priority as applying a cushion to keep characters from being killed by one big blow. I don't think the goal was to so much do away with math as it was to do away with tedious math that could otherwise be avoided. They must have felt that it was worth it to give that cushion to a character.
This kind of thing, the negative hit point rule, is most definitely a matter of personal preference. I don't think the game would break if it was modified at all and will work fine as is, as a DM desires. :-)
DMcCoy1693, man, that stuff sounds good. If I ever manage to head to that end of the world I'll have to remember to make that one of the "sights".
Come to America. Try the Ice Cream! LOL!
Well if you have a DM that has creatures that can autohit on all attacks, that is a much worse problem.
For someone making fun of people who think the math is "too hard" you've got a lousy grasp of statistics.
That giant has a 55% chance of landing all three attacks against an AC 20, and a 25% of landing all three attacks against an AC 25. And that's not factoring in the chance of crits, where the giant would only have to hit twice.
Given the monsters and the damage they deal, you are much more likely to get killed at higher levels than at lower ones, even just fighting against monsters your own level. That's an artifact of the fixed -9 threshold. There's really no way to argue otherwise. And I can't see how that's an advantage of the system.
And 4th edition has what, a lot more exploding monsters that die, so now it looks like the DMs can eat their cake and have it too. They can ignore the unconscious person and still kill them when the monster explodes. Sounds ... fun.
No, no, you're deliberately missing the point.
By increasing the negative HP total, you can start to threaten people who are down. I don't know that a "lot" of 4e monsters do, but a creature that explodes for 2d6 damage when it dies is dangerous to people who are unconscious without being an insta-kill. In 3.5, exploding for 2d6 was pretty much guaranteed to kill about 70% of the unconscious players. And that's as true at 20th level as it is at 1st.
DMcCoy1693, man, that stuff sounds good. If I ever manage to head to that end of the world I'll have to remember to make that one of the "sights".Come to America. Try the Ice Cream! LOL!
Well, I live in Arizona, but, yeah, same thing. ;-)
For someone making fun of people who think the math is "too hard" you've got a lousy grasp of statistics.
Now now. I wasn't making fun of anyone for the math being too hard, I was pointing out that if, as some have claimed, 4th edition is going to make the math easier, then it is only logical to remove negative numbers all together, as they give people a difficult time. Heck, you could just bump up the positive hp and make the bottom third (for some reason people do better understanding thirds than negative numbers) act like your negative numbers.
Also I might point out, your post could potentially be see as a personal attack.
Also I might point out, your post could potentially be see as a personal attack.
Come now, come now.
You boys hug and stop this quibbling right now!
here here! I think one of the biggest problems is that the 4E lovers are taking every attack/rant against the system as a personal slight against them for wanting to switch.
Ahh no. Although I think some pro 4e folk are trolling these messageboards to feel rightously indignant.
Face it, WotC IS marketing to younger more ADHD crowd not as willing to put as much time into the ins and outs of the system (the WoW crowd). You might NOT be one of those people and still like 4E but it doesn't change the fact that that's who their target audience is.
That might be true, but I'm 39, and I am looking forward to 4e. In fact, they're are two players in my group under twenty and dedicated Wow players, who are not looking forwrd to 4e. Manly they are apathetic about learning a new rules system. But they will play what I Dm, cause i'm good.
Honestly people are comparing it to MMOs, but the MMO industry itself has been following this trend. Compare Ultima Online and Everquest to WoW and EQ2 and you'll see what I mean. WotC is just applying the trend to tabletop.
I don't play MMO's. But I think your right. WotC is propably following trends seen as successful in other game platforms such as MMO's CCG's; niether of which I have ever played. So those changes are all new to me.
P>S> Again not all of us 4e supporters are taking rants against 4e personally.
RPG’s ARE A PASSION FOR ME, NOT JUST A HOBBY
That is why people care so much.
P>S> Again not all of us 4e supporters are taking rants against 4e personally.
I think that's important. And it applies to the anti-4E group, too. For myself, I'll happily talk about what I like, why, and acknowledge that it may not be for everyone. Why? Because I'll be damned if I treat this like some of the PS3 vs. XBox360 arguments I've seen.
My arguing for or against 4E won't have any impact on its success. It won't even have an overwhelming impact on Paizo's decision. What will? The game itself. It's all on the designers and they've done their job already so all that remains to be seen is for, well, it to be seen. That's on them. Liking it will be up to us, and not something that we can browbeat someone into.
Also I might point out, your post could potentially be see as a personal attack.Come now, come now.
You boys hug and stop this quibbling right now!
Should I wuv them now?
Should I wuv them now?
Don't even smurf it. I smurf, if you so much as smurf my smurf. I will smurf you smurf-smurf smurfy.
Ehh... I can care less about these changes, mostly because they're superficial and could be changed easily. I haven't run a campaign with the great wheel in fifteen years. Eriynes and Succubi never really made sense when held against classical mythology, and make a lot more sense now. No point in arguing these, because your taste is valid and I have no right to argue it with you.
Now, when you, the 4e player (just assume that you started with 4e - it's not meant as a judgement or anything. Sake of argument and all that) want to talk to your favourite hobby, D&D, and you find a 3e player.
The two of you won't understand each other. Not just because the rules are different, but the world itself is different.
If a 2e and 3e player meet, they can at least talk about how they were in that dwarven city and were threatened by the cave-in. But if you the 4e guy and 3e guy speak, he first will have to tell you how dwarves used to live underground since forever.
So 3e and 4e fans can't play together without a lot of effort, and they can't even talk without a lot of effort because it's all so different.
But the fact that their including a social encounter system tells you that they have your concerns in mind, don't you think? You're right- it might be terrible, but it shows that they know that many people want to simulate what happens OUTSIDE the dungeon. Thus we have a wait and see approach here- there's no point in saying that they are ripping out the noncombat roleplaying, because they're obviously not. What they put in remains to be seen.
Might be some token effort to appease the crowd. Fact is that a lot of stuff that doesn't help your character in the dungeon is gone, and we haven't seen any replacements for them yet.
Pres Man, the larger negative hit point pool is, simply, to keep a PC from being killed outright from one big hit or blow from a monster.
I think that's what the higher HP total is for.
If you're afraid that the next attack might kill you because you're at 10, you die at -10 and the guy does 25 points of damage on average, remember that you don't have to stay in the fight until you drop below 0.
In fact, I'd say that many high-level characters were able to get that high because they were smart enough to realise that. Those who thought: "Hey, I still have HP, even if they're low, he can't outright kill me even if he drops me below zero" had someone get a crit at the wrong time, or make more damage than they thought, or just had a nasty enemy who made sure that they were dead. Or they just fell unconscious in a future fireball blast zone.
It seems that the higher threshold is so people can "concentrate" on doing damage, as they don't have to think about when they should withdraw - after all, with the higher threshold at higher levels, it remains almost impossible to die.
Personally, I use the -con threshold (so with con 15 you die at -15), but not because I want to discourage thought. I just think that tougher characters will have a higher chance to survive a critical blow. I won't go further than that, because I want my players on their toes. And I like Darvin. :P
If you're afraid that the next attack might kill you because you're at 10, you die at -10 and the guy does 25 points of damage on average, remember that you don't have to stay in the fight until you drop below 0.
In fact, I'd say that many high-level characters were able to get that high because they were smart enough to realise that. Those who thought: "Hey, I still have HP, even if they're low, he can't outright kill me even if he drops me below zero" had someone get a crit at the wrong time, or make more damage than they thought, or just had a nasty enemy who made sure that they were dead. Or they just fell unconscious in a future fireball blast zone.
It's true. If you like roleplaying a paladin who runs away to get healing as soon as they get hit, so you can play "smart" and survive, 3.5 fits your play style perfectly.
Many people think that's kind of lame and unheroic, and resent a system that punishes you for playing your character heroically.
It seems that the higher threshold is so people can "concentrate" on doing damage, as they don't have to think about when they should withdraw - after all, with the higher threshold at higher levels, it remains almost impossible to die.
If you're going to make conjectures like "... with the higher threshold at higher levels, it remains almost impossible to die" please point to some evidence. What's your basis for this? The copious 15th level playtest notes that have leaked? A review of the maximum damage the higher-level creatures are capable of dealing in the Monster Manual? Your personal experience with a 4e Epic Campaign?
Or is it based on seeing a couple first level characters and reading about a couple random mechanical elements, divorced from the system as a whole?
It's true. If you like roleplaying a paladin who runs away to get healing as soon as they get hit, so you can play "smart" and survive, 3.5 fits your play style perfectly.
Many people think that's kind of lame and unheroic, and resent a system that punishes you for playing your character heroically.
And again I would say if you are regularly fighting creatures that can drop the toughest fighter in your group after 2 rounds, then you got bigger problems than what edition you are playing. Sure, sometimes you are going to come across a creature that can, and I don't think it is any less noble for the paladin to shout, "Fall back! It is too tough to fight hand-to-hand." As they say, "Discretion is the better part of valor." And in the case where the party has to delay the creature for them to escape, the paladin staying behind despite knowing he is very likely to die, is extremely noble. True courage is not the absense of fear, it is acting inspite of it.
If you're afraid that the next attack might kill you because you're at 10, you die at -10 and the guy does 25 points of damage on average, remember that you don't have to stay in the fight until you drop below 0.
In fact, I'd say that many high-level characters were able to get that high because they were smart enough to realise that. Those who thought: "Hey, I still have HP, even if they're low, he can't outright kill me even if he drops me below zero" had someone get a crit at the wrong time, or make more damage than they thought, or just had a nasty enemy who made sure that they were dead. Or they just fell unconscious in a future fireball blast zone.
It's true. If you like roleplaying a paladin who runs away to get healing as soon as they get hit, so you can play "smart" and survive, 3.5 fits your play style perfectly.
Many people think that's kind of lame and unheroic, and resent a system that punishes you for playing your character heroically.
You can't be heroic if there's no danger.
You don't hear stuff like "You're so brave to fight those archdemons! Think what could have happened do you! You could have been knocked unconscious" very often.
You can't be heroic if there's no danger.
No, but that's also an advantage of 4e, because you can no longer chill at -4, stable, while your party mops up. If you're unconscious in 4e, you're at most three die rolls away from needing Speak with Dead to divvy up the party treasure. You're more likely to die once you're unconscious in 4e, not less.
I'll also point out that you're the one arguing you can't die in 4e. And since you avoided answering how you got that opinion, I think it's fair to say you don't have any basis for arguing it.
Now, when you, the 4e player (just assume that you started with 4e - it's not meant as a judgement or anything. Sake of argument and all that) want to talk to your favourite hobby, D&D, and you find a 3e player.
The two of you won't understand each other. Not just because the rules are different, but the world itself is different.
If a 2e and 3e player meet, they can at least talk about how they were in that dwarven city and were threatened by the cave-in. But if you the 4e guy and 3e guy speak, he first will have to tell you how dwarves used to live underground since forever.
You're equating world formats with the game itself. What if the dwarves in my homebrew lived in the forests instead? What if the Elves were desert dwellers? Would I not still be playing D&D? The differences between campaigns don't define the game, they define the story.
Besides, even in official D&D literature of the past, the chasms between editions were significant. What would a 1e guy and a 2e guy have to talk about when the Drow came up? One guy would be talking about Menzobarazan and the other guy would be asking about the Houses of Eirhel-Cinlu. Changes in game worlds happen, but D&D abides, as a wise man once said.
Might be some token effort to appease the crowd. Fact is that a lot of stuff that doesn't help your character in the dungeon is gone, and we haven't seen any replacements for them yet.
But the fact that their including a social encounter system tells you that they have your concerns in mind, don't you think? You're right- it might be terrible, but it shows that they know that many people want to simulate what happens OUTSIDE the dungeon. Thus we have a wait and see approach here- there's no point in saying that they are ripping out the noncombat roleplaying, because they're obviously not. What they put in remains to be seen.
Well, considering that we haven't seen 95% of the system yet, that's not particularly surprising or alarming. The fact that they've got an entire social interaction system coming at least tells you that they've got your concerns on the radar, whether or not you'll like their solutions.
Wow, the OP and I are so in sync that it is down right scary...thanks for voicing it in ways I am unable to.
If you live in Dallas, I'd love to buy you a coffee.
Thanks for the reply. In a weird coincidence, I was in training in Irving, TX for three days. Unfortunately, the class schedule didn't allow for much free time, but thanks for the offer of a coffee. [Raises virtual coffee in spirit].
I suspected I wasn't alone out there but thanks for the confirmation.
I've avoided this thread so far, but I've decided to comment.
OP:
*STANDING OVATION*
Thank you, sir. I'm just glad there was still one place among the RPG community that I COULD post what I said.
Well, I live in Arizona, but, yeah, same thing. ;-)DMcCoy1693, man, that stuff sounds good. If I ever manage to head to that end of the world I'll have to remember to make that one of the "sights".Come to America. Try the Ice Cream! LOL!
Oh, I guessed that you were from Europe or somesuch from your post.
I don't play MMO's. But I think your right. WotC is propably following trends seen as successful in other game platforms such as MMO's CCG's; niether of which I have ever played. So those changes are all new to me.
Except to update a Computer game it doesn't cost several thousand dollars.