# Falling from Great Heights



## Savage Wombat (Apr 2, 2012)

That reminds me - do we want believable falling damage in 5E?

If people have fewer HP, that'll help, but even in 1E characters jumped from terminal velocity heights all the time.

Is this a bug or a feature?


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Apr 2, 2012)

To me, the ability for higher level character to fall great distances is a feature, but for a whole lot of other folks, it is definitely a bug.  This is another thing where it'd be nice to have an in-built dial, so that you can set the lethality of falling damage as high or low as you like for the style of game that you want to run.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 2, 2012)

The thing is that actual real life human beings have survived terminal velocity falls. The idea that a demigod-slaying paladin can't take the same impact is a bit mind-bending.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 2, 2012)

I don't really have a problem with falls from great heights, but I dial up the damage in an exponential manner.  100 feet is 100x the damage instead of just 10x the damage.


----------



## Szatany (Apr 2, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> The thing is that actual real life human beings have survived terminal velocity falls. The idea that a demigod-slaying paladin can't take the same impact is a bit mind-bending.




I don't think the problem is that a high level character might survive a fall from a great height. The problem is that he will, *for certain*, survive it. If falling damage was to be more random, if even an epic character would pause before jumping 100 ft. down, then I would have no problem with it.

IMO it would be ideal if corebook had a few modules for varying styles of play.
Cinematic: falling beyond 10 ft. causes damage equal to distance fallen -10 ft.
Fantasy: falling beyond 10 ft. causes damage equal to distance fallen -10 ft. Then roll a 1d6 for every 10 ft. you've fallen and add results to damage.
Realistic: falling beyond 10 ft. causes damage equal to distance fallen -10 ft. Then roll a 1d6 for every 10 ft. you've fallen and add results to damage. For every 6 you roll, roll another 1d6.


----------



## TheSleepyKing (Apr 2, 2012)

It's a bug. It has always been a bug, an artifact of the wonkiness of HP in general. There are a number of situations, like falling, like lava, where a character's experience, skill and luck (which is what HPs represent) would have no realistic impact on survivability. For the most part we accept this because HP is so damn convenient.

I think the solution is to have some kind of 'save or die' roll after a given fall distance, with the DC increasing by distance. For example, take 1d6 damage per 10' fall; in addition falls over 40' require a DC 12 save or the character dies from massive trauma. For each 10' beyond 40', the DC increases by 2. (I don't know if these are the right numbers BTW; just an example of the kind of model I think should be used).

That way we don't have ridiculous metagamey situations where people can jump from a mountain because they know they have the HP to survive.


----------



## Mattachine (Apr 2, 2012)

I like how the 3e and 4e DMGs noted that the DM may rule that certain things cause certain death. 

Falling damage can scale whatever way you want, but really high falls should just kill. Likewise, immersion in lava kills. The DMG should provide some examples and guidelines, but not everything has to rely on hit points.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 2, 2012)

Bug?
What bug?

Heroes leap off the exploding roof or window ledge of the evil headquarters and survive.

You want them to die? That's not awesome.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 2, 2012)

shidaku said:


> I don't really have a problem with falls from great heights, but I dial up the damage in an exponential manner.  100 feet is 100x the damage instead of just 10x the damage.



You should have a cap though.


----------



## Dausuul (Apr 2, 2012)

My preferred solution is to take, say 1d6 damage per 10 feet fallen, up to a max of 20d6. But the dice explode; if you roll a 6, you roll an extra die, and keep rolling as long as you keep rolling sixes.

The result of this is that you are never guaranteed to survive a fall, but the odds are not slugged overwhelmingly against you. Couple this with a system which keeps PC hit points down to sane values, and I think it works. A 200-foot fall deals an average of 84 damage, with pretty wide variance; enough that no PC can complacently step off a cliff. But you _could_ roll a bunch of ones and very few sixes and walk away.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 2, 2012)

UngeheuerLich said:


> You should have a cap though.




Why?  If they jump from 1000 feet I'll roll 1d10x1000.  They'll die all the same as if I had waved my hand and said "you die".


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 2, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> The thing is that actual real life human beings have survived terminal velocity falls. The idea that a demigod-slaying paladin can't take the same impact is a bit mind-bending.




Real-life survivals of such falls are extremely rare (like 1 in 1 million rare).

So, the problem isn't that the demi-god slaying paladin can survive the impact, it's that the demi-god slaying paladin can _*almost always*_ survive the impact.

For many, it just doesn't make sense.




Minigiant said:


> Bug? What bug?
> 
> Heroes leap off the exploding roof or window ledge of the evil headquarters and survive.
> 
> You want them to die? That's not awesome.




True. 

But when a D&D player looking at the rules decides for their character that: _"...yeah, no problem. I've got enough hit points to survive a jump off of this 200' cliff..."_. That doesn't make sense when thought about in a real world context (as many like to do). 

Things that don't make sense, rarely feel awesome...instead they just seem confusing or counterintuitive. 

There are people that want players to make decisions based on common sense and the reality of the situation, rather than based on an artificial construct of un-realistic rules.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 2, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Real-life survivals of such falls are extremely rare (like 1 in 1 million rare).
> 
> So, the problem isn't that the demi-god slaying paladin can survive the impact, it's that the demi-god slaying paladin can _*almost always*_ survive the impact.
> 
> For many, it just doesn't make sense.




Isn't the demigod-slaying paladin like, 1 in a million though?


----------



## nightwyrm (Apr 2, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Isn't the demigod-slaying paladin like, 1 in a million though?




Don't be silly. 1 in a million means we would have around 7000 demigod-slaying paladins running around on Earth.   That's not rare at all.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 2, 2012)

nightwyrm said:


> Don't be silly. 1 in a million means we would have around 7000 demigod-slaying paladins running around on Earth.   That's not rare at all.




Well, I always assumed fantasy worlds had much smaller populations.  If a fantasy world had 6.5 billion people, I could reasonably expect 7000 of them to be demigod killers.


----------



## Storminator (Apr 2, 2012)

Dausuul said:


> My preferred solution is to take, say 1d6 damage per 10 feet fallen, up to a max of 20d6. But the dice explode; if you roll a 6, you roll an extra die, and keep rolling as long as you keep rolling sixes.




One I liked was falling damage is 1d20 per 10 ft, then divide the total by 1d6. So a good roll of the d6 means the damage is greatly reduced, but a 1 on the d6 means a world of pain - and  there's just no way to know.

My game is currently set in Sharn of Eberron, and let me tell you! the real problem with serious falling damage is that people will defenestrate any and all foes.

PS


----------



## BobTheNob (Apr 2, 2012)

I have said this before but I think hp is a good abstract methodology for representing damage for the purpose of combat resolution. I always find it a goofy mechanism once you step outside of it.

This only became goofier with Healing surges...
DM : The jump looks really dangerous
Player : Jump and take damage
DM : You take X damage
Player : Spend Y healing surges to recover them.

My SOD only goes so far. I dont know anyone who, in real life, just casually jumps from great heights because they know they have a reserve of hit points.

I would be intrigued to hear alternate approaches to damage from heights. Damage for non-combat scenarios in general (including traps, avalanches, stampedes, drowning, being crushed, smothering e.t.c. e.t.c.) which arent tied to hit points would intrigue me generally.


----------



## Szatany (Apr 2, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Bug?
> What bug?
> 
> Heroes leap off the exploding roof or window ledge of the evil headquarters and survive.
> ...




Did they leap into a chasm? If they have no parachutes or gliders or rings of feather fall, they _should_ die.
Reward preparation, not levels.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 2, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Isn't the demigod-slaying paladin like, 1 in a million though?




Yup...but still also human.

That's what's cool about the demi-god slaying _any-class_...it's the victory of a mortal over insurmountable, even God-Like, opposition...and having the audacity to try in the first place, despite their mortal vulnarabilities.


----------



## Zaran (Apr 2, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Why? If they jump from 1000 feet I'll roll 1d10x1000. They'll die all the same as if I had waved my hand and said "you die".




Technically, the 4e rules would kill anyone at a 1000 feet without changing them.  We are talking 550 pts of damage.  I see no reason why 1d10 per 10 feet has to change.  It falls back to the rule , if they are stupid they die.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 2, 2012)

Szatany said:


> Did they leap into a chasm? If they have no parachutes or gliders or rings of feather fall, they _should_ die.
> Reward preparation, not levels.




What if the level they took was in Cool?
That was the preparation.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 2, 2012)

Zaran said:


> Technically, the 4e rules would kill anyone at a 1000 feet without changing them. We are talking 550 pts of damage. I see no reason why 1d10 per 10 feet has to change. It falls back to the rule , if they are stupid they die.




Because it's the difference between merely dead...and FUBAR!

Me, I like FUBAR...


----------



## GX.Sigma (Apr 2, 2012)

Hit points represent the ability to do a shoulder roll when you hit the ground.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 2, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> True.
> 
> But when a D&D player looking at the rules decides for their character that: _"...yeah, no problem. I've got enough hit points to survive a jump off of this 200' cliff..."_. That doesn't make sense when thought about in a real world context (as many like to do).
> 
> ...





Hit point loss can be anything. 

When my halfling paladin fell and took falling damage, I stated that he channeled his divine powers into an emergency plea for help and an angel CAME OUTTA NOWHERE and caught him.... slowed his descent.

HPs are abstract, man.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 2, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Hit point loss can be anything.
> 
> When my halfling paladin fell and took falling damage, I stated that he channeled his divine powers into an emergency plea for help and an angel CAME OUTTA NOWHERE and caught him.... slowed his descent.
> 
> HPs are abstract, man.




Abstract...Yes.  Player Fiat...No.

In my games, the only person that can say _an angel come outta nowhere and caught him_...is ME.

Which is why I make sure the mechanics of falling are houseruled in my games to be realistic.  So a player doesn't get the suicidal idea they can jump off a 200' cliff and survive.

But I'd prefer to not have to houserule them in D&D Next, so that they make sense for once.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 2, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> Hit points represent the ability to do a shoulder roll when you hit the ground.




Shoulder roll at the end of a 200' fall, and all that happens is your shoulder liquifies first.


----------



## Szatany (Apr 2, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> What if the level they took was in Cool?
> That was the preparation.




I'm sorry I don't understand. English isn't my first language.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 2, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Abstract...Yes.  Player Fiat...No.
> 
> In my games, the only person that can say _an angel come outta nowhere and caught him_...is ME.
> 
> ...



Angels are too farfetched, huh?

What about evading the ground? Or helicopter swords? 



Szatany said:


> I'm sorry I don't understand. English isn't my first language.




The heroes prepared by knowing they are too cool to die via falling damage.


----------



## trancejeremy (Apr 2, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> That reminds me - do we want believable falling damage in 5E?
> 
> If people have fewer HP, that'll help, but even in 1E characters jumped from terminal velocity heights all the time.
> 
> Is this a bug or a feature?




All the time? Really? 

In all the time I played 1e (which is longer than 3e or 4e existed, or at least were supported), I never deliberately jumped from a great height and on more than one occasion, I fell to my death.

But again, D&D is not meant to be a realistic simulator of anything, much less one of damage caused by falling. Movies and books are filled with heroes that jump ludicrously far distances and survive.

_
Die Hard_ being the great example of hit points,  he jumps off the roof of the skyscraper falls about 10 floors, but is stopped by the fire hose he tied around himself. In real life, that would have caused a severe amount of damage.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 2, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Real-life survivals of such falls are extremely rare (like 1 in 1 million rare).



But aren't single-handed slayings of dragons and demigods also 1 in a million?



El Mahdi said:


> So, the problem isn't that the demi-god slaying paladin can survive the impact, it's that the demi-god slaying paladin can _*almost always*_ survive the impact.



But the same PC can almsot always survive being hit by the club of a 12' tall giant, or being fried by the breath of a gargantuan red dragon.

Surviving what would be certain death for anyone else is part of the schtick of a demi-god slaying paladin!


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 2, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Angels are too farfetched, huh?




No, I don't find Angels too farfetched. However, I do find having Players adjudicating what happened to their characters to be too farfetched. In my games that's the purview of the DM and only the DM.



Minigiant said:


> What about evading the ground? Or helicopter swords?




Ummm...I have no earthly idea what you're talking about here.

Evading the ground...? is it common for the ground to chase you or your players...? Do you use Move Silently for this...? Or are your D&D characters commonly attempting low-alttitude, nap-of-the-earth, high-speed aerial maneuvering...? 

And what in the world are helicopter swords...?

 



Minigiant said:


> The heroes prepared by knowing they are too cool to die via falling damage.




The heroes didn't prepare at all. The rules of the game provided them partial immunity from this threat.

Big difference.

If you like that style of game, that's cool. I don't have a problem with that.

But just as Monte and Company have said about their base design conceits: that it's easier to _add_ mechanics than remove ones you don't want...having a gonzo, super-hero default hardcoded into the base rules contradicts that.

Having believable rules hardcoded in the base game, and then provide ways for groups to ignore or alter them for more super-heroic type games, is better than the opposite (and Monte and Company agree).


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 2, 2012)

trancejeremy said:


> But again, D&D is not meant to be a realistic simulator of anything...




I think the point that keeps getting missed is this is no longer true (and likely never has been).

_*D&D is meant to be whatever each group wants D&D to be at their table.*_

This time around, with D&D Next, Monte and Company have stated the goal of supporting this above all else.


That means that D&D is meant to be a fantasy game of super-heroism...
That means that D&D is meant be a fantasy game of gritty sword and sorcery...
That means that D&D is meant to be able to be primarily a game...
And it means that D&D is meant to be realistic simulator of everything!

Everything, Anything, or Nothing...for Everybody!


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 2, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> No, I don't find Angels too farfetched. However, I do find having Players adjudicating what happened to their characters to be too farfetched. In my games that's the purview of the DM and only the DM.




The players aren't adjudicating, they are making sense of what happens.
[/QUOTE]

Ummm...I have no earthly idea what you're talking about here.

Evading the ground...? is it common for the ground to chase you or your players...? Do you use Move Silently for this...? Or are your D&D characters commonly attempting low-alttitude, nap-of-the-earth, high-speed aerial maneuvering...? 

[/QUOTE]

The ground is coming at you when you fall. You dodge.



> And what in the world are helicopter swords...?



Spinning your sword around and around like a helicopter to slow your fall.



> The heroes didn't prepare at all. The rules of the game provided them partial immunity from this threat.
> 
> Big difference.
> 
> ...





My point is that in D&D, a PC takes damage, you check if he or she is dead, then you explain why they are not dead.

Same with a giant twice your PC's size beating him with a tree.
Same with a dragon five times your PCs size slashing him with its claws (and the attack doesn't even move him)
Same with exploding bat poo.

Why should falling get more deadly at high level when everything else isn't?


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 3, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> The ground is coming at you when you fall. You dodge.




Unless one has the ability to fly, exactly how does one do that in a realistic manner... 



Minigiant said:


> Spinning your sword around and around like a helicopter to slow your fall.




Mmmm...yeah...I think I saw this one on Mythbusters.

It didn't turn out the way I think you expect it to turn out...



Minigiant said:


> My point is that in D&D, a PC takes damage, you check if he or she is dead, then you explain why they are not dead.
> 
> Same with a giant twice your PC's size beating him with a tree.
> Same with a dragon five times your PCs size slashing him with its claws (and the attack doesn't even move him)
> ...




The damage from a Giant's club can be described (by the DM, of course), as only being a glancing blow, etc., and it makes sense (the same goes for the Dragons slash).  There is no way to turn a 200' fall into a glancing blow and have it make sense...

The Fireball can be dodged, shielded by an object, mitigated by armor or clothing, etc.  Conversely, the ground cannot be dodged, cannot be concievably blocked by any object the PC may be carrying, nor will any mitigation due to clothing or armor help enough in a 200' fall.

It's not getting more deadly when everything else isn't...it already is inherently more deadly.  Just like falling onto lava.  There simply is no realistic, narrative explanation for commonly surviving a 200' fall with relative impunity.

That leaves the Rules As Written, if included as part of the base rules, as unsupportive and exclusionary of Realistic Play Styles.  Impossible to ignore.

Conversely, base rules that support a Realistic Play Style are much more easily ignored or altered to support a Fantasy Super-Hero Play Style.

The first does not support the design goals of Monte and Company for D&D Next.  The second does.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 3, 2012)

[MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION]

My point is that unless you make the falling rules "You fell from too high, You die.", somebody's character might survive.

Then you (as the DM) will have to explain the survival or ignore the rules. If you choose to follow the rules, your explanation might not make sense or be realistic.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 3, 2012)

shidaku said:


> El Mahdi said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





pemerton said:


> But aren't single-handed slayings of dragons and demigods also 1 in a million?



Yeah, but now calculate the odds of him being _both_ the guy who can slay a demigod, and a guy who happens to survive that fall. Potentially twice, or three times. That guy is 1 in ...a lot. And, there's more where he came from, since it applies to the party Fighter, too, and maybe the Cleric, or Druid, or Thief, or Bard, or Wizard, etc. And the villain Fighter, or Cleric, or Blackguard, or Giant, or Dragon (if you stop it from flying), or Demon, or...

I think that's what El Mahdi is talking about when it just doesn't make sense for many people.



Minigiant said:


> Hit point loss can be anything.
> 
> When my halfling paladin fell and took falling damage, I stated that he channeled his divine powers into an emergency plea for help and an angel CAME OUTTA NOWHERE and caught him.... slowed his descent.
> 
> HPs are abstract, man.



And for people that want to play completely mundane characters for the cool factor? Or that don't want this level of divine intervention? Or who don't want to say "oh, and there's this branch that wasn't there before, slowing you down, because I need a plot device"?

Those things are fine to use, but they're hardly universally wanted by groups in this situation. Some people want this for their super badass mundane warriors:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcA5c8S6Q-s]Batman's Calm. - YouTube[/ame]



pemerton said:


> But the same PC can almsot always survive being hit by the club of a 12' tall giant, or being fried by the breath of a gargantuan red dragon.
> 
> Surviving what would be certain death for anyone else is part of the schtick of a demi-god slaying paladin!





Minigiant said:


> Same with a giant twice your PC's size beating him with a tree.
> Same with a dragon five times your PCs size slashing him with its claws (and the attack doesn't even move him)
> 
> Why should falling get more deadly at high level when everything else isn't?




Yes, let's fix these, too! (And I say "fix" lightly, as one man's fix is another's "break", but I hope it gets my personal preference across.)

Let's make it so that _if you get solidly hit by that giant, you're badly injured or dead._ If you're really tough, maybe not. If you're okay with being that super-human-like, sure. I've mentioned the PC in my game that was built to be strong like Hercules, and him being tough was part of the concept as well. He just wasn't seen as mundane.

Give mundane characters _other_ ways to deal with it, like dodging. HP are nice in how versatile they are, but they fail the "badass mundane" check sometimes (falling, lava, etc.). Batman, above, was going to be paste. Another PC saved him. I'd much rather have that than "he gets saved every time, somehow!" when a situation like that arises. Others disagree, and that's fine. Let's try to make this work for everyone, though.



Minigiant said:


> My point is that unless you make the falling rules "You fell from too high, You die.", somebody's character might survive.
> 
> Then you (as the DM) will have to explain the survival or ignore the rules. If you choose to follow the rules, your explanation might not make sense or be realistic.



I think that's his point, as he wants the rules to cover it from a more "realistic" perspective as well.



El Mahdi said:


> The damage from a Giant's club can be described (by the DM, of course), as only being a glancing blow, etc., and it makes sense (the same goes for the Dragons slash).  There is no way to turn a 200' fall into a glancing blow and have it make sense...
> 
> The Fireball can be dodged, shielded by an object, mitigated by armor or clothing, etc.  Conversely, the ground cannot be dodged, cannot be concievably blocked by any object the PC may be carrying, nor will any mitigation due to clothing or armor help enough in a 200' fall.
> 
> ...



Yep. I'd like HP flexed in such a way that it can continue to satisfy both groups. You got "hit" by a giant, but didn't drop. Did you dodge? Was it glancing? Did you take it because you've got superhero toughness? Did you deplete your divine energy stores (and consequently how much you god likes you? Never been sure on that...) by having your faith deflect it? Did you ward against it with magic? You've got options.

You fall 400 feet and land, and can reliably walk away. Now we have superheroic toughness, and faith, and warding, but we don't have the more "realistic" (mundane) "glancing blow" and "dodge" options. I think El Mahdi's point is that he wants to see the rules on HP (or falling) to continue to cover both play styles, rather than excluding mundane, for some reason. Same for lava, etc. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Apr 3, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> it's easier to _add_ mechanics than remove ones you don't want





El Mahdi said:


> base rules that support a Realistic Play Style are much more easily ignored or altered to support a Fantasy Super-Hero Play Style.



Are you saying that it's easier to add mechanics, or to subtract/ignore them?

Either way I don't think this can be answered without knowing what the mechanics are.

For example, in 4e it's trivial to change the rate of recovery of healing surges via extended rests, therefore making the game less gonzo. This is an easy subtraction/alteration of a mechanic to enhance grittiness.

In AD&D or 3E it's trivial to add action points that let a player reroll (say) one d20 roll per session, thereby adding a mechanic to reduce grittiness.

But amending a game like Runequest to make it less gritty - whether by addition _or_ subtraction - is far from trivial. Likewise, amending 4e to make it even remotely as gritty as RQ would, in my view at least, be non-trivial also. At a minimum, you'd have to work out how to get healing surge recovery onto something like a disease track, _and_ you'd have to work out how you want to change incombat healing, _and_ you'd have to work out a new mechanic to replace psychic damage, _and_ you'd have to do something about falling damage, _and_ fix a bunch of other stuff that I haven't thought of.

And that's even ignoring the implications for the mechanics of differences in playstyle preference between the process-simulation that you (from your posts) appear to prefer, and the fortune-in-the-middle approach (ie work out the result via the mechanics, and then narrate a fictional process - such as angels or helicopter swords - around that outcome) that [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] is advocating.


----------



## Stormonu (Apr 3, 2012)

This is definitely something that needs to be set on a dial for how it should be handled - (super)heroic, "normal", gritty or perhaps deadly.

Didn't Gygax originally intend falling damage to be cumulative, such that a fall of 30' feet did 6d6 damage (1d6 for 10', 2d6 for 20', 3d6 for 30') instead of 3d6?

Personally, that would be about the level of damage I'd like to see for the game, assuming characters of about 5 hp/level - and still putting it on the heroic scale in my eyes.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 3, 2012)

Stormonu said:


> This is definitely something that needs to be set on a dial for how it should be handled - (super)heroic, "normal", gritty or perhaps deadly.
> 
> Didn't Gygax originally intend falling damage to be cumulative, such that a fall of 30' feet did 6d6 damage (1d6 for 10', 2d6 for 20', 3d6 for 30') instead of 3d6?
> 
> Personally, that would be about the level of damage I'd like to see for the game, assuming characters of about 5 hp/level - and still putting it on the heroic scale in my eyes.





Even with accelerating d6s, you can roll a lot of 1s and 2s and have PCs survive regularly. Especially at low altitude and high levels. Survival chance means a survival chance. D&D rarely does "normal lethal" and "gritty lethal" using the base rules once you get to higher levels unless you have "You die" or "Bagful of damage dice" rules.


----------



## Leatherhead (Apr 3, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Real-life survivals of such falls are extremely rare (like 1 in 1 million rare).




That's just one of the rules of fantasy storytelling: 1 in a million shots happen 9 out of 10 times.


----------



## radja (Apr 3, 2012)

hmm.. I'm actually not sure about 1 in a milion, I suspect the chance to survive a 200ft fall is more like 1 in 10000.

a friend of mine actually fell 60 meter (about 200ft) after a parachuting accident and survived. he made a full recovery and is now jumping out of planes again. not bad after a broken back and neck.


----------



## Aaron (Apr 3, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> The damage from a Giant's club can be described (by the DM, of course), as only being a glancing blow, etc., and it makes sense (the same goes for the Dragons slash).




It appears to make sense if:

1) you assume that the PCS are normal humans, an assumption not shared by many DMs;

2) you describe every single attack from the hundreds (thousands?) of deadly enemies the PCs encounter as only being glancing blows: but, unfortunately, that doesn't make sense at all.

3) you like to be forced to describe even dragon crush attacks as "glancing blows", or pools of acid as "mildly irritating", and so on.




> The Fireball can be dodged, shielded by an object, mitigated by armor or  clothing, etc.



What if the character is sleeping, tied, or otherwise completely helpless?

Do you realize that (in 3E) a high level PC can easily survive a coup de grace from a commoner armed with a dagger, despite being completely helpless (paralized, tied, and so on)?



> Conversely, the ground cannot be dodged, cannot be  concievably blocked by any object the PC may be carrying, nor will any  mitigation due to clothing or armor help enough in a 200' fall.



There's nothing you need to help you; you sustain the damage, just like you sustain an ancient wyrm firebreath.



> There simply is  no realistic, narrative explanation for commonly surviving a 200' fall  with relative impunity.



Aside from the term "realistic", that IMHO sounds quite inappropriate in a D&D setting, the explanation is simple: we are talking about PCs here, people who can drink poison like beer.

And if you want to visualize a high level PC jumping from a roof, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJAQfTP7VDk"]here you are[/ame].



> That leaves the Rules As Written, if included as part of the base rules,  as unsupportive and exclusionary of Realistic Play Styles.  Impossible  to ignore.



Realistic Play Styles in D&D?

Good luck with that.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Apr 3, 2012)

Yes people have fallen out of airplanes and walked away in real life.  So what?  The problem in D&D is that characters can consistently jump our of airplanes with the reasonable expectation that they're going to walk away from it.  This does weird things to decision making.  Having my high level PC jump off a 50 foot cliff just to save time is genre-appropriate for say, Toon, but not so much for fantasy.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Apr 3, 2012)

BobTheNob said:


> I would be intrigued to hear alternate approaches to damage from heights. Damage for non-combat scenarios in general (including traps, avalanches, stampedes, drowning, being crushed, smothering e.t.c. e.t.c.) which arent tied to hit points would intrigue me generally.




I kind of like the idea of using ability damage for such things, specifically constitution.  

As a rough initial idea, falling damage might do 1d6-1 CON damage per 20' fallen, if you hit 0 CON you go to 0 hp, and if you go to negative CON you're dead.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 3, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Isn't the demigod-slaying paladin like, 1 in a million though?




Yes but he shouldn't be able to do it over and over and live.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 3, 2012)

I would be quite happy to see a system where if you pushed someone out of a high window, that person might end up paralyzed below the waist. Is that too much to ask?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 3, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I would be quite happy to see a system where if you pushed someone out of a high window, that person might end up paralyzed below the waist. Is that too much to ask?




Well, considering this is a system where I can beat you repeatedly with a large, metallic object and you will never, ever, suffer any lasting effect so long as you don't die, then, yes, I would say this is too much to ask.

Where do you draw the line?  Unless you describe every attack as a glancing blow, SOME of those hits have to connect solidly.  Guess what happens when you get stabbed?  You bleed... a lot.  Frequently, without access to modern medicine, you bleed to death.  Never mind that apparently every single weapon, claw, tooth, and whatnot in a D&D universe has been sterilized for your protection before use.  Considering we're talking a period of time where stepping on a nail can cost you your foot, how realistic is it that we get bitten, slashed, pummeled, torn into, folded, spindled and/or mauled on a regular basis, yet NEVER suffer any lasting effects?

Why should falling be the special case?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 3, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Why should falling be the special case?



That was my point. It shouldn't.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 3, 2012)

I would like to see some kind of mechanic for falling  great distances instead of just hit point damage. 

I think a save or die would be good. That way falling from a great height will be just as scary no matter what level you are. The higher level characters have a better chance because of their higher saves but anyone can roll a natural 20 or a 1. 

That way miracles can happen you get that 1 in a million chance of living feeling.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 3, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Well, considering this is a system where I can beat you repeatedly with a large, metallic object and you will never, ever, suffer any lasting effect so long as you don't die, then, yes, I would say this is too much to ask.
> 
> Where do you draw the line?  Unless you describe every attack as a glancing blow, SOME of those hits have to connect solidly.  Guess what happens when you get stabbed?  You bleed... a lot.  Frequently, without access to modern medicine, you bleed to death.  Never mind that apparently every single weapon, claw, tooth, and whatnot in a D&D universe has been sterilized for your protection before use.  Considering we're talking a period of time where stepping on a nail can cost you your foot, how realistic is it that we get bitten, slashed, pummeled, torn into, folded, spindled and/or mauled on a regular basis, yet NEVER suffer any lasting effects?
> 
> Why should falling be the special case?




I actually have mechanics in my game for this.  Magical healing takes care of infection if done soon after the injury. But if you let it heal naturally or have a delay in magical healing then you have to make a save against disease.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 3, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Yes but he shouldn't be able to do it over and over and live.




Why not?  I agree that fighting dieties every day is probably overkill, but the demigod slayer is probably pretty close to demigodhood themselves.  Having incredible powers, incredible physical prowess and being on the edge of transcending his mortal shell anyway are pretty good factors in arguing that killing demigods is something he should be able to do reliably.

The demigod killer isn't just pushing the boundaries of human limits, they are actively surpassing them.  To me, it feels like you're trying to think of things that are for all intents and purposes, outside of the the box, from within the box(in this case the box is our humanity).  Look at the way characters are described in the fluff of 4e's Paragon Paths or Epic Destinites.  

These aren't really humanoids anymore, they're much, much more, and that means the limitations on what they can do are so very different.  I agree that they still have limits, but I don't think those limits can be defined from within a humanistic frame of reference.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Are you saying that it's easier to add mechanics, or to subtract/ignore them?...




In general, adding is easier than subtracting. The reason being that removing a sub-mechanic that's hardwired throughout the rules likely has more effects throughout all the rules than just the specific sub-mechanic itself. Ignoring is not subtracting. Subtracting tends to be much more difficult, and ignoring only works in certain circumstances (not useful for all mechanics/sub-mechanics).

Adding a mechanic however, means you likely already know the effects it may have on the greater game, and it's easier to tweak to accomodate (or, as with D&D Next add-on modules, hopefelly included advice on how to incorporate them).

I know this isn't universally accepted, but the designers of D&D Next do accept this as one of their design premises, thus the idea of add-on modular designs rather than advice on how to remove or alter parts you don't like.





Aaron said:


> It appears to make sense if:
> 
> 1) you assume that the PCS are normal humans, an assumption not shared by many DMs;
> 
> ...




The point is that they _*can*_ be described that way (and many, many, many more ways) and make sense (or they don't have to be explained at all, and still make sense), while surviving a 200' fall cannot be described in any realistic way...at least without the use of some _dues ex machina_, which gets pretty stale with continued use.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 3, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I would be quite happy to see a system where if you pushed someone out of a high window, that person might end up paralyzed below the waist. Is that too much to ask?




That would be a random table...


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 3, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Why not?  I agree that fighting dieties every day is probably overkill, but the demigod slayer is probably pretty close to demigodhood themselves.  Having incredible powers, incredible physical prowess and being on the edge of transcending his mortal shell anyway are pretty good factors in arguing that killing demigods is something he should be able to do reliably.
> 
> The demigod killer isn't just pushing the boundaries of human limits, they are actively surpassing them.  To me, it feels like you're trying to think of things that are for all intents and purposes, outside of the the box, from within the box(in this case the box is our humanity).  Look at the way characters are described in the fluff of 4e's Paragon Paths or Epic Destinites.
> 
> These aren't really humanoids anymore, they're much, much more, and that means the limitations on what they can do are so very different.  I agree that they still have limits, but I don't think those limits can be defined from within a humanistic frame of reference.




Well if they can survive failing so far how can they then die in combat or from a save and die spell?

Unless they have some kind of supernatural ability that prevents their body from taking the massive damage that falling does to a body it is just not going to be realistic to me that everyone high level can survive a fall of a mountain.

I can't look at anything 4E because I don't have the books.

It will not matter what WOTC does in my game you fall in lava you die you fall off a mountain you make a save or die.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Apr 3, 2012)

1d6 / 10' has been standard. 20d6 was max. velocity averaging 65 hp of damage. That works pretty well for pre-d20, but could be surpassed in 3.x. 

Another option is cumulative totals, but that can get difficult for some folks. 1d6, 3d6, 6d6, 10d6 at 40', etc. That gets deadly really quickly. 

Or use d10s. 

I think stuff like this was the realm of house rules back in the day. Some wanted their game to be more deadly with falls. Others wanted less. It's okay to offer options.


----------



## Aaron (Apr 3, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> The point is that they _*can*_ be described that way (and many, many, many more ways) and make sense (or they don't have to be explained at all, and still make sense), while surviving a 200' fall cannot be described in any realistic way...at least without the use of some _dues ex machina_, which gets pretty stale with continued use.



I disagree.

If real people survived from more than 200' falls, thanks to sheer luck, why can't you describe surviving the same fall in game to your crazily* lucky PCs? 

* Let's not forget that _every single damn attack_ from their opponents is a glancing blow throughout the game.

Not to mention things like:

- poison (with a good Fort save you can drink it like soda);
- fire (are we going to change the rule even for fire? does anyone have an idea of what happens to a human being inside a fire?
- pools of acid,
and so on.


----------



## Szatany (Apr 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> But aren't single-handed slayings of dragons and demigods also 1 in a million?
> 
> But the same PC can almsot always survive being hit by the club of a 12' tall giant, or being fried by the breath of a gargantuan red dragon.
> 
> Surviving what would be certain death for anyone else is part of the schtick of a demi-god slaying paladin!




That is explained away as being barely hit/grazed as long as you have HP.
I haven't heard about people (heroes or not) who barely fell from a height


----------



## Savage Wombat (Apr 3, 2012)

The problem really isn't with people miraculously surviving accidental falls.

The problem is with PCs saying "I have 76 HP, I'll just jump down the 120' cliff, and heal the damage at the bottom."


----------



## Gryph (Apr 3, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I would like to see some kind of mechanic for falling great distances instead of just hit point damage.
> 
> I think a save or die would be good. That way falling from a great height will be just as scary no matter what level you are. The higher level characters have a better chance because of their higher saves but anyone can roll a natural 20 or a 1.
> 
> That way miracles can happen you get that 1 in a million chance of living feeling.




Except rolling a natural 20 to survive it is 50,000 in a million chance. A d20 is just not granular enough for me.

I like the big handsful of dice method. Yeah, they may all come up 1 and you walk away but the odds of that are governed by the laws of really big numbers and if it happens it can be fewed as divine intervention.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 3, 2012)

House rule I've used for many years:

Every 1 rolled on the d6s for falling damage is 1 point CON damage instead of 1 HP.

PCs are still likely to survive long falls.  But there is enough scary that it works.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 3, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I would be quite happy to see a system where if you pushed someone out of a high window, that person might end up paralyzed below the waist. Is that too much to ask?





Hussar said:


> Well, considering this is a system where I can beat you repeatedly with a large, metallic object and you will never, ever, suffer any lasting effect so long as you don't die, then, yes, I would say this is too much to ask.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Why should falling be the special case?





Ahnehnois said:


> It shouldn't.



There are any number of fantasy RPGs which give you a damage system (for falling, for combat, for acid, etc) in which characters can be paralysed, cut, maimed, blinded, scarred etc. The ones I'm familiar with are RM and RQ (for that classic 80s anti-D&D feel) and Burning Wheel (for a more contemporary vibe). But I would be very very surprised if D&Dnext changed D&D, after 30 years of being wound-free, to resemble any of these games.



El Mahdi said:


> surviving a 200' fall cannot be described in any realistic way...at least without the use of some _dues ex machina_, which gets pretty stale with continued use.



Sorry to dogpile a little bit, but I'm curious about your response to some of [MENTION=52548]Aaron[/MENTION]'s other examples: poison, pools of acid, fire, etc.

In all editions of D&D hit points have represented damage/threats of harm besides combat attacks.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> There are any number of fantasy RPGs which give you a damage system (for falling, for combat, for acid, etc) in which characters can be paralysed, cut, maimed, blinded, scarred etc. The ones I'm familiar with are RM and RQ (for that classic 80s anti-D&D feel) and Burning Wheel (for a more contemporary vibe). But I would be very very surprised if D&Dnext changed D&D, after 30 years of being wound-free, to resemble any of these games.



I would also be surprised. I would be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 3, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> I would also be surprised. I would be pleasantly surprised.



Serious question - why not just play one of those other games?

If you compare 3E to a game like RM or HARP, for example, the difference in combat resolution is the most obvious difference. Once you get rid of hit points in favour of a crit/wound system, what is the point of sticking to D&D? A preference for D&D spell casting over the RM/HARP spell point mechanics?


----------



## tlantl (Apr 3, 2012)

Stormonu said:


> Didn't Gygax originally intend falling damage to be cumulative, such that a fall of 30' feet did 6d6 damage (1d6 for 10', 2d6 for 20', 3d6 for 30') instead of 3d6?




No the 1e player's hand book says 1d6 per 10' fallen.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 3, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Serious question - why not just play one of those other games?
> 
> If you compare 3E to a game like RM or HARP, for example, the difference in combat resolution is the most obvious difference. Once you get rid of hit points in favour of a crit/wound system, what is the point of sticking to D&D? A preference for D&D spell casting over the RM/HARP spell point mechanics?



Well, familiarity. The fact that I own the books and can get rules online. The fact that I don't know or trust the other systems. Then again, I've gotten a lot of ideas from other systems that represent wounds better, so I do play them sometimes.

But beyond that, D&D is the flagship. If D&D changes in tone, the hobby changes. We've seen many huge changes in tone that at least in the eyes of some haven't disqualified the printed game from being called D&D. If one side of combat can be discretized and complicated (i.e. the attack) why not the other side (the result on the target). At the moment, I hesitate to explain to colleagues that I play D&D partially because of the enormous disconnect between the game I run and the books that are in stores (and if I said I played a fantasy rpg, they wouldn't understand the term). You try explaining to a group of biomedical graduate students why D&D is a great combat-oriented roleplaying game, but characters can't be meaningfully wounded.

I also think a paradigm shift would allow a broad fan base and many designers to examine the gameplay issues resulting from an incrementally more realistic approach to health and injury. I've written great injury rules myself for d20, but I'd rather not have to adapt them to D&D myself.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 4, 2012)

Ahnehnois - I think that adding in a wounds location system and all those other fiddly bits would turn D&D into GURPS.  If you want to see combat grind, try that system.  Even a glacially slow D&D combat where players dither over every action is still lightning fast in comparison.

If it's an optional add-on, great, I can ignore it.  But, I really hope it never becomes part of the base mechanics because it just slows the game down SOOO much.  

I don't play D&D for this level of simulation.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 4, 2012)

To all the people who dislike that high-level characters can drink acid, swim in lava, survive falls, etc., and all the people who think that a mook stabbing you to death at night should be a threat at every level: Realistic heroes are low-level.  By the time you get past 13th level or so, mundane physics don't really matter to characters anymore.  That's all there is to it.

By level 7, you're a mythical hero.  Beowulf died fighting a dragon that works out to roughly Large size in 3e (or perhaps the smaller end of Huge), and one without a breath weapon and spellcasting at that, which puts it around CR 8-10, a boss fight for a level 4-6 solo PC.  He also fought a troll, which from its description could be anything from a regeneration-less D&D troll to an ogre or one of the smaller giants, which is again in the lower CR range.

Chimerae, lernaean hydras, Pegasus, Medusa, minotaurs, fiendish (i.e. Nemean) lions, chimeric hell hounds (i.e. Kerberos), lamias, ogres, trolls, and practically every other creature faced by any Greek hero, part-deity or otherwise, are all below CR 6.

Can you see Odysseus, Herakles, Conan, and King Arthur, all working together, take out the high-flying death-ray-slinging CR 10 beholder?  How about a life-draining dread wraith, a CR 11 baddy immune to normal weapons?  Any of them would be squashed flat or blasted to pieces or killed with a touch fighting one of those things, and there are more where they came from.  Lots of players don't realize just how unrealistic you have to be to even have a _chance_ to survive what mid-level PCs routinely encounter.  Mundane heroes without any magic of some form to draw on become obsolete fairly quickly.

Any martial character resembling one of those guys who would be capable of reliably taking out barely-mid-level threats like the monsters mentioned is either 6+ levels higher than any of them--and therefore capable of soloing all of those characters at once, plus all of the Argonauts, Joan of Arc, Theseus, and the Knights of the Round Table together with ease--or is decked out in so much magic that they left realism behind a long time ago.  I would feel _insulted_ if someone that superhuman and/or magical couldn't routinely survive a huge fall.  Hell, Gandalf was an angel who maps better to the CR 14 planetar than to any caster class or gish build, and he survived a multiple-day-long fall into a lake, while fighting an even-CR demon, and survived that; why shouldn't a high-level character be able to do the same?

Though the above examples use 3e math since those are the books I have at hand, the same applies to BECMI and AD&D, as hit points don't start hitting caps until around name level.  In fact, martial PCs were even better than the above in AD&D relative to their 3e counterparts (for instance, a 2e fighter with just mundane plate and a mundane sword he's specialized in can kill 6 trolls without dying in under a minute, while a 3e fighter trying to do the same does so much more slowly and is likely to die long before succeeding).  4e works out the same way, with PCs who start out as heroes and quickly become the best of the best, eventually being able to auto-resurrect themselves.  Falling damage should cease to be a concern at all for both the Epic 4e character and the Immortal pre-3e character.

So while it's certainly possible to ask that a more gritty HP variant come around in a module or supplement, or say that you'd prefer a more low-powered standard in 5e, don't pretend that characters in D&D have ever been anything like "normal" people past low levels without extensive houseruling like the ever-popular insta-kill rules for lava and other hazards.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 4, 2012)

Meh.

I'm fine with helicopter swords, double air jumps, shoulder rolls, and guardian angels.

If a guy can learn to stop time by wiggling his hands and saying some gibberish... a guy can learn to survive falling off a cliff.

Joe has over a dozen level. He eats ogres for lunch and leaps off cliffs like Wile E Coyote.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Apr 4, 2012)

pemerton said:
			
		

> But aren't single-handed slayings of dragons and demigods also 1 in a million?
> 
> But the same PC can almsot always survive being hit by the club of a 12' tall giant, or being fried by the breath of a gargantuan red dragon.
> 
> Surviving what would be certain death for anyone else is part of the schtick of a demi-god slaying paladin!




Not everyone agrees that a character 'hit' by an attack actually get hit in the game world. This is why surviving multiple sword wounds with no treatment etc is feasible for -any- character north of 20 Hp or so. 

You can't imagine a glancing blow or being demoralized or dodging from a very high fall, though.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 4, 2012)

pemerton said:


> ...I'm curious about your response to some of Aaron's other examples: poison, pools of acid, fire, etc.




Okey dokey...

*Poisons*:  There are lots of different poisons, with varying lethality.  And a poison's effect is incredibly variable (dosage, body weight of target, constitution/fortitude of target, mode of exposure, etc.)  Also, very few poisons kill immediately unless exposed to massive doses.  In the real world, people survive poisonings all the time, sometimes even without medical attention.  So I'm cool with it being modeled through Hit Point loss or Ability damage based on a random Fortitude Check (or Constitution Check in D&D Next).

*Acid*:  Again, this is a variable threat.  If it's a pool of acid, then see the rules for Lava (in other words, Death and nothing but Death).  That is if a Reflex (Dexterity) check is failed to keep from falling in.  An Acid attack however (splashing, spray, etc.) is just Hit Point damage (IMO).

*Fire*:  Fire also is variable.  It depends on the time of exposure, the heat of the fire, mitigating objects, clothing, or a shield, etc.  Fire isn't usually immediately lethal (which is why death by burning was such an absolutely horrible punishment).  So in this case also, Hit Point damage works just fine for me.

As to a Giant's club (as I think somebody mentioned earlier), I think the damage potential should be much higher than typically represented.  But getting lucky and not suffering maximum Hit Point damage from such an attack is a reasonable outcome.  There are a ton of variables in any weapon attack.  Even a the attack from a Giant's club.  So variable damage potential, modeled by Hit Points also works.

But *Lava* (falling _onto_ lava, as one cannot fall _into_ lava) is almost certainly instant death.  Either a save or die effect, or massive damage potential (determined each round...if saved before you're out of Hit Points, then you live - though you'd likely wished you'd died).

And *Falling Damage*, based on real world consequences, falls of 50 feet are about 50% fatal, with the chances of survival quickly diminishing to practically zero very quickly.  So, I'd want damage that scales up exponentially, or a percentage check for survivability (like 90% at 10 feet, 80% at 20 feet, 50% at 50 feet, 40% at 60 feet, 10% at 90 feet, and 99% at 100 feet or more...believe it or not, that's actually better odds than real life).  Or even use both together.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 4, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> To all the people who dislike that high-level characters can drink acid, swim in lava, survive falls, etc., and all the people who think that a mook stabbing you to death at night should be a threat at every level: Realistic heroes are low-level. By the time you get past 13th level or so, mundane physics don't really matter to characters anymore. That's all there is to it.




No that's not all there is to it.

That's all there is to it _*in your game*_.

But D&D Next is not about your game, it's about everybody games.  It's about having the ability to be as many different versions of D&D as there are groups playing it.

A base system that is simple and realistic (as possible), with add-on modules to crank it up to any other sort of style or play type, is what D&D Next is striving for.


Whay is this so hard for people to wrap their heads around or accept...


----------



## pemerton (Apr 4, 2012)

Mishihari Lord said:


> Having my high level PC jump off a 50 foot cliff just to save time is genre-appropriate for say, Toon, but not so much for fantasy.





Savage Wombat said:


> The problem is with PCs saying "I have 76 HP, I'll just jump down the 120' cliff, and heal the damage at the bottom."



But in the context of a combat or some other desperate moment, this can be pretty dramatic (at least I've found). It's over 25 years since I GMed G2, but I still remember the dwarven fighter seeing the frost giants approaching, looking over his shoulder down the icy cliff, and deciding that he could take the fall better than he could take the giants.

A dramatic moment, and but for it he might not have found the remorhaz.

But if my players were having their PCs jump over cliffs rather than walk down the mountain paths, my first instinct would be to offer them something more interesting on which to spend their hit points!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 4, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Ahnehnois - I think that adding in a wounds location system and all those other fiddly bits would turn D&D into GURPS.  If you want to see combat grind, try that system.  Even a glacially slow D&D combat where players dither over every action is still lightning fast in comparison.
> 
> If it's an optional add-on, great, I can ignore it.  But, I really hope it never becomes part of the base mechanics because it just slows the game down SOOO much.
> 
> I don't play D&D for this level of simulation.



Certainly a fair point, and slowing down play is a huge concern (which is why I've only implemented my injury system for CoC and its very simple characters). My feeling is that for every level of complexity that is added to the attacks (over a very simple baseline), one should be added to their results. It makes no sense to me that we have such complex (and slow) combat rules but no rules for their consequences. In other words, if a player wants to be able to say more than "I attack", a DM should be able to say more than "you hit".

I think this approach would produce a game with simpler combat rules and slightly more complex rules for after the battle. I wouldn't advocate anything close to 100% realism for D&D, but I think if I'm going to play a fighter I want to inflict some real wounds (and have some real scars).


----------



## Stormonu (Apr 4, 2012)

radja said:


> hmm.. I'm actually not sure about 1 in a milion, I suspect the chance to survive a 200ft fall is more like 1 in 10000.
> 
> a friend of mine actually fell 60 meter (about 200ft) after a parachuting accident and survived. he made a full recovery and is now jumping out of planes again. not bad after a broken back and neck.




Let's also make the distinction - surviving such a fall in the real world is far different than the D&D "get up and dust self off afterward" - in less than 6 seconds.


----------



## Stormonu (Apr 4, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> By level 7, you're a mythical hero.  Beowulf died fighting a dragon that works out to roughly Large size in 3e (or perhaps the smaller end of Huge), and one without a breath weapon and spellcasting at that, which puts it around CR 8-10, a boss fight for a level 4-6 solo PC.  He also fought a troll, which from its description could be anything from a regeneration-less D&D troll to an ogre or one of the smaller giants, which is again in the lower CR range.




Unless I'm mistaken a CR 8 creature should be an epic fight for a level 5 _party_, which would make it an epic fight for a lone _8th_ level character?


----------



## triqui (Apr 4, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> The thing is that actual real life human beings have survived terminal velocity falls. The idea that a demigod-slaying paladin can't take the same impact is a bit mind-bending.




The thing is no actual real life human has fall at terminal velocity into a pool of lava, and get out of there without dying. Your paladin can.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 4, 2012)

Ahnehnois said:


> if a player wants to be able to say more than "I attack", a DM should be able to say more than "you hit".



I agree with this. This is why I find 4e a viable version of D&D, whereas earlier editions - in which combat is overwhelmingly about hit point damage without other effects - do comparatively little for me.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 4, 2012)

triqui said:


> The thing is no actual real life human has fall at terminal velocity into a pool of lava, and get out of there without dying. Your paladin can.




Not a fan of Lord of the Rings?


----------



## triqui (Apr 4, 2012)

The fun thing is not only falling is unrealistic.

At 4'01'' you can see what happen when you are hit by a great sword:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hfLZozBVpM]Two Handed Great Sword - YouTube[/ame]

Hit points are unrealistic. Always have been, always will be.


----------



## TheSleepyKing (Apr 4, 2012)

tlantl said:


> No the 1e player's hand book says 1d6 per 10' fallen.




The way I see it is that it’s not really a question of “what is an appropriate scale of damage for falling?”, but “why should a 10th level fighter have a better chance of surviving a 100’ drop than a regular person?” 

Using HP for falling explicitly means that the fighter has a much better chance of surviving the fall, although there’s no actual good reason for this. His training and experience count for nothing in this scenario, and realistically his chance of surviving should be about the same as any other shmo; maybe a little higher because he’s probably physically tougher.

Now you could take a 4e-esque view that reality bends arounds the character because he’s a ‘hero’. That is, his heroic plot-shield means that in his case maybe there’s a barrel of hay or a pool of water that breaks his fall that wouldn’t be there for a disposable mook. That’s a perfectly legitimate way of seeing things, though not to my taste.


----------



## Leatherhead (Apr 4, 2012)

The alternative to surviving falls is "killing Thor with a push spell." 

If you start handing out exceptions to the rule, you have to seriously consider why you aren't just codifying the exception in a way that doesn't make it exceptional.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 4, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Not a fan of Lord of the Rings?




Who fell into a pool of lave in LOTR and lived? And who feel from terminal velocity and lived?

I have only read the first book so maybe it is different than the movies.

But Gandalf is the only one I know who fell and he did die but was resurrected.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 4, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> No that's not all there is to it.
> 
> That's all there is to it _*in your game*_.
> 
> ...




That's how it's been, by the RAW before houserules, in every edition thus far.  As I said, whether you want it to be that way in 5e is up to you, but unrealistic falling damage and many other unrealistic mechanics have been features rather than bugs since before 1e.  People who try to houserule things to "fix" falling damage and lava and such are missing the larger picture, I feel, no offense intended to you; D&D should definitely not start at "mid-level people are realistic" and work its way up, it should start at "mid-level people are mythical Greek heroes" and be able to be adjusted up or down.

If there's one thing that's stayed the same through the 2e-3e change and the 3e-4e change, it's that realistic people are low-level and the game world always tries to model that, with the rate at which you become unrealistic varying by edition.  Moreover, it's much easier to houserule in absolutes based on heroic rules ("Lava kills you, period") than it is to extrapolate more heroic rules from absolutes ("How much damage does Kratos take from laval?").

So play what you like, and feel free to houserule to your heart's content, but I strongly believe that the based D&D power curve should remain where it is.



Stormonu said:


> Unless I'm mistaken a CR 8 creature should be an epic fight for a level 5 _party_, which would make it an epic fight for a lone _8th_ level character?




I probably should have explained that better: a MM-standard dragon of Large size is on average CR 8-10 depending on color, as per the SRD, so it would be roughly CR 5-7 _after_ you take away its breath weapon and spellcasting; since a "boss fight" is even CR, CR 5-7 looks like an appropriate CR for a fight that overwhelms and ultimately kills a level 4-6 Beowulf despite his best efforts but doesn't wipe the floor with him.  Clearer?


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 4, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Who fell into a pool of lave in LOTR and lived? And who feel from terminal velocity and lived?
> 
> I have only read the first book so maybe it is different than the movies.
> 
> But Gandalf is the only one I know who fell and he did die but was resurrected.




Fantasy and Hollywood almost never use realistic notions of lava. LotR is no exception. What happens in reality doesn't really automatically apply to a character covered in magic and blessings such that they can slay things that can invent an entire race on a whim and a gesture, anyways.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 4, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Fantasy and Hollywood almost never use realistic notions of lava. LotR is no exception. What happens in reality doesn't really automatically apply to a character covered in magic and blessings such that they can slay things that can invent an entire race on a whim and a gesture, anyways.




So no one actually fell into the lava and lived.

I am well aware that Hollywood does not do realistic things. One of my favorite is getting hit on the head. It is a standard thing to knock someone out. But in real life if you get knocked out especially for the length of time they do in Hollywood you would not just wake up and be able to go on. You would be vomiting your guts out, have blurry vision and be unsteady on your feet. That is not to mention that fact that a blow to knock you out can be deadly.

But we all agree to go along with it. Just like we all agree that Jack Bauer can across town in LA in ten minutes, Indiana Jones can hang on to a sub periscope in the ocean and not drown or suffer from hypothermia. Or why the vampires and demons just don't get guns and blow the slayer away.

But most of us would be going WTF if a character fell into lava and didn't die or fell out of a plane and hit the rock hard ground. 

Some of us are just not willing to say any mortal character can fall a long distance and every time get up and walk away.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 4, 2012)

You know....

We need a 15th level human to come out of the shadows...
so we can push him off a building to see if he survives.

I think he will.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 4, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Some of us are just not willing to say any mortal character can fall a long distance and every time get up and walk away.




Sure! Some of us are willing to do just that.

So!

They can throw in a quick optional rule. It'll be as popular as encumbrance, but hey.


----------



## Aaron (Apr 4, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> *Poisons*:  There are lots of different poisons, with varying lethality.  And a poison's effect is incredibly variable (dosage, body weight of target, constitution/fortitude of target, mode of exposure, etc.)



How are you going to take into account things like dosage, body weight, and so no?

IMHO you are just trying to obtain an unrealizable result in D&D.

In D&D high level characters can drink bottles of poisons without any negative effect, no matter their body weight, dosage etc.



> Also, very few poisons kill immediately unless exposed to massive  doses.  In the real world, people survive poisonings all the time,  sometimes even without medical attention.



Unfortunately in D&D even poisons aren't realistic at all, and are designed for unrealistic people.

In real life there are no Dark reaver powder, Purple worm poison or Dragon bile.



> *Acid*:  Again, this is a variable threat.  If it's a pool  of acid, then see the rules for Lava



Good luck to your PCs in any dungeon.



> An Acid attack however (splashing, spray, etc.) is just Hit Point  damage (IMO).



I can't see why.



> *Fire*:  Fire also is variable.  It depends on the time of  exposure, the heat of the fire, mitigating objects, clothing, or a  shield, etc.



A list of parameters you can't consider in a D&D game.



> Fire isn't usually immediately lethal (which is why death  by burning was such an absolutely horrible punishment).  So in this case  also, Hit Point damage works just fine for me.



But what about a PC trapped inside a closed room in fire?



> As to a Giant's club (as I think somebody mentioned earlier), I think  the damage potential should be much higher than typically represented.



How many Giant's club hits should a high level character be able to sustain before dying in your "realistic" scenario?



> But getting lucky and not suffering maximum Hit Point damage from such  an attack is a reasonable outcome.  There are a ton of variables in any  weapon attack.  Even a the attack from a Giant's club.  So variable  damage potential, modeled by Hit Points also works.



So your PCs are going to face deadly enemies 24/7 because they know they are incredibly _lucky_?

Isn't the same thing as jumping from 200' and knowing the impact will not kill you?



> But *Lava* (falling _onto_ lava, as one cannot fall _into_  lava) is almost certainly instant death.



This sounds apodictic.

There are _hundreds_ of lethal menaces in D&D.

Heck, even a large boulder falling onto an unaware human should squash him like a bug.

Not to mention that, IMHO, a Masonry wall (1 ft. thick)  should "survive" to many "attacks".

But in D&D such a wall has hardness 8 and 90 hps.

A high level barbarian has many more hps than a masonry wall.



> And *Falling Damage*, based on real world consequences,  falls of 50 feet are about 50% fatal, with the chances of survival  quickly diminishing to practically zero very quickly.



I don't want to imagine the real world consequences of being hit by a giant's club, anywhere on my body.

PCs who must face real world consequences would never face real world insurmountable menaces.

In real life no group of 4 people would ever face a colossal dragon, or anything of CR >4.


----------



## Nikosandros (Apr 4, 2012)

tlantl said:


> No the 1e player's hand book says 1d6 per 10' fallen.



Yes, but if your read the rules for thief/acrobats in UA you can see that the rule was intended to be 1d6 cumulative. Gary stated as much in a later article n Dragon. (The rule was changed by an editor without Gary's consent).


----------



## tlantl (Apr 4, 2012)

Well that would make falling more dangerous for sure. 

It also would be nice if those little gems were in a section where the numbers weren't mashed together, making your eyes bleed.


----------



## Nikosandros (Apr 4, 2012)

tlantl said:


> Well that would make falling more dangerous for sure.
> 
> It also would be nice if those little gems were in a section where the numbers weren't mashed together, making your eyes bleed.



Heh... the AD&D aren't always very clear.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 4, 2012)

This, like the "how many town guards would it take to defeat a tenth level X" question, is all the fault of D&D never officially explaining, outside of magic, what a character of with levels greater than humanoid found on Earth can do or handle.

So we have this gulf between people who see them as slightly better mortals bound to reality to nearly unimaginable freaks of nature akin to monsters.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Apr 4, 2012)

Most of this is covered in my game under the 'No Meta-gaming Rule'.

If you intentionally put your character in harms way because 'it couldn't possibly kill him', then for that action the character is a minion.  Otherwise normal rules apply.

Applies to all kinds of situations, hostages, intentional falls, running through fires, getting swallowed because killing from the inside is easier, swimming in acid, guzzling poison, having staring contests with Medusa, make-out sessions with Succubi, letting something stab you full force, etc.


----------



## triqui (Apr 4, 2012)

jodyjohnson said:


> Most of this is covered in my game under the 'No Meta-gaming Rule'.
> 
> If you intentionally put your character in harms way because 'it couldn't possibly kill him', then for that action the character is a minion.  Otherwise normal rules apply.
> 
> Applies to all kinds of situations, hostages, intentional falls, *running through fires*, getting swallowed because killing from the inside is easier, swimming in acid, guzzling poison, having staring contests with Medusa, make-out sessions with Succubi, letting something stab you full force, etc.




So in your game, Wall of Fire are completelly impossible to cross through? Or do you mean a character can run through a magically enhanced red hot Wall of Fire, but not through ordinary campfires?


----------



## RYPros53 (Apr 4, 2012)

Gandalf the grey fell - FAR. And got stronger.
If you want to penalize characters who metagame and jump down from large heights- put metal spikes at the bottom.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 4, 2012)

Ok, after all the song and dance, I really gotta ask a few questions:

1.  How often do your characters fall farther than, say, 50 feet?  Because, scratching my head, I can't honestly think of that many times.

2.  How often did that character then climb back up and do it again?  I know I've never seen that, but, maybe my group is the outlier here.

3.  How often do your players intentionally burn hit points by jumping down long distances simply to save time?

4.  Is this really something that comes up so often that we need rules more complicated than, d10/10 feet fallen?  Really?


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 4, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Sure! Some of us are willing to do just that.
> 
> So!
> 
> They can throw in a quick optional rule. It'll be as popular as encumbrance, but hey.




That is cool with me and since I use the rules for encumbrance and cover I have no issue of it being an optional rule.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 4, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Ok, after all the song and dance, I really gotta ask a few questions:
> 
> 1.  How often do your characters fall farther than, say, 50 feet?  Because, scratching my head, I can't honestly think of that many times.



Twice over 15 levels.  Though we did have reflex saves on the first on to try and grab a foothold and not go splat.



> 2.  How often did that character then climb back up and do it again?  I know I've never seen that, but, maybe my group is the outlier here.



Once or twice in the same party, but we had no desire to sit at the table all day while Bob tried to successfully climb the cliff.  After one person made it up, we made it easier on the rest(as the guy on top could lower rope or something)



> 3.  How often do your players intentionally burn hit points by jumping down long distances simply to save time?



Never seen it happen.  20-foot jump?  Maybe.  50+?  Never.



> 4.  Is this really something that comes up so often that we need rules more complicated than, d10/10 feet fallen?  Really?



I don't think so, but I already have a harsher solution to prevent stupid.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 4, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> That's how it's been, by the RAW before houserules, in every edition thus far. As I said, whether you want it to be that way in 5e is up to you, but unrealistic falling damage and many other unrealistic mechanics have been features rather than bugs since before 1e.




It's a feature and not a bug *in your game*.  In mine, and many other games, it is a bug.  Without that qualifier, your statement is not correct.

It's a small yet very important distinction.  One that I feel is crucial to remember.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> People who try to houserule things to "fix" falling damage and lava and such are missing the larger picture, I feel, no offense intended to you; D&D should definitely not start at "mid-level people are realistic" and work its way up, it should start at "mid-level people are mythical Greek heroes" and be able to be adjusted up or down.




Again, _in your game_.

The only _*should*_s that exist as far as D&D goes is that each and every individual group has the right to decide how D&D should be played at their table.

The only big picture being missed by anybody here is that.

Neither the rules nor anybody else, get to decide the way that D&D should be played.

Monte and Company are designing a game that will support that.  People may as well start getting used to that concept now.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> If there's one thing that's stayed the same through the 2e-3e change and the 3e-4e change, it's that realistic people are low-level and the game world always tries to model that, with the rate at which you become unrealistic varying by edition. Moreover, it's much easier to houserule in absolutes based on heroic rules ("Lava kills you, period") than it is to extrapolate more heroic rules from absolutes ("How much damage does Kratos take from laval?").




I know it's not universally accepted that it's easier to add things than subtract things.  However, the stated design goals of D&D Next (from Monte and Company) is that it _*is*_ easier to add things than subtract.  It's the way they are designing the game, whether one likes it or not.

You have every right to have the opinion that subtracting mechanics is easier to you.  But purposely denying or fighting against the idea that D&D Next is being made with the concept of Adding modules and mechanics one wants, rather than Subtracting modules and mechanics one doesn't want, is futile.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> So play what you like, and feel free to houserule to your heart's content, but I strongly believe that the based D&D power curve should remain where it is.




I don't believe the power curve should stay where it is, but it's certainly your right to disagree with me.  It does appear though that Monte and Company don't agree that everything should stay where it is as far as the base game.  It does however mean that you will be able to play your game using D&D Next, and I will be able to play my game using D&D Next.  I'm expecting that a need for houserules will be greatly mitigated in the next edition of the game.  So far, my expectations seem like they will be fulfilled.

But, as to _play what you like_...

Mmmm Hmmm...play what I like, just as long as I (and everybody else) remembers the way the game _*should*_ be played...?!?  

Sorry, but putting a caveat such as this on the end of continued statements about how the game _should_ be played, does not make one tolerant of other styles and ideas.  It just means that one recognizes what's correct, whether they agree it's so or care about being correct themselves.

So, Sorry.  I'm just not buying it.  I don't believe you actually mean that.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 4, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> That is cool with me and since I use the rules for encumbrance and cover I have no issue of it being an optional rule.




I'm not sure why you mentioned cover but hurray! Everyone wins.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 4, 2012)

tlantl said:


> No the 1e player's hand book says 1d6 per 10' fallen.




That is what the book clearly says.  Rumor has it that Gygax intended for it to work the escalating way, but that intent got lost/dropped at some point in the process of getting the rules down in print.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 4, 2012)

Here's a possible way out I haven't seen suggested:

1. Put in some nasty, almost real-world version of falling damage (and lava damage and anything else that fits). If you fall at terminal velocity onto rock, your only way out is if your group is using some kind of optional, additional narrative plot points--e.g. a Hero Point lets you walk away from certain death with some nasty complication instead, or you can escape death N times during the campaign, or whatever. In any case, the falling itself is extremely dangerous.

2. However, there is also an optional system for using your hit points to avoid this fate. How you narrate this and what limits are on it, are up to you. The damage is more like traditional D&D falling damage--perhaps the 1d6 per 10 feet fallen.

For example, if you want the heroes to be more like demi-gods, you can play this more or less the way it has always been played. You are a hero. So you invoke the heroic falling system, and don't take that nasty damage.

However, you can also play it as avoiding going over the edge by scraping and clawing. This is the "Die Hard" version. On a 100 foot fall, you don't roll 10d6+modifiers for a huge fall onto rocks. You roll 10d6 to grasp the edge with your fingernails, slide over, bounce off a few rocks, grab some foliage to slow your fall, and then grab hold of a narrow ledge with your last strength. It hurts, and you are still in a bad spot. But you didn't fall all the way onto those rocks. 

Then if the fiction makes this impossible--tied up, suspended by a rope head down, well away from the edge, and someone cuts the rope--well, you go back to the base, nasty version of damage. Better be really lucky.

Essentially, the "Die Hard" version is that you have to lobby within the fiction to use the more friendly numbers, and how you lobby determines what nasty position you are in aftewards. Convince the DM (or table) that your action is plausible, you get to take a lot of damage and be in a bad spot. Fail in your lobbying, you get to take almost certainly fatal damage. The "Demigod" version is that your lobbying attempt atomatically succeeds by virtue of that is what the group is playing--even if tied up over the pit. Now all you have to do is narrate how it works, however implausible.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 4, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> I'm not sure why you mentioned cover but hurray! Everyone wins.




I guess because it is an optional rule as well. It would be great if they can really do a modular game that makes most people happy.


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 4, 2012)

I'm finding it difficult to know just what you're arguing for.



Aaron said:


> How are you going to take into account things like dosage, body weight, and so no?
> 
> IMHO you are just trying to obtain an unrealizable result in D&D.
> 
> ...




I think that's why El Mahdi was saying that HP worked fine for poison. One bonus of having an abstract HP system, is that it can take a lot of fine details of certain effects and make them abstract too. Drinking that poison didn't kill you? It must have been a lighter dose, or your body chemistry wasn't as affected by it, or maybe the saliva of that Chimera bite you took twenty minutes ago helped counteract the lethality of the poison.

And yes, most poison in the D&D are not real, but we can draw on real world poisons and draw parallels, and realize that not every drop of poison is instantly lethal.



Aaron said:


> Good luck to your PCs in any dungeon.




Are your dungeons really that filled with pools of acid? I think I've seen one pool in the entirety of my game play over 28 years.



Aaron said:


> But what about a PC trapped inside a closed room in fire?




What about them? They take continual fire damage until they escape or die, just like any regular person would. The only difference being that a hardened adventure may have the wherewithall to struggle to get out, rather than succumbing to smoke and pain as most normal people would.



Aaron said:


> How many Giant's club hits should a high level character be able to sustain before dying in your "realistic" scenario?
> 
> So your PCs are going to face deadly enemies 24/7 because they know they are incredibly _lucky_?
> 
> Isn't the same thing as jumping from 200' and knowing the impact will not kill you?




No, El Mahdi said that luck plays a part in things, just like in Real Life. HP loosely reflect this variability in life. There are countless cases of people taking what should be far beyond lethal hits and surviving ... multiple stab wounds, spikes through the eye, run over by cars, falling tremendous distances. And yet people have died from a single stab, or slipping on the floor and hitting their head. It's that fact that keeps us from running around willy-nilly and jumping off buildings. Sure, we know that one _can_ survive, but it's not assured, and so we logically don't risk it. Just like most people don't stand naked and unmoving in a fight. And in a fight, you're talking a humungous range of variables; dodging, parrying and deflecting blows, luck, attacker's skill, ability to roll with the hit, armour, and so on.

I think the desire for 'realistic' falling damage stems from the potential to meta-game. If you look off the side of a 100' building, you are probably going to think that there's no way you're going to survive jumping down, even if there are stories of people who have survived such falls. PCs should really be no different, but the game gives us knowledge of what will happen... 10d10, so 100 damage ... my 22nd level character can survive that, and we're resting soon, so wheeeee!



Aaron said:


> There are _hundreds_ of lethal menaces in D&D.
> 
> Heck, even a large boulder falling onto an unaware human should squash him like a bug.




If it hits solidly, in just the right way, sure. Or it could cripple, or just pin the character, or maybe the character reacts instinctively to the sound of falling rock and danger from their years of adventuring to get out of the way in the nick of time. Not every falling boulder instantly and automatically hits a target below it.



Aaron said:


> Not to mention that, IMHO, a Masonry wall (1 ft. thick) should "survive" to many "attacks".
> 
> But in D&D such a wall has hardness 8 and 90 hps.
> 
> A high level barbarian has many more hps than a masonry wall.




A wall also cannot move, dodge, parry, threaten, and is unlikely to have much luck or divine intervention. 



Aaron said:


> I don't want to imagine the real world consequences of being hit by a giant's club, anywhere on my body.
> 
> PCs who must face real world consequences would never face real world insurmountable menaces.
> 
> In real life no group of 4 people would ever face a colossal dragon, or anything of CR >4.




I think you're wrong in this regard ... people have and will continue to face real world menaces that some would regard as hopeless or insurmountable or extremely dangerous. Sure, not every single person, but there are those few who will find it within themselves to push on despite the odds. That's why the PCs do the things they do, because they have that drive in some form or another.

Real world people have gone up against fully armoured tanks with nothing more than a rifle and a bottle of flaming alcohol. A real world person stepped in front of a moving tank, not knowing for sure that it would actually stop. Real world people have gone into flaming buildings on the verge of collapse. Real world people do go after dangerous persons for rewards.

If there were D&D menaces in the real world, like dragons say, I am more than confident in betting that there would be real world people willing to try killing them.


----------



## Aenghus (Apr 4, 2012)

The setting has a lot to say about how often this issue arises. A setting with huge chasms, towering cliffs, floating islands or flying ships has many more opportunities for a sudden plunge to an almost certain doom. However, part of such settings is making such falls potentially survivable, by magic, parachutes, last second grabs of hanging vegetation, hidden ledges etc etc. 

4e specifically had rules to avoid putting fatal falls into encounters, given there are far more ways in 4e to throw people or monsters over precipes.

I think the issue is a bit of a red herring. Jokey or gamist games where PCs blithely jump off cliffs generally don't coexist with players who object to such shennanigans. I have seen PCs jump off cliffs as the lesser of two evils, but generally they either have feather fall or equivalent or expect their PC to die or the referee to throw them a bone.


----------



## Anselyn (Apr 4, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> That is what the book clearly says.  Rumor has it that Gygax intended for it to work the escalating way, but that intent got lost/dropped at some point in the process of getting the rules down in print.




"Rumour" including Gygax saying this in public at a TSR(UK) GamesFair in Reading in the early 80s. This was written up in Imagine magazine IIRC.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 4, 2012)

Aenghus said:


> I think the issue is a bit of a red herring. Jokey or gamist games where PCs blithely jump off cliffs generally don't coexist with players who object to such shennanigans. I have seen PCs jump off cliffs as the lesser of two evils, but generally they either have feather fall or equivalent or expect their PC to die or the referee to throw them a bone.




I once saw a D&D character around 6th level, cornered and facing no other way out of a lethal fight, jump to certain doom because several of the other characters had mentioned too many times how they were looking forward to looting some of his nifty magic items when he eventually bought it. His last words were something like, "Good luck finding the body!" Ah, those Killer DM days really changed the nature of play.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 4, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> It's a feature and not a bug *in your game*.  In mine, and many other games, it is a bug.  Without that qualifier, your statement is not correct.
> 
> It's a small yet very important distinction.  One that I feel is crucial to remember.
> 
> ...




Let me rephrase in bullet points to make sure my point gets across loud and clear:

--D&D has always had a power curve where you go from "bound by normal physics" to "bound by action-movie physics" to "Greek mythic hero" to "superhuman" to "godlike."  The game fluff matches this power curve, and codifies levels by things like BECMI and Heroic/Paragon/Epic and such.

--In that context, survivable falls aren't a bug, they're a feature; they would be a bug if they were the only mechanic like that, but the whole game works that way at those levels, and part of the reason many people play D&D as opposed to more realistic fantasy RPGs is exactly that power curve that lets you go from "zero" to "hero" and not from "zero" to "one" or "hero" to "more hero".

--Many people don't like that and think D&D should be "grittier."  Statements by these people often imply that, in their opinion, 20th level is just 1st level with bigger numbers and that high-level heroes should be bound by realism.  Yet they also expect high-level heroes to face the challenges that high-level character do and survive.  It is appropriate in this case to point out, as I did, that mechanically and flavor-wise high level PCs have bypassed human limits a long time ago and that if you want a more realistic game you have to take that into account.

--Some of those people think that the base D&D game should be grittier and that the heroic stuff should be added on later.  This often takes the form of reductionist base rules (e.g. acid and lava = death) which provide a framework upon which it is difficult to build more heroic rules for people who want them.  It is appropriate in this case to point out, as I did, that it is much easier to _add_ simpler/realistic rules variants (not just rip out the more complex ones, as you stated) than it is to try to expand simpler/realistic rules into more complex/heroic rules variants.

--Because of this issue of complexity, and the fact that if you start at "realistic" it's much harder to reach "godlike" but if you start at "heroic" it's easier to go both in the "realistic" and "godlike" directions, it is better for the game to start in the middle with heroic PCs and a ramping-up power curve and allow for variations up and down.  It is appropriate in this case to point out, as I did (but perhaps not clearly enough), that if you start at "realistic" you can't really accommodate people on both ends of the scale as much as you can if you start in the middle, so if D&D Next is _trying_ to be as inclusive as possible (and it claims it is) it _should_ start in the middle.

So, to sum up: You like "realistic" games, someone else likes "mythic hero" games, I like being able to do both.  If you keep the D&D power curve, you can play your game at low levels and they can play their game at high levels, and you can houserule mid levels to look like low levels and they can houserule mid levels to look like high levels, and I can enjoy both without much houseruling.  If you change D&D to be gritty by default, you can play your game at low levels and mid levels and maybe even high levels, but I'm getting less of the parts of the game I enjoy and Mr. Mythic Hero doesn't really get to enjoy his favorite parts of the game at all.  So if every individual group _should_ be able to determine how D&D plays at their table, as you said, then we absolutely _should_ keep the middle ground and leave high-power/low-power/high-magic/low-magic/etc. for expansions instead of favoring one end or the other.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 4, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> ...




All of which is well and good, but not the direction that D&D Next is taking in it's design.

I'd suggest reading up on where Monte and Company are going with the game, because with the exception of a couple of your more minor points, the game design is quite contrary to what you describe.

The base game is not going to be "in the middle".

It's going to address the lowest common denominator, and allow each group to alter it from there.

I disagree with your ideas and reasoning.  It also appears that WotC disagrees with your ideas and reasoning.

I do hope that you are able to play the game that you want with D&D Next.  I believe you will, but only you will be able to say for sure.

So, let's just leave it at that.


----------



## Aaron (Apr 4, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> I think that's why El Mahdi was saying that HP worked fine for poison. One bonus of having an abstract HP system, is that it can take a lot of fine details of certain effects and make them abstract too. Drinking that poison didn't kill you? It must have been a lighter dose, or your body chemistry wasn't as affected by it, or maybe the saliva of that Chimera bite you took twenty minutes ago helped counteract the lethality of the poison.




Unfortunately, a high level character can drink a carboy of poison, no matter his body chemistry, or other curious coincidences.

So no, the HPs can't support the "poison is ok, but 200' fall is not".



> And yes, most poison in the D&D are not real, but we can draw on  real world poisons and draw parallels, and realize that not every drop  of poison is instantly lethal.



 But here we are underlining that huge amount of poison aren't lethal.

That has nothing to do with the fact that drops of poison can be non lethal.

Again, if you think that 200' fall are lethal, you must make your game inherently coherent and make acid, fire, poison, giant's club hits and so on lethal too.



> Are your dungeons really that filled with pools of acid? I think I've  seen one pool in the entirety of my game play over 28 years.



I have encountered more pools of acid than 200' cliff.


> What about them? They take continual fire damage until they escape or  die, just like any regular person would.



How many rounds should this "regular person" resist?




> No, El Mahdi said that luck plays a part in things, just like in Real  Life. HP loosely reflect this variability in life. There are countless  cases of people taking what should be far beyond lethal hits and  surviving ... multiple stab wounds, spikes through the eye, run over by  cars, falling tremendous distances. And yet people have died from a  single stab, or slipping on the floor and hitting their head.



How many of them have taken hundreds of lethal hits and survived?



> It's that  fact that keeps us from running around willy-nilly and jumping off  buildings. Sure, we know that one _can_ survive, but it's not assured,  and so we logically don't risk it.



The same should go for the thousands of lethal menaces in D&D.



> Just like most people don't stand  naked and unmoving in a fight. And in a fight, you're talking a  humungous range of variables; dodging, parrying and deflecting blows,  luck, attacker's skill, ability to roll with the hit, armour, and so on.



Does this mean that PCs never suffer a good hit?

What about their opponent's critical hits?



> I think the desire for 'realistic' falling damage stems from the  potential to meta-game. If you look off the side of a 100' building, you  are probably going to think that there's no way you're going to survive  jumping down, even if there are stories of people who have survived  such falls. PCs should really be no different [snip],



Stop there: why?



> but the game gives us  knowledge of what will happen... 10d10, so 100 damage ... my 22nd level  character can survive that, and we're resting soon, so wheeeee!



The same happens with many more variables, so what?

In real life no one would ever face a Trex, but in D&D a high level character can easily defeat it alone, and would know it.

If a high level PC get threatened by a dozen country bandits armed with crossbows he would never acquiesce to their demands, because he would know that he can single handendly defeat all of them in a bunch of rounds. 



> If it hits solidly, in just the right way, sure.



And how do you handle this scenario in game?



> Or it could cripple, or  just pin the character, or maybe the character reacts instinctively to  the sound of falling rock and danger from their years of adventuring to  get out of the way in the nick of time. Not every falling boulder  instantly and automatically hits a target below it.



But what if the boulder's thrower hits with a critical hit, and the PCs failed his spot/listen/perception/whatever check?



> A wall also cannot move, dodge, parry, threaten, and is unlikely to have much luck or divine intervention.



I can't see how acid, fire, and so many other things could differentiate the damage between a wall and a barbarian.

Not to mention that luck isn't something related to living beings.

Divine intervention? Isn't it the deus ex machina that the "200' fall and survive" critics oppose?



> I think you're wrong in this regard ... people have and will continue to  face real world menaces that some would regard as hopeless or  insurmountable or extremely dangerous. Sure, not every single person,  but there are those few who will find it within themselves to push on  despite the odds.



24/7?



> Real world people have gone up against fully armoured tanks with nothing  more than a rifle and a bottle of flaming alcohol. A real world person  stepped in front of a moving tank, not knowing for sure that it would  actually stop. Real world people have gone into flaming buildings on the  verge of collapse. Real world people do go after dangerous persons for  rewards.



24/7?



> If there were D&D menaces in the real world, like dragons say, I am  more than confident in betting that there would be real world people  willing to try killing them.



You live in a wonderful world.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 4, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> All of which is well and good, but not the direction that D&D Next is taking in it's design.
> 
> I'd suggest reading up on where Monte and Company are going with the game, because with the exception of a couple of your more minor points, the game design is quite contrary to what you describe.
> 
> ...




1) I realize that that's not the direction they're taking, and I believe that that's a mistake on their part.  The question was whether unrealistic features is a good thing or a bad thing, not whether the designers agree with us.  But I'll give 5e a try, just like I gave 3e and 4e a try even when a bunch of previews appeared to show a bunch of bad ideas implemented badly, and just like I've given GURPS and Exalted and Riddle of Steel and World of Darkness a try even when I don't particularly like some of their stylistic choices; I may like the result, I may not.

2) "Realistic D&D" is not the lowest common denominator of "gritty D&D" plus "mythic D&D" plus "superhero D&D" plus "godlike D&D."  The lowest common denominator of four different playstyles is a leveling curve that allows you to play all four of them, not a curve that ignores three of the four.  In AD&D and 3e you can play Riddle of Steel in the first few levels with its highly-lethal combat, then LotR in the next few levels with its more cinematic storylines then World of Darkness in the next few levels with its superhuman characters, and cap it off with a nice bit of Exalted with its world-changing and gods-slaying.  If 5e is going to be the One Edition to Rule Them All, cutting off the top 3/4 of the game and stretching the first 5 levels over the other 15 won't work too well.



> So, let's just leave it at that.




Yeah, it looks like we're not going to see eye to eye on the issue.

Purely out of curiosity, and not because I'm trying to stealthily make a point or anything, do you play any other non-gritty RPGs and get your unrealistic kicks from those, or do you play only realistic RPGs, or do you not play any other RPGs at all?  I'm just trying to get a frame of reference here, since I know some players who do D&D and M&M and Exalted and houserule D&D to make it as non-super as they can, and some who do D&D and Conan and RoS and disdain unrealistic games, and some who only play D&D and like changing D&D around to fit different style (this week it's "low magic D&D" and next week it's "steampunk intrigue D&D" and so on) instead of playing multiple systems.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 4, 2012)

I pretty much only play D&D or related D20 systems, and adapt the rules to fit specific styles.

Though predominantly, regardless of genre, the style emphasizes realism.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 5, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I pretty much only play D&D or related D20 systems, and adapt the rules to fit specific styles.
> 
> Though predominantly, regardless of genre, the style emphasizes realism.




I have to wonder - why?  If you value realism, why play D&D?  I'm not being snarky here, I really do wonder.  D&D has never pretended to be a realistic game.  The Gygax HP quote from the 1e DMG is a pretty clear example of this.  

There are a thousand other systems out there that take realism as the baseline for their game.  Why would you spend years trying to pound nails with a screwdriver?


----------



## BryonD (Apr 5, 2012)

Aaron said:


> Unfortunately, a high level character can drink a carboy of poison, no matter his body chemistry, or other curious coincidences.



I consider this position to be a root problem.

I firmly believe that the rules (before a very recent era) were always comfortable with certain assumptions.

One of those assumptions was a thoughtful and rational DM.

Another of those assumptions was that the game would be played under reasonable parameters in which things worked as expected and characters behaved as expected.  "As expected" takes into account that it is a fantastic world.  But it isn't just stupid.

If in my game you intentionally drink a large quantity of poison, then you are implicitly waiving your right to a saving throw.  And before this "recent era" I'd think that would go without saying.  

I was also recently told that in old editions of D&D you could get into staring competitions with Medusa.  To me that is the exact same point.
And if either of those make the least bit of sense to someone, then by all means play what you like, but don't turn around and try to tell me what makes a good or bad game or complain to me about how things haven't worked out well.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 5, 2012)

BryonD said:


> And before this "recent era" I'd think that would go without saying.




By recent era I assume you mean the 90s, because this has nothing to do with the recent editions.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 5, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> By recent era I assume you mean the 90s, because this has nothing to do with the recent editions.



In my experience it doesn't go back near that far.  Certainly I make no claim that it didn't progress at different rates in different areas.

But I can't make the same presumptions of common ground even here on ENWorld that I could have six years ago.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 5, 2012)

BryonD said:


> In my experience it doesn't go back near that far. Certainly I make no claim that it didn't progress at different rates in different areas.
> 
> But I can't make the same presumptions of common ground even here on ENWorld that I could have six years ago.




The common ground didn't exist 12 years ago on ENWorld, much less six.  This state of affairs merely became more obvious as time passed.  I was lurking heavily then, and I saw the same thing I saw on other boards.  You could tell that people said a lot of, "that's just how I do it," when it was fairly clear to those with different preferences that it wasn't alike at all.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 5, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> The common ground didn't exist 12 years ago on ENWorld, much less six.  This state of affairs merely became more obvious as time passed.  I was lurking heavily then, and I saw the same thing I saw on other boards.  You could tell that people said a lot of, "that's just how I do it," when it was fairly clear to those with different preferences that it wasn't alike at all.



I disagree.
I was posting since Eric added forums to his 3E preview page. 
There were VAST arguments.  (And anyone who remembers me from then will know that 4E did NOTHING to change my eagerness for debate)
So in a very generic sense there was all kinds of lack of "common ground".  But in the context of things like "drinking carboys of poison", the need to frame that debate with a presumption of putting the obvious story over blind obedience to mechanics which were clearly not intended to address such absurdity in the first place is a whole new issue.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 5, 2012)

BryonD said:


> I disagree.




I disagree back.  I saw the same type of discussions here that I saw elsewhere. It got so bad on one board that I begin getting private mails along the lines of, "Glad you said that. I thought I was the only one that didn't think that quite fit." And then I'd get multiple such messages. 

I'm playing the same way that I played once I got over my Killer DM phase, circa 1983. Oh, I've gotten better at playing that way, but it is essentially the same way. And it ain't the stuff you guys say is so important--even when I got attaboys from people who thought they were doing the same thing. 

Not that I expect this to be bought. It is clear to me that there is a vast conceptual gap on some issues such that half of us often talk past the other half, and vice versa. I can see the gap, the mist, the treacherous rocks clearly enough, but not what is on the other side that causes the gap. Based on total failure to understand where I'm coming from, repeated way too many times to count over the last 12 years, I feel safe in saying that those on the other side see my side no more clearly--even those that are aware it is there. I think it would take extended and dedicated cross-pollination to bridge it, and most of us are too satisfied where we are to put forth the kind of effort needed to bridge it. 

If WotC can bridge that gap (instead of smudge it on the map), I'll be most impressed.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 5, 2012)

BryonD said:


> In my experience it doesn't go back near that far.  Certainly I make no claim that it didn't progress at different rates in different areas.
> 
> But I can't make the same presumptions of common ground even here on ENWorld that I could have six years ago.




Well I did live in California, which is everyone else's future, so I suppose encountering it before 2.5E was released is to be expected.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 5, 2012)

Aaron said:


> Unfortunately, a high level character can drink a carboy of poison, no matter his body chemistry, or other curious coincidences.
> 
> So no, the HPs can't support the "poison is ok, but 200' fall is not".
> 
> ...




I have seen a high level character fail every save on poison and die. In DND not all poisons does con damage they so it it is very hard to kill someone with it. Strength and dex damage are not lethal. Also we have magical healing that deals with poison something that the real world does not.  

In real life most poisons don't kill instantly some take hours, days, weeks even months. And a lot of poisons are not meant to be lethal they are meant to incapacitate.  

Actually no I don't need to make all those things lethal. They already are if you run out of hit points and can not get magical healing. The assumption is that until you take enough damage to hit -0 you are dodging and taking glancing blows, shallow cuts but not lethal life ending injuries. 

People survive horrible burns and acid attacks here in real life. In the DnD world with magical healing if you live through the fire and the acid and get magical healing then you are as good as new. 

I hate hate the mechanic that allows high level characters not to be threatened by a dozen cross bows or bows aimed at them. I hate the meta gaming that goes on with it an if I could figure out a way to fix this bug I would. 

Have you ever seen a the insides of a body that has fallen 200 feet?  I have seen an autopsy done on a suicide victim.  Almost every bone in the body was broken or crushed. These bones were pushed into the organs damaging some of them beyond any hope of repair. This person heart had literally moved to the other side of his chest tearing the aorta and causing them to bleed out into their abdomen in seconds. Their colon and intestines were ruptured in dozen of places. Their liver had been sliced in two both kidneys damaged to the point that they were useless. Major pieces of skull driven into the brain damaging major portions of it.  

Knowing this I can't stand the way falling is done in DnD and which is why in my game you have to make a save or die. That way you do have a chance which represents people who have gotten lucky because they fell into mud, or something slowed their fall down.

In combat people have been shot dozens of time and lived because of where the bullets hit. People have been stabbed dozens of times and lived. This is how I look at damage taken in combat until you run out of hit points. 

Personally I like Shadowrun better no matter what level you are or what class the same amount of damage will kill you. What goes up is your defense roll which allows you to avoid the damage in the first place.  And I also like as you take damage you start taking penalties. 

BTW in 30 years of playing I have only seen what pool of acid and the frakking thing had an acid shark in it. 

DnD will never be able to be totally realistic. But we all have our WTFs and I think the game can support all kinds of play.


----------



## Stormonu (Apr 5, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Ok, after all the song and dance, I really gotta ask a few questions:
> 
> 1.  How often do your characters fall farther than, say, 50 feet?  Because, scratching my head, I can't honestly think of that many times.




Seems to happen once, maybe twice a campaign I run.  Usually somewhere around 7th level.



Hussar said:


> 2.  How often did that character then climb back up and do it again?  I know I've never seen that, but, maybe my group is the outlier here.




Once that I can remember, though it was only a 30' fall.  I was running "The Seventh Arm" in Dungeon #88.  The group was attempting to scale a cliff face, and the party cleric (dressed in Plate) botched a climb check. Stubbornly, he tried to climb back up once again and fell before the party came up with an alternate solution to get him up (I forget how they did it, but it involved him getting out of the armor).



Hussar said:


> 3.  How often do your players intentionally burn hit points by jumping down long distances simply to save time?




I had a rules lawyers/powergamer in early 3E who talked the party into trying this, even having his barbarian leaping down to "prove" it could easily be done.  No one jumped after him, when upon landing I ruled he took max damage and that required a Massive Damage save - and he failed it.

On the other end of the spectrum however, my own Dwarf Barbarian character has taken out two BBEG by charging said BBEG and tackling them off the edge of a cliff.  On the second one, I even screamed for the party druid to hit us (still grappling the evil sorcerer) with his _Call Lightning_ after impact when it didn't kill 'im.



Hussar said:


> 4.  Is this really something that comes up so often that we need rules more complicated than, d10/10 feet fallen?  Really?




In spite of my examples, I don't think we need a complicated system.  Just something that makes falling something you don't really want to do, unless your a suicidal Barbarian intent on taking the bad guy out with you.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 5, 2012)

BryonD said:


> In my experience it doesn't go back near that far.  Certainly I make no claim that it didn't progress at different rates in different areas.
> 
> But I can't make the same presumptions of common ground even here on ENWorld that I could have six years ago.




Well, if by "near that far" you mean about 1980 when I started playing, then, I guess you'd be right.

Point is, BryonD, you're actually mistaken here.  You said that in earlier editions, if you looked at a medusa you turned to stone.  This was never true in any edition of the game and this point was hammered home pretty thoroughly with actual quotes from nearly every edition of the game.

So, fine, if you want to house rule that staring at a medusa turns you to stone, then more power to you.  But, don't pretend that this is how the game was written.  It wasn't.  It never was.  This is only your interpretation of things.

In the same way, my character, in any edition, can drink a bottle of poison, the deadliest poison known in that world, and if I roll my saving throw, I survive.  Now, since a 1 always fails a save in 3e, you'd always have a 5% chance of dying, but, if my fort bonus is higher than the save DC, I can drink that bottle several more times without the slightest effect.

Now, you might not like those rules and you might want to change them.  No problem, that's great.  But, again, THAT'S what D&D says.  There's nothing there about abrogating a saving throw, nor does that appear anywhere in D&D.

It's not a bad house rule and probably one I'd agree with.  But, it's still not what the game says.

AFAIC, I don't ever worry about things like this because it's never come up and I doubt it ever will.  I'm of the opinion that we really don't need mechanics for extreme corner case situations.  That's what DM's are for.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 5, 2012)

Aenghus said:


> I think the issue is a bit of a red herring. Jokey or gamist games where PCs blithely jump off cliffs generally don't coexist with players who object to such shennanigans. I have seen PCs jump off cliffs as the lesser of two evils, but generally they either have feather fall or equivalent or expect their PC to die or the referee to throw them a bone.



I agree, with the exception that when PCs choose the lesser of two evils I'm happy to let them have the benefit of their hit points.

But the whole "jumping off cliffs for fun" thing is something I've never seen. My players have more interesting stuff to do than to prove that the mechanics break down when you approach them with a different metagame agenda from that which they were designed to support.


Aaron said:


> So your PCs are going to face deadly enemies 24/7 because they know they are incredibly _lucky_?
> 
> Isn't the same thing as jumping from 200' and knowing the impact will not kill you?



Nice point!



Crazy Jerome said:


> Here's a possible way out I haven't seen suggested:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Essentially, the "Die Hard" version is that you have to lobby within the fiction to use the more friendly numbers, and how you lobby determines what nasty position you are in aftewards. Convince the DM (or table) that your action is plausible, you get to take a lot of damage and be in a bad spot. Fail in your lobbying, you get to take almost certainly fatal damage. The "Demigod" version is that your lobbying attempt atomatically succeeds by virtue of that is what the group is playing--even if tied up over the pit. Now all you have to do is narrate how it works, however implausible.



Intriguing modularity, but I'd be gobsmacked if D&Dnext includes anything like this, which is so overt in linking method of resolution to a metagame agenda that is defined by reference to something other than petty differences of technique (like "wants tactical combat" or "wants more freeform roleplaying").


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 5, 2012)

I think the thing that bothers me about so much about DnD, which is why I both hate and love the game, is that there are players who metagame so much it ruins the feel of role playing. I end up feeling that I am now playing a video game or some kind of in interactive board game. 

PCs should not be aware that they level or how much damage they can take. So facing the chance of falling off a cliff should always be scary. Facing a dozen archers surrounding you should make you think twice about surrendering. 

I know players who will role play well and will surrender if faced with what looks like insurmountable odds even if they know that their characters hit points means they could take it.

But so many don't and that frustrates me both as a player and a DM.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 5, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I think the thing that bothers me about so much about DnD, which is why I both hate and love the game, is that there are players who metagame so much it ruins the feel of role playing.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I know players who will role play well and will surrender if faced with what looks like insurmountable odds even if they know that their characters hit points means they could take it.



Whereas I don't get this at all. The whole point of hit points is plot protection - why have them if the players don't use them to create plots that need them (eg by having their PCs escape from a dozen archers by jumping over a nearby cliff!).

If I want my players to have their PCs surrender when surrounded by archers, I will use a system whose mechanics reflect this - Rolemaster, Runequest, Burning Wheel etc.


----------



## delericho (Apr 5, 2012)

Szatany said:


> I don't think the problem is that a high level character might survive a fall from a great height. The problem is that he will, *for certain*, survive it. If falling damage was to be more random, if even an epic character would pause before jumping 100 ft. down, then I would have no problem with it.




This.



TheSleepyKing said:


> It's a bug. It has always been a bug, an artifact of the wonkiness of HP in general. There are a number of situations, like falling, like lava, where a character's experience, skill and luck (which is what HPs represent) would have no realistic impact on survivability.




Hit points represent experience, skill and luck, but also toughness and divine favour.

And both divine favour and luck _always_ apply.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 5, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I think the thing that bothers me about so much about DnD, which is why I both hate and love the game, is that there are players who metagame so much it ruins the feel of role playing. I end up feeling that I am now playing a video game or some kind of in interactive board game.
> 
> PCs should not be aware that they level or how much damage they can take. So facing the chance of falling off a cliff should always be scary. Facing a dozen archers surrounding you should make you think twice about surrendering.
> 
> ...




Honestly, in my mind anyway, this is a social contract issue.  These kinds of things have to get discussed away from the table and some sort of compromise found.  I really can't think how mechanics are going to help you out here.  If someone's playstyle really doesn't mesh with yours, no amount of mechanics is going to help you.

Mostly because if you get the mechanics you want - a high level character is still threatened by mundane archers, the guy who would just leap to the attack isn't going to be happy because he WANTS that plot protection.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 5, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Whereas I don't get this at all. The whole point of hit points is plot protection - why have them if the players don't use them to create plots that need them (eg by having their PCs escape from a dozen archers by jumping over a nearby cliff!).
> 
> If I want my players to have their PCs surrender when surrounded by archers, I will use a system whose mechanics reflect this - Rolemaster, Runequest, Burning Wheel etc.




It is not just the surrendering, and believe me if I want the PCs to surrender they will find these archers are more powerful then them, its the whole metagaming thinking that goes on. 

I have heard players say we can't tackle this it is to high a level for us. Or the mob of over 100 can't hurt us because we are 10 level and the most they can be is third.

Hey the King is most likely a 4 level noble we don't have to listen to him we can kick his butt. 

DnD seems to encourage this kind of play and it is something I don't really like. 

Sure I could play a different system but I hate with a passion Rolemaster because it has too many tables and takes forever to get through combat it is like playing a strategy wargame.

I have the old boxed set of Runequest and I enjoyed it but it has things in that make it at least to me setting specific.

I have tried GURPS and Fanasty Hero but I don't like that you have to create everything from scratch. I want the work done for me and I want to be able to find adventure paths and modules written that I can slide into my game when needed and I have never found that with GURPS or Hero system.

I would love to find a system like say Shadowrun for generic fantasy.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 5, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Honestly, in my mind anyway, this is a social contract issue.  These kinds of things have to get discussed away from the table and some sort of compromise found.  I really can't think how mechanics are going to help you out here.  If someone's playstyle really doesn't mesh with yours, no amount of mechanics is going to help you.
> 
> Mostly because if you get the mechanics you want - a high level character is still threatened by mundane archers, the guy who would just leap to the attack isn't going to be happy because he WANTS that plot protection.




Partly it is a social contract. 

But rules do help this attitude and encourage it.

In Shadowrun games because it is not a level based game you don't see this attitude very often. Those security guards  you are up against may have the same skills as you do you will never get to the point that it will be a cake walk. If the police surround you with guns it won't matter how long you have been running in the shadows and how much your character has improved you will die if all those bullets hit you. 

I have seen many DM post their frustrations at how once their PCs get to a certain level they become uncontrollable bullies and feel entitled to just walk over any one lower. 

I would like to see rules that make mobs scary no matter your level and ways to make a PC think twice about taking on the entire city guard who have the drop on them and have crossbows and bows aimed at them. 

And I want falling to always be a thing that makes you pause and causes your heart to pound.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 5, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> It is not just the surrendering, and believe me if I want the PCs to surrender they will find these archers are more powerful then them, its the whole metagaming thinking that goes on.
> 
> I have heard players say we can't tackle this it is to high a level for us. Or the mob of over 100 can't hurt us because we are 10 level and the most they can be is third.
> 
> ...



Luckily for me, I guess, I haven't really had this experience.

Or to put it another way, I've played games with players who (by my standards) don't take the game seriously, but I haven't found that D&D makes any special contribution to this.

Dissatisfaction with D&D attrition-style combat was a major motivation for me to play Rolemaster as my main game for nearly 20 years. 4e brought me back to D&D in part because it changed a lot of things about D&D that I hadn't like - including by making combat about more than just attrition - and also because it addressed some of the issues with RM that I had found increasingly frustrating over the years.


----------



## Balesir (Apr 5, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I would like to see rules that make mobs scary no matter your level and ways to make a PC think twice about taking on the entire city guard who have the drop on them and have crossbows and bows aimed at them.
> 
> And I want falling to always be a thing that makes you pause and causes your heart to pound.



Such systems exist; my favourite is HârnMaster. You can find a lot of free fanon for Hârn here:

Lýthia.com

...and a quickstart scenario with simplified rules here:

Field of Daisies (w/Quickstart Rules) - Columbia Games Inc. | RPGNow.com

My suggestion is you take a peek at the free stuff (downloads) and, if it interests you, try the quickstart.

There are, in my experience, lots of fun and rewarding ways to roleplay. Not getting access to one way that "rings your bell" often makes that specific way feel like "the ultimate". It isn't - but the best cure for the feeling is to get a good, healthy dose of that style of play. So I hope you find something to 'heal the wound'. And then return to D&D with a fresh set of eyes.


----------



## erleni (Apr 5, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I would like to see rules that make mobs scary no matter your level and ways to make a PC think twice about taking on the entire city guard who have the drop on them and have crossbows and bows aimed at them.




Honestly I don't. To me D&D high level characters should be superhumans that can take over the city guard if they want (as long as the city guard doesn't have its dose of high level characters). An high level fighter should be something like Thomas in R.E.Feist's books and should never fall in a battle to normal soldiers. And I see no problem in an high level character jumping of a cliff and knowing he will survive (like Lloyd jumping off a cliff in Tales of Symphonia).
In a fantasy game like D&D even high level martial characters should be magical to some extent and not be bound by the same limits of mere mortals. I always imagine that high level martial characters are imbued by the sheer strength of "destiny" that will bring them to a glorious victory or defeat, not a "splat!" sound and a pool of goo.
But I understand that other people may want a more down-to-Earth (pun intended) approach.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 5, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I have to wonder - why? If you value realism, why play D&D? I'm not being snarky here, I really do wonder. D&D has never pretended to be a realistic game. The Gygax HP quote from the 1e DMG is a pretty clear example of this.
> 
> There are a thousand other systems out there that take realism as the baseline for their game. Why would you spend years trying to pound nails with a screwdriver?





Short answer: I'd be _"pounding nails"_ with those systems too.


Long answer...

First: we use what we know.  I started out playing D&D (AD&D 2E, but for purposes of this post, I'm talking about D20 D&D: 3E).  All my friends played D&D.  The only other game any of my freinds dipped into were Rifts and Shadowrun.  Neither one of which were systems I like all that much, so D&D it is.

Second: IMO, D&D is one of the easiest and simplest systems to play (barring stripped down D20 games), and one of the easiest to tweak and modify.  And, I don't believe that realistic and simple are counterintuitive.  It may be harder to achieve from a design perspective, but if one really does the work, then it can be done.  Also, the other D20 systems and the stripped down D20 systems I've studied do not focus on realism the way I want, but tend to focus on other feels (such as True20/Mutants and Masterminds with more superheroic, Spycraft with more cinematic, SW SAGA also cinematic, Castles and Crusades with Basic D&D - too simple for me, etc.)...so #1 (we use what we know) supercedes here.

Third: no system in existence is "perfect" for what I want.  So considering #2, D&D works best for me to make the game I do want.  I have looked at a lot more systems than just D&D, Rifts, and Shadowrun since I first started playing. And for me, I have never found another system as intuitive, easy, and malleable as D&D (D20). Of course though, that probably is also heavily influenced by #1...it's the system I know best.

Fourth: most gamers I know play D&D.  So it has the most commonality among the people I play with and DM for.  It's much easier to explain changes to a system that people already know, than explain a whole new system.

Fifth (and last):  D&D has room for everybody.  Having a common base system that works for everybody (as much as possible) is good for everybody that plays D&D.  Reticence to that seems to me simply fear of change.  Those that don't want it to change are not going to lose "their" game.  Resistance to things such as what's been talked about in this thread, seem quite irrational in light of that.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 5, 2012)

Like I said before, most of the problems with D&D and realism is that there is no official stance on what high level means. There is no core description of what a 15th level fighter is, what he can do, what he can't do, and what he can survive. We know he can take an ogre one on one but but the fight is purely imagination and dice rolls. Stuff happens and we describe.

But with magic, we know what happens. If you throw a powerful wizard off a cliff... wait.. you don't throw wizards off cliffs... only morons do that... many high level wizards can cast Feathfall, some sort of flight spell, or even transform into a bird. There is no huge gap of info when spell are involved.


Most for most of the rest of D&D, it is pure imagination. And no one has the same imagination. Its not a bonus or flaw. It is a feature. 

A feature I want to GO AWAY! 

Share describing stuff WOTC.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 5, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I think the thing that bothers me about so much about DnD, which is why I both hate and love the game, is that there are players who metagame so much it ruins the feel of role playing. I end up feeling that I am now playing a video game or some kind of in interactive board game.




Unfortunately, bad players will manage to ruin any game. Like the people who flip chess boards.


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 5, 2012)

Aaron said:


> Again, if you think that 200' fall are lethal, you must make your game inherently coherent and make acid, fire, poison, giant's club hits and so on lethal too.




I do and will when the situation supports it. Sipping an unknown potion to find that it's poison - spit it out and take HP damage. Chugging the entire vial, even upon realizing it's poison. Sorry chum.

Getting hit with a giant's club in the midst of chaotic combat - HP damage due to the many extraneous factors. Hit by a giant's club while completely helpless and nothing threatening or distracting the giant - smoosh.



Aaron said:


> How many rounds should this "regular person" resist?




No real idea, but maybe a minute or two, so 10-20 rounds. Fire is by no means a quick killer, and it's the smoke that usually does you in.




Aaron said:


> How many of them have taken hundreds of lethal hits and survived?




By claiming the hit is lethal by default means they don't survive. I can't speak for anything specific, as I could probably spend hours finding stories of horrific attacks and accidents where the victim should all rights be stone-cold dead but manage to survive. Likewise, I'm sure there are stories of people taking what would hardly amount to being a bruise and ending up dying. The body is an amazing engine sometime, but it does have amazingly fragile weak points too.




Aaron said:


> Does this mean that PCs never suffer a good hit?
> 
> What about their opponent's critical hits?




To me, critical hits are the good hits, and they usually hurt quite a lot, if not outright incapacitate/kill.

I'm not advocating a completely realistic system, I realize that D&D and most role-playing in general is on a heroic footing, and the PCs are the protagonists (usually). 4E seems to emulate most action movie heroes, and I'm totally cool with that, I like the feel and the fun that engenders.



Aaron said:


> Stop there: why?




Because it's common sense, and by rights, PCs should be akin to real people and think like them? Even if you are of epic stature, a PC should still know that they are a meaty bag of mostly water that will likely burst on impact after a 200' fall.

Here, let me put things into context. To me, D&D plays a lot like the movie Die Hard. McClane is a fairly experienced cop, so has a few levels under his belt. He's confident, brash, and willing to take on a mob of terrorists with automatic weapons on his own with nothing but a pistol. He gets into a lot of fights, taking a lot of hits and damage (as evidenced by multiple bleeding wounds), but still keeps going. So, we have HP and healing surges in action.

At one point, he's barefoot and looking at broken glass on the floor. He doesn't just shrug and walk across it, knowing that it's only a few HP damage. There is general concern, but it's either that or be killed (despite it being only a couple of machine guns firing at him, which a player would think "Ah, I can take that").

And at one point he's on the roof, looking down, and rather than jumping down, he takes precautions, because in a real person's head, the fall should be by all rights lethal. He's not even confident that the hose will save him in any way, but it's better than that modern day fireball coming at him (which as a 4E PC, he would likely be able to survive). 

So even in an over-the-top action movie, where the hero takes an incredible amount of punishment, we still have him thinking 'realistically' about potential hazards. This is how it should be in game, but because we as players know the rules and damage potentials, we often act in ways that would make no sense to the people living in the actual game world. If the game presented lethal concepts in the core rules, it would lead to players thinking more realistically. 



Aaron said:


> In real life no one would ever face a Trex, but in D&D a high level character can easily defeat it alone, and would know it.




Right, because we don't have T-Rexs. But people have faced down wild predators before, even actively gone out to hunt them. I would 100% bet you that if we still had T-Rexs around, there would be people hunting them (a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless).

The reason a high level PC knows they can defeat a T-Rex alone is because the player understands how the game works, has an understanding of levels and escalating defenses and damage potentials. In the game reality, the PC should have a knowledge of their abilities and skills, but even a lower level T-Rex should still be a concern, even if the PC grits their teeth and faces down the challenge.



Aaron said:


> If a high level PC get threatened by a dozen country bandits armed with crossbows he would never acquiesce to their demands, because he would know that he can single handendly defeat all of them in a bunch of rounds.




Which, like Elf Witch, is one of the things I really don't like about level based games. It ends up encouraging such meta-game considerations. And because of this, it starts begging the question as to why there are even armies kept. Going just by stats, you're right, a high level character would annihilate an army of level 1 recruits, even if they number in the thousands. If that's the game you like, please enjoy. To me, that's all but incomprehensible.

And indeed, I did adjudicat a situation like this. Back in 2E, with a Paladin in plate armour facing off against a den of kobolds. By the rules, the kobolds couldn't hit the paladin, but they had numbers, and at one point had the paladin overrun and pulled down by a swarm of them. Sure, he killed some, but I played the scene as it seemed realistic to me.



Aaron said:


> And how do you handle this scenario in game?
> 
> But what if the boulder's thrower hits with a critical hit, and the PCs failed his spot/listen/perception/whatever check?




The only real way the game offers to handle such things is by GM fiat. If a character's to die, then they flat out die. But that's rather unenjoyable. So, we go with the natural hazard, and the boulder falls, and we see how hard people are hit by it. All covered by 4E hazard to hit rolls, damage rolls, and the abstractness of HP.

I would actually be inclined to assign injuries, though the game gives no real rules on how to handle such. But a critical hit does not mean it's a lethal hit. So the character takes max damage, and maybe they managed to react at the last second to roll some with the hit to not get pasted.



Aaron said:


> I can't see how acid, fire, and so many other things could differentiate the damage between a wall and a barbarian.
> 
> Not to mention that luck isn't something related to living beings.




Acid, fire, etc. don't differentiate at all. It's that the Barbarian can react to the situation. An Alien spits at the wall with acid, the wall sits there and takes it, and only the potency of the acid matters. An Alien spits at a Barbarian, who manages to duck in time and only take some splash damage to his shoulder.

And certainly, luck doesn't only apply to PCs. It's only that in stories and games, the heroes usually have rather a bit more of it than say a wall in house #3.



Aaron said:


> 24/7?
> 
> 24/7?
> 
> You live in a wonderful world.




I think you're going a bit overboard with the 24/7. No adventuring party can keep on going without rest or breaks. If you're meaning 'ready at a moment's notice', then yes, even in the real world. Fire Fighters and Police respond 24/7. Military soldiers respond 24/7. Sure, they're not facing dragons and T-Rexs, because they are not part of our current modern world. But they respond to the threats and hazards that are there.

And no, I wouldn't say it's a perfectly wonderful world, seeing as we need the above. But it is good to think that there are people willing to put themselves in harms way for the sake of others, much like Adventurers do in D&D.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 5, 2012)

Action movies are still generally heroic characters who are rarely empowered by mystic energies.

A paragon character in D&D would be able to punch the Terminator to death.


----------



## Saagael (Apr 5, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Action movies are still generally heroic characters who are rarely empowered by mystic energies.
> 
> A paragon character in D&D would be able to punch the Terminator to death.




Precisely. A better example, to me, is in Lord of the Rings (the movies since they're easier to picture): during the battle of Helm's Deep Aragorn and Gimli leap in front of a huge column of Uruk-hai and fend them off. Were they probably nervous to do it? Maybe a little, but they were pretty damn sure they could succeed; that's why they did it.

Or when Gandalf faces down the Balrog. He KNEW he was on of an equal power level as the Balrog, just as paragon-tier characters KNOW they're stronger than some country-militia.


----------



## Gryph (Apr 5, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> That is what the book clearly says. Rumor has it that Gygax intended for it to work the escalating way, but that intent got lost/dropped at some point in the process of getting the rules down in print.




Not just rumour, EGG posted as much on this forum. IIRR he was talked out of it by some of his players.


----------



## Gryph (Apr 5, 2012)

RYPros53 said:


> Gandalf the grey fell - FAR. And got stronger.
> If you want to penalize characters who metagame and jump down from large heights- put metal spikes at the bottom.





Gandalf was a divine being.


----------



## Kynn (Apr 5, 2012)

On drinking poison being auto-death.

Okay, so if I say "I am going to drink this bottle of poison" and do so, then I die, right?

But if I say "I am going to drink this potion of healing" but it actually also contains a poison, I get a saving throw to avoid dying?

If I say "I eat this apple" and I don't know it's a poisoned apple, I get a save, but if I say "I eat this poisoned apple" I automatically die?

I'm trying to figure out what you guys are saying here about when you'd take away a save entirely.


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 5, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Action movies are still generally heroic characters who are rarely empowered by mystic energies.
> 
> A paragon character in D&D would be able to punch the Terminator to death.




Sure, I just chose Die Hard since it fit (at least for me) the concept of a 4E hero who reacted realistically to hazards.

As to punching out a Terminator, it all depends on how it's statted. I'd make it the equivalent of an Iron Golem. So I'd be interested in seeing a lone Paragon punching one to death. Even Epic heroes I'd be hard pressed to believe being able to (barring powers, abilities, mystical items, divine boons, etc.).



Saagael said:


> Precisely. A better example, to me, is in Lord of the Rings (the movies since they're easier to picture): during the battle of Helm's Deep Aragorn and Gimli leap in front of a huge column of Uruk-hai and fend them off. Were they probably nervous to do it? Maybe a little, but they were pretty damn sure they could succeed; that's why they did it.
> 
> Or when Gandalf faces down the Balrog. He KNEW he was on of an equal power level as the Balrog, just as paragon-tier characters KNOW they're stronger than some country-militia.




So they were afraid/ran from the low-level orc (goblin) horde why then?

Aragorn and Gimli defended the bridge out of desperate necessity. They knew they were the most able for the job and like the heroes they are, stepped out to do the job. I don't think either actually expected to survive, just delay the uruk long enough for the gates to be reinforced. Otherwise, why didn't they just stay out there and hack them all down? They got the hell out of there as soon as the task was done.

Gandalf by no means knew he was on equal footing with the Balrog. He stood his ground because he was the only one who could possibly delay the Balrog long enough for the rest of the party to escape. He certainly didn't look back at Aragorn and give a badass grin and a "I got this" wink.

I would happily agree that LotR is a good example of Paragon level play. I wouldn't agree that any of the characers would blithely ignore in-world dangers, even mundane ones, thinking that they were so high level it would only cost them a healing surge or two. Everything was dangerous, every creature deadly and taken seriously.



Kynn said:


> On drinking poison being auto-death.
> 
> Okay, so if I say "I am going to drink this bottle of poison" and do so, then I die, right?
> 
> ...




That's in part the issue of this thread. If a character willingly downs an entire bottle of poison (equivalent to many doses), which should by all rights kill them, just what do we do? It seems unrealistic to me that a PC would just take some HP damage and call it a day. As 4E doesn't have saves in the sense of older editions, DMs are left with the regular 10+ save, or more likely, applying a save with a heavy negative modifier, so that while you'll likely die, there's still a chance.

It was mentioned before, but the rules have been written with the idea that there's someone adjudicating the game. Negative effects and conditions have been developed in the sense that characters would not be willingly accepting of them. A poison taken unwillingly applies as normal, doing damage, prompting a save, whatever. Knowingly taken a poison should impose a greater risk (dependent on exposure, of course), just like there should be a difference between actively opposing someone trying to stab you in a face and just standing there and letting them do it.

I agree that for 99% of gaming, such circumstances are not going to arise. I don't know of any character who willing jumps off a cliff. But I've certainly read of encounters with drops of over 100', or occurring adrift in primordial lava. But we have rules for stuff like being Deafened, which seems a very rare occurance. And I think it's actually more important to just have 'this is deadly lethal' rules just so that players can get out of the mindset that you can survive anything just because you're 21st level with a heap of HPs.


----------



## Kynn (Apr 5, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> It was mentioned before, but the rules have been written with the idea that there's someone adjudicating the game. Negative effects and conditions have been developed in the sense that characters would not be willingly accepting of them. A poison taken unwillingly applies as normal, doing damage, prompting a save, whatever. Knowingly taken a poison should impose a greater risk (dependent on exposure, of course), just like there should be a difference between actively opposing someone trying to stab you in a face and just standing there and letting them do it.




Surely the poison is just the same, though, whether you willingly ingest it or not.

Are you saying you believe that the lethality of poisons should be based on the intent of the victim?


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 5, 2012)

Eh. LotR was mostly heroic characters trying to hold a paragon threat at bay.

Sauron isn't an epic threat.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 5, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> However, you can also play it as avoiding going over the edge by scraping and clawing. This is the "Die Hard" version. On a 100 foot fall, you don't roll 10d6+modifiers for a huge fall onto rocks. You roll 10d6 to grasp the edge with your fingernails, slide over, bounce off a few rocks, grab some foliage to slow your fall, and then grab hold of a narrow ledge with your last strength. It hurts, and you are still in a bad spot. But you didn't fall all the way onto those rocks.
> 
> Then if the fiction makes this impossible--tied up, suspended by a rope head down, well away from the edge, and someone cuts the rope--well, you go back to the base, nasty version of damage. Better be really lucky.



Yes, this is good and essentially what I do right now in 1e. I use 1d6/10 feet for falling damage in a situation that is kind of abstract and where one can reasonably imagine that there are damage mitigating things going on, like falling down a rocky cliff or falling into a forest canopy. You take one "hit" per 10 feet.

If the fiction makes this impossible, e.g. straight drop far away from the edge, I use the cumulative falling damage, where 30 feet is 1d6+2d6+3d6, etc.

I wouldn't be averse to using a more in-depth, realistic treatment of falling damage for that situation if one of my players had a simulationist thing for it, at least to an extent. I don't mind some "incoherence" between the realism of the falling damage rules and the realism of the poison rules or the getting hit by club rules. Simulationism isn't always whole hog, sometimes people just have "a thing" for particular situations and want to explore their resolution with more simulationist rules.

The posts in this thread basically saying "it's absurd to care about realism if you're playing D&D in the first place" and giving suggestions to go play HarnMaster or Runequest are unhelpful. Yes, D&D has always been in the game school vs. the realism-simulation school going back to Gygax's use of these terms in the 1e DMG, but the midline between these two schools has clearly shifted towards the game side between then and now. It's entirely reasonable that was in the "game school" by late 70s/early 80s standards is now in the "realism-simulation" school by 2012 standards. You can't criticize people for being inconsistent when the terms are shifting in meaning.

I mean 1e has a pretty simulationist vibe by today's standards. Obviously this doesn't make it "anti-D&D" or whatever.

This sort of militant anti-simulationism I've been noticing in contemporary D&D culture feels contrived and alienating. I've never played with anyone who didn't at least kind of like simulationism as a supporting element.


----------



## SageMinerve (Apr 5, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Eh. LotR was mostly heroic characters trying to hold a paragon threat at bay.
> 
> Sauron isn't an epic threat.




Wow.

Considering that Sauron is an extra-dimensional being that pre-existed the creation of the World, and that the Free People losing against him in the War of the Ring essentially meant the End of the World (tm), saying that Sauron isn't an Epic threat (and LotR compares very poorly to default D&D in terms of basic world assumptions) means, what? Only Greater Gods are Epic threats?


----------



## SageMinerve (Apr 5, 2012)

Kynn said:


> On drinking poison being auto-death.
> 
> Okay, so if I say "I am going to drink this bottle of poison" and do so, then I die, right?
> 
> ...




To me as a DM, the difference between:

(a) a PC drinking the poison willingly because its player knows that the PC won't die for it;

(b) a PC drinks the poison by mistake;

is metagaming. Of course the poison's lethality doesn't theoritically change between the two scenarios. But if the player is enough of a *** to blatantly ignore in-world logic, then the DM is perfectly justified to act accordingly.

Said player (in option (a)) deserves to see his PC die a horrible death.

Anyway, the bottle of poison is Schroedinger's Cat all over again.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 5, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Hit point loss can be anything.
> 
> When my halfling paladin fell and took falling damage, I stated that he  channeled his divine powers into an emergency plea for help and an angel  CAME OUTTA NOWHERE and caught him.... slowed his descent.
> 
> HPs are abstract, man.



This would  be considered pointless and special snowflake-y and would receive some frowns and raised eyebrows and possibly some eyerolls at my table. (just trying to describe my preference and experience as counterpoint, not  trying to badwrongfun you objectively).

Maybe Next could develop a new philosophy: _solipsistic reskinning_.  Meaning if somebody wants to change the fiction in a certain way  to please themselves, even though this won't affect anything else  in the game, they're encouraged to silently imagine it without sharing  it with the other participants.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 5, 2012)

SageMinerve said:


> Wow.
> 
> Considering that Sauron is an extra-dimensional being that pre-existed the creation of the World, and that the Free People losing against him in the War of the Ring essentially meant the End of the World (tm), saying that Sauron isn't an Epic threat (and LotR compares very poorly to default D&D in terms of basic world assumptions) means, what? Only Greater Gods are Epic threats?




Epic heroes can *create worlds*.

Sauron failed to conquer a world of weak beings because a little hairy homebody found a piece of jewelry.


----------



## Kynn (Apr 5, 2012)

SageMinerve said:


> To me as a DM, the difference between:
> 
> (a) a PC drinking the poison willingly because its player knows that the PC won't die for it;
> 
> ...




So if the character has previously sipped such poison, and didn't die, and has an in-character reason to know that he probably won't die from doing it again, that's still "metagaming"?

By in-world logic, player characters of sufficiently high level should know that they're fairly immune to being killed -- because they do it routinely.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 5, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> Yes, this is good and essentially what I do right now in 1e. I use 1d6/10 feet for falling damage in a situation that is kind of abstract and where one can reasonably imagine that there are damage mitigating things going on, like falling down a rocky cliff or falling into a forest canopy. You take one "hit" per 10 feet.
> 
> If the fiction makes this impossible, e.g. straight drop far away from the edge, I use the cumulative falling damage, where 30 feet is 1d6+2d6+3d6, etc.
> 
> ...





I disagree that there is a heavy simulationism/anti-simulationism issue. Simulationism requires consistency. D&&D lacks a true realism to simulate off of. When HP damage happens, there is no official description of what happened. A 6 damage sword hit to a person with hit points to spare could men a completely dodged blow, a glancing blow, and a bloody stab to the gut. None of these description are technically wrong. Fans just prefer one to another.

There also is no clear description of what a character who can survive 20d6 damage is. Most books and movies don't even get close to D&D's level 10, which is pretty much the threshold for leaping a max damage height. And even then there are many definitions of a "paragon" character. There are anywhere between slightly better trained humanoid to action genre hero to "video-game character on easy mode".

D&D need some consistency.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 5, 2012)

One of the major issues is really that there is very little in the way of epic tier storytelling. Epic fantasy novels tend to stay at the high end of heroic or the low end of paragon, and the "epic" nature of them is in scope instead of power level.

The whole Quadratic Wizard thing kind of pushes D&D into crazy gonzo cosmic heroes mode at Epic Tier. A fighter that is an equal with a level 21+ 2E or 3E wizard has to be freaking incredible.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 6, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> This would  be considered pointless and  special snowflake-y and would receive some frowns and raised eyebrows  and possibly some eyerolls at my table. (just trying to describe my  preference and experience as counterpoint, not  trying to badwrongfun  you objectively).
> 
> Maybe Next could develop a new philosophy: _solipsistic reskinning_.   Meaning if somebody wants to change the fiction in a certain way  to  please themselves, even though this won't affect anything else  in the  game, they're encouraged to silently imagine it without sharing  it with  the other participants.




Change the fiction? Change what fiction? The rules state that..

He fell
Something happens
He hit the ground
He took ~70 damage
He lived.

D&D doesn't say what the "something happens" is. That is the core problem.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 6, 2012)

erleni said:


> Honestly I don't. To me D&D high level characters should be superhumans that can take over the city guard if they want (as long as the city guard doesn't have its dose of high level characters). An high level fighter should be something like Thomas in R.E.Feist's books and should never fall in a battle to normal soldiers. And I see no problem in an high level character jumping of a cliff and knowing he will survive (like Lloyd jumping off a cliff in Tales of Symphonia).
> In a fantasy game like D&D even high level martial characters should be magical to some extent and not be bound by the same limits of mere mortals. I always imagine that high level martial characters are imbued by the sheer strength of "destiny" that will bring them to a glorious victory or defeat, not a "splat!" sound and a pool of goo.
> But I understand that other people may want a more down-to-Earth (pun intended) approach.




My wish for 5E is that it gives you the tools to play both. There should be a way to have optional rules that allow for mobs and falling to be deadly. If they really intend to have dials then this would be a thing that would make DnD a much better game.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 6, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Unfortunately, bad players will manage to ruin any game. Like the people who flip chess boards.




I don't know if they are bad players because put these same players in a Shadowrun game and none of this kind of things happen.

For a lot of them it is just the way they play. They often when planning what to do as players not characters think in this way. Something along the lines of well I am x level and have x hit points the guards will be about third level and they carry longswords so if that all hit me even if they do max I will live. So I laugh and charge them.  

Once you have played the game for a long time it is does not take  long to figure this kind of thing out.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 6, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I don't know if they are bad players because put these same players in a Shadowrun game and none of this kind of things happen.
> 
> For a lot of them it is just the way they play. They often when planning what to do as players not characters think in this way. Something along the lines of well I am x level and have x hit points the guards will be about third level and they carry longswords so if that all hit me even if they do max I will live. So I laugh and charge them.
> 
> Once you have played the game for a long time it is does not take  long to figure this kind of thing out.




If their characters are afraid of getting hurt and would avoid harm even when they could benefit, then they're not roleplaying well. If their characters are daredevils who don't mind pain if it assures victory, there's no reason to complain because everything is working as intended.

If you don't like the characters your players are playing, using rules as a bludgeon to make them change seems like it may just make things less fun for them.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 6, 2012)

Saagael said:


> Precisely. A better example, to me, is in Lord of the Rings (the movies since they're easier to picture): during the battle of Helm's Deep Aragorn and Gimli leap in front of a huge column of Uruk-hai and fend them off. Were they probably nervous to do it? Maybe a little, but they were pretty damn sure they could succeed; that's why they did it.
> 
> Or when Gandalf faces down the Balrog. He KNEW he was on of an equal power level as the Balrog, just as paragon-tier characters KNOW they're stronger than some country-militia.




I don't see it that way at all. They didn't know they would succeed they knew that if they didn't try the Uruk-Jai would get in and the woman and children would be slaughtered. They were willing to risk their life by trying. 

Gandalf died in the encounter but he was the only one who could go toe to toe with the Balrog and saving Frodo was more important than his life. 

There is nothing heroic about doing great deeds if you know you are going to succeed what is heroic is doing even though you know you may well die.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 6, 2012)

Plot armor makes heroes of us all.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 6, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> If their characters are afraid of getting hurt and would avoid harm even when they could benefit, then they're not roleplaying well. If their characters are daredevils who don't mind pain if it assures victory, there's no reason to complain because everything is working as intended.
> 
> If you don't like the characters your players are playing, using rules as a bludgeon to make them change seems like it may just make things less fun for them.




Maybe I am not making myself clear because I am having trouble putting this in to words. 

Because DnD is a level based game players start to think this way. We are first level we are not meant to fight the ancient red dragon.  I am 15 level there is no way I have to worry if I get caught robbing this shop because the city guard can't touch me. 

Some players don't do this but a lot do even ones who do role play. Even good role players try and think some what tactically. 

With this kind of thinking it makes it hard to tell certain type of stories.


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 6, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Epic heroes can *create worlds*.
> 
> Sauron failed to conquer a world of weak beings because a little hairy homebody found a piece of jewelry.




That would be dependent on the system and story. At least in 4E, I see little to suggest world creation in the Epic Tier. Characters are certaily powerful, but I'm not seeing such godhood until Level 30+.

Considering the magic-poor realm of Middle Earth, I would certainly peg a demi-god like Sauron as an Epic level threat, perhaps low Epic for the trilogy since a lot of his power is tied up in the One Ring. But it's apparent that Epic for you is a step beyond what I see presented in the PHBs.



Kynn said:


> So if the character has previously sipped such poison, and didn't die, and has an in-character reason to know that he probably won't die from doing it again, that's still "metagaming"?




You're twisting the intent of the statement. It wouldn't be metagaming at all, since the character did not die the first time, it's prefectly reasonable and realistic that they would think they wouldn't die if they were by chance exposed to it again.

It's not so reasonable for someone to think "Oh, I didn't die the first time, that must mean that I never will."



Kynn said:


> By in-world logic, player characters of sufficiently high level should know that they're fairly immune to being killed -- because they do it routinely.




That seems a logical fallacy to me. Just because you haven't died, doesn't mean you can't. I cross the street a dozen times a day without dying, but I certainly wouldn't just blindly step out into the road everytime I do.



Incenjucar said:


> If their characters are afraid of getting hurt and would avoid harm even when they could benefit, then they're not roleplaying well. If their characters are daredevils who don't mind pain if it assures victory, there's no reason to complain because everything is working as intended.
> 
> If you don't like the characters your players are playing, using rules as a bludgeon to make them change seems like it may just make things less fun for them.




It comes down to play style at this point. I see it totally opposite. If a player plays their character as afraid of getting hurt, but does it anyway, I think they're roleplaying much better than the player who's a daredevil because they knows the game rules won't allow them to be in danger.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 6, 2012)

Well yes. That is how level-based games work. The idea of the game is that you become more capable as time progresses, and threats that were too great when you began may become surmountable. You don't get to start the game off in a fist-fight with Zeus, nor does the next pigfarmer with a dream threaten you when you have become able knock Zeus on his holy butt.

Moving away from that is basically asking for a different game, or at least a heavily modified variant.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 6, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> That would be dependent on the system and story. At least in 4E, I see little to suggest world creation in the Epic Tier. Characters are certaily powerful, but I'm not seeing such godhood until Level 30+.




In 4E, epic destinies such as Plane Shaper, Demiurge, or Master Hierophant.

In 3E, powers such as Genesis, _which isn't even an epic level power_.



> Considering the magic-poor realm of Middle Earth, I would certainly peg a demi-god like Sauron as an Epic level threat, perhaps low Epic for the trilogy since a lot of his power is tied up in the One Ring. But it's apparent that Epic for you is a step beyond what I see presented in the PHBs.




We're talking in the D&D scale. That Sauron is the top tier threat of his world doesn't matter anymore than if Gargamel is the deadliest threat in the Smurf world. He may be Epic to a Smurf but he's not Epic to Elminster.


----------



## SageMinerve (Apr 6, 2012)

Kynn said:


> So if the character has previously sipped such poison, and didn't die, and has an in-character reason to know that he probably won't die from doing it again, that's still "metagaming"?
> 
> By in-world logic, player characters of sufficiently high level should know that they're fairly immune to being killed -- because they do it routinely.




No, that's not metagaming. Metagaming is when a player makes an in-game/world/character decision based on out-of-game/world/character informations; e.g. the player knows that poison X is dealing 50 damage, and since his 75 hp character won't die from it, he decides the character can safely drink from it.

In the situation you describe, that's not what's happening: the character (as opposed to the player) has a perfectly valid in-game reason to think he can drink the poison.


----------



## SageMinerve (Apr 6, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> In 4E, epic destinies such as Plane Shaper, Demiurge, or Master Hierophant.
> 
> In 3E, powers such as Genesis, _which isn't even an epic level power_.
> 
> ...




I'm sorry, but if Sauron isn't epic-worthy, there's not a SINGLE non-deity entry in any monster manuals, in any edition, that's worthy of being epic.

And everybody knows it's the smurfet that's the deadliest threat.


----------



## SteveC (Apr 6, 2012)

I find the falling damage rules to be very important to me when I'm deciding to play with a new GM. If the GM says "I've got these lethal houserules because falling damage is so unrealistic..." it's my first indication that the game will not be for me.

I always treat damage from falling is something my character doesn't really know about in character. As a high level character, I know as a player I can survive that 100 foot fall, but my character does not. I just roleplay it that way. If I do fall, and survive, I'd treat it as something that was great luck, and keep on moving. There's a huge difference between what I know the rules say my character can do, and what he thinks he can. For me, it's just that simple.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Apr 6, 2012)

If LotR were an epic-level campaign, the game range would have no room for the Silmarillion.

Sauron wasn't an epic-level threat because he was the lingering remnant of a demigod, not a demigod in truth.  If he'd gotten the ring back, that would be different.


----------



## SageMinerve (Apr 6, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> If LotR were an epic-level campaign, the game range would have no room for the Silmarillion.
> 
> Sauron wasn't an epic-level threat because he was the lingering remnant of a demigod, not a demigod in truth.  If he'd gotten the ring back, that would be different.




1) Since when being a demigod a requirement for being an epic-level threat?
2) You know there's a whole range of epic levels, right? We might argue about Sauron being low 20s, mid 20s, high 20s; the fact is that they're all epic levels, and I sincerely think that painting Sauron as a Paragon-level threat is a misrepresentation, especially considering:
3) Sauron was a Maiar, the highest and most cunning servant of Melkor/Morgoth, so IMO there's no doubt that if you consider the First Age/Silmarillion era as being epic, than Sauron HAS to be an epic threat. That remains true until he makes the One Ring in the 2nd Age, where he becomes even more powerful.

There's no doubt that his death (when Numenor is sunk) and the loss of the One Ring were a severe blow to him; I'd probably remove a few levels off him (how many levels is hard to say without knowing exactly his "best" level and how much of his Essence he put in the Ring).

As for the argument that he's only a "lingering remnant" of a demigod, I'd say that if it were so, then:

1) Saruman wouldn't have been so terrified of him;
2) Any of the Wise (The elven Ring bearers, the Wizards, etc.) could have confronted Sauron directly. It clearly isn't the case.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 6, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> IMO, D&D is one of the easiest and simplest systems to play (barring stripped down D20 games), and one of the easiest to tweak and modify.  And, I don't believe that realistic and simple are counterintuitive.  It may be harder to achieve from a design perspective, but if one really does the work, then it can be done.



On this point I have a different view. I think Basic Roleplayng is just about the easiest and simplest system I know, and Runequest not much more complex (it adds in hit location and crit rules, but they're the simplest version of such rules that I know). And it is a highly realistic engine - much moreso than D&D (any edition), in my personal view.

To be clear: I'm talking here about 80s RQ. I don't know Mongoose's version of it.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 6, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Change the fiction? Change what fiction? The rules state that..
> 
> He fell
> Something happens
> ...



When the rules don't state what happens, you fill in the blanks by thinking about what the most realistic possibility is, rather than trying to be colorful and expressive with it just because you can. Magical and mystical and weird experiences have to earned. In my view. I'm sure that sounds boring.


Minigiant said:


> I disagree that there is a heavy simulationism/anti-simulationism issue.



Maybe I'm thinking more of the RPGnet board culture where verisimilitude has become basically a dirty word that you get mocked for using, unless you're being ironic.


----------



## erleni (Apr 6, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Plot armor makes heroes of us all.




*Plot Armor*

Plot Armor is an enchantment you can add to any armor, or even to no armor. Plot armor never rusts, cannot be broken apart and repairs itself as soon as you can feed pizza or chips to your Dungeon Master.


----------



## Balesir (Apr 6, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Because DnD is a level based game players start to think this way. We are first level we are not meant to fight the ancient red dragon.  I am 15 level there is no way I have to worry if I get caught robbing this shop because the city guard can't touch me.
> 
> Some players don't do this but a lot do even ones who do role play. Even good role players try and think some what tactically.
> 
> With this kind of thinking it makes it hard to tell certain type of stories.



Absolutely right, and well put, I think.

The answer is simple - to tell these types of story/experience these types of games, use a system without levels.

What I find disturbing is not that other roleplayers have a yen for this kind of game - I think it's entirely natural to, in fact - but that they want to make this "also part of D&D". There are only so many things that D&D can simultaneously be - and experience suggests that the more of them it tries to be, the poorer it will be as any one of them. And 'level-less' is not something that it has ever been.



pemerton said:


> On this point I have a different view. I think Basic Roleplayng is just about the easiest and simplest system I know, and Runequest not much more complex (it adds in hit location and crit rules, but they're the simplest version of such rules that I know). And it is a highly realistic engine - much moreso than D&D (any edition), in my personal view.



I can't xp you right now, but I agree wholeheartedly, here. RQ2 is simpler than AD&D, let alone later editions of D&D, by a country mile.

I think in some cases when people say "system X is more complicated" they are referring to the fact that how dangerous things are under that system is less clear-cut than it is with D&D - which is funny since that is precisely the effect they seem to be pining for!



Libramarian said:


> Maybe Next could develop a new philosophy: _solipsistic reskinning_.  Meaning if somebody wants to change the fiction in a certain way  to please themselves, even though this won't affect anything else  in the game, they're encouraged to silently imagine it without sharing  it with the other participants.



This effect not only happens, it is functionally impossible to play any roleplaying game at all without it. We just get all bent out of shape when it becomes obvious to us that other people in the game are _doing it wrong_.

Part of the genius of 4E is that it provides rules such that the simultaneous 'solipsistic reskinning' being done by all the players will not generally result in clashes, provided that they are all following the rules as written.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 6, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> When the rules don't state what happens, you fill in the blanks by thinking about what the most realistic possibility is, rather than trying to be colorful and expressive with it just because you can. Magical and mystical and weird experiences have to earned. In my view. I'm sure that sounds boring.
> 
> Maybe I'm thinking more of the RPGnet board culture where verisimilitude has become basically a dirty word that you get mocked for using, unless you're being ironic.




My point is that there is no verisimilitude for high level D&D when it comes to PC defenses. None. We know how a level 1-5 PC survive most attacks, they don't. But once you get to double digits, PCs officially can regular survive things Earth humans won't. 

But D&D never explains whether a double digit level PC is a more skilled humanoid or a unbelievable superhuman. Many novels, movies, comic, and cartoons have official fluff for survival.  D&D doesn't.

When high level D&D PCs survives something us earthlings won't, you have to either...


Make up whatever reason for the character's survival
Break the rules and kill them anyway
or



Make up new rules and kill them anyway


----------



## Thaumaturge (Apr 6, 2012)

Kynn said:


> Okay, so if I say "I am going to drink this bottle of poison" and do so, then I die, right?
> 
> But if I say "I am going to drink this potion of healing" but it actually also contains a poison, I get a saving throw to avoid dying?
> 
> ...




My view on this is that a successful saving throw is the character recognizing the apple or potion is poisoned and spitting out the one bite or swallow they've taken. If the character has resolved to drink the potion _no matter what_, then I understand the argument for a save not being applicable, and death being inevitable. 

However, I could see the argument that the body reacts involuntarily, like when downing a gallon of milk in one go, and even if the player _wants_ the character to drink the vial of poison, a save is rolled. If successful, the character's body has a violent reaction and saves itself. This probably isn't how I'd adjudicate it, but I see it as being perfectly reasonable. 

I don't think this is a Schrodinger situation. 

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 6, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Well yes. That is how level-based games work. The idea of the game is that you become more capable as time progresses, and threats that were too great when you began may become surmountable. You don't get to start the game off in a fist-fight with Zeus, nor does the next pigfarmer with a dream threaten you when you have become able knock Zeus on his holy butt.
> 
> Moving away from that is basically asking for a different game, or at least a heavily modified variant.




Inexperienced PCs need to be more careful which is why they are cautious and realize that at this point they don't have the skills, magic or training to fight a red dragon.

 And yes it makes sense that a more trained group will have a better chance living if they take on a red dragon. But it is not a guarantee. It is still a threat just not one with no hope of success.

But a PC does not know that all the city guard can be beaten simply because they are a lower level. Or that the King can't defend himself because of he is only a low level noble.

I am not talking pig farmers here I am talking city guard who deal with trouble makers every day and have skill with weapons. Just because they are not out adventuring does not mean that PCs should just just brush them off.

Like I said in a game like Shadowrun law enforcement, private security can be a match for the runners. It will never be come I am so high level I don't have to worry if there are ten Lone Star officers with smart guns pointed at me they can't hit me because I am now Superman. 

I know some people like that kind of game I don't. I want the PCs to get stronger and be able to take on more threats like fight an ancient wyrm. I want the fighters to be the swordsmen of legend who took on a dozen or so bad guys and won. A mage who can stop time and call down meteor storms on armies. But I don't want it to be silly. Where one mage can wipe out an army of 10,000 men.

The way a lot of high level PCs act I would think that those in power would find a way to neutralize them before they became that big of a threat.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 6, 2012)

Balesir said:


> Absolutely right, and well put, I think.
> 
> The answer is simple - to tell these types of story/experience these types of games, use a system without levels.
> 
> ...




I know that but there could be rules built into the system to handle this. Like how to handle mobs, how to make falling more realistic, a simple way to just scale city guardsmen or make bows more of a threat.

English longbows were devastating yet they are a sub optimal weapon in DnD at higher levels.

They should be able to make a game where the DM gets to decide just how realistic he wants his game to be. 

Telling us to just go play something else is losing customers for DnD something I thought they wanted to fix.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 6, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Well, if by "near that far" you mean about 1980 when I started playing, then, I guess you'd be right.
> 
> Point is, BryonD, you're actually mistaken here.  You said that in earlier editions, if you looked at a medusa you turned to stone.  This was never true in any edition of the game and this point was hammered home pretty thoroughly with actual quotes from nearly every edition of the game.
> 
> So, fine, if you want to house rule that staring at a medusa turns you to stone, then more power to you.  But, don't pretend that this is how the game was written.  It wasn't.  It never was.  This is only your interpretation of things.



We already went through this Hussar.  I agree that you can apply a thoughtless application of the rules in an absence of intent and completely go sideways with the experience.  And I'll also point out that there are countless other comments in the DMG, throughout Dragon Magazine, and many other resources that describe, defend, and embrace as fundamental to every rule in the game that intent and rational application are paramount.

There is NO basis whatsoever for thinking that actually ever intentionally looking at Medusa would do anything other than turn you to stone.  The rules didn't find a need to explain that, particularly given that the concept of over-riding intent is so frequently made clear.  The rules PRESUME an effort to avoid.  And, before this "recent era" I've mentioned NO ONE I ever games with in a situation of this type even CONSIDERED it an option to do otherwise.  

You are putting what amounts to an abuse of the rules over any effort to create a quality narrative.  And I think there is ZERO coincidence that you complain over and over about bad experiences you have with other players.  And I think there is ZERO coincidence that you are the one calling your own game experience "ludicrous".  I've reach the point that I'm convinced that you are completely blind and unaware of what the game experience *I* seek and routinely enjoy is even about.  

I don't know what you want and it makes no difference.  I hope your games are as fun as you can make them.   But I also am certain your comments are virtually irrelevant to the kind of amazing experience I know can happen.  And certainly even remotely suggesting that my experiences are slightly "ludicrous" is unfathomable, much less calling that fish in a barrel.  

But keep that in mind when you struggle to grasp the disconnect between what you talk about and others achieve.






> AFAIC, I don't ever worry about things like this because it's never come up and I doubt it ever will.  I'm of the opinion that we really don't need mechanics for extreme corner case situations.  That's what DM's are for.



Wait....  
Ok, and if it did come up, as a DM what would you do?
Is a staring contest with Medusa any less of a corner case?

Which position are you taking?


----------



## BryonD (Apr 6, 2012)

This is trivial to the fundamental point....

But the PF poison system actually increases total damage AND DC as more more doses are applied.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 6, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Inexperienced PCs need to be more careful which is why they are cautious and realize that at this point they don't have the skills, magic or training to fight a red dragon.
> 
> And yes it makes sense that a more trained group will have a better chance living if they take on a red dragon. But it is not a guarantee. It is still a threat just not one with no hope of success.
> 
> ...




I'm sorry, but you are talking about your DESIRES, not the reality.

A D&D character in +3 chainmail wielding a flametongue sword and shielded by the blessings of Pelor who has just finished offing an entire dungeon's worth of illithids and their servants is likely to roll their eyes when a bunch of generic guards rush them. PCs don't understand levels, but they can still understand relative power. Technically a dozen children could have killed Bruce Lee in a fight, but he's sure as hell not going to wet himself at their threats.



> Like I said in a game like Shadowrun law enforcement, private security can be a match for the runners. It will never be come I am so high level I don't have to worry if there are ten Lone Star officers with smart guns pointed at me they can't hit me because I am now Superman.




D&D is not Shadowrun at all. AT ALL.



> I know some people like that kind of game I don't.




That game is called Dungeons and Dragons. Good news! There are houserules aplenty.



> I want the PCs to get stronger and be able to take on more threats like fight an ancient wyrm. I want the fighters to be the swordsmen of legend who took on a dozen or so bad guys and won. A mage who can stop time and call down meteor storms on armies. But I don't want it to be silly. Where one mage can wipe out an army of 10,000 men.




10,000 attacks = 500 crits, so I think you're stretching your argument a bit.



> The way a lot of high level PCs act I would think that those in power would find a way to neutralize them before they became that big of a threat.




Sure. They send them into deadly dungeons and hurl them at dragons.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 6, 2012)

pemerton said:


> To be clear: I'm talking here about 80s RQ. I don't know Mongoose's version of it.




MRQs (at least the second version, and the now "Legends") is a lot the same.  It edges slightly towards D&D, in that your odds of getting away with the more unrealistic stuff is slightly better.  But a random guards' spear thrust can still completely ruin your career.  Because MRQ II is a bit more streamlined than the earlier versions, it is also a bit more obvious when the rules are against you--e.g. the spirit possession rules are as nasty as they always were, but without any false hope injected. 

So I think MRQ also supports your earlier assessment.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 6, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> Like I said in a game like Shadowrun law enforcement, private security can be a match for the runners. It will never be come I am so high level I don't have to worry if there are ten Lone Star officers with smart guns pointed at me they can't hit me because I am now Superman.






Incenjucar said:


> D&D is not Shadowrun at all. AT ALL.




I think all of us: Elf Witch, you, me, and just about every other gamer - understands that Shadowrun is not D&D.

Elf Witch isn't saying that D&D should be played as Shadowrun (though it can be, and that is completely acceptable).

She's describing a conept in D&D where players can make decisions, unrealistic decisions, because they know the rules and mechanics of the game will allow them to (even if that wasn't the specific design goal of the game - and I don't think it was). Many people do not like that style of gaming, but overall like D&D, and would like to play D&D with rules that allow them to play in the style they want.

The point is, that D&D is a game that allows for many different styles of play. It allows for those that like realism (based on whatever premise, be it real world or an internally consistent fantasy world). It allows for those that like the game aspects predominantly. And it allows for those that like the story aspects. And it allows for every possible combination.  Even though different editions have done it better than others, and different editions have emphasized different aspects more than others.

D&D Next _*IS*_ going to be a game that balances all of these concepts, makes them all available, and promotes all players of all styles to enjoy what they like, play what they like, and even play together (at least to an extent). Monte and Company have repeatedly said that is the overarching goal and theme of D&D Next.


Now, I'm not trying to start a fight or call you out in a negative manner. I'm honestly curious, so I just want to ask a simple question...

It seems rather obvious from what you've posted, and from your strident declarations of _"what D&D is..."_, that you're significantly reticent towards anyone playing the game, or the next edition being designed in a way, that varies or expands from what you believe D&D has always been or is. 

My question is: Why?



If I've mischaracterized your statements, perhaps you could provide me with clarification of what you do believe about D&D, and point out where I've misinterpreted you. You don't have to, of course. But if you want to, I'd really like to have my interpretation of your statements corrected if I'm wrong.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 6, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I think all of us, Elf Witch, you, me, and just about every other gamer, understands that Shadowrun is not D&D.
> 
> Elf Witch isn't saying that D&D should be played as Shadowrun (though it can be, and that is completely acceptable).
> 
> She's describing a conept in D&D where players can make decisions, *unrealistic* decisions,




This is the problem right here.

The decisions the PCs make are not unrealistic in the world in which they exist. They are unrealistic in Shadowrun. They are unrealistic in the real world. They are perfectly realistic in D&D. This is the huge disconnect. D&D, as presently written, has a very specific universe, and many people are constantly confusing it with a completely different fantasy universe they have cooked up in their head from some other source.

Laughing at generic city guards, in 4E D&D, when you are level 20, is *realistic*.



> because they know the rules and mechanics of the game will allow them to (even if it wasn't specifically designed to do so).  Many people do not like that style of gaming, but overall like D&D, and would like to play D&D with rules that allow them to play in the style they want.




The rules reflect the reality of the world. As for different WORLDS, absolutely. I find it deeply unfortunate that there have been no such optional rules for worlds where guards are always a threat. A lack of optional rules is a huge huge huge flaw in 4E.



> The point is, that D&D is a game that allows for many different styles of play.  It allows for those that like realism (based on whatever premise, be it real world or an internally consistent fantasy world).




Ehhh. I'd say no, it isn't, but it could and it should. D&D, in 4E, is based on a world that does not match what most people could call realistic. That is why I enjoy it so much! But while rules to add Real Life Realism to the game could be made, they haven't, at least not by WotC.



> It allows for those that like the game aspects predominantly.  And it allows for those that like the story aspects.  And it allows for every possible combination.
> 
> Though different editions have done it better than others, and different editions have emphasize different aspects more than others.
> 
> D&D Next _*IS*_ going to be a game that balances all of these concepts, makes them all available, and promotes all players of all styles to enjoy what they like, play what they like, and even play them together.  Monte and Company have repeatedly said that is the overarching goal and theme of D&D Next.




That is their claim, yes. I wish they had bothered trying it in 4E rather than starting from scratch.



> Now, I'm not trying to start a fight or call you out in a negative manner.  I'm honestly curious, so I just want to ask a simple question...
> 
> It seems rather obvious from what you've posted, and from your strident declarations of _"what D&D is..."_, that you're significantly reticent towards anyone playing the game, or the next edition being designed in a way, that varies or expands from what you believe D&D has always been.
> 
> ...




The answer is No.

I have issues with people arguing based on a fiction they have created in their heads. D&D, thus far, lays down a specific concept. We can absolutely discuss the merits of that concept. We can talk about how that concept differs from other concepts. We can talk about how we can expand that concept. We can talk about adding new concepts using similar tools. We cannot talk about how D&D teaches you how to use psychic powers to derail trains - it does not do that.


----------



## Aaron (Apr 6, 2012)

Me said:
			
		

> If a high level PC get threatened by a dozen country bandits armed with  crossbows he would never acquiesce to their demands, because he would  know that he can single handendly defeat all of them in a bunch of  rounds.






Elf Witch said:


> I hate hate the mechanic that allows high level characters not to be threatened by a dozen cross bows or bows aimed at them. I hate the meta gaming that goes on with it an if I could figure out a way to fix this bug I would.






			
				[URL said:
			
		

> fenriswolf456[/URL]]Which, like Elf Witch, is one of the things I really don't like about  level based games. It ends up encouraging such meta-game considerations.  And because of this, it starts begging the question as to why there are  even armies kept. Going just by stats, you're right, a high level  character would annihilate an army of level 1 recruits, even if they  number in the thousands. If that's the game you like, please enjoy. To  me, that's all but incomprehensible.



If a high level character should fear a dozen country bandits armed with  crossbows it means that:

1)  we are talking about country bandits who could face an ancient red wyrm;

2) ancient red wyrms are no more deadly than a dozen country bandits.

I don't really understand how you can make your world intrinsically coherent, and I'm talking seriously, do not get me wrong: why should a high level PC in his right mind face an ancient red wyrm if he should fear a dozen country bandits?

And, really,  @fenriswolf456 : what's so incomprehensible?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 7, 2012)

Aaron said:


> I don't really understand how you can make your world intrinsically coherent, and I'm talking seriously, do not get me wrong: why should a high level PC in his right mind face an ancient red wyrm if he should fear a dozen country bandits?



More attacks to defend against. Going up against a tank is bad, but I don't feel too good when twelve guys in a semicircle confront me with guns drawn. If I'm very skilled and well equipped, I have a better chance against the tank. In other fiction, I'll just kill all the guys with guns. They'll miss, I'll win.

But it's perfectly understandable why a dozen guys with crossbows drawn on you can be more dangerous than a single dragon. As always, play what you like


----------



## BryonD (Apr 7, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> But it's perfectly understandable why a dozen guys with crossbows drawn on you can be more dangerous than a single dragon. As always, play what you like



But there truly is the classic trope of entire villages (or kingdoms) shaking in fear from a single dragon and the hero knight coming to save the day.
Under the scenario you describe, any backwater village could scrape together 12 grunts with crossbows and have dragon stew boiling by supper.

I COMPLETELY agree with you that economy of actions is an important issue and numbers can very reasonably be expected to increase combat effectiveness very effectively.  But in the sweet spot that D&D has generally embraced that isn't a very important factor.  

Play what you like is totally right.  But this forum is about D&D, and not just D&D but the theoretical D&D Next designed to capture the spirit (and fan base) of all D&D before.  So it is possible for what one likes to both be completely valid and yet also completely irrelevant to this specific forum.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 7, 2012)

BryonD said:


> But there truly is the classic trope of entire villages (or kingdoms) shaking in fear from a single dragon and the hero knight coming to save the day.
> Under the scenario you describe, any backwater village could scrape together 12 grunts with crossbows and have dragon stew boiling by supper.



Not if their weapons aren't effective against the dragon.

No matter what your feelings on the film are, take the movie DragonHeart (personally, I love me some Sean Connery dragon): in that, the dragon and the dragon-slayer fake out towns by having the dragon attack and the dragon-slayer "kill" it. This works a few times, but then the dragon falls into a lake and can't sink, and flies away before the villagers can eat him. They then turn as a mob to chase the dragon-slayer, who runs, because a mob will kill him (just like they killed the previous king).

A mob of humans is dangerous to _humans_. A storm of arrows may not even pierce the dragon's hide (via damage reduction, for example). This means that strong warriors (like a mounted knight with a lance) could pierce the hide of the dragon, but a town couldn't (thus the need for adventurers, courageous knights, etc.).



BryonD said:


> Play what you like is totally right.  But this forum is about D&D, and not just D&D but the theoretical D&D Next designed to capture the spirit (and fan base) of all D&D before.  So it is possible for what one likes to both be completely valid and yet also completely irrelevant to this specific forum.



True, but I don't feel I've hit on that at all. As always, play what you like


----------



## BryonD (Apr 7, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> True, but I don't feel I've hit on that at all. As always, play what you like



I disagree.  You gave one example and that example was actually an example of making a point of playing AGAINST the cliche.

I think you have absolutely run into that with the dragon example.

But, more importantly, you are simply up against a great deal of history when it comes to the assumptions and archetypes specifically in D&D.  I don't think you can show that 12 mook level guys with crossbows has EVER been more dangerous than a top tier dragon in D&D.  And dragons were a good deal less potent in older versions.  

Again, no complaint whatsoever against the style you are advocating.  But when you hold that up as a standard not just for what D&D should be, but for what D&D *has been* then you hit it.  You hit it real hard.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 7, 2012)

BryonD said:


> I disagree.  You gave one example and that example was actually an example of making a point of playing AGAINST the cliche.
> 
> I think you have absolutely run into that with the dragon example.



No, it happens frequently. Even in the last LotR movie, Gandolf seems to think he's about to die while fighting troops, and that's _after_ he's defeated the Balrog and came back even more powerful than before.

When Strider is tracking the hobbits down with Gimli and Legolas, they get surrounded by mounted riders. Sure, Legolas could have gotten a shot off first, but they were obviously in a terrible situation.

Jamie Lannister, basically the best swordsman around, is overwhelmed by troops and captured.

When Rand al'Thor is training against four men, he gets on hit on each, but the last one hits him in the head. He routinely takes on the Forsaken.

This is not uncommon by any means in fantasy.



BryonD said:


> But, more importantly, you are simply up against a great deal of history when it comes to the assumptions and archetypes specifically in D&D.  I don't think you can show that 12 mook level guys with crossbows has EVER been more dangerous than a top tier dragon in D&D.  And dragons were a good deal less potent in older versions.



This is a discussion on making D&D 5e, and not making it like every past edition. Retaining the spirit, yes, but not exactly the same. And, found in a module or otherwise, speaking of more "realistic" rules that _are in line with the fantasy genre_.



BryonD said:


> Again, no complaint whatsoever against the style you are advocating.  But when you hold that up as a standard not just for what D&D should be, but for what D&D *has been* then you hit it.  You hit it real hard.



I'm not saying "this is what D&D has been", and I'm sorry that wasn't clear enough. I'm saying "this is how people have played D&D before", and the spirit of D&D definitely resides within that statement. Look at Elf Witch: she dislikes when people say "whatever, I'm high level" _in D&D_. This is someone talking about _how they play D&D_, and I find that directly applicable to the discussion of the spirit of D&D.

Sure, you don't play it that way. Many other people do houserule save or die from damage, instant death in lava, and similar effects. I, personally, haven't ever done those, _but people have played D&D this way for decades._ It is well within the spirit of D&D in may groups, but not the rules. And that, really, is at the heart of this debate. As always, play what you like


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 7, 2012)

Hopefully the modules will include rules to actually include those incongruous playstyles so that people no longer have to be upset that the rules ignore how they play, without simply thrusting the issue on people who have been playing more in line with the rules.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 7, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> players can make decisions, unrealistic decisions, because they know the rules and mechanics of the game will allow them to (even if that wasn't the specific design goal of the game - and I don't think it was). Many people do not like that style of gaming, but overall like D&D, and would like to play D&D with rules that allow them to play in the style they want.



As I've already mentioned, this is the bit I have trouble with. (Not in the sense of objecting to it, but as not really getting it.)

Because I can't see hp rules, or saving throw rules, as anything but metagame mechanics (and Gygax describes that way in his DMG), I can't take any objection to players making decisions based on their knowledge of their metagame situation. Conversely, if I wanted a game in which players made decisions for their PCs based purely on the ingame situation, I would play a game without those metagame elements.

In the context of falling damage, or twelve guards with crossbows, the metagame rules mean that a player knows that, if his/her PC jumps over the cliff, or tries to rush the guards, the PC has a pretty good chance of pulling it off. That's the point of the metagame mechanics.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 7, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> This is the problem right here.
> 
> The decisions the PCs make are not unrealistic in the world in which they exist. They are unrealistic in Shadowrun. They are unrealistic in the real world. They are perfectly realistic in D&D. This is the huge disconnect. D&D, as presently written, has a very specific universe, and many people are constantly confusing it with a completely different fantasy universe they have cooked up in their head from some other source.
> 
> ...




What you say may be true of 4E, and may or may not prove to be true of 5E, but it's not true of "D&D" in general.  The lethality of the game has been different throughout different editions; and, indeed, various editions have had such optional rules.

"D&D" arguably encompasses a whole range of play styles and 'universal laws'. 4E attempted to codify that much more tightly, and tried to make the rules part of the fluff to describe a single coherent universe, but previous editions didn't do that. And there's no reason at present to think that 5E will.

So, in short - I don't agree that there's a defined D&D 'universe' where certain things can happen and others can't. Not unless you take a very restrictive view and view the concept of "D&D" outside it's historical context.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> As I've already mentioned, this is the bit I have trouble with. (Not in the sense of objecting to it, but as not really getting it.)
> 
> Because I can't see hp rules, or saving throw rules, as anything but metagame mechanics (and Gygax describes that way in his DMG), I can't take any objection to players making decisions based on their knowledge of their metagame situation. Conversely, if I wanted a game in which players made decisions for their PCs based purely on the ingame situation, I would play a game without those metagame elements.
> 
> In the context of falling damage, or twelve guards with crossbows, the metagame rules mean that a player knows that, if his/her PC jumps over the cliff, or tries to rush the guards, the PC has a pretty good chance of pulling it off. That's the point of the metagame mechanics.




It all goes back to the inconsistency of the description and actual play of high level characters across all editions. Pre-3e characters would know they can can't take a dozen guys or leap off a mountain.

In 3E, double digit characters could be hurt by a dozen dudes... but they would know they could also *slaughter* the crossbowmen. Depending on their individual experiences, they might also  try other risky maneuvers.  

And in 4E, paragon characters can say "LOL Material Plane humanoids without titles." or "Ha. None of you are royalty, nobility, or nationwide legends. Step aside.". And their player might be able to justifiably act that way.

Once thing, especially with the flatter math, that I hope to see in 5E is aclear description of the power of a high level character.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 7, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> No, it happens frequently. Even in the last LotR movie, Gandolf seems to think he's about to die while fighting troops, and that's _after_ he's defeated the Balrog and came back even more powerful than before.
> 
> When Strider is tracking the hobbits down with Gimli and Legolas, they get surrounded by mounted riders. Sure, Legolas could have gotten a shot off first, but they were obviously in a terrible situation.
> 
> ...




I would point out that Gandalf and Rand are the only mid- to high-level characters among those examples, and both of them are only threatened at all because they're holding back.  Gandalf isn't using most of his power to avoid attracting the attention of the other people in the world who _are_ a real threat to him (and because Iluvatar nicely asked him not to).  When Davram Bashere tries to stab Rand to prove a point--that Rand hasn't been really keeping up with his practice, and shouldn't be anyway because he has better options--Rand stops and disarms him without even having to take the time to think about it.

Those high level characters being "threatened" by mundane threats are akin to saying that a D&D planetar isn't actually powerful because Pelor will smite any angel that tries to use its supernatural abilities, or that a 15th-level wizard is trivial to take out as long as you have either an _antimagic field_ or 13 12th-level wizards working together.  Yes, if you have a high-level caster not use any of his magic for personal protection or offense, low-level threats might affect him, but that's exactly the problem: most fiction deals with what would be low-level characters in D&D, and any high-level characters are usually holding themselves back.

A common argument to see on forums is the following:

"Casters and noncasters should be equal.  Noncasters take out casters in fiction all the time."

"Nuh-uh!  Magic is inherently superior!"

"Nope, Gandalf and Thoth-Amon and so on are just higher-level than Aragorn and Conan and the rest!"

It goes around in circles after that, but the latter sentiment is closer to being right: main villains are end-game bosses because they're higher-level and heroes tend to be at a disadvantage because underdog stories are classic, not because wizards are better than fighters in the source material.  If you look at most fiction that ends up with the hero facing down a drastically stronger foe against which he's at a disadvantage, you'll notice that it almost always occurs because the hero outsmarts the villain (which works because power is not always proportional to intelligence) or because he takes advantage of a special weakness, whether or not it's built in to the magic system or the villain.  The corollary to those stories is that the hero has to do it himself because _brute force by bunches of mooks just doesn't work_.  The Witch-King gets taken out by a "puny" woman and hobbit duo only because of a glaring weakness and his misinterpretation of that weakness.  The Emperor is taken down by Vader because Luke manages to turn him back to the light, which Palpatine never saw coming.  Wheel of Time channelers are only taken down by the equivalent of antimagic fields, whether it's forkroot tea or 13-women circles or steddings or whatever else.

Any number of men or elves who go up against the Witch-King flat-out _die_.  Any number of Rebel troops who go up against Vader flat-out _die_, and even the heroes get captured easily.  Any number of Aiel who go up against a Forsaken flat-out _die_.  The only equalizer for lower-level characters is trickery or knowledge of a hidden weakness, and "a dozen bandits with crossbows" just isn't that kind of weakness for higher-level heroes.  In fact, if we really want to talk about source material, any game which _does_ have Jedi Master Luke threatened by generic stormtroopers and TIE fighters is contradicting the source material as much as a game that has Gandalf able to mow down the armies of Isengard and Mordor single-handedly.

And that's what the different level ranges are _for_.  Farmboy Rand al'Thor and Farmboy Luke Skywalker are low- to mid-level, and still threatened by a dozen bandits with bows or a squad of stormtroopers.  Dragon Rand "Lews Therin" al'Thor and Jedi Master Luke Skywalker are mid- to high-level, and just aren't threatened by them anymore.  And that kind of growth has always been part of D&D.  Perhaps not to the same extent, as different editions have handled high-level and epic/immortal play differently, but even in the very earliest editions PCs started off scrabbling for every advantage they could get and worked their way up to being awesome at mid-to-high level.  Back in the day, most NPCs were assumed to be 0th-level, and fighters could attack 1 0th-level opponent per level per round, so 6th-level fighters (which, again, is roughly at the point where AD&D and 3e characters first start surpassing real-world limits) were seriously expected to kill 6 people per round, and those half-dozen bandits would find their numbers halved if the fighter's side rolled well on initiative and completely wiped soon thereafter if they didn't run away.

Yes, characters have less health and fewer protections in AD&D, and yes, 4e builds in a lot of safeguards to protect PCs, but at the end of the day the relationship of low-level characters to mid-level PCs has always been "oh yeah, low-level people, they're those things that the PCs either ignore, order around, or slaughter as the mood strikes them."  Mid-level heroes of every edition slay gods, take over nations, planes-hop, and otherwise do larger-than-life stuff on a daily basis.  When you can take on a half-dozen glabrezu for breakfast, or as Incenjucar said wipe a colony of illithids before lunch, a bunch of bandits have to go waaay out of their way to qualify as a threat.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 7, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> Yes, if you have a high-level caster not use any of his magic for personal protection or offense, low-level threats might affect him, but that's exactly the problem: most fiction deals with what would be low-level characters in D&D, and any high-level characters are usually holding themselves back.



This is true in a lot of fiction, yes. A lot of fiction also wavers, switching back and forth. In Wheel of Time, Lan -arguably the best warrior in the series- can take on like eight guys at once, and win, but he's hurt at the end. Earlier, Galad is able to cut his way through an angry mob without spilling blood on his clothes.

Strider is able to take the entire group of ring-wraiths at the same time, but has to get hauled up from the bridge with Gimli before he gets overrun, even though only a limited number of enemies can reach him at once.

And, as I've pointed out, the Song of Ice and Fire series is even more brutal when treating how dangerous "mook" characters are. You get surrounded by them, you basically lose.

Conan is knocked out by _tripping_ a couple of times. Yet, he can kill a gorilla-monster in one hit that would tear his limbs off if it reached him.

Like any genre, there's different variations in how powerful creatures are treated. Rand al'Thor will get hit in the head by a common soldier, but he'll burn a city down with fire that erases it from time. Quite a power difference there. I'd like to see D&D at least allow for the lower power end at later levels.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> The corollary to those stories is that the hero has to do it himself because _brute force by bunches of mooks just doesn't work_.



That's true, though it often happens to protagonists. That is, a bunch of mooks _can_ take them on, and capture them. Han Solo and Chewbacca getting captured by soldiers in Episode 6, for example.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> The Witch-King gets taken out by a "puny" woman and hobbit duo only because of a glaring weakness and his misinterpretation of that weakness.  The Emperor is taken down by Vader because Luke manages to turn him back to the light, which Palpatine never saw coming.  Wheel of Time channelers are only taken down by the equivalent of antimagic fields, whether it's forkroot tea or 13-women circles or steddings or whatever else.



This can easily apply to melee characters, too, though. Achilles is invincible, but he can only be taken down by a strike to his ankle. 



Eldritch_Lord said:


> Any number of men or elves who go up against the Witch-King flat-out _die_.



Well, save Strider, of course...



Eldritch_Lord said:


> Any number of Rebel troops who go up against Vader flat-out _die_, and even the heroes get captured easily.



And they get captured by stormtroopers. Vader and Boba Fett were there, but they weren't going to capture all of them alone. In Episode 3, the clone troopers take out jedi _left and right_. 



Eldritch_Lord said:


> And that kind of growth has always been part of D&D.  Perhaps not to the same extent, as different editions have handled high-level and epic/immortal play differently, but even in the very earliest editions PCs started off scrabbling for every advantage they could get and worked their way up to being awesome at mid-to-high level.



Yes, and people being threatened by a weak group has been part of D&D for a long time. It fits well within the spirit of the game. The current discussion is to how this dynamic might be acceptable at all level ranges, for those who want this style of game.

Again, the discussion is not "how has D&D always treated levels?" It's "is being threatened by groups of weaker creatures within the spirit of D&D?" The answer, of course, is yes. So, the discussion has turned to that (as it's related to fall damage), and how it might be applied (even optionally) to people that want D&D to be played this way.

It's been house ruled by different groups for decades, anyways. More intense falling damage, harsher rules for lava, drinking tons of poison, staring contests with medusa, etc.



Eldritch_Lord said:


> Yes, characters have less health and fewer protections in AD&D, and yes, 4e builds in a lot of safeguards to protect PCs, but at the end of the day the relationship of low-level characters to mid-level PCs has always been "oh yeah, low-level people, they're those things that the PCs either ignore, order around, or slaughter as the mood strikes them."



Again, the discussion isn't "how has D&D rules made the game behave?" Because, really, we all know how that is. The objection is being made to how the rules have made the game behave, in fact. Everyone here basically agrees with that.

The discussion one side is trying to have is "I'd like the game to be able to make low groups dangerous at all levels." Yes, it fits within the spirit of D&D: it happens at low and mid-low levels. However, characters grow out of that. We're agreed that it's the case. Now, one side is trying to say "I don't like that it happens, and would like to see an alternative."

I was replying to someone saying "if a dozen bandits with crossbows are dangerous to you, dragons mean nothing!" That's not necessarily true, and that's what I was pointing out. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Apr 7, 2012)

FenrisWolf# said:
			
		

> At one point, he's barefoot and looking at broken glass on the floor. He doesn't just shrug and walk across it, knowing that it's only a few HP damage. There is general concern, but it's either that or be killed (despite it being only a couple of machine guns firing at him, which a player would think "Ah, I can take that").




However, the point is, he _does_ walk on broken glass and that doesn't stop him.  Nor does it do any lasting damage to him as we see him pull the glass out of his feet, wrap himself up and off he toddles for the rest  of the movie. 

Y'know what happens when you pull large shards of glass from your feet in the real world?  You bleed profusely and are likely not going anywhere for several days.  You don't then proceed to go running all over a building.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 7, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> When the rules don't state what happens, you fill in the blanks by thinking about what the most realistic possibility is, rather than trying to be colorful and expressive with it just because you can. Magical and mystical and weird experiences have to earned. In my view. I'm sure that sounds boring.




Why?

In a fantasy world where all sorts of weird and wonderful things happen before breakfast, why in the world would you have to "earn" mystical and weird experiences.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 7, 2012)

BryonD said:


> We already went through this Hussar.  I agree that you can apply a thoughtless application of the rules in an absence of intent and completely go sideways with the experience.  And I'll also point out that there are countless other comments in the DMG, throughout Dragon Magazine, and many other resources that describe, defend, and embrace as fundamental to every rule in the game that intent and rational application are paramount.
> 
> There is NO basis whatsoever for thinking that actually ever intentionally looking at Medusa would do anything other than turn you to stone.  The rules didn't find a need to explain that, particularly given that the concept of over-riding intent is so frequently made clear.  The rules PRESUME an effort to avoid.  And, before this "recent era" I've mentioned NO ONE I ever games with in a situation of this type even CONSIDERED it an option to do otherwise.




Quote please.  Show me ANYWHERE, in any rule book where the rules presume an effort to avoid.  I can see where it talks about what happens if you deliberately try to avoid, but, nowhere can I see anything that actually supports what you claim.

OTOH, I can point to every single edition of the game, many specifically, stating that I can look at a medusa and not turn to stone.  

But, you can continue to bang this drum all you like.



> You are putting what amounts to an abuse of the rules over any effort to create a quality narrative.  And I think there is ZERO coincidence that you complain over and over about bad experiences you have with other players.  And I think there is ZERO coincidence that you are the one calling your own game experience "ludicrous".  I've reach the point that I'm convinced that you are completely blind and unaware of what the game experience *I* seek and routinely enjoy is even about.




Ad hominem aside, who is playing by the rules, the specific rules, not a bizarre interpretation, not adding or taking anything away from what is written there, an abuse of the rules?  



> I don't know what you want and it makes no difference.  I hope your games are as fun as you can make them.   But I also am certain your comments are virtually irrelevant to the kind of amazing experience I know can happen.  And certainly even remotely suggesting that my experiences are slightly "ludicrous" is unfathomable, much less calling that fish in a barrel.
> 
> But keep that in mind when you struggle to grasp the disconnect between what you talk about and others achieve.




Again, why the ad hominem attacks?  Just because you were spanked rather resoundly by several people showing you exactly where you were wrong and how you were misinterpreting the rules for years, why take it out on me?



> Wait....
> Ok, and if it did come up, as a DM what would you do?
> Is a staring contest with Medusa any less of a corner case?
> 
> Which position are you taking?




Me personally?  If the player stated he was cutting off his own eyelids to stare down the medusa, I would play D&D.  Which means that he would make the applicable saving throw, or suffer the applicable attack (depending on edition) and we'd move on from there.

Why?

Because I play D&D.  It's not like I really need to make house rules here.  I mean, the mechanics for a medusa haven't significantly changed in 40 years of D&D - other than maybe which saving throw, or a bit of a percentages shift.  Every single medusa in D&D has worked exactly, almost with the same language used, the same.

Heh, 5e is to be the unification edition.  Here's one monster that can go into 5e almost unchanged since throughout it's entire history, it hasn't really changed at all.  At least, not in D&D.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 7, 2012)

Morrus said:


> What you say may be true of 4E, and may or may not prove to be true of 5E, but it's not true of "D&D" in general.  The lethality of the game has been different throughout different editions; and, indeed, various editions have had such optional rules.




Sure. That's why I said "4E" like four times.  In 2E this was only true for wizards.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 7, 2012)

Funnily enough, if you go back into one of the earlier Dragon magazines, shortly after the release of 3e, (and I forget the issue, I'll have to go dig it up) they actually talk about poison and saving throws.  They mention one of the more wahoo ideas is that your dwarf with an 18 Con can pretty much guzzle poison by the pint and not suffer any effects.


----------



## Aaron (Apr 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> In the context of falling damage, or twelve guards with crossbows, the metagame rules mean that a player knows that, if his/her PC jumps over the cliff, or tries to rush the guards, the PC has a pretty good chance of pulling it off. That's the point of the metagame mechanics.



Why do you call them "metagame rules"?

If Mike Tyson thinks that he can easily defeat a dozen of 4 years old kids in a boxe fight, is he applying "metagame rules", or does he simply know what he can achieve?

The Snatch feat in 3.5 states:
_A snatched opponent held in the creature’s mouth is not allowed a Reflex save against the creature’s breath weapon, if it has one. _

This means that a frigging colossal dragon could hold a high level monk, with no armor whatsover, in his/her mouth, and breath acid/fire/youchoosewhat right on his face, with no saving throw allowed, and most high level PC would survive this attack.

Now, in this link I read that the maximum potential bite force of _T. rex_ is between about 183,000 and 235,000 N for a bilateral bite (!), which is less than an ancient colossal wyrm, since the Trex bite is listed a 3d6, while the latter is listed as 4d8.

Now, I'm no physician, but I do remember being bitten by a medium sized dog, and it was painful. I don't want to imagine what such a bite could do to me.

But our high level PC could reasonably face the bite/grapple damage of the colossal dragon (of course including his Str modifier to damage), looking at the damage sustained after being bitten several times, no matter being held in his mouth.

Now, this high level PC should also have suffered several crossbow bolts / bow arrows hit in his career, even direct hits while he was helpless, and would know what damage he could reasonably aspect from them, and he could compare them to the cited dragon.

Now, I really can't see why his expericence with the dragon and the bolts/arrows should be seen as metagame rules.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 7, 2012)

Aaron said:


> Why do you call them "metagame rules"?
> 
> If Mike Tyson thinks that he can easily defeat a dozen of 4 years old kids in a boxe fight, is he applying "metagame rules", or does he simply know what he can achieve?
> 
> ...



It depends on how you play hp, saving throws etc.

If you play them as non-metagame (hit points = "meat") then the fiction will play out the way you describe. High level PCs are near-invulnerable (like Superman, The Mighty Thor, etc).

But - as per Gygax's description in his DMG - I treat hp in these situations as luck/divine favour. They're an alternative mechanic to fate points, but like fate points are (as I see them) a metagame thing: at the mechanical level, the PC survives due to having many hit points; in the fiction, the PC survives due to amazing luck or divine intervention. But the PC doesn't _know_ (though might hope) that such intervention will be forthcoming.

([MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION]'s example of angels intervening to break a PC's fall is an extreme example of narrating such divine intervention. Think also the shooting/conversion scene in Pulp Fiction.)

This, in my view, is the answer to those who are worried that high level PCs will go cliff-diving for sport: in the fiction, they have no reason to take the risk that the gods will protect them once again. (And at the metagame level, I assume that those who are playing a game of heroic fantasy aren't interested in playing inane cliff-divers.)

If you want to play hit points as meat, obviously I'm in no position to stop you! I think that this is at odds with Gygax's approach, and it seems to be most popular among some 3E players. I don't think it works well for 4e, because it's hard to explain how compassion and encouragement from your friend can restore your meat (ie martial healing doesn't gel well with hp as meat). And I personally don't like the flavour it lends to the fiction. That's why I prefer fiction as metagame (and saving throws also, as per the 1st ed AD&D DMG - in 3E I recognise that saving throws are no longer metagame, but that's part of why I don't particularly care for 3E).


----------



## Aaron (Apr 7, 2012)

pemerton said:


> But - as per Gygax's description in his DMG - I treat hp in these situations as luck/divine favour. They're an alternative mechanic to fate points, but like fate points are (as I see them) a metagame thing: at the mechanical level, the PC survives due to having many hit points; in the fiction, the PC survives due to amazing luck or divine intervention. But the PC doesn't _know_ (though might hope) that such intervention will be forthcoming.



Luck/divine intervention?

I think there are some major problems with this approach:

1) what if my players don't like at all the "predestination" profile this approach implies?

2) the number of deadly menaces a standard adventurer faces in his career would make him look more like Gladstone Gander or Nedward Flanders;

3) if the Pc doesn't know what he can do (since everything he achieved was due to sheer luck/divine intervention), what can he plan?

How can he know if a mission is too hard to accomplish?

How can assess the risks involved if every single deadly attack in his life missed him thanks to luck?

If he opts to face hundreds of deadly menaces thinking about how luck he was before, either he's basing his decision on the "metagame rules" you despise, or he's simply outrageously silly.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 7, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> I'm sorry, but you are talking about your DESIRES, not the reality.
> 
> A D&D character in +3 chainmail wielding a flametongue sword and shielded by the blessings of Pelor who has just finished offing an entire dungeon's worth of illithids and their servants is likely to roll their eyes when a bunch of generic guards rush them. PCs don't understand levels, but they can still understand relative power. Technically a dozen children could have killed Bruce Lee in a fight, but he's sure as hell not going to wet himself at their threats.
> 
> ...




First of all I thought this was about what people would like to see in the new game. That is what this entire forum is about at this moment people's desires. My desire is a game with the ability to ass more realism and less anime, video game feel.

I played in a game where the PCs walked up to the city walls where they were considered an enemy and instead of standing down they allowed the 25 archers on the wall to fire at them of course none hit because how can a third level archer hope to challenge a 15 level party. Then they ruthlessly cut down close to 50 guardsmen.  50 to 4 and we had maybe one or two crits that hit.

The city was not evil we were not evil. We had been working for a person who was an enemy of the city and we didn't know it.   

That was the last session because the DM said he had no desire to play a game with PCs who act like this.  

Like I said I have seen numerous posts over the years about situations like this and DMs getting frustrated with it and the only fix for it is to make all the guards the same level. 

And once they survive the dragon they come in take over the kingdom because they can. 

Maybe 10,000 was an exaggeration but not by much I have read story hours here where a high level party had destroyed an army.

Like I keep saying why if this game is going have dials then why can't it have a way to dial up the realism and grittiness. 

That way you can play the way you want I can play the way I want.


----------



## Mattachine (Apr 7, 2012)

If you are "hit" by the charging knight with a lance, what happens depend on your hit point total:

1. If it kills you, you were skewered right through internal organs.
2. If you are left with a few hit points, it was a solid hit, but it didn't kill you.
3. If you are left with more than a few hit points, it grazed you to little effect--because of your skill or luck.

It's been like that in all editions of D&D. Just read the section under hit points--why are we talking about this again?

Ah, right--falling. DMs should make common sense rulings. In my games, both in 3e and 4e, great heights kill people that fall from them. I ballpark that at about 100'--but I am not worried about the exact height. Characters (and players) in my games are afraid of falling from great heights.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 7, 2012)

Aaron said:


> If a high level character should fear a dozen country bandits armed with  crossbows it means that:
> 
> 1)  we are talking about country bandits who could face an ancient red wyrm;
> 
> ...




I am not talking about a handful country bandits I am talking about what should be overwhelming numbers.

25 trained archers with bows drawn and 4 PCs with no cover should be a threat for the PCs. The problem is DnD does not have a mechanic where one blow can kill a high level character.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 7, 2012)

Incenjucar said:


> Hopefully the modules will include rules to actually include those incongruous playstyles so that people no longer have to be upset that the rules ignore how they play, without simply thrusting the issue on people who have been playing more in line with the rules.




I guess you keep missing the point that some of us are saying and  that  is we would like the ability to use DND to play our style game without taking away the ability to play yours. 

We are not trying to thrust the issue on you at all.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 7, 2012)

Aaron said:


> Luck/divine intervention?
> 
> I think there are some major problems with this approach



I agree that it doesn't work especially well for a planning-oriented game, and all the grit that that can tend to bring with it.


----------



## Aaron (Apr 7, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> That was the last session because the DM said he had no desire to play a game with PCs who act like this.



Free will, the enemy of inexperienced DMs.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 7, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> If you are "hit" by the charging knight with a lance, what happens depend on your hit point total:
> 
> 1. If it kills you, you were skewered right through internal organs.
> 2. If you are left with a few hit points, it was a solid hit, but it didn't kill you.
> ...



Because there's a wide spectrum of opinion over what is going on with option 2?

At least some people seem to think "solid hit" means serious wounding.

I think "solid hit" means something that you can walk away from without any serious impairment, and in spite of you can proceed on after resting something like 1 day to 1 fortnight (depending on edition). Which is, therefore, not a serious wound.


----------



## Mattachine (Apr 7, 2012)

My post is directed at those that only want choices #1 and #2. If you are hit, you are killed or badly wounded. I am pointing out that D&D has never been that way, and, despite whatever debate we have here on EN World, the new edition isn't going to be like that, either.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 7, 2012)

Aaron said:


> Free will, the enemy of inexperienced DMs.




Heh, heh.  (I'm not saying anyone in this thread is an inexperienced DM, 
but it was a funny quote.)



How about: _Free Will_...Bug or Feature?


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 7, 2012)

Morrus said:


> What you say may be true of 4E, and may or may not prove to be true of 5E, but it's not true of "D&D" in general. The lethality of the game has been different throughout different editions; and, indeed, various editions have had such optional rules.
> 
> "D&D" arguably encompasses a whole range of play styles and 'universal laws'. 4E attempted to codify that much more tightly, and tried to make the rules part of the fluff to describe a single coherent universe, but previous editions didn't do that. And there's no reason at present to think that 5E will.
> 
> So, in short - I don't agree that there's a defined D&D 'universe' where certain things can happen and others can't. Not unless you take a very restrictive view and view the concept of "D&D" outside it's historical context.




Couldn't have said it better myself.

(Wanted to XP this also, but I have to spread it around some more yet.)


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 7, 2012)

Aaron said:


> Free will, the enemy of inexperienced DMs.




Hardly he had been DMing for about 20 years but his was his first 3E game that went that high. After that he went back to playing AD&D or if he wanted a long running campaign he ran Fantasy hero.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 7, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I am not talking about a handful country bandits I am talking about what should be overwhelming numbers.
> 
> 25 trained archers with bows drawn and 4 PCs with no cover should be a threat for the PCs. The problem is DnD does not have a mechanic where one blow can kill a high level character.



"Coup de grace" and "massive damage"

I regard 25 archers sourrounding you and you are not prepared as coup de grace attempts.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 7, 2012)

Oh. Whenever my players attempt to use metagame knowledge or fridge logic that their characters don't have, I force them to make an appropriate skill or ability check. Such as Geography to measure the height of the fall. Failure means I up the deadliness. They still tend to survive and win anyway because I don't cheat them.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 7, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Again, the discussion isn't "how has D&D rules made the game behave?" Because, really, we all know how that is. The objection is being made to how the rules have made the game behave, in fact. Everyone here basically agrees with that.
> 
> The discussion one side is trying to have is "I'd like the game to be able to make low groups dangerous at all levels." Yes, it fits within the spirit of D&D: it happens at low and mid-low levels. However, characters grow out of that. We're agreed that it's the case. Now, one side is trying to say "I don't like that it happens, and would like to see an alternative."
> 
> I was replying to someone saying "if a dozen bandits with crossbows are dangerous to you, dragons mean nothing!" That's not necessarily true, and that's what I was pointing out. As always, play what you like




The issue here is whether the game should _be able to_ make mooks dangerous at high levels, or whether it should _by default_ make mooks dangerous at high levels.  Those who have houseruled mooks to be dangerous in the past or who are advocating that they change it in 5e seem to want it to be the default.  I have no problem if you, personally, or anyone else wants to run a game where mooks are a threat at all levels.  I have no problem if you or anyone else want to make falls or lava or other hazards lethal.

I only have a problem when the "mooks are dangerous" people characterize the "high level characters are superhuman" people as making decisions for their PCs based purely on metagaming, or that they're abusing the rules, or that you can't have a good narrative playing that way:



			
				El Mahdi said:
			
		

> She's describing a conept in D&D where players can make decisions, unrealistic decisions, because they know the rules and mechanics of the game will allow them to (even if that wasn't the specific design goal of the game - and I don't think it was). Many people do not like that style of gaming, but overall like D&D, and would like to play D&D with rules that allow them to play in the style they want.






			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> There is NO basis whatsoever for thinking that actually ever intentionally looking at Medusa would do anything other than turn you to stone. The rules didn't find a need to explain that, particularly given that the concept of over-riding intent is so frequently made clear. The rules PRESUME an effort to avoid. And, before this "recent era" I've mentioned NO ONE I ever games with in a situation of this type even CONSIDERED it an option to do otherwise.
> 
> You are putting what amounts to an abuse of the rules over any effort to create a quality narrative. And I think there is ZERO coincidence that you complain over and over about bad experiences you have with other players. And I think there is ZERO coincidence that you are the one calling your own game experience "ludicrous". I've reach the point that I'm convinced that you are completely blind and unaware of what the game experience *I* seek and routinely enjoy is even about.




I'm not trying to say that the "mooks are dangerous" people are having wrongbadfun, or trying to deny them their playstyle in 5e, I just want to make it clear that D&D actually supports and has always supported the "high level characters are superhuman" view, often more than it has their houseruled version, so all the talk about realism being more desirable, or superhuman PCs being an abuse of the rules, or DMs having the right to just take away HP or saves or the like if they feel the PCs are doing unrealistic things, or the like isn't fair to those of us who have played superhuman PCs since the BECMI and 1e days.

Also, whether or not you think it's a good thing that it has been the default to support superhuman high levels to whatever extent since the beginning, with houserules and variants providing the realism, it should be that way in 5e if they want to support both playstyles, as I've mentioned before.  If the base rules are "people die when they're stuck in burning buildings or lava, period," you have nowhere to go from there.  If the base rules are "people take XdY damage from fire per turn and have to make a DC Z save against smoke inhalation/suffocation after W time units, or ten times that much damage from lava," then not only do you have a better baseline for decision making, you can also change those rules to be either absolute death or much more mild because the game is framing those rules in terms of actual game effects (saves and damage) rather than making them off-limits deathtraps and providing no scale of comparison between lava and other threats, insta-death or otherwise.

So essentially, my stance boils down to "Mooks should be nuisances at best, lava should deal fire damage, and falling should deal HP damage in the DMG, and insta-death should happen in UA, not vice-versa," that's all.



UngeheuerLich said:


> "Coup de grace" and "massive damage"
> 
> I regard 25 archers sourrounding you and you are not prepared as coup de grace attempts.




First off, "No cover" is not the same thing as "not prepared."  There's plenty of room for dodging, luck, divine favor, etc. to work its magic, and the PCs definitely know it's coming so there's room for readied actions and such.

Secondly, If 25 1st-level archers, who are a long way away, across an open field, in plain sight, that you're completely expecting, are allowed to make CdG attempts against you, then I assume that a single 1st-level rogue, who's right next to you, while you're distracted by combat, hidden, that you aren't expecting, is also allowed to make a CdG attempt, then?  I mean, the rogue has a much better chance to catch you "unprepared" than the archers.  No?  Well then.

The rogue is allowed to make a sneak attack.  If it's a level 1 rogue against a level 10 PC, the rogue probably does nothing.  If it's a level 15 rogue against a level 10 PC, the PC probably dies.  Why is it that the rules should change just because you've entered "cutscene mode," for lack of a better term?  If the PCs have been ambushed by kobold archers, goblin slingers, traps, and other projectile-launching threats before and haven't died, then why should human archers of comparable skill suddenly be much more lethal?  For all this talk of realism, that certainly seems to break verisimilitude.

The original scenario was about party of 15th level PCs.  They could easily have told the archers they were going to stand down and go away...and they later flown over the walls invisibly, disguised themselves and entered later, mind-controlled a guard to let them in, snuck up and killed some guards at night, or many other options.  First of all, why would a DM want to punish them for taking the blatant, tactically-unsound option that would let the entire city know what they're doing and providing the DM an excuse to send a bigger and better force against them instead of being smart about it?  Second of all, the _problem_ is that the PCs reacted with violence, not that they could do it successfully!  The party was claimed to be nonevil, yet their first reaction was to talk back to the guards, kill everything, and take over the city instead of, oh I don't know, asking why they were being denied entrance and trying to talk it out?

Just because your 15th-level PCs can take over a nation and they know it doesn't mean they actually should, and it seems like _that's_ the root cause people object to--the inability of town guards to stop PCs from being homicidal maniacs--not necessarily the realism of the guards.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 7, 2012)

"Cutscene mode" is actually a good way to look at it. A lot of these discussions remind me of the difference between cutscenes and gameplay in video games. In the gameplay, you can do X, Y, and Z, but in the cutscenes you can suddenly to A, B, and C, but Z is totally different and X and Y just don't happen. Like the infamous Aerith vs. Phoenix Down issue.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 7, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> I'm not trying to say that the "mooks are dangerous" people are having wrongbadfun,



I think you have taken my quote quite a bit out of context there.

There is a great deal of design space in between "mooks are dangerous" and "you can have staring contests with Medusa" or "you can drink a carboy of poison and shrug it off".





> If the base rules are "people die when they're stuck in burning buildings or lava, period," you have nowhere to go from there.



First, just to be picky, "in lava" and "in a burning building" are vastly different in ways that make them quite difficult to compare.

But beyond that, I disagree that you have nowhere to go from "if you fall into lava, you die."  D&D is all about the exceptions.

If you get a magic charm that makes you immune to petrification, well then NOW you can go see how long it takes for Medusa to blink.  
Situations can certainly arise for all kinds of survival in circumstances that are instantly deadly by default.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 7, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> The issue here is whether the game should _be able to_ make mooks dangerous at high levels, or whether it should _by default_ make mooks dangerous at high levels.  Those who have houseruled mooks to be dangerous in the past or who are advocating that they change it in 5e seem to want it to be the default.  I have no problem if you, personally, or anyone else wants to run a game where mooks are a threat at all levels.  I have no problem if you or anyone else want to make falls or lava or other hazards lethal.
> 
> I only have a problem when the "mooks are dangerous" people characterize the "high level characters are superhuman" people as making decisions for their PCs based purely on metagaming, or that they're abusing the rules, or that you can't have a good narrative playing that way:
> 
> ...




As someone who would like to see mooks made more deadly when in they are in mass I have never said that way of play should be the default but that there should be rules that allow me to play that style of game without a ton of house rules. They should be optional rules I am even willing to wait for a separate splat book on it. 

I was in the game that went to hades in a hand basket. As we approached the city the gates suddenly closed and archers with their bows ready to fire targeted us. Out through a side door the captain of the guard and some of his men came to confront us.

At that point the DM had to excuse himself to take care of his child who had woken from a nightmare.

So a out of character discussion started at the table over why this was happening. We knew we were not evil we had been told by our sponsor that we had to get in to the city and get an artifact to stop a demon from entering the world. 

What we didn't know at the time was that our sponsor wanted the artifact so he could summon the demon. He had an item that hid his alignment and we had failed our sense motive checks so we thought him a good guy.

The city was actually protecting this artifact and had been warned that we were coming.

So our metagame conversation went something like this. Look we can take these guys they can't be near our level not if the DM is doing it the way you are supposed to. 

I argued that our PCs wouldn't know that and that we should wait and talk to the guards. I pointed out that the city was known for its archers so that should give us pause. 

Yeah but they won't be near our level because if they were 25 would be to big a CR threat. Came the reply from the rules lawyer of our group. 

The DM came back and the action started the captain told us that we would not be allowed in the city because of our association with Mr Bad and that they would die to protect the artifact. 

I told the guard that he didn't understand what was at stake that the world was in danger. He replied well you can talk to the governor but you will have to surrender your weapons and your wizard  will have to wait here. 

Surrender weapons, split the party no way so instead of going off and talking about another way to get in the rogue of the party attacked the captain and rolled a crit and down he went. That triggered the archers to fire at us. And we ended up in a blood bath. 

I talked to the DM later and he was trying to set it up so we would start questioning what we had been told by Mr Bad. He never thought since we were a good party that we would kill the guards this way. He also thought we would have surrendered or left because of the archers. 

The way he described the area was it was a killing field with no cover for us. The archers were on the wall and we were in range. 

Everything some of them did that night was based on the metagame idea that as high level characters we couldn't be challenged by low level guards and because some of us knew the CR threat range really well they were able to guess that they had to be low level otherwise it would have been a fair challenge. 

Anyway I sometimes like to play in a game where PCs are not gods at high levels just well trained and very competent. 

I don't want them to guzzle poison just because they can or leap of a cliff just because they can or walk across acid pools or lava just because they can.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 7, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> The issue here is whether the game should _be able to_ make mooks dangerous at high levels, or whether it should _by default_ make mooks dangerous at high levels.



I don't care which way it goes, as long as both are presented as options. Others in this thread that want it as well seem to share that sentiment. As always, play what you like


----------



## Morrus (Apr 7, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> If you are "hit" by the charging knight with a lance, what happens depend on your hit point total:
> 
> 1. If it kills you, you were skewered right through internal organs.
> 2. If you are left with a few hit points, it was a solid hit, but it didn't kill you.
> ...




The PCs are James Bond, Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker. None of those would be killed by a big fall. Something would happen, or they'd do something cool, or land on something lucky. Those are hit points.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 8, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I am not talking about a handful country bandits I am talking about what should be overwhelming numbers.
> 
> 25 trained archers with bows drawn and 4 PCs with no cover should be a threat for the PCs. The problem is DnD does not have a mechanic where one blow can kill a high level character.




I think you missed the point though.  25 trained archers and 25 bandits (a handful - if you have large hands  ) are by no means anywhere near the threat of a colossal red dragon.  They just aren't.  

But, my very high level character is expected to face colossal dragons and win.  So, for your archers to be a credible threat, they have to do as much damage as a colossal red dragon.

4e does it one way that a lot of people don't like - the archers are a threat because it's believable, so, the archers become high level minions.  It's pure meta-gaming.  The "level" of an NPC is relative to the PC's.  So, yes, D&D does have a mechanic where 25 trained archers can be a threat - it's called scaling.

If the PC's were 3rd level, the archers would be 2nd level minions - Dead party.  If the party is 15th level, the archers are 17th level minions with a handful of standard monsters in there as well.  Again, dead party.

The problem is, a lot of people seem to have difficulty wrapping their head around the idea that level is fluid and an entirely meta-game concept.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Apr 8, 2012)

I think the two of you need to agree on a particular level of adventurer, and argue from that vantage point.  I have a feeling you have a different level of capability in mind.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 8, 2012)

El Lord said:
			
		

> Just because your 15th-level PCs can take over a nation and they know it doesn't mean they actually should, and it seems like that's the root cause people object to--the inability of town guards to stop PCs from being homicidal maniacs--not necessarily the realism of the guards.




This is pretty much the heart of it.  I've said it multiple times before, this is a social contract issue.  See, this:



			
				Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I sometimes like to play in a game where PCs are not gods at high levels just well trained and very competent.




has never been represented in D&D in any edition.  A 15th level PC in AD&D is a god.  Pure and simple.  This is a character that can slay gods, has amassed more wealth than empires, and can stare down dragons (multiple).  Same goes in 3e.  4e is the same, only it jacks the number up to about 25 because of a flatter power progression.

But, at no time in the game's history was a high level character simply "well trained and very competent".  

I really wish I could find the thread that talks about the 20th level lich vs 1 million 5th level characters where it was reasonably argued that the lich had a decent chance of winning.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 8, 2012)

Morrus said:


> The PCs are James Bond, Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker. None of those would be killed by a big fall. Something would happen, or they'd do something cool, or land on something lucky. Those are hit points.



Exactly right.

But it is also important that when they face deadly threats they are seriously concerned about it, if not flat out AFRAID.  

Heroically surviving extreme situations is awesome.  But knowing that they are *the PCs* and thus can dive into these situations with no fear would ruin the movies just as it does gaming sessions.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 8, 2012)

Hussar said:


> has never been represented in D&D in any edition.  A 15th level PC in AD&D is a god.  Pure and simple.  This is a character that can slay gods, has amassed more wealth than empires, and can stare down dragons (multiple).  Same goes in 3e.  4e is the same, only it jacks the number up to about 25 because of a flatter power progression.
> 
> But, at no time in the game's history was a high level character simply "well trained and very competent".
> 
> I really wish I could find the thread that talks about the 20th level lich vs 1 million 5th level characters where it was reasonably argued that the lich had a decent chance of winning.



I think you pretty significantly overstate it when you call L15 "gods".

BUT

I agree with the thrust of the point.  D&D is about waahoo high fantasy.  I completely support a lot of the call for gritty gaming.  But D&D just really isn't the ideal home of that.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 8, 2012)

BryonD said:


> I think you pretty significantly overstate it when you call L15 "gods".
> 
> BUT
> 
> I agree with the thrust of the point.  D&D is about waahoo high fantasy.  I completely support a lot of the call for gritty gaming.  But D&D just really isn't the ideal home of that.




I wouldn't say it is all about wahoo high fantasy BUT as the levels progress it gravitates there.

Levels 1-3: This is gritty normal realistic fantasy. Everything is normal and barely have competency.
Levels 4-7: This is limit of realistic fantasy. Rules are barely broken and everything is a potential threat.
Levels 8-10: This is the end of halfway replication of reality.
Levels 11+: At this point, both feet are in Wahoo Superhumanland.


D&D is a level based game. Most level based games increase something with level. All edition of D&D chose killing power (damage) and survivability (HP). So eventually the level of a character will outpace the killing power of another. Even with 4 HP a level, a 60 HP level 15 PC might need 8 hits of a low level to be killed. 

Overall there are questions that need answering.

1) Which mechanics/attributes increase with level?

2) How do lower level threats threaten higher level characters, if at all?

3) How is a character's level made noticeable? 

4) Do characters realize how powerful they are in the world?

The only way a semi-realistic version of D&D can exist after ~level 6 is if these questions are answered.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Apr 8, 2012)

A man fell twelve stories and was unhurt. How was this possible?

[sblock]He fell from the thirteenth floor.[/sblock]


----------



## Hussar (Apr 8, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Exactly right.
> 
> But it is also important that when they face deadly threats they are seriously concerned about it, if not flat out AFRAID.
> 
> Heroically surviving extreme situations is awesome.  But knowing that they are *the PCs* and thus can dive into these situations with no fear would ruin the movies just as it does gaming sessions.




And yet, and yet, none of the heroes ever thinks twice about diving into these situations.  They never balk at jumping off the bridge, they never stop at the door of the airplane and say, "Bugger that!"

So, it's roleplay.  You know that Bond jumping out of the airplane is going to survive, yet, we're all at the edge of the seat waiting to see _how_ he survives.  

It's not the results that makes it interesting, it's how they get there.



> I think you pretty significantly overstate it when you call L15 "gods".




Really?  By L15, the wizard, by himself, can level a city.  The fighter can likely decimate a small army all on his own.  Given the presumed wealth of that fighter (in any edition - after all, in AD&D, about 75% of his xp came from gold and treasure, which includes magical goodies), he's pretty much invincible.  Hit only on a 20, likely regenerating, probably lots of damage resistance, he can stand in the middle of an army, and quite possibly win.

Sure, you always hit on a 20, but, if I've got DR 10/Magic, the army isn't hurting me at all.  It might take me all afternoon, but, faced with the army of Gondor, I'm going to munch my way through Pac-Man style.

Of course, let's not forget that the fighter is the WEAKEST of the 15th level characters.  Any of the casters isn't even breaking a sweat to obliterate armies.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 8, 2012)

BryonD said:


> First, just to be picky, "in lava" and "in a burning building" are vastly different in ways that make them quite difficult to compare.
> 
> But beyond that, I disagree that you have nowhere to go from "if you fall into lava, you die."  D&D is all about the exceptions.
> 
> ...




Someone earlier responded to "What happens to a hero in a burning building?" with "The same thing that happens to everyone else," paraphrasing of course.  If the answer to both burning buildings and lava is "you die," there's not much granularity there.  Either you die, or you're immune, with no middle ground.

If you try to introduce a middle ground with some magic charm that lets you make a Fort save to avoid petrification, well, why don't you just make that the default again?  Getting into a staring contest with a medusa is _stupid_ and unnecessarily risky, but it could easily be something that a hero could choose to do at a certain point.

And, again, I would point out the whole "Perseus was a low-level hero" thing.  A 3e medusa has a DC 15 gaze attack; if we're feeling charitable for Perseus, we could stat him as a 5th-level rogue with 14 Con, giving him a +4 Fort.  That's a 50/50 shot to save, and with the medusa getting both the passive gaze when he looks at her and an active gaze on her turn, that means that if Perseus looks directly at her he's statistically going to lose that contest in one round.  So as far as Perseus and other low-level heroes are concerned, you _can't_ get into a staring contest with Medusa. That shouldn't prevent the Hulk from staring at her nonchalantly and making catcalls because he's just that tough, because the assumptions for realistic vs. superhuman heroes are different.



Elf Witch said:


> I talked to the DM later and he was trying to set it up so we would start questioning what we had been told by Mr Bad. He never thought since we were a good party that we would kill the guards this way. He also thought we would have surrendered or left because of the archers.




This.  This right here.  The problem here isn't that high-level characters are nigh unto gods (which they are) or that bunches of mooks aren't a threat (which they aren't) but that (A) you were metagaming "Oh, the DM wouldn't send a non-level-appropriate encounter against us" and (B) _you decided to slaughter the guards despite being a theoretically good party_.  

Regarding CR, I quite often throw encounters against my parties that are CR +8 or higher by the rules at my party when faced head-on but easier if you take them on intelligently--like the medusa example above, it's _possible_ to take on 1000 archers yourself as a 15th level character, but you'd have to be a moron or suicidal to chance it when there are much better solutions and if you don't just charge in mindlessly it works out to more like a CR +1 challenge.  So you were right to note that they were known for their archers and think that perhaps, just perhaps, they might have something that might make them actually a threat; CR is a terrible guideline, and DMs can throw ranges of encounters at you in any case, so it's _possible_ that they could have threatened you.

It's one thing to say "Gee, we've fought archers before, these guys don't have anything indicating that they're exceptional, I doubt they're a threat--kill them!" but entirely another to say "Gee, these guys are known for their excellent archers, and we don't have much experience against massed archers, but the DM wouldn't throw an encounter of too high CR against us!  Charge!"

Regarding alignment, what in Baator was your party thinking?  Why would your theoretically-good party, when faced with a misunderstanding and offered a chance to just talk to someone or leave, decide on the route of violence?  Hell, I'm currently playing in a high-power game as a 10th level "monk" (i.e. a mostly-noncasting multiclassed monstrosity that fights unarmed and unarmored) who is a psychopathic chaotic evil missionary for a chaotic evil religion and who can slaughter pretty much anything with fewer than 7 HD that ends its turn within 100 feet of him, and even _he_ doesn't go crazy and slaughter everything in sight until he knows that they're actually _enemies_.

The two problems with that scenario are really that your DM was expecting your party to act a lot differently than you did, and that the rogue went off and provoked them without party consensus.  If I were the DM in that situation--well, first of all, there is no one in my group with better rules knowledge, so no one would pull the "By the CR guidelines..." stuff with me, but that aside, if I were the DM in that situation, I'd be surprised with a good party suddenly changing their tune as well.  I'd say a chat with your group and DM about good vs. bad metagaming and playstyle expectations would be a lot more useful in your case than making houserules to fix what ain't broke.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 8, 2012)

Morrus said:


> The PCs are James Bond, Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker. None of those would be killed by a big fall. Something would happen, or they'd do something cool, or land on something lucky. Those are hit points.



This is true, but gives rise to the question that was raised upthread (I think by Eldritch_Lord): can the PCs plan around having this sort of luck?



Hussar said:


> And yet, and yet, none of the heroes ever thinks twice about diving into these situations.  They never balk at jumping off the bridge, they never stop at the door of the airplane and say, "Bugger that!"



I agree with this too, and it is about the best answer to the "planning" issue. D&D gameplay works around this issue of hp being metagame by encouraging a certain sort of (James Bond or Lucas-esque) style of scenario design - the PCs are thrust into situations where they must make dramatic choices of one sort or another, and the players, in making those choices, take account of the metagame resources (such as hp) to which they have access.

The more gritty and operational your D&D play becomes, the harder, in my view, to make sense of hit points in play. One work around is to transmute them into an ingame resource, namely divine favour or similar magical ability, and assume that the PCs are planning their activities around that.

Of course you can treat them as "meat", but the flavour of hp-as-meat doesn't (in my view, at least) fit well with gritty, operational play.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 8, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> The problem here isn't that high-level characters are nigh unto gods (which they are) or that bunches of mooks aren't a threat (which they aren't) but that (A) you were metagaming "Oh, the DM wouldn't send a non-level-appropriate encounter against us" and (B) _you decided to slaughter the guards despite being a theoretically good party_.



I also think the GM may have made a mistake trying to use the threat of force as a plot point and wasn't prepared to handle it when the PCs, instead of inferring to the wickedness of their patron, inferred to the wickedness of the guards.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 8, 2012)

Hussar said:


> And yet, and yet, none of the heroes ever thinks twice about diving into these situations.  They never balk at jumping off the bridge, they never stop at the door of the airplane and say, "Bugger that!"



Huh?

You listed Bond, Skywalker, and Indianan Jones.
In the movies Bond comes *closest* to what you claim here.  But he still avoids deadly situations.  And as an avid Bond fan, I'd point out that in the Flemming books it is a running cliche that he doesn't expect to live.  When he dives in he completely expects that he WILL DIE, but he is able to accept that and accomplish the goal of the moment.  Then through luck and sheer badassness he comes out alive.  And as a *reader* you are not surprised.  But the character is very much surprised to be alive.  So, yes, when he is at the open door of the airplane, he doesn't hesitate.  But not hesitating to accept death as a consequence is radically different than presuming his hero status will keep him alive.

For Skywalker the entire trilogy has a theme of him overcoming fear.  He is constantly afraid.  Particularly as you get to RotJ there are situation in which he knows that he can survive because of his Jedi powers.  So that isn't the same.  I'm perfectly ok with D&D heroes knowing they can easily live through certain things that could kill ME in a split second.  But the standard you are embracing here is drinking a carboy of poison.  That is still deadly.  Any time Luke faces something deadly he shows a great deal of fear.

And Jones is simple.  He is practically the opposite of Bond.  He flees from scary situations all the time.  It is only when he is trapped between a rock and a hard place that he goals full on and finds away through.  Again, the people in the theater seats know he will live.  But the people in the theater seats also know that Jones DOESN'T know he is going to live.  And knowing that dichotomy between what Jones thinks and how it is going to work out is actually a big part of the fun of those movies.  If the audience thought that Jones had some kind of third wall awareness of his immunity to actually getting killed, the movies would suck.




> So, it's roleplay. You know that Bond jumping out of the airplane is going to survive, yet, we're all at the edge of the seat waiting to see _how_ he survives.
> 
> It's not the results that makes it interesting, it's how they get there.



No.  What YOU just described REALLY is the essence of that slanderous term ROLLPLAY.
What you described is pure mechanics and predestination.
What you described is actively avoiding being inside JONES or BONDS head and having those thoughts but is instead inside the audience members head having those thoughts and metaknowledge that the characters can and should never ever have.
Roleplay is about being inside the role with the knowledge, experiences and fears of that guy.  That is absolutely NOT what you have described.



> Really?  By L15, the wizard, by himself, can level a city.



Possibly.  I don't know that I'd concede that.  But for sake of argument, ok.

And I'd still call that orders of magnitude short of "god".


----------



## BryonD (Apr 8, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I agree with this too, and it is about the best answer to the "planning" issue. D&D gameplay works around this issue of hp being metagame by encouraging a certain sort of (James Bond or Lucas-esque) style of scenario design - the PCs are thrust into situations where they must make dramatic choices of one sort or another, and the players, in making those choices, take account of the metagame resources (such as hp) to which they have access.



So are you actually stating that in your perception of these movies the characters actually somehow have this meta knowledge?  Are you saying that inside their head is not just a hope but a secret knowledge of the rules not applying to them and a stacked deck to keep them alive.  

The meta information exists.  That is fine.
But the heart of the greatness of the roleplay experience, IMO, is moving from the audience chair to being actually between the ears of the star.  And if you carry this meta information with you then you have failed to truly get there.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 8, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> That shouldn't prevent the Hulk from staring at her nonchalantly and making catcalls because he's just that tough, because the assumptions for realistic vs. superhuman heroes are different.



One glance turned the Kraken to stone.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 8, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I think you missed the point though.  25 trained archers and 25 bandits (a handful - if you have large hands  ) are by no means anywhere near the threat of a colossal red dragon.  They just aren't.
> 
> But, my very high level character is expected to face colossal dragons and win.  So, for your archers to be a credible threat, they have to do as much damage as a colossal red dragon.
> 
> ...




Since I don't play 4E I would not know this. Which is why I said I would like to see rules in 5E to address it.

A red dragon is not the same threat as 25 archers. A dragon especially one that has the upper and is in the air and knows the PCs are coming for it is  a huge threat and that is how it should be for a beast that can fly , breath nasty stuff on you and if it wants can grapple and take off and drop you from high in the air.

That being said while 25 archers should not be the same threat as the dragon they should still pose some kind of risk not be a cake walk. 

I tend to level my city guard and things like that as the players level not as high but enough the make a decent challenge. I have been told by many people that this is not in the RAW or the RAI and just bad DMing.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Apr 8, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I tend to level my city guard and things like that as the players level not as high but enough the make a decent challenge. I have been told by many people that this is not in the RAW or the RAI and just bad DMing.






But that brings up the problem of the barmaid levelling with you.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 8, 2012)

Hussar said:


> This is pretty much the heart of it.  I've said it multiple times before, this is a social contract issue.  See, this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So because it has never been the standard in DnD then that is is a good reason not to ever try and do it?

I know I am not alone in wanting a rule set that gives me the chance to play different types of fantasy games.  

If the designers truly want to make a modular game with dials then this is something that should be looked at.

I am a pretty great DM when it comes to story telling and world building but I suck at game design it is just not by forte. I run changes through several people I know to get an idea if it is a good one. 

So I would buy a rule set that let me play a high level game that is more realistic less wuxia and still let me play DnD. I like to run long term campaigns and while I do use a slow progression for XP the PC eventually reach higher levels. There are times an E6 or E9 works just great for what I want. But there are times that I want to introduce higher level threats like ancient dragons and liches without the accompanying unstoppable PCs.

As others have said I could try and find a different game and in the end that is what I am probably going to do which means that I won't be buying anything from WOTC or Pazio for that matter. 

It is kind of hard to find players for other games most people I know just want to play DnD because it is what they know it, it is easy to find the books and it is the most common fantasy game.  

So while I am getting burned out on DnD especially the prep time my players would stage a revolt if I switched to something else.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 8, 2012)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> Someone earlier responded to "What happens to a hero in a burning building?" with "The same thing that happens to everyone else," paraphrasing of course.  If the answer to both burning buildings and lava is "you die," there's not much granularity there.  Either you die, or you're immune, with no middle ground.
> 
> If you try to introduce a middle ground with some magic charm that lets you make a Fort save to avoid petrification, well, why don't you just make that the default again?  Getting into a staring contest with a medusa is _stupid_ and unnecessarily risky, but it could easily be something that a hero could choose to do at a certain point.
> 
> ...




I really think part of the issue was the whole idea that we were supposed to get the artifact and the DM put an obstacle in our way to do so. That was the drift of the metagame conversation while we waited for the DM to return. How do we overcome this and "win" by getting the artifact. 

Remember we thought that we were  doing the right that we were saving the world. The DM was a fair DM if we had made our sense motive checks or picked up on the clues that we missed that we were being manipulated we would have figured it out.

For the DM it was the last straw. He was already starting to feel burned out by the sheer amount of prep time it took to run the game. And the realization that at this level it would be hard to stop us by any normal city, army or government made him realize this was not the kind of game he wanted to run.  

The reason I brought this is up was to point out how often players use metagame thinking to influence what their character does. 

The whole I will jump off this cliff because I know I will live or I will chug this vial of poison because I can or an army phew they can't touch me. 

It has the potential to ruin the feel of the game when it happens. 

Which is why I like rules that make even a high level character without magic to protect them worry about the real possibility of dying if they fall from an air ship. Or pause and think is taking the chance of being hit by dozens of arrows worth it.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 8, 2012)

BryonD said:


> So are you actually stating that in your perception of these movies the characters actually somehow have this meta knowledge?



Neither stating it nor implying it. As I said, "the PCs are thrust into situations where they must make dramatic choices of one sort or another, and the players, in making those choices, take account of the metagame resources (such as hp) to which they have access."

The _players_ know they have the relevant resources (at least in standard D&D, in which players track their own hit points, roll their own saving throws knowing their bonuses, etc; and the approach that seems to have had some sway in the early 80s, of GMs tracking hp and telling players "You feel strong", "You feel pretty beaten up", etc, seems to rely heavily on hp-as-meat - of which I'm not a big fan).



BryonD said:


> But the heart of the greatness of the roleplay experience, IMO, is moving from the audience chair to being actually between the ears of the star.  And if you carry this meta information with you then you have failed to truly get there.



Well, in most games with an action point or fate point mechanic it would be expected that players would plan around their possession of such resources. I don't think hit points are very different. And, indeed, Raven Crowking used to argue that it was via this process that hit points achieve a type of "impairment effect": players whose PCs have fewer of them will play more cautiously and less recklessly.

My own view is that if you don't want players to play their PCs keeping in mind their access to metagame resources, _don't give them the resources_. If I want to play a game without metagame, I will play a system whose mechanics support that. There are many such good systems available - Runquest is in my view just about the best on any objective measure, but for reasons of nostalgia and quirkiness I have a very soft spot for Rolemaster. I've never played GURPS, HERO or C&S but I'm sure any of them does a reasonable job also.

*TL;DR:* What's the point of giving PCs hit points if players are not expected to use them?


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 8, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> But that brings up the problem of the barmaid levelling with you.




No it doesn't. Unless she is training every day in sword play.

 In my games some cities have very competent guardsmen and armies that drill often and keep their skills up.   

Some don't and those would be easy pickings for the PCs.

It is what I have done to give my game a more Shadowrun like feel while still playing DnD.

As someone else said levels is a metagame concept not a world concept. So as a purely a mechanic I use to keep the world interesting. At first level the city guard is more powerful then the PCs as the PCs gain experience they become more powerful then the city guard but never to the point that the guard is nothing to worry about. 

I am not saying with planning and the right magic that the PCS could not take on an army or a city guard and win but it is because they planned well not because the guard was no threat at all.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 8, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Neither stating it nor implying it. As I said, "the PCs are thrust into situations where they must make dramatic choices of one sort or another, and the players, in making those choices, take account of the metagame resources (such as hp) to which they have access."
> 
> The _players_ know they have the relevant resources (at least in standard D&D, in which players track their own hit points, roll their own saving throws knowing their bonuses, etc; and the approach that seems to have had some sway in the early 80s, of GMs tracking hp and telling players "You feel strong", "You feel pretty beaten up", etc, seems to rely heavily on hp-as-meat - of which I'm not a big fan).



And to all that I say:  Cool

But Hussar has said they can act upon that expectation.  So you don't appear to be defending the point I am disputing.

The situation Hussar and I were discussing was based around a flat statement that his *characters* knew they could drink a carboy of poison because all they had to do was not roll a 1.

All the characters Hussar mentioned surrender at various points in the movies.  If they knew that their hero status would see them through anything, then there would be no reason for them to surrender.  
If given an option to either surrender or drink a carboy of deadly poison, Bond would surrender.  Skywalker would surrender.  Jones would absolutely surrender.  
But by Hussar's model there is no reason whatsoever to surrender.  And if the movies followed Hussar's model the movies would suck.



> Well, in most games with an action point or fate point mechanic it would be expected that players would plan around their possession of such resources. I don't think hit points are very different. And, indeed, Raven Crowking used to argue that it was via this process that hit points achieve a type of "impairment effect": players whose PCs have fewer of them will play more cautiously and less recklessly.
> 
> My own view is that if you don't want players to play their PCs keeping in mind their access to metagame resources, _don't give them the resources_. If I want to play a game without metagame, I will play a system whose mechanics support that. There are many such good systems available - Runquest is in my view just about the best on any objective measure, but for reasons of nostalgia and quirkiness I have a very soft spot for Rolemaster. I've never played GURPS, HERO or C&S but I'm sure any of them does a reasonable job also.
> 
> *TL;DR:* What's the point of giving PCs hit points if players are not expected to use them?



It is very important to point out that the topic I'm disputing with Hussar is specifically instant death situations.  (Carboy of poison, staring contest with Medusa, immersion in lava, etc...).

The point of the experience (TO ME) is to simulate the experience of being inside the shoes (and brain) of the characters.   Those character DO know that they are tough and cool and can take a beating.  There are times when HP work great and players having knowledge of HP is perfectly fine.  I frequently have players makes statement such as "no problem" or "If I take that again I'm going down."  And, as you describe, HP work perfectly well for this circumstance.  

But there are also times when they don't work.  And, IME, these events are highly self evident.  Having an in-character player know he can probably take a few more slugs from the ogre before it gets really bad is ok.  And even with that, it pretty much presumes they are using knowledge of the hit that just happened as a basis, a crit could be a different story and they are aware of that.  I've seen players eyes get big when that first ghit did a lot more damage than they expected.  And they change their plans QUICK.

But *KNOWING* I can drink this vast quantity of deadly poison is something else altogether.  As I see it is impossible to be in character and also truly think it is no big deal to drink it.  HP have nothing to do with that.


Let me just ask you: when YOU watch a movie do you think Bond or others plan ahead in that meta manner?  I can accept that being truly like a movie may be meaningless to you.  But can you accept that it may be the heart of the experience to me and that it makes huge difference in this conversation?


----------



## Steely_Dan (Apr 8, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> No it doesn't..





Yes, it does; that is why i have carved that unnecessary 1/2 level bonus malarkey from all character's and monster's attacks, defences and skills (oh, also reducing monster HP has helped).


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 8, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Yes, it does; that is why i have carved that unnecessary 1/2 level bonus malarkey from all character's and monster's attacks, defences and skills (oh, also reducing monster HP has helped).




So she is now a 13 level barmaid skilled in maneuvering around drunk patrons who she puts her dodge bonus on to avoid having her butt pinched and she never spills a drop of ale.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 9, 2012)

Concrete HP can  mean everything from "meat" (literal physical toughness) to psycho-emotional elements like  morale, courage, will, stamina, focus, energy, vigor etc. All of these elements  map to something in-game. People depleted in these capacities look and feel different -- they're run down, haggard, tired and beat up. The difference that makes the difference here is between all of these concrete HP factors, and HP factors that are completely metagame like "luck", "divine favor", "plot protection", "fate points" etc. Concrete HP vs. meta HP.

Going meta with HP should clearly be a last resort, from a design perspective. It's not something to relish in itself. It's a tradeoff that might be worth it, might not. Concrete factors are better on the face of it -- they inform and enrich the fiction. Most players, most of the time, enjoy it when you take your half-dead character into town and NPCs notice and say things like "oh my! you need to get to a healer!" etc. If you like that, then you like concrete HP, whether or not you want the game to actually describe particular wounds in detail.

Maybe some players some of the time would appreciate the story flexibility of being able to waltz a half-dead character around the palace ball without having people remark they look terrible and should go rest. But a) how common is that, and b) a player who wants to go meta with HP in the first place ought not to have a problem temporarily disengaging the default concrete HP interpretation on a case by case basis. The default should be concrete HP. The game should say, as you take damage, you become perceptibly wounded and tired, which brings you closer and closer to making a fatal mistake in combat. Falling also causes the same sort of damage, because it gives you sprains and strains that have the same effect.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 9, 2012)

BryonD said:


> So are you actually stating that in your perception of these movies the characters actually somehow have this meta knowledge?  Are you saying that inside their head is not just a hope but a secret knowledge of the rules not applying to them and a stacked deck to keep them alive.
> 
> The meta information exists.  That is fine.
> But the heart of the greatness of the roleplay experience, IMO, is moving from the audience chair to being actually between the ears of the star.  And if you carry this meta information with you then you have failed to truly get there.




No, my point is that the characters in these movies have no thoughts at all.  Why?  Because they are fictional constructs.  You can roleplay being afraid all you like, but, at the end of the day, they never balk at doing the suicidal.  They jump out of the airplane, they close the door to the refrigerator (boo) and they take the swan dive down the chute rather than be taken prisoner by their newly discovered father.

The heart of roleplay is portrayal.  I can portray that my character is scared out of his bleeding mind, but, at the end of the day, it is still the player who is going to make the choices.



Elf Witch said:


> Since I don't play 4E I would not know this. Which is why I said I would like to see rules in 5E to address it.
> 
> A red dragon is not the same threat as 25 archers. A dragon especially one that has the upper and is in the air and knows the PCs are coming for it is  a huge threat and that is how it should be for a beast that can fly , breath nasty stuff on you and if it wants can grapple and take off and drop you from high in the air.
> 
> ...




Never said anything about 4e, other than how 4e would resolve it.  Your choice to make the city guard similar level to the PC's is exactly how 4e would resolve the issue and, IMO, probably the best way of doing it.

But, let's get back to the example here.  In an open fight between a 15th level party and a CR 15 dragon or any other creature for that matter, the party is expected to win.  Sure, it might be damaging, but, it's supposed to eat up about 20% of the party's resources.  By 15th level, the fighter should not be limited to the ground - he should have the resources to let him fly, at least for a while.  Heck, the cleric drops Air Walk (or whatever that spell is that lets you walk on air) on the party and now everyone can fly.

What happens when 20-25 archers face that same dragon?  They die.  They die very, very quickly.  The dragon doesn't even lose hit points in all probability.  

So, if you want you 20-25 archers to be a credible threat to the party, they have to be equal to a CR 15 creature.  That's the only way to do it.  Which is what you've done by upping their levels.  

The main problem is that people want level to have some sort of in-game meaning.  Town guards are 3rd level warriors, simply because that satisfies a certain group's view of verisimilitude.  It doesn't make sense for town guards to be 13th level.  Why would they be 13th level and not the lord of the town?  

And, if you insist that level has in game meaning, then this makes sense.  OTOH, if you accept that level is a meta-game construct, then there's no problem with scaling guards.  Guards are Party Level-2 because that makes for better in game fiction.  What are the guards when the party is not around?  Who cares?  If the DM wants the marauding orcs to pillage the town, they pillage the town.

I think I just heard a simulationist break a tooth.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 9, 2012)

BryonD said:
			
		

> The situation Hussar and I were discussing was based around a flat statement that his *characters* knew they could drink a carboy of poison because all they had to do was not roll a 1.




Wait, what?  I never said that.  See my above reply.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 9, 2012)

This whole thread reminds me of that great scene from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On05op_Md38]The Best scene in movie history. - YouTube[/ame]

Now, this would be great roleplay.  The characters debate the merits of their action, but, when push comes to shove, they jump.  Why do they jump?  Well, the in game reason is that they really have no choice (at least they don't think they do - as surrender isn't apparently an option).  But, outside the game?  I think the conversation looks a lot like this:

Player1 - "Dude, we'll jump!"
Player2 - "No way.  We'll die."
Player1 - "No, look, it's 50 feet, we've got 35 hit points, we'll probably survive the jump.  You want to be captured?"
Player2 - "Grrr... DM, is there any other way out that I can see?"
DM - "No, it's pretty much what you've got.  Captured, starved out, outflanked and likely shot to death or... jump.  I can't BELIEVE you're considering that."
Player1 - "You want to live forever?  Come on!  It'll be epic!"
Player2 - "All right.  We jump!"
DM - ((Rolling)) You take, aw dammit!  You take 19 points of damage from the fall.  I'll get you next time!"

I don't know about you, but, I can totally see that conversation at a gaming table.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 9, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I think I just heard a simulationist break a tooth.



It's not even about simulationists breaking teeth, I don't think. It's about people trying to satisfy their simulationinst sensibilities using an engine that - at certain key points, like the hp rules - doesn't work that way. And is precisely designed not to work that way!

For those who want deadly falls and poison but non-deadly giant's clubs, maybe what they need is a system of dodge bonuses, where dodging acts as damage reduction in some fashion. (The most obvious way to simulate hit points would be a level-based divisor.)

But then new corner cases will come up, as they always do (say in W/V) systems: what happens to someone chained to the rockface and breathed on by the dragon, for instance? Looks like certain death to me (a la staring at a Medusa) - yet Gygax expressly calls this out (in his DMG) as a circumstance in which a saving throw is allowed!


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 9, 2012)

Addressing a couple of points made a few pages back addressed at me.



Hussar said:


> However, the point is, he _does_ walk on broken glass and that doesn't stop him. Nor does it do any lasting damage to him as we see him pull the glass out of his feet, wrap himself up and off he toddles for the rest of the movie.
> 
> Y'know what happens when you pull large shards of glass from your feet in the real world? You bleed profusely and are likely not going anywhere for several days. You don't then proceed to go running all over a building.




My point was that he didn't cross the broken glass lightly. He saw the only way out, and then saw the glass, and you could almost hear the "Oh s@*&". In the end, he gritted his teeth and made his escape. I have absolutely no problem with this, and even expect it in heroic portrayal. It's almost a definition of hero, to appraise a situation as dangerous, but to forge ahead anyway, even at great self-cost, because it has to be done. 

What I would like out of my gaming sessions, whether D&D or not, is for that kind of 'realistic thought' to transfer into the characters as they're portrayed.



Aaron said:


> If a high level character should fear a dozen country bandits armed with crossbows it means that:
> 
> 1) we are talking about country bandits who could face an ancient red wyrm;
> 
> ...




My reply is much along the same as JamesonCourage explained a couple of posts later. It's not about whether a band of country bandits is a credible threat to an ancient dragon, it's whether they are to the PCs. And to me, unless the PCs are knowingly immune to normal weapons, multiple crossbows aimed at them by a large number of trained marksmen should at least give them pause. Because a crossbow bolt to the face should be a credible threat to a PC, even if they are verging on godhood (and given that gods are statted with given HP, they have become just as mortal as everyone else).




Hussar said:


> No, my point is that the characters in these movies have no thoughts at all. Why? Because they are fictional constructs. You can roleplay being afraid all you like, but, at the end of the day, they never balk at doing the suicidal. They jump out of the airplane, they close the door to the refrigerator (boo) and they take the swan dive down the chute rather than be taken prisoner by their newly discovered father.
> 
> The heart of roleplay is portrayal. I can portray that my character is scared out of his bleeding mind, but, at the end of the day, it is still the player who is going to make the choices.




A bit generalized. Some characters do balk at the suicidal, if they don't have to face it (e.g., opening scene to Indiana Jones where he runs from the tribal natives). Given life or death situations, sure, they make snap decisions and follow through on them because that's what heroes do, but few do it with a mere shrug.

That's part of the appeal of games like 4E to me, as it can give us characters that are above the norm, able to take a beating and keep going. To make that dramatic choice, even if it amounts to actual little threat to the character's survival because they have a great big pool of HP.

I would like to dial in the fact that the characters are still vulnerable beings that are aware of their own mortality. But I do appreciate that there are others who prefer their D&D to be more 'super', which they can also hopefully dial in to.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 10, 2012)

Hussar said:


> No, my point is that the characters in these movies have no thoughts at all.  Why?  Because they are fictional constructs.



I just find that sad.  Honestly.



> You can roleplay being afraid all you like, but, at the end of the day, they never balk at doing the suicidal.



As I pointed out, they surrender all the time.

But, honestly, yet again, you pointing out that you don't see the characters as anything more than fiction constructs who don't think anything just cements the vast gulf between the most fundamental of concepts we are seeking and finding in gaming.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 10, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Wait, what?  I never said that.  See my above reply.





You said:



Hussar said:


> In the same way, my character, in any edition, can drink a bottle of poison, the deadliest poison known in that world, and if I roll my saving throw, I survive.  Now, since a 1 always fails a save in 3e, you'd always have a 5% chance of dying, but, if my fort bonus is higher than the save DC, I can drink that bottle several more times without the slightest effect.





amongst other similar quotes.  

You can change your tune now if you would like.  That is fine.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2012)

/snip for snark.  Savage Wombat is right.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2012)

/snip for snark.  Yeah, the Ignore List is my friend.  The conversation is a waste of time.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Apr 10, 2012)

This argument is going to degenerate further into name-calling and snark if this keeps up.  Perhaps a change of tone before it gets locked?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2012)

Savage Wombat- sorry, my bad.  Gonna step back from this one and bow out before my presence draws more disruption.  I've said my piece, so, people can pretty much take it or leave it.


----------



## Balesir (Apr 10, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I know that but there could be rules built into the system to handle this. Like how to handle mobs, how to make falling more realistic, a simple way to just scale city guardsmen or make bows more of a threat.



For me, 4E handles those all fine _for the type of game I want to use D&D for_. For other types of game, I will use a different system.



Elf Witch said:


> English longbows were devastating yet they are a sub optimal weapon in DnD at higher levels.



I assume this is a 3.x thing? A ranger with a longbow in 4E can be devastating at any level.



Elf Witch said:


> They should be able to make a game where the DM gets to decide just how realistic he wants his game to be.



Yes - as a GM I do exactly that. My answer feeds strongly into what system I will use for the game I am contemplating.



Elf Witch said:


> Telling us to just go play something else is losing customers for DnD something I thought they wanted to fix.



All I am doing is explaining what I do - what I have done since 1990 or so. I play D&D _and_ other systems. When I plan a game, I first decide what "style" or "tenor" of game I want - what I want the players to be engaging with as they play - and then I choose a system to use that will support those aims. Picking a system and then either demanding that it be flexible to all my ends or spending endless effort warping it so that it approximately meets my needs seems needlessly obtuse, to me. There are hundreds of RPG systems out there - a resource I make use of as and how I need to.



JamesonCourage said:


> The discussion one side is trying to have is "I'd like the game to be able to make low groups dangerous at all levels." Yes, it fits within the spirit of D&D: it happens at low and mid-low levels. However, characters grow out of that. We're agreed that it's the case. Now, one side is trying to say "I don't like that it happens, and would like to see an alternative."



Simple answer - cap levels. Not a full or ideal answer; the full answer is "change the system". This could be done by houseruling, rewriting the system or just picking a system that supports what you are trying to do from the start. Pick any option.

Trying to persuade a bunch of professional designers to write the system you want is also a possibility, but it seems somewhat extreme as a solution, to me.



BryonD said:


> No.  What YOU just described REALLY is the essence of that slanderous term ROLLPLAY.
> What you described is pure mechanics and predestination.
> What you described is actively avoiding being inside JONES or BONDS head and having those thoughts but is instead inside the audience members head having those thoughts and metaknowledge that the characters can and should never ever have.
> Roleplay is about being inside the role with the knowledge, experiences and fears of that guy.  That is absolutely NOT what you have described.



This is just an attempt to define "roleplaying" as "immersive play" - to which I say hooey.

Follow on with "hit points and levels are not helpful to immersive play" to which I would say "no s#!t, Sherlock!"



Steely_Dan said:


> But that brings up the problem of the barmaid levelling with you.



I always prefer it if barmaids level with me.

Just tell me the price of the beer straight - I can take it.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 10, 2012)

Balesir said:


> For me, 4E handles those all fine _for the type of game I want to use D&D for_. For other types of game, I will use a different system.
> 
> I assume this is a 3.x thing? A ranger with a longbow in 4E can be devastating at any level.
> 
> ...




It is just to bad that the things I dislike about 4E outweigh what works. 

Which is why hopefully they will take what is good about all editions and add them to the 5E.

I don't get the just play a different game attitude. DnD is a fantasy RPG it should if well written allow more than one play style. It can do this by having the game be scalable and having dials to turn up the grittiness and turn down the grittiness.

As I said before most of my players are not interested in learning another set of rules they are busy people and at this stage of their lives they just want to get together and play. 

I am disabled and live on a fixed budget so it is hard for me to spend the money on different systems. 

So we stick with DnD and try and make it work. But like I keep saying with a new edition it would be nice to see options that allow for a more wide variety of themes and games.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 10, 2012)

Balesir said:


> Trying to persuade a bunch of professional designers to write the system you want is also a possibility, but it seems somewhat extreme as a solution, to me.



This is currently what _everyone_ is trying to do. And, when the stated goal of the designers is "we're going to make different modules that you can add to the game to tweak the game to where you want to get it," asking for a module that affects this sort of thing in the "gritty" module or whatever seems extremely _reasonable_, not extreme. But that's just me. 



Balesir said:


> This is just an attempt to define "roleplaying" as "immersive play" - to which I say hooey.



I'd say that, too. I think "playing a role" _is_ the heart of "roleplaying", which does not require immersion. But, extensive metagaming that leads to decisions outside of the role would be failing to roleplay, in my opinion.



Balesir said:


> Follow on with "hit points and levels are not helpful to immersive play" to which I would say "no s#!t, Sherlock!"



I'd disagree with this. I think it just depends. Levels can help define relative power level, and as long as the mechanics themselves aren't front and center (they're mostly behind the curtain), I'd say that it doesn't necessarily need to disrupt immersion at all.

And hit points, given their abstract nature, are actually very good for immersion in most combat situations; they just break down in certain scenarios when treated as morale or skill (being on fire, falling, etc.). Treating them as divine protection helps, if that doesn't break your immersion or sense of verisimilitude (which is subjective), because it has the same excuse magic has (it's magic!). As always, play what you like


----------



## BryonD (Apr 11, 2012)

Balesir said:


> This is just an attempt to define "roleplaying" as "immersive play" - to which I say hooey.



No no no.  I make no claim that I am in any way defining or limiting "roleplay".

But I stand completely by my description of THAT specific area as being outside the umbrella.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> The conversation is a waste of time.



Agreed.  As I said "vast gulf".


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2012)

BryonD said:


> No no no.  I make no claim that I am in any way defining or limiting "roleplay".
> 
> But I stand completely by my description of THAT specific area as being outside the umbrella.




I can't be the only one to see the irony in this statement.


----------



## triqui (Apr 11, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> More attacks to defend against. Going up against a tank is bad, but I don't feel too good when twelve guys in a semicircle confront me with guns drawn. If I'm very skilled and well equipped, I have a better chance against the tank. In other fiction, I'll just kill all the guys with guns. They'll miss, I'll win.
> 
> But it's perfectly understandable why a dozen guys with crossbows drawn on you can be more dangerous than a single dragon. As always, play what you like




When you are Neo, you face 12 guys with guns without sweating, becouse you know you move to fast for them. They'll miss, you will win. You will flee from a single Agent, though.

You have a character that can face and kill an ancient demon. Ten bandits aren't a threat for him 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEgGt1VOasA&feature=related"]him[/ame]. And it is so, becouse you can Dodge Spears and Block Arrows.

 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZWNFVugMXA]dodge spears and block arrows[/ame] while cleaving lots of enemies because you kick ass

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B0qXiaFp6Y]kick ass[/ame].


----------



## BryonD (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I can't be the only one to see the irony in this statement.



shrug

Go back and look at what was actually said.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 11, 2012)

triqui said:


> When you are Neo, you face 12 guys with guns without sweating, becouse you know you move to fast for them. They'll miss, you will win. You will flee from a single Agent, though.
> 
> You have a character that can face and kill an ancient demon. Ten bandits aren't a threat for him. And it is so, becouse you can Dodge Spears and Block Arrows. dodge spears and block arrows[/url] while cleaving lots of enemies because you kick ass.



Which is why I said "*In other fiction, I'll just kill all the guys with guns. They'll miss, I'll win*" in the quote you replied to. I also said: 


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> The discussion one side is trying to have is "I'd like the game to be able to make low groups dangerous at all levels." Yes, it fits within the spirit of D&D: it happens at low and mid-low levels. However, characters grow out of that. We're agreed that it's the case. Now, one side is trying to say "I don't like that it happens, and would like to see an *alternative*."





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Eldritch_Lord said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I want the option. That's all. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2012)

BryonD said:


> shrug
> 
> Go back and look at what was actually said.




Well, going back and reading what was actually said, you claim that you believe your fictional characters have independent thought.  Are you really sure you want to stand by that?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 11, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Real-life survivals of such falls are extremely rare (like 1 in 1 million rare).
> 
> So, the problem isn't that the demi-god slaying paladin can survive the impact, it's that the demi-god slaying paladin can _*almost always*_ survive the impact.
> 
> ...




One of the most awesome scenes I can remember from our 1e days was my level 11 insane ranger jumping off a 200' cliff into the middle of a vast array of demons because hey, he was pretty much insane and hated demons and had all sorts of vampiric regeneration! Sure, he was down to like 25 hit points when he landed, and he was at like 3x normal hit points a couple rounds later. Of course he also stopped being a ranger anymore somewhere around that point... (I think it might have been the armor that sucked the life out of the forest to give him more hit points, lol).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 11, 2012)

Hmmm, I don't know where the thread went in the 10 pages I skipped, lol. 

I look at it this way. I think the 4e sort of high durability characters that can bounce back with a bit of planning create a fun sort of game. I see a lot more risk taking and big awesome moments than in the "you're made of glass" days of 1e. 

OTOH there's nothing wrong with 'survival dungeoneering' play where you spend most of your time carefully planning out how to deal with things because slipping on a banana peel might be fatal. Any of us that played 'back in the day' (whenever that was for you) has done it. Clearly we all must have found it enjoyable at some level or we'd have gone and done something else.

I'm still getting a good kick out of the high action level 4e play right now. It won't hurt my feelings any if you can reliably get either experience from 5e. I sort of worry that M&M may be writing off my favorite play style though. Either that or they may not really understand what enables it very well. We'll see though.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 11, 2012)

pemerton said:


> It's not even about simulationists breaking teeth, I don't think. It's about people trying to satisfy their simulationinst sensibilities using an engine that - at certain key points, like the hp rules - doesn't work that way. And is precisely designed not to work that way!
> 
> For those who want deadly falls and poison but non-deadly giant's clubs, maybe what they need is a system of dodge bonuses, where dodging acts as damage reduction in some fashion. (The most obvious way to simulate hit points would be a level-based divisor.)
> 
> But then new corner cases will come up, as they always do (say in W/V) systems: what happens to someone chained to the rockface and breathed on by the dragon, for instance? Looks like certain death to me (a la staring at a Medusa) - yet Gygax expressly calls this out (in his DMG) as a circumstance in which a saving throw is allowed!




Not even simulationists, but immersionists.  This is classic disconnect between "immersion is priority one" verus "narrative is priority one".  We all talk about it in terms of characterization, and thus seem to be communicating, but the characterization means something very different in each case.  The argument is as old as "method acting" and whatever that opposing version is called.  I forget.

I'll just state this baldly:  I don't want to get so far inside the head of an NPC or my PC that I lose the awareness of the metagame (mechanically or otherwise).  I don't want anyone at my table to do so.  I don't even want to play with anyone who sees this as a priority--because there is no way that both of us will have a good time.  Better that one of us go elsewhere, and have fun with people who have different priorities.  And for ever comment along the lines of, "hate to think what you are missing with that attitude," here is a big, "back at ya, big guy!"


----------



## triqui (Apr 11, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Which is why I said "*In other fiction, I'll just kill all the guys with guns. They'll miss, I'll win*" in the quote you replied to. I also said:
> 
> 
> I want the option. That's all. As always, play what you like




There are different kinds of fiction, that's for sure. In reallistic fiction, you shouldn't be able to kill 12 guys with crossbows. However, in realistic fiction, you shouldnt be able to kill a dragon either. Becouse, otherwise, that implies that 12 guys with crossobows can kill a dragon.

D&D is a game with a fiction that states that people can kill dragons, fighters can grapple bears, and clerics can pray for miracles. You are asking for something that goes against the very foundation of the game: the leveling system. You start fighting kobolds, and finish killing Balors.

Yup, it is possible to make characters that fear a patrol of random militia with crossbows. But the cost of that, is being unable to beat dragons, demons and hydras. I doubt it is the path that WotC is going to take.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 11, 2012)

triqui said:


> There are different kinds of fiction, that's for sure. In reallistic fiction, you shouldn't be able to kill 12 guys with crossbows. However, in realistic fiction, you shouldnt be able to kill a dragon either. Becouse, otherwise, that implies that 12 guys with crossobows can kill a dragon.



No, it doesn't. I addressed this earlier, too:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> More attacks to defend against. Going up against a tank is bad, but I don't feel too good when twelve guys in a semicircle confront me with guns drawn. If I'm very skilled and well equipped, I have a better chance against the tank.





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Not if their weapons aren't effective against the dragon.
> 
> No matter what your feelings on the film are, take the movie DragonHeart (personally, I love me some Sean Connery dragon): in that, the dragon and the dragon-slayer fake out towns by having the dragon attack and the dragon-slayer "kill" it. This works a few times, but then the dragon falls into a lake and can't sink, and flies away before the villagers can eat him. They then turn as a mob to chase the dragon-slayer, who runs, because a mob will kill him (just like they killed the previous king).
> 
> A mob of humans is dangerous to humans. A storm of arrows may not even pierce the dragon's hide (via damage reduction, for example). This means that strong warriors (like a mounted knight with a lance) could pierce the hide of the dragon, but a town couldn't (thus the need for adventurers, courageous knights, etc.).





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> Even in the last LotR movie, Gandolf seems to think he's about to die while fighting troops, and that's after he's defeated the Balrog and came back even more powerful than before.
> 
> When Strider is tracking the hobbits down with Gimli and Legolas, they get surrounded by mounted riders. Sure, Legolas could have gotten a shot off first, but they were obviously in a terrible situation.
> 
> ...





			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> In Wheel of Time, Lan -arguably the best warrior in the series- can take on like eight guys at once, and win, but he's hurt at the end. Earlier, Galad is able to cut his way through an angry mob without spilling blood on his clothes.
> 
> Strider is able to take the entire group of ring-wraiths at the same time, but has to get hauled up from the bridge with Gimli before he gets overrun, even though only a limited number of enemies can reach him at once.
> 
> ...



I think that characters can most certainly take on big bad monsters and still feel intimidated and threatened by twelve guys with crossbows. I designed my system with that in mind, in fact.



triqui said:


> D&D is a game with a fiction that states that people can kill dragons, fighters can grapple bears, and clerics can pray for miracles. You are asking for something that goes against the very foundation of the game: the leveling system. You start fighting kobolds, and finish killing Balors.



I want you to be able to do that in D&D, too.



triqui said:


> Yup, it is possible to make characters that fear a patrol of random militia with crossbows. But the cost of that, is being unable to beat dragons, demons and hydras. I doubt it is the path that WotC is going to take.



I disagree. See my quotes above for my reasoning on why that is. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2012)

Jameson Courage - your idea would only work in D&D if we ejected scaling hit points in favor of something like Savage World's wound system.  As it stands, a dragon has 100+ HP and an AC in the stratosphere and damage potential to match.

It's not that the PC's can kill the dragon.  That's not really the issue.  It's that the PC's can stand in front of the dragon, trading blows for several rounds.  That's the issue.  In order for the mooks to be able to threaten the PC's, they have to have a chance of hitting and a damage output comparable to the dragon (or whatever big arsed monster you want to name).  

If the mooks have an attack bonus that cannot reasonably hit the PC's, deal out individual damage that is more or less ignorable by the PC's, then they are never, ever going to be a credible threat to those PC's.

Housecats, while capable of harming 1st level wizards and peasants, really can't hurt a 10th level character.  Even a dozen cats can't.  The scale is the same for mooks and high level PC's.  The mooks just can't hurt the high level PC's.  

Now, you have a couple of choices here.  You can simply roll with it and go on.  Or you can change the mooks into credible threats.  What you can't do is play the game by the book and expect a bunch of 3rd level warriors to present a credible threat to a 15th level party.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Jameson Courage - your idea would only work in D&D if we ejected scaling hit points in favor of something like Savage World's wound system.



Not familiar with the wound system, but I think D&D could handle this via damage reduction alone, especially if the PCs had a particular way to bypass it (higher damage, magic weapons, whatever).



Hussar said:


> If the mooks have an attack bonus that cannot reasonably hit the PC's, deal out individual damage that is more or less ignorable by the PC's, then they are never, ever going to be a credible threat to those PC's.



Agreed. I'm hoping the focus on "flatter math" helps here.



Hussar said:


> Housecats, while capable of harming 1st level wizards and peasants, really can't hurt a 10th level character.  Even a dozen cats can't.  The scale is the same for mooks and high level PC's.  The mooks just can't hurt the high level PC's.



As I've said, I understand how it works currently. I'd prefer an alternative, even if it's not the base assumption.



Hussar said:


> Now, you have a couple of choices here.  You can simply roll with it and go on.  Or you can change the mooks into credible threats.  What you can't do is play the game by the book and expect a bunch of 3rd level warriors to present a credible threat to a 15th level party.



... you can if the books provide for that via alternate rules, which is what I'm asking for. As always, play what you like


----------



## triqui (Apr 11, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> No, it doesn't. I addressed this earlier, too:



 But it didn't make that much sense, imho.


> Originally Posted by JamesonCourage
> More attacks to defend against. Going up against a tank is bad, but I don't feel too good when twelve guys in a semicircle confront me with guns drawn. If I'm very skilled and well equipped, I have a better chance against the tank.



 So fighting a 12 headed hydra is fair game, but fighting 12 bamdits with short swords is not. Same goes with fighting two manticores (who shoot 6 spikes each). Your hero can, at proper level, face and defeat 2 giant monsters with lion bodies and old man heads that shoot 12 spikes per turn, but he should die to 12 commoners who bought a crossbow.

I guess you can build a game like that. But it really does not hold any sense. 



> Not if their weapons aren't effective against the dragon.
> 
> No matter what your feelings on the film are, take the movie DragonHeart (personally, I love me some Sean Connery dragon): in that, the dragon and the dragon-slayer fake out towns by having the dragon attack and the dragon-slayer "kill" it. This works a few times, but then the dragon falls into a lake and can't sink, and flies away before the villagers can eat him. They then turn as a mob to chase the dragon-slayer, who runs, because a mob will kill him (just like they killed the previous king).
> 
> A mob of humans is dangerous to humans. A storm of arrows may not even pierce the dragon's hide (via damage reduction, for example). This means that strong warriors (like a mounted knight with a lance) could pierce the hide of the dragon, but a town couldn't (thus the need for adventurers, courageous knights, etc.).



 That might be valid for a dragon's corner case. What about giants? Manticores? evil wizards? 



> In Wheel of Time, Lan -arguably the best warrior in the series- can take on like eight guys at once, and win, but he's hurt at the end. Earlier, Galad is able to cut his way through an angry mob without spilling blood on his clothes.
> 
> Strider is able to take the entire group of ring-wraiths at the same time, but has to get hauled up from the bridge with Gimli before he gets overrun, even though only a limited number of enemies can reach him at once.
> 
> ...



 The problem, then, is that you are looking into level 6 or less characters. Strider is level 6, not more. He could NOT defeat a Balor (balrog). Not even close. He could not even defeat a BABY troll on his own.  He needed a party, and they got beated in the process. He was able to scare a few nazguls, becouse he had a Plot Device to do so. If you want to see a high level warrior in Tolkien's books, what about Fëanor, who could defeat a *platoon of Balrogs.* Do you thing 20 orcs with crossbows could defeat Fëanor? Do you think 20 orcs with bows could have killed Glorfindel as they killed Boromir?

The Song of Ice and Fire is even lower level. A single frozen zombie almost kill an entire garrison. A dragon would kill all the heroes in the novel, together. Sure they can't beat a group of guards. They couldn't beat a Manticore either.

Conan defeat giant apes all the time. But dire apes are like CR 6 or so. Conan could not defeat an ancient Red Dragon, by any means.

If you want to see high level fighters, those who can defeat dragons, hydras and demons, you should take a look to Cuchulain, Beowulf, Sigfrid, Hercules or Achilles. Those beat dragons, hydras and demons. But they can defeat a patrol of guards too. Cuchulain defeated an entire army once. Achiles did too (and he wasn't invulnerable by then). Hercules breached the walls of Troy and sieged the city alone, before they managed to calm his anger. 

THOSE are the equivalent of your 14th level D&D fighter.  If you want to reproduce the feeling of Lord of the Rings or Conan, I suggest you to use E6 rules, where the level advancement is limited to level 6. Because it really does not make any sense that a regular fighter can survive/dodge 12 spike shots from two manticores, but can't survive/dodge 12 goblins with shortbows. It does not make any sense that a fighter can survive a Wyvern's poisoned sting, but he can't survive a regular run-o-mill cup of poison.


----------



## Balesir (Apr 11, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Not familiar with the wound system, but I think D&D could handle this via damage reduction alone, especially if the PCs had a particular way to bypass it (higher damage, magic weapons, whatever).



I don't think the core problem with this particular scenario is the degree of damage, _per se_ - it's more the area effects. If a fireball won't wipe out city guards, what's it for? Clearing rats from basements?



JamesonCourage said:


> As I've said, I understand how it works currently. I'd prefer an alternative, even if it's not the base assumption.



If an alternative is intended to change the nature of the game, why would it be best placed as a "module" within the same game? This is what I don't understand - if folks want two (or more) different games, why in tarnation try to shoehorn them all into one, overarching system? Didn't Sauron try that trick? I seem to recall it didn't work out too well...

Added: It's not even like GURPS - GURPS is set up to play fundamentally the same game with different backdrops and conceits. The core of GURPS is (intentionally, as far as I can see) essentially the same regardless what setting you use. Is this another example of using the same words for different concepts, maybe? When we say "different game styles", I see GURPS as generally supporting one game style, not several.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 11, 2012)

triqui said:


> But it didn't make that much sense, imho.



That may be so. I'm not trying to change your mind, just tell you what I want and how I see things.


triqui said:


> So fighting a 12 headed hydra is fair game, but fighting 12 bamdits with short swords is not. Same goes with fighting two manticores (who shoot 6 spikes each).



If they have just as many attacks from different angles as 12 crossbowmen, then it should probably be just as hard to defend against.


triqui said:


> Your hero can, at proper level, face and defeat 2 giant monsters with lion bodies and old man heads that shoot 12 spikes per turn, but he should die to 12 commoners who bought a crossbow.
> 
> I guess you can build a game like that. But it really does not hold any sense.



I wouldn't want it to work that way. If the monster is making just as many attacks as 12 crossbowmen, then, again, make it just as hard to defend against.


triqui said:


> That might be valid for a dragon's corner case. What about giants? Manticores? evil wizards?



I'm not sure where you're going with this. I think 12 crossbowmen should be dangerous to an evil wizard, as well as things that don't have the necessary natural defenses. That could apply to giants, manticores, etc. If you want giants to be immune to crossbow bolts, put them in heavy armor and give them a very thick hide. Give manticores a very thick, plated skin. If they don't have that type of skin, then yes, make them vulnerable to crossbow bolts.


triqui said:


> The problem, then, is that you are looking into level 6 or less characters. Strider is level 6, not more. He could NOT defeat a Balor (balrog). Not even close. He could not even defeat a BABY troll on his own.  He needed a party, and they got beated in the process. He was able to scare a few nazguls, becouse he had a Plot Device to do so. If you want to see a high level warrior in Tolkien's books, what about Fëanor, who could defeat a *platoon of Balrogs.* Do you thing 20 orcs with crossbows could defeat Fëanor? Do you think 20 orcs with bows could have killed Glorfindel as they killed Boromir?
> 
> If you want to reproduce the feeling of Lord of the Rings or Conan, I suggest you to use E6 rules, where the level advancement is limited to level 6.



_Once again_, I'm not trying to say "the game doesn't function this way past a certain level." I'm saying "while I know the game functions this way past a certain level, I'd like an option to avoid that, if possible." That's all. You don't need to prove to me that more powerful warriors exist. I know that. My point is that fantasy is filled with examples where badass people _can_ be defeated by mundane threats, and that I'd like that type of game to be able to be modeled at all levels. And with the stated goals of 5e, I think that's a fair request. As always, play what you like 



Balesir said:


> I don't think the core problem with this particular scenario is the degree of damage, _per se_ - it's more the area effects. If a fireball won't wipe out city guards, what's it for? Clearing rats from basements?



Here's the thing, though: just because 12 crossbowmen are a threat to the wizard, it doesn't mean the wizard needs to be impotent against them. Sure, maybe he can kill all of them with one spell. But, if they get the drop on him, ready an action to shoot if he's hostile, and order him to surrender, I want to be able to play the game in such a way where that threat carries some weight mechanically.



Balesir said:


> If an alternative is intended to change the nature of the game, why would it be best placed as a "module" within the same game? This is what I don't understand - if folks want two (or more) different games, why in tarnation try to shoehorn them all into one, overarching system?



This is, effectively, the stated goal of 5e. "Want to play your game _this_ way? We've got support for this style of play. Want to play your game _that_ way? We've got support for that style of play." The hour-long Q&A video touches on it, where they talk about modules for indie-style play where players have a lot of narrative power, etc. They're talking about modules for changing the nature of the game, and, with that in mind, I'm saying what I'd like to see.



Balesir said:


> Added: It's not even like GURPS - GURPS is set up to play fundamentally the same game with different backdrops and conceits. The core of GURPS is (intentionally, as far as I can see) essentially the same regardless what setting you use. Is this another example of using the same words for different concepts, maybe? When we say "different game styles", I see GURPS as generally supporting one game style, not several.



I don't think that's 5e's goal. Like I said, if they plan on being able to institute a "indie-style" game module, I think they're planning on supporting massive shifts in the "nature of game" via modules. I think, as of this point, it's fair to bring up one of my preferences.

I don't even want to play this all the time, mind you, but I like this sort of game quite a bit (just as I also like low-magic settings quite a bit). But, from time to time, I _do_ like being able to be the guy that laughs and beats the 10 evil guards who try to imprison him. And, as far as D&D goes, I expect that to be the norm. But, since they're trying to be so diverse via modules, I feel absolutely in line by stating what I'd like to see. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Apr 11, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> My point was that he didn't cross the broken glass lightly. He saw the only way out, and then saw the glass, and you could almost hear the "Oh s@*&". In the end, he gritted his teeth and made his escape. I have absolutely no problem with this, and even expect it in heroic portrayal. It's almost a definition of hero, to appraise a situation as dangerous, but to forge ahead anyway, even at great self-cost, because it has to be done.
> 
> What I would like out of my gaming sessions, whether D&D or not, is for that kind of 'realistic thought' to transfer into the characters as they're portrayed.



By framing it this way I think you make the design challenge clear - if the players know that they have the mechanical resources (be they hp, fate points, whatever) to permit their PCs to sruvive crossing the glass, then _why_ are they going to say "Oh s@*&"? 

I can think of two possible answers.

(1) The players add colour to their roleplay that the mechanics don't support, and that is to some extent at odds with the mechanics. I personally have zero interest in that sort of RPGing - I want the mechanics to matter, otherwise why have them? - but I think some people expect and want players to play like this.

(2) The mechanics _give the players a reason_ to say "Oh s@*&". Now, given that we know the PCs are going to survive the glass, the reason _can't_ be that crossing the glass will hurt the PCs. So it has to be some other reason - for example, every time the players play a fate point, the GM gets to amp up some other threat further ahead in the game. Or even Dread's Jenga-style approach - you can cross the glass, but you have to pull, and if the tower crashes then something bad happens to your PC. Or maybe crossing the glass uses up a valuable encounter power (I'm thinking of something analogous to the 10th level utility Fighter's Grit), making you worried about how you might handle what is coming down the line.

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s story above is a good one for this: the ranger PC jumps over the cliff to fight the demons, but lands with only 25 hit points. That's taking a risk, that might make you go "Oh s@*&", even though you know your PC will survive the fall.

Anyway, these are the sorts of mechanics that I prefer - mechanics that get the players saying "Oh s@*&" because they set clear and meaningful stakes that the players actually care about (rather than requiring the players to pretend to care about something that the mechanics in fact make irrelevant).



Elf Witch said:


> I don't get the just play a different game attitude. DnD is a fantasy RPG it should if well written allow more than one play style.



Why? I don't know of any other game that handles multiple play styles well. Try playing space opera with Traveller. Try playing heroic fantasy with Runequest (or Basic D&D, for that matter!).

I mean, any system has a bit of wriggle room, and with some clever/subtle houseruling plus a bit of squinting mixed in with a bit of social contract can do different things. I discovered, for example, that it is not that hard to push Rolemaster to support a less gritty and more character-focused vanilla narrativist playstyle, if everyone at the table is prepared to let some subsystems go, and to treat other aspects of the system in a certain light.

But I think it is pretty optimistic to expect one system to do (for example) both Runequest and Epic tier 4e. (HeroWars/Quest can probably get some of the colour of both, but won't deliver either the grit of Runequest or the gonzo of 4e.)



Crazy Jerome said:


> This is classic disconnect between "immersion is priority one" verus "narrative is priority one".  We all talk about it in terms of characterization, and thus seem to be communicating, but the characterization means something very different in each case.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> And for ever comment along the lines of, "hate to think what you are missing with that attitude," here is a big, "back at ya, big guy!"



Yes. The repeated notion that, in playing in a style where the mechanics matter, I'm missing out on some nirvanic play experience, becomes a bit annoying.

Some of my initial actual play posts were to try to respond to some misconceptions about what my sort of game _must_ be like (eg, to paraphrase an annoying blogger, "tactical skirmish battles linked by free narration").


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 11, 2012)

I think the biggest thing people are missing is that D&D is a game. A level based game filled with all kinds of weird math.

All threats have a value. They have numbers. D&D uses damage and hit points.

The key is how do you make:
25 level 3 NPCs a threat to 4 level 15 PCs
4 level 15 PCs a threat to a adult red dragon
but not have
24 level 3 NPCs a threat to a adult red dragon?

The answer is.. you can't with just damage, hit points, and numbers of attacks. You have to make an exception rule. 

The total crossbowmen's damage has to be less than dragon's health but higher than the PC's. And the dragon's damage has to be less than the heroes' health but more than the combined crossbowmen. The heroes's damage has to be higher than the dragon's health but not the combined crossbowmen's. That requires numbers to go up and down at the same time. If you slow down HP gain or raise the damage to have the crossbowmen's damage scare the heroes, you also made the dragon vulnerable.  Therefore the only way the math will work is to add other aspects to the math such as DR and resistances. And the game ceases to be simple.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 11, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Yes. The repeated notion that, in playing in a style where the mechanics matter, I'm missing out on some nirvanic play experience, becomes a bit annoying.



I think that people _want_ the mechanics to matter. Thus, the discussion on falling making a player go "Oh s@*&". If the fall is, in fact, very dangerous, by immersing in the character by being afraid of the fall, you'd be "playing in a style where the mechanics matter." But, while it makes the mechanics matter (what you want), it also circumvents other things you want.



pemerton said:


> Some of my initial actual play posts were to try to respond to some misconceptions about what my sort of game _must_ be like (eg, to paraphrase an annoying blogger, "tactical skirmish battles linked by free narration").



I assume you mean Justin Alexander (the first person that came to mind for me was Ron Edwards). Both are way too arrogant. Both are needlessly dismissive. Both use way too much hyperbole. These make both styles pretty annoying to me, personally, even if I can identify with one over the other. Ron Edwards just bugs me more for general pretentiousness. Again, though, very subjective. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Apr 11, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> I think that people _want_ the mechanics to matter. Thus, the discussion on falling making a player go "Oh s@*&". If the fall is, in fact, very dangerous, by immersing in the character by being afraid of the fall, you'd be "playing in a style where the mechanics matter." But, while it makes the mechanics matter (what you want), it also circumvents other things you want.



I've got not objection, in principle, to a game in which falling is dangerous. But I'm not the one getting bent out of shape trying to reconcile that desire with a desire to play a game with hp-based rather than wound-based damage.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 11, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I've got not objection, in principle, to a game in which falling is dangerous. But I'm not the one getting bent out of shape trying to reconcile that desire with a desire to play a game with hp-based rather than wound-based damage.



But you can do both. You just need to change some base assumptions. This sounds perfectly reasonable to inquire about as a 5e module. As always, play what you like


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 11, 2012)

triqui said:


> There are different kinds of fiction, that's for sure. In reallistic fiction, you shouldn't be able to kill 12 guys with crossbows. However, in realistic fiction, you shouldnt be able to kill a dragon either. Becouse, otherwise, that implies that 12 guys with crossobows can kill a dragon.
> 
> D&D is a game with a fiction that states that people can kill dragons, fighters can grapple bears, and clerics can pray for miracles. You are asking for something that goes against the very foundation of the game: the leveling system. You start fighting kobolds, and finish killing Balors.
> 
> Yup, it is possible to make characters that fear a patrol of random militia with crossbows. But the cost of that, is being unable to beat dragons, demons and hydras. I doubt it is the path that WotC is going to take.




Well, in all fairness you COULD create a system where both things are possible, but it wouldn't resemble any edition of D&D very much. You can look to mythological sources for examples of how that would work. Every monster would have an 'achilles heel' or there would be ways to come up with countermagics or whatever that with preparation would defeat the dragon in some sense (Ged learns the true name of Orm Umbar and 'wins' his confrontation against it for instance). Of course it is tough to make a good game that works that way. 

The other option is a system that is just incredibly swingy. 12 crossbowmen, due to their numbers, have the force of probability on their side. One of those bolts is going to prove lethal to our hero. OTOH he can equally get lucky and defeat the dragon in similar fashion. Yes, that does mean the 12 crossbowmen can beat the dragon too, but only in theory. They won't risk it, and if they do they lack the means to get near the dragon lair without being ambushed or whatever.

So, basically I agree with your central premise, you can't make a system that has the sensibilities and play style of D&D where a bunch of low level mooks can threaten a high level PC. 

I wonder how this issue is going to manifest in 5e? It sort of seems like their going to run into it with their "everything remains relevant" approach. Will the game be super swingy, or will it rely heavily on PCs needing to find that one specific way to defeat the big bad monster? I'm not sure how either is going to happen and retain D&D feel...


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 11, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> I think the biggest thing people are missing is that D&D is a game. A level based game filled with all kinds of weird math.
> 
> All threats have a value. They have numbers. D&D uses damage and hit points.
> 
> ...




Or just embrace the "different rules for different situations" concept. This is what 4e did with minions and whatnot. The DM can of course supplement this with a bit of fiat, which 4e definitely encourages in terms of interactions between NPCs and other NPCs (IE the dragon vs the crossbowmen). When the fighter is cornered by a dozen crossbowmen they're standard relevant-level monsters. When they face up against the dragon they're just set dressing. When the narrative demands that the PCs blow past the crossbowmen, then they're minions. 

Now, this can potentially create issues of narrative consistency, the DM needs to be careful not to go overboard if he's wanting the players to be able to judge what the threat level of a crossbowman is consistently, but it would be rather a corner case where THE SAME crossbowmen fight the PCs and then the dragon. The king's elite crossbowmen can arrest the PCs, but a group of ordinary crossbowmen get their lunch eaten by the dragon. As long as the players can tell the difference between the two then the game can function.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 11, 2012)

triqui said:


> But it didn't make that much sense, imho.
> So fighting a 12 headed hydra is fair game, but fighting 12 bamdits with short swords is not. Same goes with fighting two manticores (who shoot 6 spikes each). Your hero can, at proper level, face and defeat 2 giant monsters with lion bodies and old man heads that shoot 12 spikes per turn, but he should die to 12 commoners who bought a crossbow.
> 
> I guess you can build a game like that. But it really does not hold any sense.
> ...




The heroes don't always dodge those manticore spikes they hit and sometimes they die. 

Which all some of us are asking of with rules for a group of trained archers at least having a chance to hit the PCs. 

The way it is now to do that you have to keep scaling the guardsmen. One of my issues is the idea that trained archers don't ever practice or use their skill so they don't level. But they do things they are not video game people standing around doing nothing until it is time to interact with the PCs.

You mentioned swords done of us did. I find it perfectly reasonable that in a sword fight the better trained person has the better chance of winning.

We are talking about ranged weapons aimed at a party who does not have magical protection up and who for the most part are flat footed. Yet every arrow misses unless its is a crit. That goes into realm of comedic action  something that belongs in Order of the Stick. And this is not just a one time thing it will happen every time.

As for the poison I hate the whole idea of one fort save for that. So a high level character has now become able to handle the effects of poison better why is that. How does adventuring make you immune to poison as you go up in levels? 

Unless you are routinely drinking a small amount to build your immunity it makes no sense. If your con score has not changed why would something that would kill you at first level not kill you at tenth? 

I know why in metagame terms it is because as a level based game both your saves and hit points go up. And for a lot of it I can just say okay but there are some situations that make me go WTF that does make sense at all.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 11, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> The heroes don't always dodge those manticore spikes they hit and sometimes they die.
> 
> Which all some of us are asking of with rules for a group of trained archers at least having a chance to hit the PCs.
> 
> ...




At which point you have a gritty game where the PCs are going to have a lot of trouble defeating most monsters, just like they'll have a lot of trouble defeating most groups of 12 crossbowmen. That's just the way it is. You can add a lot of complexity to the game and deal with some of that, but with something like poison either it is always deadly and if it gets used much then PCs will probably die a lot and you'll have a sort of gritty type game, or it will simply not be that deadly to higher level PCs. Even OLD D&D took this later route. 

The problem is fundamental. Reality isn't very heroic. An arrow or some poison are deadly a high percentage of the time. There are no such things as heroes in the D&D sense. If dragons existed they would either be not a big problem to a group with the right equipment or they would be magically immune to all that and all us actual real-world type people would be helpless against them. 

You just can't have both in one system. IMHO my experience with game design tells me that dropping a radically different feel on top of an existing core system with a module is going to be real ugly at best. Going from gritty survivalist mode to superhero mode is going to change practically every aspect of the game. The ramifications will be deep and will upset pretty much any other part of the rules in ways that you're going to have to deal with. AT BEST it won't be some simply swap. At worst the game will work badly in one, the other, or both modes. 

I think 5e needs to pick the basic core play style it wants to support and then consider some limited alternatives. You can do something along the lines of say 2e and be able to shade down into considerably grittier or up to maybe near 4e level heroicness. You can't do both at once and at each extreme you'll be pushing things and maybe not doing it as well as systems built for that.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2012)

Heh, Elf Witch, I believe the paraphrase, "Every time you try to apply real world logic to an RPG, God kills a cat girl" applies to precisely what you're saying.

Yes, you're absolutely, 100% right.  As soon as you start breaking things down this way, you realize how utterly nonsensical D&D is.  And it really is nonsensical.  But, that's because you're trying to apply real world logic to a fictional construct where we are playing heroic fantasy.

You are ignoring the power of narrativium.


----------



## triqui (Apr 11, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> That may be so. I'm not trying to change your mind, just tell you what I want and how I see things.
> 
> If they have just as many attacks from different angles as 12 crossbowmen, then it should probably be just as hard to defend against.



 That makes some monsters, like manticores or hydras, incredibly more powerful than others, like Gorgons or Dragons or Balors, based stricktly on the number of attacks. It's a strage assumption, imho. You can easily defeat a high level titan, becouse it only strikes once, but you are defeated by a low level octopus, becouse it has 8 tentacles.



> I'm not sure where you're going with this. I think 12 crossbowmen should be dangerous to an evil wizard, as well as things that don't have the necessary natural defenses. That could apply to giants, manticores, etc. If you want giants to be immune to crossbow bolts, put them in heavy armor and give them a very thick hide. Give manticores a very thick, plated skin. If they don't have that type of skin, then yes, make them vulnerable to crossbow bolts.



 I'm trying to point that "thick armor" works for a strict narrow type of monsters. Dragons fill the niche. Other type of monsters, even if they are high level, and supposed to be very powerful, aren't inmune to crossbow fire, so they'll die like flies. In your world, Galadriel is easy as pie to kill by a bunch of goblins with shortbows, but a baby rock troll is not. That makes baby rock trolls threat greater than Galadriel. It does not make sense, in the way the game is developed. 


> _Once again_, I'm not trying to say "the game doesn't function this way past a certain level." I'm saying "while I know the game functions this way past a certain level, I'd like an option to avoid that, if possible." That's all. You don't need to prove to me that more powerful warriors exist. I know that. My point is that fantasy is filled with examples where badass people _can_ be defeated by mundane threats, and that I'd like that type of game to be able to be modeled at all levels. And with the stated goals of 5e, I think that's a fair request. As always, play what you like



 My point is that what you call "badass warriors" are, actually, low level warriors fighting in low level adventures, which happen to be very nicely writen. Aragon fights a bunch of orcs, some goblins, a warg or two, and defeat (hardly) a *baby* troll. He scares of the Nazgul using a plot device, which is actually not one of his character abilities, but something the DM gave him to be used there. That's a 5th level adventure in D&D. D&D can, and does, make a wonderful job representing Aragorn. He is a 5th level Fighter/ranger. He dies if he is not careful against a bunch of orc archers. He can defeat, narrowly, a troll. And he will be toasted if he tries to fight a Balrog like Moria's or Dragon like Smaug (unless he is given a Plot device, like a black arrow).

D&D *does* work for this kind of characters. It's just that this kind of characters are not 17th+ level epic heroes. Glorfindel *IS* a 17th+ fighter. He can go toe to toe with a Balrog, and he can defeat a nazgul. He is *not* concerned about a bunch of goblins with bows. 12, or 24. He will kill them all. Probably he won't even need to. Intimidate +20 can do wonders in low level scum. If he choose to kill them, he is probably so fast that he can cover the distance among them faster than the goblins can fire. He can dodge and parry arrows, and he slices through their ranks as a hot knife in butter. There's no chance he loses against 12 goblins. Ever.





> Here's the thing, though: just because 12 crossbowmen are a threat to the wizard, it doesn't mean the wizard needs to be impotent against them. Sure, maybe he can kill all of them with one spell. But, if they get the drop on him, ready an action to shoot if he's hostile, and order him to surrender, I want to be able to play the game in such a way where that threat carries some weight mechanically.



 That possibility is there in D&D. A 5th level wizard can kill 12 crossbowmen with a 5d6 fireball if he acts first, but he dies if he doesnt. A 20th level wizard is another matter. 12 goblins can't defeat Gandalf. Ever.

However, I think I'll stop the argue here. I don't want to look argumentative. Play as you like, as you say. However,  I still think you are mixing things. Playstyle, and level, are different things. D&D can be gritty. It can't be gritty at high levels, because it works with the central idea of characters that grow from killing goblins, to slaying demon lords. Some one who has the chance to survive a demon lord, isn't concerned by a local town guard in a tavern brawl.  If you don't like high level adventures, then don't level up. E6 is a great take on this.


----------



## triqui (Apr 11, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> The heroes don't always dodge those manticore spikes they hit and sometimes they die.



 That's the point. Manticores are, and should be, more dangerous than 12 militia. That's why when a pair of manticores terrorize a village, the mayor calls adventurers. Becouse the local militia *cant* take the manticores down, because they are not threat enough.


> Which all some of us are asking of with rules for a group of trained archers at least having a chance to hit the PCs.
> 
> The way it is now to do that you have to keep scaling the guardsmen. One of my issues is the idea that trained archers don't ever practice or use their skill so they don't level. But they do things they are not video game people standing around doing nothing until it is time to interact with the PCs.



 The problem is not that much the AC, but the HP. A naked Dex 10 fighter can take 12 crossbow guards and kill them all once he is about level 12 or so, unless they are sniping him from the top of a tower. He just take the hits, charge, and make a carnage. Yes, he will take a few more hits. But that will only make the situation less believeable. At leaste when they were failing against his full plate +3 and ring of protection +2, you could explain it as the magical armor protecting him. Naked, he just take the hits, and win.



> You mentioned swords done of us did. I find it perfectly reasonable that in a sword fight the better trained person has the better chance of winning.
> 
> We are talking about ranged weapons aimed at a party who does not have magical protection up and who for the most part are flat footed. Yet every arrow misses unless its is a crit. That goes into realm of comedic action  something that belongs in Order of the Stick. And this is not just a one time thing it will happen every time.



 So, in your opinion, ranged weapons should be inherently superior to melee? How would that balance with the characters? Wouldn't that make archer rangers inherently superior to twf rangers (or barbarians, for that matter)?


> As for the poison I hate the whole idea of one fort save for that. So a high level character has now become able to handle the effects of poison better why is that. How does adventuring make you immune to poison as you go up in levels?



 Because you are high level badass. Beowulf fought a sea monster, under the sea, for a week. Holding his breath. Achilles moved a river with his *anger*. Finarfin wasn't concerned about poisonous venoms from balors, that could kill an elephant. 



> Unless you are routinely drinking a small amount to build your immunity it makes no sense. If your con score has not changed why would something that would kill you at first level not kill you at tenth?



 *I* can't drink poison. But *I* am not an epic hero from an epic tale. Sigfrid could easily drink poison. Or Cuchulain. I'm sure a regular poison would not kill Elrond. 



> I know why in metagame terms it is because as a level based game both your saves and hit points go up. And for a lot of it I can just say okay but there are some situations that make me go WTF that does make sense at all.



 That's because you are trying to envision high level play with a low level metagame. Aragorn is 5th level. He *wont* drink poison, because he will die. Achiles is 20th level. They needed to prepare a very specific poison to kill him (the hydra's blood), because anything else wouldn't work. Achilles is too damn high level. In Hindu epic tale, Duryodhana poisoned Bhima with poison fealed *feast* and Bhima survived just because he was to strong for the poison. 

The problem is you are trying to fit Conan and Jon Snow into high level epic tales of ancient heroes. It doesn't work that way. Achilles could kill Jon Snow, the entire Night's Watch and Winterfell's guard without being touched once. Hercules could siege Aquilonia alone, as he did with Troy.  Bhima killed elephant *armies* using a mace.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 11, 2012)

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]

That is the whole point. You can't make* one *system that handles heroes who have increasing skill, lower level opponents who are still threat, higher level opponent who threats to heroes but ignore much lower level foes, have falls lethal, and poisons deadly. You have to make exception rules to make the simulation you wish to see.

The only issue is which exception rules are core and which are optional.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 11, 2012)

Balesir said:


> Added: It's not even like GURPS - GURPS is set up to play fundamentally the same game with different backdrops and conceits. The core of GURPS is (intentionally, as far as I can see) essentially the same regardless what setting you use. Is this another example of using the same words for different concepts, maybe? When we say "different game styles", I see GURPS as generally supporting one game style, not several.




Yes.  You can pick a different tech level in GURPS.  You can lower or raise the starting points used to build the characters.  You can swap out different magic systems.  You can pick different optional rules.  As I understand GURPS 4E by reputation, you can even make some of your own subsystem widgets to fit your vision.  And if you want to simulate somewhat different worlds, even different genres, and then play GURPS in them, this will all work wonderfully.  But you will be playing GURPS in all those worlds.  

Where I think the "same words for different concepts" part comes in here is that for a dedicated but narrow immersionists, those *are* different playstyles.  Because for them, as I understand it, they need basically two things to vary their "play style":  1) The world simulated with some token fidelity, especially in regards to cause and effect (as they view it, not necessarily in reality), and 2) Familiarity with the system so that it can fade into the background.  If you've got a blaster in Star Wars and a sword in Conan and a fireball in D&D, you are set.  

Of course, some of these people will find GURPS overly fiddly or detailed in the wrong place or whatever, because everyone has their own preferences.  So they might prefer Hero or something lighter than either GURPS or Hero (e.g Runequest) or even mistake "d20" for a "universal system" on the grounds that they can play whatever they want with it, always playing d20.  Same reasoning, different starting points.

This is totally different than what you, pemerton, lost soul, or several of us mean by "playstyle"--even though we also have our different preferences and distinctions within our broad agreement of what a "playstyle" constitutes.  

All that said, it would be theoretically possible to build a game that will support multiple playstyles, as we mean them--especially within a somewhat less than universal genre, such as "D&D fantasy".  What such a theoretical system *cannot* do, however, is afford useless and nonsensical mechanics that exist almost entirely for simulated illusionism.  This restriction is going to necessarily exclude a certain subset of extremely dedicated immersionists, who effectively want, "Make something up that sounds about right.  I can always ignore it, handwave it, or outright fudge it away when it produces results that I don't like."  By definition, you can't produce tight, robust, multiple playstyle supporting mechanics, for such an audience.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 11, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> @AbdulAlhazred
> 
> That is the whole point. You can't make* one *system that handles heroes who have increasing skill, lower level opponents who are still threat, higher level opponent who threats to heroes but ignore much lower level foes, have falls lethal, and poisons deadly. You have to make exception rules to make the simulation you wish to see.
> 
> The only issue is which exception rules are core and which are optional.




Sure, I agree. Where we might part ways perhaps could be in how doable it is to 'modularize' that feel. IMHO it is only possible within a moderately narrow range. I mean you COULD for instance have 'gritty heroes' that only get 1 hit point a level and who's 'powers' are pretty much mundane. You could do superheroes that gain 6 hp/level and get all kinds of crazy physics defying stunts as they go up in levels and can slay armies.

Can you do both in one game? What in that context are the proper values of damage bonus for a feat? Clearly it isn't going to be nearly the same in both cases, thus your hit point power curve system has now caused you to have to also change your feats. The same will be true of items, powers, etc. The monsters will all need to be different, etc etc etc. In some sense you might retain the same core mechanics, but if these two options basically can't share any material there's not much point in having them between the same two covers and called the same game.

Of course that doesn't prevent the possibility of a RANGE of games. I've seen d20 based FRPGs that go the full gamut from the very gritty to the totally heroic. However they're not really compatible with each other except in a very general way. Knowing the rules to one may be helpful in learning the other, but there's little in the way of material or setting you would share between them and they're certainly not ever marketed as being variations of the same game.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Heh, Elf Witch, I believe the paraphrase, "Every time you try to apply real world logic to an RPG, God kills a cat girl" applies to precisely what you're saying.
> 
> Yes, you're absolutely, 100% right.  As soon as you start breaking things down this way, you realize how utterly nonsensical D&D is.  And it really is nonsensical.  But, that's because you're trying to apply real world logic to a fictional construct where we are playing heroic fantasy.
> 
> You are ignoring the power of narrativium.




That is just so much BS everyone of has things that make us go no way sorry that is making it impossible to suspend my disbelief. 

There are a lot of fantastic things I can accept without to many questions like dungeons and the fact they they even exist and what about the wonky ecology of them and what have all those creatures been eating before the PCs came wandering in. 

I can buy a human going to toe to toe with a dragon because he is that good and has magical protection up.

I know that a game can never ever really reflect combat.

But three things just bug the crap out of me one is falling from terminal velocity and always walking away just because you have the hit points. A fall should be the same no matter what level you are.

Second poisons unless there is a reason why you get better immunity as you go higher then your level should not matter.

Third is the whole ranged weapon thing. 

I liked to point out that many people find coming back from the dead to be a WTF and take it out of their game.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 11, 2012)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> At which point you have a gritty game where the PCs are going to have a lot of trouble defeating most monsters, just like they'll have a lot of trouble defeating most groups of 12 crossbowmen. That's just the way it is. You can add a lot of complexity to the game and deal with some of that, but with something like poison either it is always deadly and if it gets used much then PCs will probably die a lot and you'll have a sort of gritty type game, or it will simply not be that deadly to higher level PCs. Even OLD D&D took this later route.
> 
> The problem is fundamental. Reality isn't very heroic. An arrow or some poison are deadly a high percentage of the time. There are no such things as heroes in the D&D sense. If dragons existed they would either be not a big problem to a group with the right equipment or they would be magically immune to all that and all us actual real-world type people would be helpless against them.
> 
> ...




I disagree that a modualr system can't do this. Take poison you can do it the standard way or you can add an optional rule that makes it more deadly for everyone. 

Certain things should always be a threat no matter the level and I think it would be easy to add supplemental rules to do this. 

As Jameson pointed out several post ago the design team is saying they want the game to support a wide variety of play styles. There are a lot of groups who want a more realistic and gritty game so why not give them some tools to play it instead of forcing them to either use a different system or try and work around the RAW.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 11, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I disagree that a modualr system can't do this. Take poison you can do it the standard way or you can add an optional rule that makes it more deadly for everyone.
> 
> Certain things should always be a threat no matter the level and I think it would be easy to add supplemental rules to do this.
> 
> As Jameson pointed out several post ago the design team is saying they want the game to support a wide variety of play styles. There are a lot of groups who want a more realistic and gritty game so why not give them some tools to play it instead of forcing them to either use a different system or try and work around the RAW.




Well, we don't entirely agree. Sure, you can make a 100 tweaks to all aspects of the game and maybe sort of go from really gritty to full on high fantasy epic Hercules-type heroes, but it isn't going to be any kind of simple drop-in. It is going to be a thorough reworking of every aspect of the game. It will involve EVERY element of the game, not just one or two. Compare and contrast systems at each end of this scale and you'll see what I mean. 

As I said, there are d20 based systems at all points along this spectrum. There isn't ONE d20 game, that I know of, that does all of them within one set of covers. Again, the reason is because there's just not that much value in it when you need a different magic system, a different beastiary, different rules for practically every other subsystem, different healing, action economy, etc etc etc to do it reasonably well. 

Of course I remain willing to be convinced, but the entire history of RPGs of which I'm aware IMHO denies that there is any likelihood of this succeeding. I wish the 5e design team well in their endeavor. I don't believe they can do it any more than anyone else has ever been able to in the last 38 years of RPG design.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 11, 2012)

triqui said:


> That's the point. Manticores are, and should be, more dangerous than 12 militia. That's why when a pair of manticores terrorize a village, the mayor calls adventurers. Becouse the local militia *cant* take the manticores down, because they are not threat enough.
> The problem is not that much the AC, but the HP. A naked Dex 10 fighter can take 12 crossbow guards and kill them all once he is about level 12 or so, unless they are sniping him from the top of a tower. He just take the hits, charge, and make a carnage. Yes, he will take a few more hits. But that will only make the situation less believeable. At leaste when they were failing against his full plate +3 and ring of protection +2, you could explain it as the magical armor protecting him. Naked, he just take the hits, and win.
> 
> So, in your opinion, ranged weapons should be inherently superior to melee? How would that balance with the characters? Wouldn't that make archer rangers inherently superior to twf rangers (or barbarians, for that matter)?
> ...




And that suspends my belief that a naked man faced with dozens of archers on high ground can just keep taking hit after hit to the point of sheer comedy or even worse can stand there stick his tongue out and dare them and never take a hit all. That is not believable. Even Achilles could be killed if hit with an arrow on his heel. 

The town militia may not be able to defend against a manticore because they do not have the training and there archers never practice or go hunting that is believable but a city with an elite cadre of archers is not the same. 

High level PCs are not gods are half gods are divine creatures.  They are highly trained at what they do but I have never read anything that supports that these PCs are now some kind of gods . A lot of the heroes you mentioned have the blood of gods running through them or are gods themselves. 

Now if you want to say high level PCs slowly become more divine like and get special favor which makes them harder to kill with poison or falling and they can't be touched my mortal men only other godlings then fine. That is certainly one way to play and I may even run a game that way in the future.   

But you could also run a game where high level PCs are just better trained the fighters have reached the pinnacle with their weapons and have learned to dodge and parry blows. Mages have found stronger spells and harnessed the ability to use magic for great feats of glory. 

But naked stripped of their gear and dropped by a dragon from 500 feet should be something that scares the crap out of them and it takes either a miracle or luck to live through that.

The same with a dozen well trained archers firing at them with them having no cover and nothing to stop the arrows. 

I can buy that dwarves for example are immune to poison or that an assassin builds up a tolerance for it. I can't buy that a wizard whose con has never changed and has never faced poison before could be killed at lower levels but not higher levels. 

With a few tweaks you could still play high level characters that fight dragons and manticores but still have certain things be a threat.


----------



## Saagael (Apr 11, 2012)

Not sure if this has been mentioned in 20 pages, but on the subject of "realistic" falling damage (and this can be adapted to poisons and other aspect you want to make more gritty):

Damage no longer deals a dice amount of damage, but a percentage of a character's total health. Falling can deal 5% of a PC's health every 10 feet, capping out at death after falling 200ft. To up the level of grit, just add more percentage. 20% hp every 10 feet means you die after falling 50ft. That sounds good.

Did your player just drink some poison? Make a Con save, and for every point below the DC for resisting the poison, the PC takes 20% of his health. Got a _really_ deadly poison, or the player just chugged some battery acid? Just increase the DC, and you're _sure_ to kill some one.

Players surrounded by guards? Treat it like a hazard, or a "poison by puncture wounds". Players make an ability check to try and fight their way out, and take 20% of their hp damage for every point under the DC. Are the players really, _really_ outnumbered? Just up the DC. Its super simple.

With this brand new system, players will still feel the sting of low level threats, and puts the control of those threats purely in the DM's hand, while still maintaining normal combat procedures with your classic use of hit points. Kind of like the dichotomy of skill challenges and combats in 4e, except using the same numbers for both.

* Disclaimer: For those that feel slighted by my silly tone, it's purely silly and not in any way trying to belittle or poke fun at those asking for more believable damage expressions for certain parts of the game. With the way D&D works, you're not going to get both sides of this argument in one system, and this is a relatively simple system that works side-by-side a combat system (maybe, not sure what 5e will bring though).


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 11, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> And that suspends my belief that a naked man faced with dozens of archers on high ground can just keep taking hit after hit to the point of sheer comedy or even worse can stand there stick his tongue out and dare them and never take a hit all. That is not believable. Even Achilles could be killed if hit with an arrow on his heel.
> 
> The town militia may not be able to defend against a manticore because they do not have the training and there archers never practice or go hunting that is believable but a city with an elite cadre of archers is not the same.
> 
> ...




Nobody is arguing with your sensibilities or taste. What we're saying is simply that you want a specific type of game. That's only ONE type of game that people may want. D&D traditionally IMHO DOES range from pretty gritty at low level to verging on mythological and definitely in the epic high fantasy range at high levels OOTB. 

I'm just not sure you can tweak one system to do both well across the full range of levels. A completely 100% always gritty system IMHO is best served by a completely different core structure than D&D. I don't think this is a matter of modules or anything like that. It is the core structure of the game that matters when you get this extreme.

I have no idea what way 5e will elect to go. My best guess is that they'll do what AD&D did and low level PCs will be glass and run from everything if they're smart except weak mundane monsters, and at high levels they will laugh at most anything that isn't almost godlike in power. SOME tweaking will probably be possible, but I'll guess more on the low end where you can make things less gritty. High level level-based play is VERY unlikely to ever work as a gritty system.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 11, 2012)

Saagael said:


> Not sure if this has been mentioned in 20 pages, but on the subject of "realistic" falling damage (and this can be adapted to poisons and other aspect you want to make more gritty):
> 
> Damage no longer deals a dice amount of damage, but a percentage of a character's total health. Falling can deal 5% of a PC's health every 10 feet, capping out at death after falling 200ft. To up the level of grit, just add more percentage. 20% hp every 10 feet means you die after falling 50ft. That sounds good.
> 
> ...




You could do falling and poison and any sort of 'SoD' type thing that way, sure. 

I don't think it would work for 'mooks' like crossbowmen. It would imply that all your lich needs to do in order to be rid of the threat of adventurers is employ a bodyguard of 10 or 20 low level orcs with crossbows. Heck, make the skeletons, they never sleep or get bored etc. Of course the PCs might work around that, but fundamentally the end result is two totally different systems that overlap. I'd think if you're going ot do that, just cut off hit point growth or make the growth very shallow (1 or 2 points per level say). You now have a gritty (or at least high lethality) game.


----------



## Saagael (Apr 11, 2012)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> You could do falling and poison and any sort of 'SoD' type thing that way, sure.
> 
> I don't think it would work for 'mooks' like crossbowmen. It would imply that all your lich needs to do in order to be rid of the threat of adventurers is employ a bodyguard of 10 or 20 low level orcs with crossbows. Heck, make the skeletons, they never sleep or get bored etc. Of course the PCs might work around that, but fundamentally the end result is two totally different systems that overlap. I'd think if you're going ot do that, just cut off hit point growth or make the growth very shallow (1 or 2 points per level say). You now have a gritty (or at least high lethality) game.




Right, and I get that. The real heart of the issue I was alluding to is that you can't do both "threatening masses of low-level mooks" and "threatening ancient dragons" in the same hp-based system. The closest I've ever seen it come to working as intended is with 4e's swarm and minion rules.

Outside of that, you either have 2 systems that are not easily swapped, or two systems that work in tandem.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 11, 2012)

I think I know how [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] want D&D to play. 

The problem is the numbers.

Hit Points, attack rolls, Armor Class, and damage can't do what Elf Witch wants.

You need

*A HP cap* so falling damage is always higher than max HP.

*Auto kill poison* and change poison saves to Reflex/Dexterity to spit out poison fast enough.

*All hits are Save or Die when unarmored* so a normal man can skewer an unarmored high level hero with an arrow.

*Anti dragon armor* so a dragon could deals minor damage to a high level hero but massive damage to a militia man.

*Range attacks ignore regular armor but not natural armor* to make crossbowmen a threat.

None of those have ever been part of D&D.. sorta...


----------



## Aaron (Apr 11, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> With a few tweaks you could still play high level characters that fight dragons and manticores but still have certain things be a threat.



That sounds interesting.

May I ask you to share these few tweaks with us?


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 11, 2012)

triqui said:


> When you are Neo, you face 12 guys with guns without sweating, becouse you know you move to fast for them. They'll miss, you will win. You will flee from a single Agent, though.
> 
> You have a character that can face and kill an ancient demon. Ten bandits aren't a threat for him




Sure, if your character can bend the very fabric of space in the world they're in (for all intents and purposes, a god), I can totally go with them not being concerned by a bunch of physics-bound bowmen. 

Though I'm not looking for high level PCs to be easily defeated by a bunch of guards with crossbows or swords or whatever. I would like for there to be a feeling that 'hey, those arrows could do some real damage' and for the characters to feel that there is some danger to what they're facing. I'm totally not wanting the players to balk at the situation (unless I'm looking to capture them for plot reasons). Sure, if combat erupts, I wholely expect the PCs to end up victorious. I'm all for the badass hero who doesn't take s*&^ from mooks. It just breaks the immersion for me when players start metagaming the system. "Oh, they're only 3rd level, they can't possibly hit my AC", "They're all minions, I can totally take 12 hits even if they all crit". It can be fun from a game-playing pov, not so fun from a role-playing pov.

Maybe I need to add weapon dice to attacks made against being flat-footed.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> One of the most awesome scenes I can remember from our 1e days was my level 11 insane ranger jumping off a 200' cliff into the middle of a vast array of demons because hey, he was pretty much insane and hated demons and had all sorts of vampiric regeneration! Sure, he was down to like 25 hit points when he landed, and he was at like 3x normal hit points a couple rounds later. Of course he also stopped being a ranger anymore somewhere around that point... (I think it might have been the armor that sucked the life out of the forest to give him more hit points, lol).




Totally awesome and great. I totally buy into this. The character wasn't going "Hey, I've got XX hp, I can totally survive this.", he knew he had humungous regeneration and healing abilities, so sure he knew the fall would hurt, but he would likely survive it. And even if he didn't, it still falls into the 'insane with a rabid hatred of demons' mindset of the character.



triqui said:


> There are different kinds of fiction, that's for sure. In reallistic fiction, you shouldn't be able to kill 12 guys with crossbows. However, in realistic fiction, you shouldnt be able to kill a dragon either.




Why not? With proper planning and preparation and an understanding of what they're facing, why can't a 'realistic' group of heros take down a dragon (i.e. Reign of Fire)? Even ordinary real 'mooks' took out tanks with bottles of alcohol and gas, because they found the weak points to exploit.



triqui said:


> Becouse, otherwise, that implies that 12 guys with crossobows can kill a dragon.




Again, no it doesn't. Classic story dragons are normally impervious to mundane weapons. A group of PCs, even in magical armour, usually aren't.
Water puts out fire. Sponges absorb water. Therefore sponges totally defeat fire? 



triqui said:


> The problem, then, is that you are looking into level 6 or less characters. Strider is level 6, not more. He could NOT defeat a Balor (balrog). Not even close. He could not even defeat a BABY troll on his own. He needed a party, and they got beated in the process. He was able to scare a few nazguls, becouse he had a Plot Device to do so. If you want to see a high level warrior in Tolkien's books, what about Fëanor, who could defeat a *platoon of Balrogs.* Do you thing 20 orcs with crossbows could defeat Fëanor? Do you think 20 orcs with bows could have killed Glorfindel as they killed Boromir?




I personally don't buy into Strider being 5th or 6th level, and place the skilled members of the Fellowship in the Paragon tier. But that's my own interpretation, and is entirely subjective to the level and style of play.

There is also the issue that the LotR world doesn't really match the D&D game stats. Some parallels can be drawn, certainly: orks being orcs or goblins, the Balrog being a Balor. But then trolls in LotR are not the trolls of D&D. The world is very low magic. In 4E, a Balor is a level 27 Elite, meaning even a level 27 epic PC would have issues defeating one on their own. By strict plugging in of D&D equivalents, that makes Gandalf at least level 27, if not higher, and he comes back even stronger than before.

And yes, I totally do think that if Glorfindel took 3+ arrows to the chest from being caught unawares/flat-footed, he would at least certainly be hurting, if not outright dying, just like Boromir. 



triqui said:


> Because it really does not make any sense that a regular fighter can survive/dodge 12 spike shots from two manticores, but can't survive/dodge 12 goblins with shortbows. It does not make any sense that a fighter can survive a Wyvern's poisoned sting, but he can't survive a regular run-o-mill cup of poison.




You're exaggerating what's being said. No one is saying that a group of PCs should die to a group of 12 bowmen. We're saying if 12 mundane spikes tossed from the tail of a manticore is a credible threat, why aren't 12 mundane crossbow bolts fired from trained marksmen? Currently it's because players can meta-game, and know that the rules have written that the Level 10 manticore has a decent chance to hit, while the level 3 guards don't.

It was suggested earlier about scaling threats to match the characters, rather than being static, which I'm liking more and more, and can certainly see this as a potential starting point for dialing the scale of adventure. Guards as Lvl-2 minions could work. Likely to kill the heroes? No. But certainly not a 'lol' cakewalk either.



pemerton said:


> By framing it this way I think you make the design challenge clear - if the players know that they have the mechanical resources (be they hp, fate points, whatever) to permit their PCs to sruvive crossing the glass, then _why_ are they going to say "Oh s@*&"?
> 
> I can think of two possible answers.
> 
> (1) The players add colour to their roleplay that the mechanics don't support, and that is to some extent at odds with the mechanics. I personally have zero interest in that sort of RPGing - I want the mechanics to matter, otherwise why have them? - but I think some people expect and want players to play like this.




I don't see how this conflicts against mechanics. Characters roleplaying concern of crossing damage-inflicting terrain? All the mechanics say is something like "take 2d6 damage, slowed [save end]". But to high level D&D PCs, the mechanics of this totally don't matter, because it's such a low amount of damage that it barely registers.



pemerton said:


> (2) The mechanics _give the players a reason_ to say "Oh s@*&". Now, given that we know the PCs are going to survive the glass, the reason _can't_ be that crossing the glass will hurt the PCs. So it has to be some other reason - for example, every time the players play a fate point, the GM gets to amp up some other threat further ahead in the game. Or even Dread's Jenga-style approach - you can cross the glass, but you have to pull, and if the tower crashes then something bad happens to your PC. Or maybe crossing the glass uses up a valuable encounter power (I'm thinking of something analogous to the 10th level utility Fighter's Grit), making you worried about how you might handle what is coming down the line.




Perhaps it should be in the way the encounter is set up. It's clear that there's a choice to be made in the Die Hard example. Continue to shoot it out with the baddies, and chance getting shot up. Or charge across broken glass with bare feet and endure the pain and bloodloss. It's obviously a 'realistic' gritty kind of choice, and something that seems to be difflcult to model in say epic level D&D.

I think at heart we're wanting similar things. We both want the mechanics to matter in playing the game. If the glass on the floor isn't a concern, why bother having it in the first place? If it is, then it has to be of some concern to the players in some way. Currently, there are some mechanics that don't matter at certain points in the game, which is why some of us would like for ways to make it matter again.

If jumping off a cliff doesn't matter to you or your PCs, then that's fine, mark off some HPs or healing surges or whatever and move on. But it would be nice for those of us who see our epic level heroes more like Lancelot (i.e. the best of the best, but still mortal) than Hercules (demigods verging on godhood) to be able to have consistent rules to help us play in that mode.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 11, 2012)

Aaron said:


> That sounds interesting.
> 
> May I ask you to share these few tweaks with us?




I don't have an answer for poison. 

For falling damage over a certain height you have to make a save against dying and for every ten feet the save goes up. If you fail it you die.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 11, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> Sure, if your character can bend the very fabric of space in the world they're in (for all intents and purposes, a god), I can totally go with them not being concerned by a bunch of physics-bound bowmen.
> 
> Though I'm not looking for high level PCs to be easily defeated by a bunch of guards with crossbows or swords or whatever. I would like for there to be a feeling that 'hey, those arrows could do some real damage' and for the characters to feel that there is some danger to what they're facing. I'm totally not wanting the players to balk at the situation (unless I'm looking to capture them for plot reasons). Sure, if combat erupts, I wholely expect the PCs to end up victorious. I'm all for the badass hero who doesn't take s*&^ from mooks. It just breaks the immersion for me when players start metagaming the system. "Oh, they're only 3rd level, they can't possibly hit my AC", "They're all minions, I can totally take 12 hits even if they all crit". It can be fun from a game-playing pov, not so fun from a role-playing pov.
> 
> ...




Right. I think the difference is IMHO, looking at 4e as sort of a model even for classic D&D, is you have a sort of 'heroic tier' where broken glass and low level town watchmen are things that DO hurt. Then you have 'paragon tier' where stuff like that isn't doing much to you, but there are still 'mundane' things that are pretty hazardous, but you face bigger threats all the time. You don't have to tangle with the town watch, you have to tangle with the watch in the City of Brass. 

At 'epic tier' things like broken glass are just irrelevant. You can kill 100's of normal people without breaking a sweat, leap off cliffs, etc, but your threats now are falling into the Abyss, walking on lava, or fighting 100's of infinitely respawning 25th level minions, while piloting your spell jammer through the Abyss...

And, yeah, that ranger was crazy. Those were fun times. Still, it would be hard to say truthfully I'd have had him jump off a 200' drop if he was SURE to die from it. Not so much meta-gaming either as just 'character knowledge of his capabilities' IMHO.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 11, 2012)

triqui said:


> That makes some monsters, like manticores or hydras, incredibly more powerful than others, like Gorgons or Dragons or Balors, based stricktly on the number of attacks. It's a strage assumption, imho. You can easily defeat a high level titan, becouse it only strikes once, but you are defeated by a low level octopus, becouse it has 8 tentacles.



Well, that depends on how dangerous each strike is. Also, it depends on how resistant it is to damage. Additionally, it depends on whether the attacks are made separately, or as a group as part of the abstraction. That is, it could say "Hydra bite +8, 1d10+4(+1/extra head)" or the like. There are different balancing factors that can be brought in.



triqui said:


> I'm trying to point that "thick armor" works for a strict narrow type of monsters. Dragons fill the niche. Other type of monsters, even if they are high level, and supposed to be very powerful, aren't inmune to crossbow fire, so they'll die like flies. In your world, Galadriel is easy as pie to kill by a bunch of goblins with shortbows, but a baby rock troll is not. That makes baby rock trolls threat greater than Galadriel. It does not make sense, in the way the game is developed.



For that style of game, you're correct. I'm not saying I want this as a base assumption. But, I'd like the option. You don't have to play it ever. You don't even need to acknowledge the module. I'm just not sure why you're arguing against it, when I'm saying I'm fine with it being completely optional (and even expect it to be).



triqui said:


> My point is that what you call "badass warriors" are, actually, low level warriors fighting in low level adventures, which happen to be very nicely writen. Aragon fights a bunch of orcs, some goblins, a warg or two, and defeat (hardly) a *baby* troll. He scares of the Nazgul using a plot device, which is actually not one of his character abilities, but something the DM gave him to be used there. That's a 5th level adventure in D&D. D&D can, and does, make a wonderful job representing Aragorn. He is a 5th level Fighter/ranger. He dies if he is not careful against a bunch of orc archers. He can defeat, narrowly, a troll. And he will be toasted if he tries to fight a Balrog like Moria's or Dragon like Smaug (unless he is given a Plot device, like a black arrow).
> 
> D&D *does* work for this kind of characters. It's just that this kind of characters are not 17th+ level epic heroes. Glorfindel *IS* a 17th+ fighter. He can go toe to toe with a Balrog, and he can defeat a nazgul. He is *not* concerned about a bunch of goblins with bows. 12, or 24. He will kill them all. Probably he won't even need to. Intimidate +20 can do wonders in low level scum. If he choose to kill them, he is probably so fast that he can cover the distance among them faster than the goblins can fire. He can dodge and parry arrows, and he slices through their ranks as a hot knife in butter. There's no chance he loses against 12 goblins. Ever.



I'm really not sure why you keep trying to explain the difference between how high level characters and low level characters work in D&D currently. I know that. I've run those games. I know what you're telling me, as I've said before. I just want the option to change that dynamic, if I feel like running that sort of game, while getting the character growth that 20-30 levels can give.



triqui said:


> That possibility is there in D&D. A 5th level wizard can kill 12 crossbowmen with a 5d6 fireball if he acts first, but he dies if he doesnt. A 20th level wizard is another matter. 12 goblins can't defeat Gandalf. Ever.
> 
> However, I think I'll stop the argue here. I don't want to look argumentative. Play as you like, as you say. However,  I still think you are mixing things. Playstyle, and level, are different things. D&D can be gritty. It can't be gritty at high levels, because it works with the central idea of characters that grow from killing goblins, to slaying demon lords. Some one who has the chance to survive a demon lord, isn't concerned by a local town guard in a tavern brawl.  If you don't like high level adventures, then don't level up. E6 is a great take on this.



Like I've tried to express, I know how it works currently. I appreciate you trying to help (I think?), but you're missing my point, I believe. I like how D&D works currently. I do. I just like the gritty style of game more, and would probably play that more often (but not all the time). To that end, I'm asking for D&D to support that gritty feel it's done before (at lower levels), just extended to all levels. It can do it, and I'd like it if it had the option. As always, play what you like


----------



## Aaron (Apr 11, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I don't have an answer for poison.
> 
> For falling damage over a certain height you have to make a save against dying and for every ten feet the save goes up. If you fail it you die.



Hmm...ok, but, aside the fact that in your game you should scale up the CR of flying creatures, I was thinking about the country bandits with crossbows.



			
				fenriswolf456 said:
			
		

> It just breaks the immersion for me when players start metagaming the  system. "Oh, they're only 3rd level, they can't possibly hit my AC",  "They're all minions, I can totally take 12 hits even if they all crit".  It can be fun from a game-playing pov, not so fun from a role-playing  pov.



Let me quote myself: why do you call it "metagaming"?

If Mike Tyson thinks that he can easily defeat a dozen of 4 years old  kids in a boxe fight, is he applying "metagame rules", or does he simply  know what he can achieve?

The Snatch feat in 3.5 states:
_A snatched opponent held in the creature’s mouth is not allowed a Reflex save against the creature’s breath weapon, if it has one. _

This means that a frigging colossal dragon could hold a high level monk,  with no armor whatsover, in his/her mouth, and breath  acid/fire/youchoosewhat right on his face, with no saving throw allowed,  and most high level PC would survive this attack.

Now, in this link I read that the maximum potential bite force of _T. rex_  is between about 183,000 and 235,000 N for a bilateral bite (!), which  is less than an ancient colossal wyrm, since the Trex bite is listed a  3d6, while the latter is listed as 4d8.

Now, I'm no physician, but I do remember being bitten by a medium sized  dog, and it was painful. I don't want to imagine what such a bite could  do to me.

But our high level PC could reasonably face the bite/grapple damage of  the colossal dragon (of course including his Str modifier to damage),  looking at the damage sustained after being bitten several times, no  matter being held in his mouth.

Now, this high level PC should also have suffered several crossbow bolts  / bow arrows hit in his career, even direct hits while he was helpless,  and would know what damage he could reasonably expect from them, and he  could compare them to the cited dragon.

Now, I really can't see why his experience with the dragon and the bolts/arrows should be seen as metagaming.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Heh, Elf Witch, I believe the paraphrase, "Every time you try to apply real world logic to an RPG, God kills a cat girl" applies to precisely what you're saying.
> 
> Yes, you're absolutely, 100% right. As soon as you start breaking things down this way, you realize how utterly nonsensical D&D is. And it really is nonsensical. But, that's because you're trying to apply real world logic to a fictional construct where we are playing heroic fantasy.
> 
> You are ignoring the power of narrativium.




You are ignoring the ability to play D&D as more than just Heroic Fantasy.  Perhaps your narrativium has exceeded it's use by date.  I've heard that spoiled narrativium can cause halucinations and cognitive issues.  


Seriously though, I don't see D&D as nonsensical when broken down...or at least not entirely.  Sure, I see abstract constructs designed for playability rather than straight realism, as breaking down real world actions in to it's component parts for a game, would make a game so overly complicated as to be unplayable.  So we draw the line at a point that maintains ease of play...such as Hit Points.

As much as I like realistic mechanics, and can think of a hundred different ways to model the things that Hit Points do, I can't think of a way that keeps the game satisfactorily playable for me (and likely most people feel the same way).  I do like the addition of a Wound Track type mechanic, but that's my own personal preference, and doesn't eliminate the Hit Point mechanic (and I sincerely hope an add-on module for something of that sort is part of D&D Next).

But changing the Falling Damage mechanic to have a more realistic expression of Damage does not change anything else in the game.  It doesn't affect the core assumptions of the system that changing a mechanic like Hit Points would.  Except of course the assumption that a character can survive jumping off a 200' cliff as a matter of course...

I think that whether we disagree about which one should be in the core system, I hope we both agree that both expressions need to be included in D&D Next.  One of them as core, and one of them as a module.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 11, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> I think I know how [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] want D&D to play.



I'm not her, but I don't think you do know what she's asking for.


Minigiant said:


> The problem is the numbers.
> 
> Hit Points, attack rolls, Armor Class, and damage can't do what Elf Witch wants. You need
> 
> *A HP cap* so falling damage is always higher than max HP.



Or higher falling damage, via a module. A lower HP cap via a module works, too (with side effects that may or may not be wanted).


Minigiant said:


> *Auto kill poison* and change poison saves to Reflex/Dexterity to spit out poison fast enough.



Or higher DCs, since it looks like it'll be Con-based anyways (5e and its six saves).


Minigiant said:


> *All hits are Save or Die when unarmored* so a normal man can skewer an unarmored high level hero with an arrow.



Or just more likely to hit and deal more damage with no armor on. Give people a penalty to AC per attack after the first. By the time that twelfth bolt fires, the target is taking a -11 penalty to AC.


Minigiant said:


> *Anti dragon armor* so a dragon could deals minor damage to a high level hero but massive damage to a militia man.



Damage reduction from armor could accomplish something like this against dragons and other creatures, yes.


Minigiant said:


> *Range attacks ignore regular armor but not natural armor* to make crossbowmen a threat.



I think it'd be okay to make them dangerous similar armors. Light armor and naturally light armor is only slightly effective against bolts, while heavy armor and naturally heavy armor is very effective.


Minigiant said:


> None of those have ever been part of D&D.. sorta...



Right. Thus this discussion on an optional ruleset that includes these changes. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Apr 12, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> High level PCs are not gods are half gods are divine creatures.  They are highly trained at what they do but I have never read anything that supports that these PCs are now some kind of gods .



In 4e a good chunk of level 21+ PCs are overtly demigods.

Earlier editions of D&D (2nd ed AD&D, I think, and maybe also Moldvay Basic(?)) explicitly flagged Hercules as an example of a fighter.



fenriswolf456 said:


> If the glass on the floor isn't a concern, why bother having it in the first place? If it is, then it has to be of some concern to the players in some way. Currently, there are some mechanics that don't matter at certain points in the game, which is why some of us would like for ways to make it matter again.



There is at least one edition of D&D that can handle this, and make these things matter, namely, 4e, with its scaling damage, scaling DCs and minion rules (for scaling up mooks).

Unfortunately it seems that it is soon to go out of print!



Crazy Jerome said:


> Where I think the "same words for different concepts" part comes in here is that for a dedicated but narrow immersionists, those *are* different playstyles.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Sorry I couldn't XP this awesome post.


----------



## Balesir (Apr 12, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> As Jameson pointed out several post ago the design team is saying they want the game to support a wide variety of play styles. There are a lot of groups who want a more realistic and gritty game so why not give them some tools to play it *instead of forcing them to* either *use a different system* or try and work around the RAW.



(My emphasis) You say that as if it were a bad thing. Step back and take a look again. I like icecream. But if I want to taste beefburger, I don't ask that someone make beefburger-flavoured icecream - I get a beefburger. There are other systems out there that are very reasonably priced - and several that are free. Not wanting to budge from where you are because that's where you are seems to me like you are making your own problems, TBH.


----------



## triqui (Apr 12, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Well, that depends on how dangerous each strike is. Also, it depends on how resistant it is to damage. Additionally, it depends on whether the attacks are made separately, or as a group as part of the abstraction. That is, it could say "Hydra bite +8, 1d10+4(+1/extra head)" or the like. There are different balancing factors that can be brought in.



 But if the Hydra says bite +8, and then the  player can survive those 12 attacks becouse his AC (or hp) is high enough, then he would survive 12 soldiers with +8 attack too. You want him to (be able to) die when 12 bolts are shot against him. That make 12 manticore spikes equally dangerous. If the system allow him to survive 12 manticore spikes with +8 attack, he will survive 12 crossbow bolts with +8 attack, and will laugh 12 crossbow bolts with +3 attack (which is what a low level militia will have)



> I'm really not sure why you keep trying to explain the difference between how high level characters and low level characters work in D&D currently. I know that. I've run those games. I know what you're telling me, as I've said before. I just want the option to change that dynamic, if I feel like running that sort of game, while getting the character growth that 20-30 levels can give.



 What I'm trying to explain, is that the very assumption of *LEVEL* works like that. If you want a game where the players can be developed for several sessions of gaming, while still being in the same range, you should go with a leveless game system. In runequest you grow and develope your character, but your HP remain stable. In a system with levels, it works different. The very base assumption of leveling is going from fighting (and being able to survive to) goblins to fighting (and being able to survive to) Balors and ancient wyrms. If your game goes with the assumption that characters grow in power to the point they became the equivalent of dragons, then they are no longer threatened by peasants, because dragons aren't.

Could a fantasy leveless system be conceived? Yes. But, as far as Mike Mearls have said, it would not be D&D. Mearls has stated that levels is one of those things that make D&D to be D&D (and I agree with him). "leveling up" is the basic premise of D&D. Growing in power until you are able to take down Dragons, is the very base foundation of the game. If you are able to take down Dragons, you will take down 12 peasants.



> Like I've tried to express, I know how it works currently. I appreciate you trying to help (I think?), but you're missing my point, I believe. I like how D&D works currently. I do. I just like the gritty style of game more, and would probably play that more often (but not all the time). To that end, I'm asking for D&D to support that gritty feel it's done before (at lower levels), just extended to all levels. It can do it, and I'd like it if it had the option. As always, play what you like




What you are asking for, is the removal of the effect of levels. I suggest E6.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 12, 2012)

triqui said:


> But if the Hydra says bite +8, and then the  player can survive those 12 attacks becouse his AC (or hp) is high enough, then he would survive 12 soldiers with +8 attack too. You want him to (be able to) die when 12 bolts are shot against him. That make 12 manticore spikes equally dangerous. If the system allow him to survive 12 manticore spikes with +8 attack, he will survive 12 crossbow bolts with +8 attack, and will laugh 12 crossbow bolts with +3 attack (which is what a low level militia will have)
> 
> What I'm trying to explain, is that the very assumption of *LEVEL* works like that. If you want a game where the players can be developed for several sessions of gaming, while still being in the same range, you should go with a leveless game system. In runequest you grow and develope your character, but your HP remain stable. In a system with levels, it works different. The very base assumption of leveling is going from fighting (and being able to survive to) goblins to fighting (and being able to survive to) Balors and ancient wyrms. If your game goes with the assumption that characters grow in power to the point they became the equivalent of dragons, then they are no longer threatened by peasants, because dragons aren't.
> 
> ...




SO true. IMHO levels and the general concept of a power curve from near-mundane to almost-godlike IS the essence of D&D. It has been copied to various degrees in other games, but this is the core thing that has always made D&D so popular and interesting. I can see some people playing E6 or playing 'start at paragon' games (for the opposite effect), but if you want a system that is designed to run PCs that are always going to be threatened by the town watch RQ, GURPS, etc all potentially offer better alternatives. If you want to play nothing but minor godlings there are games for that too. D&D really has never been that, and a level based system is not a really good way to do it.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 12, 2012)

triqui said:


> JamesonCourage said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's not what I proposed. The hydra would make _only one attack_ at +8, and deal more damage (based on the number of heads left). The crossbowmen would make _each attack separately_, though would likely deal less damage (1d6+3 compared to 1d10+4[+1/extra head]).



triqui said:


> What I'm trying to explain, is that the very assumption of *LEVEL* works like that.



Respectfully, no, it doesn't. I play a level-based game (1-20). I play a game where twelve level 3 crossbowmen are dangerous to most level 15 characters. I play a game where you advance and grow after every _session_, not after every level (usually 4-5 sessions, for my group).



triqui said:


> If your game goes with the assumption that characters grow in power to the point they became the equivalent of dragons, then they are no longer threatened by peasants, because dragons aren't.



This isn't necessarily logically true. I've explained my view on this to you already (damage reduction on the dragon, for example).



triqui said:


> Could a fantasy leveless system be conceived? Yes. But, as far as Mike Mearls have said, it would not be D&D.



That's not what I'm asking D&D to be in its base or assumed form, so no problems there.



triqui said:


> Growing in power until you are able to take down Dragons, is the very base foundation of the game. If you are able to take down Dragons, you will take down 12 peasants.



Awesome for base D&D. Cool for some of my games. Awesome for all of your games. But why would this completely optional change my group could use be so objectionable to you? I don't want it as core. I want it to be optional. You don't think the game "should" be that way, and that's cool. It won't be for your group. For people that do houserule falling damage _and_ falling into lava _and_ have conceptual problems with groups of crossbowmen being blown off because of the influence of certain modern fantasy, we get a module that we'll enjoy. Win/win.



triqui said:


> What you are asking for, is the removal of the effect of levels. I suggest E6.



No, I'm not. Please, don't put words in my mouth. I'm very clearly telling you what I want. _I know, because the system I play right now gives me this style of game._ It has levels (1-20). It has dragons. It has crossbowmen. Both are usually dangerous at later levels. While I like the feel of E6, it is by no means what I'm asking for. Trust me. As always, play what you like 

Edit: [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], In your experience comment, you said "Alas, it seems that logic will not assuage a romantic heart." Out of curiosity, what am I logically missing? I'm curious, because I find you to be a very logical poster, and since I don't feel like I'm missing something, I'd like clarification. Thank you for the "romantic heart" comment, though. I do find it quite a compliment. Sincerely. As always, play what you like


----------



## triqui (Apr 12, 2012)

> Why not? With proper planning and preparation and an understanding of what they're facing, why can't a 'realistic' group of heros take down a dragon (i.e. Reign of Fire)? Even ordinary real 'mooks' took out tanks with bottles of alcohol and gas, because they found the weak points to exploit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Again, that works for a strict small niche of creatures (those with damage reduction). A fire giant does not have DR. A flight of Manticores do not have DR. 

If 12 crossbow bolts shot by peasants are so deadly as to have decent chances to kill a level 12 player and burn a level 12 fighter hp, then they have the same chances to get through a CR12 monster and burn his HP. If such thing happens, then 12 militia with crossbows can kill a Fire Giant, a Manticore, or whatever other mid-to high level monster that is not impervious to normal damage. If 12 have a chance, 24 will cut through them easily, and 50 will be unable to fail.

In such game system, the need of Heroes is lessened. Regular militia with crossbows can take down most threats (all of them, except those inmune to regular weapons)


> I personally don't buy into Strider being 5th or 6th level, and place the skilled members of the Fellowship in the Paragon tier. But that's my own interpretation, and is entirely subjective to the level and style of play.



 In terms of D&D? It's 5th level, and no more. A Troll, which is a credible CR4-5, is a tough enemy for him. He can't probably defeat it alone, he needed the help of his party. If he would face a Giant (roughly a CR 10 enemy), he wouldn't have a chance to survive. Any dragon (who are roughly CR 13-15), even the lowliest ones, will just make him flee. They see a kraken (CR18), and they flee. They see wraiths, and they flee. They face, mostly, orcs (who are a low level CR, and so they kill them by droves), gobllins (in Moria), a few wargs (which are about CR5, and give him a run for his money). The toughest thing he kill is probably a wight (CR4-5)



> There is also the issue that the LotR world doesn't really match the D&D game stats. Some parallels can be drawn, certainly: orks being orcs or goblins, the Balrog being a Balor. But then trolls in LotR are not the trolls of D&D. The world is very low magic. In 4E, a Balor is a level 27 Elite, meaning even a level 27 epic PC would have issues defeating one on their own. By strict plugging in of D&D equivalents, that makes Gandalf at least level 27, if not higher, and he comes back even stronger than before.



Gandalf IS level 27. He is a maiar, almost a god. Ganfalf is not one of the game PC. He is a DM tool. The closest equivalence in D&D, is Dragonlance party, and Fizban. He goes with the party, but he is not a PC. He is a god in disguise, and is there to help the players. 



> And yes, I totally do think that if Glorfindel took 3+ arrows to the chest from being caught unawares/flat-footed, he would at least certainly be hurting, if not outright dying, just like Boromir.



 The point is, 12 mooks targeting him did not get him sleeping. He can move, and act. He would dodge all the arrows, turn them into lesser hits, block with his armor and combat experience and so on (that's what hp are for). See Brad Pitt's Achilles in Troy when attacking Apollo's temple. He just dodges and parries all the arrows and spears thrown at him. He is, in all intents and purpose, untouchable (he even dodges Hector's javelin effortless). Glorfindel will be like that, or better. There's no chance 12 (or 50, for that matter) orcs with bows can kill him. At all. (And let's not start with Fëonor. I doubt any number of normal arrows can kill him. And yes, I mean taking him flat-footed. That guy fought *platoons* of Balrogs.



> You're exaggerating what's being said. No one is saying that a group of PCs should die to a group of 12 bowmen. We're saying if 12 mundane spikes tossed from the tail of a manticore is a credible threat, why aren't 12 mundane crossbow bolts fired from trained marksmen? Currently it's because players can meta-game, and know that the rules have written that the Level 10 manticore has a decent chance to hit, while the level 3 guards don't.



But if they are threatened by 12 militia, then they are highly threatened by 18 militia, and will probably die to 25 militia. 25 goblins are NOT, and should not, be a threat comparable to a pair of manticores. Local militia can, and should, be able to kill a bunch of goblins, with proper numbers. They should run terrorized from a pair of manticores, because those are the realm of heroes. And the reason 12 mundanes spkies tossed are a threat, but 12 mundane bolts aren't, is *level*. D&D functions as a level-based game (and I hope it keeps doing so). The 12 spikes are +15 to hit, the 12 goblins arrows are +3 to hit. I can see a game with a flattened math. That's nice, I'll buy that. But that game will still have things to keep those 12 goblins being goblins, and that manticore being a manticore. That's the full purpose of level. To make the PC a group of heroes. People capable of doing uncanny feats. They can face and match manticores, chimaeras, giants, dragons, demons. Things that ordinary man run in terror from. To be able to fight a Balor, and survive, you need to be *tough* as a Balor. Someone who is tough as a Balor, can't be really threatened by a bunch of goblins with pointy sticks. Or city guards with proficiency in simple weapons and 35 gp crossbows.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 12, 2012)

@triqui  Can't XP you now.

I think this whole Crossbowmen vs Dragon Vs Heroes question is answered by 2 simple questions.
*
How many HP does a character gain per level?

How much does a character's damage increase per level?*


Because if HP is about 4-7 times a character's level and level 1 damage averages 4-7 damage (a la 3E), it'll take a number of hits equal to a character's level just to kill them. That is not counting the crossbowmen's misses and crossbowmen that are killed before they get their actions. 

Pre-3E is close to level=hits to kill until about level 10 where it takes 2-3 levels for a new hit. 

4E number are even more wonky depending if you use much lower level standards or equal level minions. At level 15, a standard could take 4-5 at-wills or 2-3 other attacks but a 10 level gap means that only hit of a nat 20.  A minion dies in one hit and take ~-12-15 hit to kill with ~50% accuracy.

Now in every edition, enough level crossbowmen could scare a double digit hero. Some are higher number than others.

Now there is the other issue. Sense of power. In order to keep the required Guard number down, numbers must stay down. The new issues is keeping the numbers down while making leveling up exciting. 1 HP a level is snooze-worthy.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 12, 2012)

pemerton said:


> In 4e a good chunk of level 21+ PCs are overtly demigods.
> 
> Earlier editions of D&D (2nd ed AD&D, I think, and maybe also Moldvay Basic(?)) explicitly flagged Hercules as an example of a fighter.
> 
> ...




That is epic level and I don't tend to run epic level unless I want that kind of game.

I well aware that Hercules was an example of a fighter.

Again there is nothing wrong with this style of play and there are times when I am fine because it fits by campaign.

What I and others are hoping for are optional rules that allow us to plug in a more gritty style without having to resort to a different game or having to house rule the game to death.

I am having trouble understanding why this concept really seems to be bothering people. No one is saying that the entire game should change to handle this. We agree that this is how DnD has been designed for years. 

We are not asking for scared cows to be killed we are asking for  a modular system with dials to allow a more varied way to play the game. 

And from what I am reading this is an idea that the designers themselves are toying with.  

You want your 15 level fighter to jump off mountains and swim in lava and live then the rules should have a way to do that.

I want my 15 level fighter to have a slim chance of survival if he jumps off a mountain or goes swimming in lava then there should e rules to do that too. 

If they really want a more inclusive game then this is one ay to do it.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2012)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> You want your 15 level fighter to jump off mountains and swim in lava and live then the rules should have a way to do that.
> 
> I want my 15 level fighter to have a slim chance of survival if he jumps off a mountain or goes swimming in lava then there should e rules to do that too.




 But, there's the rub EW.  The two sides are not compatible.  If we're talking about two identical characters (both 15th level - exact same stats etc) then how can you make the same threat more challenging?

Well, actually, since you use these two examples, that's fairly easy.  Adjusting falling damage likely isn't going to have any knock on effects, so, go to town.  Same with falling in lava.  It's enough of a corner case that you don't really even need a whole module, just a sidebar .  Something along the lines of Optional Rule: Grittier falling damage - Fort Save DC 10+1/10 feet fallen - failed save=all damage is tripled.  Something like that anyway.

But, the other issue here, with the idea of the archers vs monsters, that's a LOT trickier.  That gets into all sorts of knock on effects.  If the playing field is so flat that 12 archers=1 Dragon/giant/whatever, that has enormous effects on campaign design.  It doesn't make much sense that a large settlement would be realistically threatened by giants (for example) if giants are that weak.

There's all sorts of other issues bundled up here as well.  If 12 NPC archers can challenge my 15th level character, why can't my 3rd level party mug a 15th level NPC and steal his stuff?  So on and so forth.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, there's the rub EW.  The two sides are not compatible.  If we're talking about two identical characters (both 15th level - exact same stats etc) then how can you make the same threat more challenging?
> 
> Well, actually, since you use these two examples, that's fairly easy.  Adjusting falling damage likely isn't going to have any knock on effects, so, go to town.  Same with falling in lava.  It's enough of a corner case that you don't really even need a whole module, just a sidebar .  Something along the lines of Optional Rule: Grittier falling damage - Fort Save DC 10+1/10 feet fallen - failed save=all damage is tripled.  Something like that anyway.
> 
> ...




I think Jameson already answered quite well the the idea of the archers and the dragon. 


I am not saying that a small town volunteer militia should be a match for high level PCs or for a giant. 

For the last time I have an issue when a well trained city guard who have the drop on the PCs, who do not have magical things going on, have them out numbered and are armed with bows. And the PCs just laugh it off because they know from metagaming that they can't be hurt.

It is why I scale up my well trained city guards so that they are a reasonable threat.  My players know this and accept it.

At this point I think we are just starting to go around and around here. 

We will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 12, 2012)

Aaron said:


> Hmm...ok, but, aside the fact that in your game you should scale up the CR of flying creatures, I was thinking about the country bandits with crossbows.
> 
> 
> Let me quote myself: why do you call it "metagaming"?
> ...




Because the situation is ridiculous? We're trying to discuss credible threats. He doesn't need to metagame, in-world knowledge tells him that 4 year olds aren't trained in fighting in any way, they have little strength and conditioning, have no tactics or strategy, and aren't even wielding threatening weapons. How can they be considered a threat?




Aaron said:


> The Snatch feat in 3.5 states:
> _A snatched opponent held in the creature’s mouth is not allowed a Reflex save against the creature’s breath weapon, if it has one. _
> 
> This means that a frigging colossal dragon could hold a high level monk, with no armor whatsover, in his/her mouth, and breath acid/fire/youchoosewhat right on his face, with no saving throw allowed, and most high level PC would survive this attack.
> ...




Personally, I find this snatch/bite ability to be, on a believability scale, to be very lacking. Seriously. If nothing else, the snatched monk should be helpless and take crit damage from the ongoing bite and the breath weapon. He'll probably still live, because I find a lot of damage ratings on certain attacks to be out of whack with how they really should be, and are scaled so that everything is at the proper level of challenge. How does this get justified? Well, the same way we have the person who survives a fall from an airplane, or lives through an inferno. Luck, chance, fate, what-have-you. Really, once trapped in the bite, he really should be crunched in a round or two. But this isn't fun in a game sense, and so concessions are made to give characters a chance. 



Aaron said:


> But our high level PC could reasonably face the bite/grapple damage of the colossal dragon (of course including his Str modifier to damage), looking at the damage sustained after being bitten several times, no matter being held in his mouth.
> 
> Now, this high level PC should also have suffered several crossbow bolts / bow arrows hit in his career, even direct hits while he was helpless, and would know what damage he could reasonably expect from them, and he could compare them to the cited dragon.
> 
> Now, I really can't see why his experience with the dragon and the bolts/arrows should be seen as metagaming.




Because playing with experiences from the past isn't metagaming.

And sure, PCs should have a very good knowledge of how bows and crossbows work, heck, someone in their party likely uses one. And they've seen their pal shoot some poor mook through the neck, killing him instantly.

At low levels, this really should be a "holy f*&^" moment. The realization that one arrow can kill. And the characters see this_all_ the time. It should be all but ingrained in their heads that arrows = danger. Sure, they survived encounter after encounter, taking arrows to the arms (or dare I say knee?), and lived. But the character should never feel that an arrow is never dangerous to them (unless of course it really wouldn't, like having damage resistance or high level magical protection). They've spent months, even years, seeing the plain evidence that arrows fired by trained marksmen are indeed dangerous (notice also we're talking trained guardsmen here, not as some are suggesting peasants with no training, or 4 year old children, but credible threats).

So when the PCs come up to that town with a dozen bowman on the walls with nocked arrows, shouldn't the characters (not players, the characters) at least give pause to the potential threat?



triqui said:


> Again, that works for a strict small niche of creatures (those with damage reduction). A fire giant does not have DR. A flight of Manticores do not have DR.




No, but giants are huge. I totally buy into them having a ton of HP to absorb damage. A giant twice as big as a human has 8 times the mass. Eventually, yeah, even a giant could be brought down by a troop of militia, but likely the giant will have rampaged through them and sent them scattering before them. Hence the heroes arriving on the scene, and through their dogged determination, beat back the giant and save the day.

As for manticores, sure, a bunch of them attacking a town should win. They're injuring and killing multiple guards a turn, probably routing them in short order, though likely losing a couple of their own. But individually, no, I don't think they should be immune to guards. There's nothing overly special about them (beyond flying and the spikes). Should the town guard be overrun by a pride of lions, say? 



triqui said:


> If 12 crossbow bolts shot by peasants are so deadly as to have decent chances to kill a level 12 player and burn a level 12 fighter hp, then they have the same chances to get through a CR12 monster and burn his HP. If such thing happens, then 12 militia with crossbows can kill a Fire Giant, a Manticore, or whatever other mid-to high level monster that is not impervious to normal damage. If 12 have a chance, 24 will cut through them easily, and 50 will be unable to fail.




Really? You find it unbelievable that 50 trained men could kill a giant, or even a flying man-headed lion? If this isn't the case, how the heck are there even towns and cities with the humungous number of monstrous threats in the world?

Again, I'm not suggesting that 12 guardsmen should be the ultimate hero killers. When and if the gauntlet drops, I fully expect the PCs to win the day. I'd just prefer it to not be from the thinking that beause they have so much HP, that there isn't a threat.




triqui said:


> In terms of D&D? It's 5th level, and no more. A Troll, which is a credible CR4-5, is a tough enemy for him. He can't probably defeat it alone, he needed the help of his party. If he would face a Giant (roughly a CR 10 enemy), he wouldn't have a chance to survive. Any dragon (who are roughly CR 13-15), even the lowliest ones, will just make him flee. They see a kraken (CR18), and they flee. They see wraiths, and they flee. They face, mostly, orcs (who are a low level CR, and so they kill them by droves), gobllins (in Moria), a few wargs (which are about CR5, and give him a run for his money). The toughest thing he kill is probably a wight (CR4-5)




Again, really, this could be argued back and forth, as it depends on the rules being used, and the preferences of the gaming group. I passed on 3E, it just wasn't my cup of tea at the time, and couldn't get the enthusiasm to try when 3.5 was developed. I eventually played in some 4E Encounters, which turned out to be fun enough to continue playing in actual games. I could just as easily say that the troll faced in Moria was a Fell Troll (level 20 elite) over a regular troll (level 9). The only dragons left in the world seem to be ancient wyrms, so they're epic enemies. The Kraken? They fought enough to free the hobbits, and sure, they ran. It was a humungous threat to them, and it's not like they had to fight it to continue on their quest. And, in the movie at least, it was the dragging over the cliff that took Aragorn out of the warg fight.

I really don't buy into a character who's been adventuring for around 50 years to have gained only 4 or 5 levels (even giving a span of 1-20, leaving out the epic tier). Now if you're only playing heroic tier, or this E6 variant, I could probably agree.



triqui said:


> The point is, 12 mooks targeting him did not get him sleeping. He can move, and act. He would dodge all the arrows, turn them into lesser hits, block with his armor and combat experience and so on (that's what hp are for). See Brad Pitt's Achilles in Troy when attacking Apollo's temple. He just dodges and parries all the arrows and spears thrown at him. He is, in all intents and purpose, untouchable (he even dodges Hector's javelin effortless). Glorfindel will be like that, or better. There's no chance 12 (or 50, for that matter) orcs with bows can kill him. At all. (And let's not start with Fëonor. I doubt any number of normal arrows can kill him. And yes, I mean taking him flat-footed. That guy fought *platoons* of Balrogs.




Sure, once the fight starts, and the character starts using his abilities and battle knowledge, then all the rules for combat and fighting come rushing in, and it makes 'sense' for such a skilled character to avoid blows and dodge arrows and massacre a dozen or even a dozen dozen foes. And this is D&D's strength, to make encounter combats interesting and exciting, where all kinds of factors influence the coarse of battle. Where it has always been weak is in the extremes. There's really no way to emulate a sucking chest wound in D&D (well, perhaps as high damage and on-going Stun), or getting an arrow to the face. Even the coup de grace rules are lacking in believability. Partly this is due to it being a game, and we play games for fun. It's not so much fun when your character gets ganked and killed in one hit, so the game makes concessions in believability in favour of increasing the fun-factor.

The Troy Achlles is rather a special case. The character and fight scenes were designed to give a 'believable' reason for the legend of Achilles' invulnerability, without actually bringing in the supernatural to explain it. So he becomes so skilled that he's never hit, and as word gets around about his legendary ability to not be wounded, why, he must have been invulnerable to mortal weapons!

But I could concede the point, that if a character is so skilled that he never gets hit, even by high level threats (such as Hector), then I could buy into them not being threatened by a bunch of mooks with bows. I doubt, however, that any PC could say they've never been hit over the span of a dozen or two levels.

And yes, I will also concede that a character of such a level that can take on a dozen lvl 27 elites readily by themselves, they are likely beyond being concerned over a few mundane bows pointed at them.



triqui said:


> But if they are threatened by 12 militia, then they are highly threatened by 18 militia, and will probably die to 25 militia. 25 goblins are NOT, and should not, be a threat comparable to a pair of manticores. Local militia can, and should, be able to kill a bunch of goblins, with proper numbers. They should run terrorized from a pair of manticores, because those are the realm of heroes. And the reason 12 mundanes spkies tossed are a threat, but 12 mundane bolts aren't, is *level*. D&D functions as a level-based game (and I hope it keeps doing so). The 12 spikes are +15 to hit, the 12 goblins arrows are +3 to hit. I can see a game with a flattened math. That's nice, I'll buy that. But that game will still have things to keep those 12 goblins being goblins, and that manticore being a manticore. That's the full purpose of level. To make the PC a group of heroes. People capable of doing uncanny feats. They can face and match manticores, chimaeras, giants, dragons, demons. Things that ordinary man run in terror from. To be able to fight a Balor, and survive, you need to be *tough* as a Balor. Someone who is tough as a Balor, can't be really threatened by a bunch of goblins with pointy sticks. Or city guards with proficiency in simple weapons and 35 gp crossbows.




Well, you sort of hit things on the nail for me with some of what you've said. What makes a hero a hero is their ability to accept the dangers in front of them, and to push on regardless. What makes the common folk quail with fear, the hero stands firm against. But they do so knowing the danger, and doing it anyway. That's why the two dozen city guard fail, because they likely don't have the experience to face down a flight of manticore diving out of the sky at them, hailing down a rain of spikes. And oh god Guardsman Jacen just took a spike through the eye and crumpled to the ground what are these monsters they are everywhere got to get away!

I suppose a lot of it comes down to roleplay too, on both the players' and DM's part. It's difficult to hide the mechanics of the game, especially in the later editions where we're constantly adding up bonuses and modifiers and crunching math.

Most of my D&D years were spent with Advanced and 2E, and though we got to high levels, we never felt that we were demigods beyond the mortal ken. We had flashier weapons and armour, but we still felt mortal and vulnerable. I'm not saying we couldn't have eventually taken on gods (well, statted ones that are really just high level monsters), but more that it didn't occur to us, as we usually portrayed gods as statless surpreme beings. I've yet to play in the epic tier of 4E, so not sure how that feels compared to past experience. So all my experience and enjoyment of D&D has been grounded with a sense of believability and character mortality, and would like for that feeling to be incorporated in some way in 5E.


----------



## triqui (Apr 12, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> Really? You find it unbelievable that 50 trained men could kill a giant, or even a flying man-headed lion? If this isn't the case, how the heck are there even towns and cities with the humungous number of monstrous threats in the world?



 I don't find it unbelievable. No more than the fight the manticore exists. What I find it, is unappropiate. Because the game is about a group of heroes that do heroic things. If those things can be done by ordinary men, then the entire game is flawed. Why would the Baron pay 1000g to a group of adventurers, when 50 militia could do the job for 2g each? 


> Again, I'm not suggesting that 12 guardsmen should be the ultimate hero killers. When and if the gauntlet drops, I fully expect the PCs to win the day. I'd just prefer it to not be from the thinking that beause they have so much HP, that there isn't a threat.



 Then you aren't arguing about high levels being able to kill the guardsmen, but about hit points. That's a different debate. However, if your system give the PC something differnent that a huge pile of HP, so they win the day (as you fully expect), the metagaming would be the same. Imagine the system give them "heropoints" that they can spend, and success in a "dodge roll". Or whatever other mechanic you build to make them "fully expected to win the day". The players will metagame exactly the same. Instead of saying "we can take this down, we have 100hp" they'll say "we can take this down, we have 10 heropoints to dodge". The act remain the same: high level characters completelly obliterate a small army of militia.





> Again, really, this could be argued back and forth, as it depends on the rules being used, and the preferences of the gaming group.



 Not really. You can *change* it so it fulfill the prefference of your group, but the *base* story is what it is. A bunch of people, low level, that fight orcs and goblins and run when they face anything else.

As an example:


> I could just as easily say that the troll faced in Moria was a Fell Troll (level 20 elite) over a regular troll (level 9).



 You could say so. However, *Tolkien* did not. It was a *baby* Troll. Not even a full developed one.



> The only dragons left in the world seem to be ancient wyrms, so they're epic enemies.



 Aragorn couldn't defeat any dragon, ancient or not. (and by the way, the dragons remaining are the weaker ones. The stronger epic ones lived in the ancient era). Aragorn can't defeat a Giant. 



> The Kraken? They fought enough to free the hobbits, and sure, they ran. It was a humungous threat to them, and it's not like they had to fight it to continue on their quest.



 But if they were 20th level, they would had smashed it without effort. And they wouldn't had run from the Balor either. The team was not able to defeat any high level threat. Just orcs, and a wight (barely). Everything else was beyond his scope.



> I really don't buy into a character who's been adventuring for around 50 years to have gained only 4 or 5 levels (even giving a span of 1-20, leaving out the epic tier). Now if you're only playing heroic tier, or this E6 variant, I could probably agree.



 That's because you keep thinking 5-6 levels is "little" and 10-11 level is "normal". It is not. That's why you don't see why 12th level warriors kill 12 militia, because you think Aragorn is 12th level, and he is not able to kill 12 archers. But Aragorn is not 12th level in terms of D&D, not by far. 



> The Troy Achlles is rather a special case. The character and fight scenes were designed to give a 'believable' reason for the legend of Achilles' invulnerability, without actually bringing in the supernatural to explain it. So he becomes so skilled that he's never hit, and as word gets around about his legendary ability to not be wounded, why, he must have been invulnerable to mortal weapons!



 Not true. The real Illiad book was written when Achilles was not invulnerable. The story about his skin being impossible to be pierced was actually built several centuries later. By the time Homer wrote about Achilles, he was NOT invulnerable. He was just the most badass warrior of all times. His only "power" was his anger. His anger was high enough to divert a river. That, and a huge martial skill that allowed him to fight entire armies and never be touched. 

However, I was refering the movie to give you a visual example of a high level fighter facing dozens of regular mobs in a belieavable fashion and not being concerned about it. Achilles was not supernatural in that movie. I could give you other examples, as Leonidas in 300. High "level" fighters (or rogues for that matter) don't fear mooks. Aragorn might do, but that's because Aragorn is not a high level fighter. Hector the Tamer of Horses (talking about the Illyad here) would beat Aragorn any day of the week. And he can't even *touch* Achilles. 

A system can't work properly for Achilles, Beowulf and Aragorn, or Jon Snow (who is even lower level than Aragorn, in D&D terms) at the same time. If the game is suited to allow the players to be Beowulf, Cuchulain or Bhima, then anything that means a threat for Jon Snow is just a joke for them. 
The solution is using the level system, and cap it. E6 is great at this. It does not allow PC to grow beyond the point of "human real possibilities", which is about level 6. Beowulf is well beyond that point. A human can not fight a sea monster for several days underwater.

A 15th level fighter can beat the long jump world record while wearing a full plate. He is beyond normal humans possibilities. He is not concerned about jumping a 30' chasm in full plate, while should he be concerned about killing 12 peasants with 2 weeks military drill and a simple weapon?


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 12, 2012)

triqui said:


> I don't find it unbelievable. No more than the fight the manticore exists. What I find it, is unappropiate. Because the game is about a group of heroes that do heroic things. If those things can be done by ordinary men, then the entire game is flawed. Why would the Baron pay 1000g to a group of adventurers, when 50 militia could do the job for 2g each?




Because the militia doesn't cost 2 gold each. They're all equipped, and armoured, and trained, and fed, all by this lord. Heck, leather armour and crossbows, we're talking 2,500 gold invested already. They're an investment in keeping order in the town. He can't have them traipsing off into the wilderness all the time.

And if that's the case, why hire 1st level adventurers to clear out a kobold den, when clearly 50 trained militia could? Because it's a game, and so the plot is developed to give a reason why. It doesn't mean that the 50 guards couldn't do it.

He could probably hire mercenary soldiers, perhaps, if any were around, for cheaper. But nothing says they have the skills or wherewithall to face down the threat. Maybe he's tried mercenaries and they failed, so he needs the adventurous PCs, and knows that their skills don't come cheap.

On the flip side, if the town guard can't fight off a couple of manticores, why is the town still around and not razed to the ground by them already? Something must be preventing them. Perhaps the acknowledgement that arrows can hurt and kill, especially when a lot are being shot at you.



triqui said:


> Not really. You can *change* it so it fulfill the prefference of your group, but the *base* story is what it is. A bunch of people, low level, that fight orcs and goblins and run when they face anything else.
> 
> As an example:
> You could say so. However, *Tolkien* did not. It was a *baby* Troll. Not even a full developed one.




Sure did. Notice he didn't say a baby D&D troll. While we can keep going back and forth, drawing parallels, the fact is that D&D does not emulate Middle Earth. Inspired in some ways, certainly, but that's about all. So why is your troll any more acceptable than mine?

And it's not a bunch of low levels. We even agreed that Gandalf is level 27 at least, and he's running from the low level goblins just as much as the others.

I don't want to really limit my game. I'd prefer access to levels and abilities. Obviously, a Middle Earth D&D would be a heavily modified version of the game. You could model it by limiting leveling, or you can redefine what the levels represent in respect to the world being modelled. You prefer the first method, I prefer the second, neither is wrong.



triqui said:


> Aragorn couldn't defeat any dragon, ancient or not. (and by the way, the dragons remaining are the weaker ones. The stronger epic ones lived in the ancient era). Aragorn can't defeat a Giant.




Sure, but for game purposes, the dragons may as well be ancients. It's not like D&D can support a character like Feonor either, as even a level 30 character couldn't take on platoons of level 27 elites. But the First and Second ages are different scales. The balrogs then were likely paragon threats to Feonor's epicness. 



triqui said:


> But if they were 20th level, they would had smashed it without effort. And they wouldn't had run from the Balor either. The team was not able to defeat any high level threat. Just orcs, and a wight (barely). Everything else was beyond his scope.




Sure, if they were 20th, the kraken would be a fairly easy challenge, but not if they were say 12th. Then the kraken wipes the floor with them. And a Balor would have a field day with them at 20. 

The only wight I can remember is the one the hobbits encountered. So yes, totally agree here. The hobbits are very low level, and needed a magic weapon and primordial elemental to help save them.



triqui said:


> That's because you keep thinking 5-6 levels is "little" and 10-11 level is "normal". It is not. That's why you don't see why 12th level warriors kill 12 militia, because you think Aragorn is 12th level, and he is not able to kill 12 archers. But Aragorn is not 12th level in terms of D&D, not by far.




I do think it's little. My current 4E character has leveled up to 8 in less than a month game time. It's never taken a character of mine 10 years to go up a level. So why wouldn't I think a seasoned adventure of 50 years would have a good number of levels under his belt?

Why couldn't Aragorn kill 12 archers? He certainly kills multitudes of orcs, and we've been equating low level bowmen to low level orcs.



triqui said:


> Not true. The real Illiad book was written when Achilles was not invulnerable. The story about his skin being impossible to be pierced was actually built several centuries later. By the time Homer wrote about Achilles, he was NOT invulnerable. He was just the most badass warrior of all times. His only "power" was his anger. His anger was high enough to divert a river. That, and a huge martial skill that allowed him to fight entire armies and never be touched.
> 
> However, I was refering the movie to give you a visual example of a high level fighter facing dozens of regular mobs in a belieavable fashion and not being concerned about it. Achilles was not supernatural in that movie. I could give you other examples, as Leonidas in 300. High "level" fighters (or rogues for that matter) don't fear mooks. Aragorn might do, but that's because Aragorn is not a high level fighter. Hector the Tamer of Horses (talking about the Illyad here) would beat Aragorn any day of the week. And he can't even *touch* Achilles.




My comments on Achilles were in relation to the movie rendition as well. Hence my comments that if a character has never been hit before (as the movie Achilles is presented as), then sure, he wouldn't be concerned by the bowmen.

But PCs have been hit and hurt by arrows likely a dozen times over, maybe even brought to near death by them. Why shouldn't they then still be concerned about bows?

Hrm ... I seem to remember Leonidas and Co. being concerned about the rain of arrows on them, else they wouldn't have bothered with shielding themselves. They also weren't expecting to survive, it was a matter of stubborn honour and of how many enemies they could drag down with them.

Again, I'm not saying that higher level PCs should go running and crying when some guards point bows at them. All I'm wanting is for there to be a perception that this is a dangerous situation. If all the characters are cocky badasses, then sure, the guardsmen aren't a concern. For a grittier kind of mindset, like say LotR or 300, the characters should be going into things feeling like it could be their last.

Maybe not everyone's cup of tea, but it's the D&D style that I prefer playing. It's not likely something to be fully achieved in D&D, since in the end 'save or die' and insta-deaths are usually not fun.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, the other issue here, with the idea of the archers vs monsters, that's a LOT trickier.  That gets into all sorts of knock on effects.  If the playing field is so flat that 12 archers=1 Dragon/giant/whatever, that has enormous effects on campaign design.  It doesn't make much sense that a large settlement would be realistically threatened by giants (for example) if giants are that weak.
> 
> There's all sorts of other issues bundled up here as well.  If 12 NPC archers can challenge my 15th level character, why can't my 3rd level party mug a 15th level NPC and steal his stuff?  So on and so forth.



I can't speak for others, but in a world where I want it more gritty, _I want these knock on effects_. I want the PCs to be able to rob a 15th level NPC if they can manage it. I want monsters with low damage reduction to be threatened by groups of crossbowmen. I want people to look at heavy armor and see the obvious benefit of wearing such a thing (despite the obvious drawbacks).

Now, we know that they're going for "flatter math", but we're not sure what level of "flat" that math that is yet. Depending on how easy it is to hit a giant as a level 3 creature in the base game, it may or may not be a problem (a giant that has AC 17, but more hit points than average, for example). If that's the case, a group of level 3 warriors could hit its AC and could threaten it (if it doesn't have a way to reduce that damage, like damage reduction from its thick giant hide or from thick armor).

If the math isn't as flat (the giant has an AC of 24, and the level 3 warriors can't hit it), then there needs to be another solution. A cumulative penalty to being attacked, for example. This means that the giant will eventually get hit, but his thick plate armor might mean he's not damaged whatsoever. It just depends on what the final mechanics are, and just how flat the math is.

If we don't want a group of low level NPCs to be able to face down monsters, put in a morale or fear check on obviously dangerous things. A dragon shows up, they might run (some or all). A giant that crushes a house to kills two men in one swing might cause a rout. A manticore that skewers a few guys and flies back up into the air might make the local militia flee, or retreat. And, once the PCs act and start cutting them down left and right, they might fail their check and take off. Until then, the PCs don't look monstrous (probably), and they're just another group of guys in armor and robes. Pointing crossbows at them (and making them dangerous) seems like it can be handled. Though you're not wrong about the knock on effects in certain cases. As always, play what you like


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 13, 2012)

triqui said:


> I
> A 15th level fighter can beat the long jump world record while wearing a full plate. He is beyond normal humans possibilities. He is not concerned about jumping a 30' chasm in full plate, while should he be concerned about killing 12 peasants with 2 weeks military drill and a simple weapon?




You seem to be fixated on this point that we are talking about yokels with crossbow being a threat and we are not.

We are talking about well trained archers who train and keep their skills up. 

And that being confronted by these archers should at least give the PCs pause. As someone else pointed out the PCs know that getting hit can kill or injury because they have seen it happen. 

There is a big difference between you are confronted by a group of crossbow men. They look like farmers and their hands shake a little as they aim at you.

And you approach the city, on the walls ready to fire stand the famed archers known throughout the kingdoms for their skill.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 13, 2012)

Elf Witch - I think the issue here is that you scale your opponents (something I heartily agree with).  Your "highly trained city guard" aren't 3rd level fighters.  They're 10th level fighters (or whatever would make them a credible threat).  And this is a perfectly acceptable way of doing it.  This is exactly how 4e suggests you do it.

3e doesn't usually take this route, since it wouldn't make any sense for even a city to have that many high(ish) level characters around.  If you follow the 3e campaign design guidelines, even a metropolis won't have more than a handful of double digit level fighters in the entire city, let alone dozens in the city guard.  A 3rd level fighter, in 3e, IS a famed archer, known throughout the kingdoms for their skill.

At least, that's how 3e presents the world.  Like I said, 4e says, "Hey, what will make your game more interesting?  Higher level archers?  Go for it and world simulation can go cry in the corner."

I can see why some people might not like that approach.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Apr 13, 2012)

There are a couple of ways that this sort of modularity can be built into the game, creating the options for the exact same 15th level fighter to either laugh off a fall or lava, to worried about it, to scared of it, to auto-lethal.

One idea is to scale hit points... max hp {3e} vs Healing surge {4e} vs SW Saga VP/WP vs  Elric {Com = hp}

An idea to handle the lower level threats is to build tiers into the game and you get one exploding dice per tier. This way the 50 archers can be scary as every once in a while you get a spike in damage.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], in my experience 4e has said 'that nasty master archer you faced at first level? now that you are 15th level he is still a threat but easy to beat ...because he is a minion now. My campaign has the PCs facing archer platoons, literally hundreds of enemies, as epic level swarms. The rules let you model the sort of threat the creatures are to the PCs, not define the creature. YMMV, of course.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 13, 2012)

Primitive Screwhead said:


> /snip
> 
> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] , in my experience 4e has said 'that nasty master archer you faced at first level? now that you are 15th level he is still a threat but easy to beat ...because he is a minion now. My campaign has the PCs facing archer platoons, literally hundreds of enemies, as epic level swarms. The rules let you model the sort of threat the creatures are to the PCs, not define the creature. YMMV, of course.




Sorry if I wasn't clear.  This is exactly what I meant.  Like I said, you scale the threat based on the needs of the situation at the time, not the needs of the setting.  

Again, I can see why there are people who don't like this.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 13, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> being confronted by these archers should at least give the PCs pause. As someone else pointed out the PCs know that getting hit can kill or injury because they have seen it happen.



But do the PCs also know they can dodge or deflect any arrows that come their way?

And if the answer to that is "no", then what is the game mechanical model going to be? Save or die?

In which case, if the DC is high enough, the nature of the game will change quite a bit. You'll be into the territory of a crit/wound system for combat resolution.

Or if the DC is low enough that only a 1 fails, you'll probably have similar play to presently, but 1 in 20 times the players will be irritated by that roll of a 1.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 13, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Elf Witch - I think the issue here is that you scale your opponents (something I heartily agree with).  Your "highly trained city guard" aren't 3rd level fighters.  They're 10th level fighters (or whatever would make them a credible threat).  And this is a perfectly acceptable way of doing it.  This is exactly how 4e suggests you do it.
> 
> 3e doesn't usually take this route, since it wouldn't make any sense for even a city to have that many high(ish) level characters around.  If you follow the 3e campaign design guidelines, even a metropolis won't have more than a handful of double digit level fighters in the entire city, let alone dozens in the city guard.  A 3rd level fighter, in 3e, IS a famed archer, known throughout the kingdoms for their skill.
> 
> ...




Maybe that is part of the issue so many people go you are doing it wrong it goes against world building to scale them this way. And using 3E world building is not the way it is done.


To bad there is so many things about 4E I can't stand because this scaling from mook to minion sounds just like what I do. 

I don't mind this approach because levels is just a metagame concept. It solves the issue of PCs who can run all over a highly trained militia without breaking into a sweat.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 13, 2012)

pemerton said:


> But do the PCs also know they can dodge or deflect any arrows that come their way?
> 
> And if the answer to that is "no", then what is the game mechanical model going to be? Save or die?
> 
> ...




I think the best answer is to scale the archers. After all they are not sitting on their tushes knitting while the PCs are out fighting goblins. So it makes sense that they level too. 

I know that DnD is not going to get rid of levels and go to a system like Hero or Shadowrun. And because of that the PCs will always be gaining a lot of power as they level. 

To be honest I have yet to see a high level game that lasts long before the DM gets frustrated at the sheer amount of work it takes to challenge a party at this level. After awhile the world stops making sense. As high levels the PCs can destroy entire kingdoms. You have to ask why they are not running the world. And what you challenge them with you have to wonder why these bad guys or monsters have not destroyed the world yet but sat around waiting for a high level group to come around and challenge them.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 13, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I think the best answer is to scale the archers. After all they are not sitting on their tushes knitting while the PCs are out fighting goblins. So it makes sense that they level too.
> 
> I know that DnD is not going to get rid of levels and go to a system like Hero or Shadowrun. And because of that the PCs will always be gaining a lot of power as they level.
> 
> To be honest I have yet to see a high level game that lasts long before the DM gets frustrated at the sheer amount of work it takes to challenge a party at this level. After awhile the world stops making sense. As high levels the PCs can destroy entire kingdoms. You have to ask why they are not running the world. And what you challenge them with you have to wonder why these bad guys or monsters have not destroyed the world yet but sat around waiting for a high level group to come around and challenge them.




Eh, there are plenty of reasons. High level PCs probably ARE the big wheels in their area of influence. OTOH they may well not want to be running things or destroying kingdoms. Beyond that, no matter how powerful you are, you can only influence what is in range of your sword in the long run. The same goes for monsters. Most of them probably aren't interested in destroying the world. Many of them probably have entirely other agendas. Often they have no agenda at all, they just exist.

Personally I have no big problems with high level play. It is just different and has different things going on. Actually, while it generally gets a little more complicated it hasn't proven to be that bad in 4e. The main issue has really been limited support for epic play. Still, we have had fun with it and it didn't seem any more absurd than any other level of play.

While I may well scale opponents it is more for simplicity and fun than because of some desire to put the PCs in their place. It is just a lot easier to have 20 minions running around than 20 low level standard creatures. If the PCs are going to be going around worrying about the city guard at 20th level then its going to be the city guard of the City of Brass or something. The last thing I want is a game where 20th level feels almost the same as 1st level did. Variety is the spice of life and I find that most players really enjoy the chance to be big semi-invincible heroes as much as they like slogging through the low levels worrying about orcs.


----------



## Balesir (Apr 13, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Edit: [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], In your experience comment, you said "Alas, it seems that logic will not assuage a romantic heart." Out of curiosity, what am I logically missing? I'm curious, because I find you to be a very logical poster, and since I don't feel like I'm missing something, I'd like clarification. Thank you for the "romantic heart" comment, though. I do find it quite a compliment. Sincerely. As always, play what you like



Yes, the "romantic heart" comment was meant in sympathy, because I entirely understand your yearning to both have your cake and eat it, too! I just think it's not a realistic possibility. I can't absolutely prove it - proving a negative is always near impossible, since it involves showing that every single alternative to achieve the impossible is flawed - but I'm pretty confident that wishing for a system to model A > B and B > C but C > A is not a concept that is going to fly, overall.

Looking at what is suggested so far, modifications are put forward to solve each problem, but each modification produces a new problem - which another suggestion is proffered to solve. And so (I think) it will go on.

As a result, my argument would be, not that the system you seek is necessarily _impossible_ to formulate, but that a far simpler remedy leaps out that seems to fit the bill (id est, pick a system that does not use levels or hit points). What seems perverse, to me, is the insistence that these game tropes - long associated with D&D - should be kept, while striving for a tenor of game to which they are so clearly unsuited.

But, as you say, play what you like. There is plenty more nonsense in the world; this mild incursion will do no great harm, I'm sure!


----------



## Aaron (Apr 13, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> Because the situation is ridiculous? We're trying to discuss credible threats. He doesn't need to metagame, in-world knowledge tells him that 4 year olds aren't trained in fighting in any way, they have little strength and conditioning, have no tactics or strategy, and aren't even wielding threatening weapons. How can they be considered a threat?



They can't be considered a threat thanks to Mike Tyson experience in real world.

The same goes for the country bandits facing a high level PC.



> Personally, I find this snatch/bite ability to be, on a believability scale, to be very lacking. Seriously.



Alas, you must face it, and a billion of more examples like it I can cite.



> How does this get justified? Well, the same way we have the person who  survives a fall from an airplane, or lives through an inferno. Luck,  chance, fate, what-have-you. Really, once trapped in the bite, he really  should be crunched in a round or two.



But he is not, and luck, chance, fate means nothing: this will happen every time the monk happens to be bitten by this colossal dragon.

Now, you can't dismiss my examples taken from the game rules with "this is ridiculous": what I'm showing you is that the game has an internal consistency, that you are throwing out of the window asking for a dozen country bandits with crossbows to be a serious threat.

The high level PC monk knows that he can face the colossal dragon, and he knows he can slaughter the country bandits, just like Mike tyson knows he can defeat the 4 years old kids: they both know it thanks to their life experience.

You said it too.



> And sure, PCs should have a very good knowledge of how bows and  crossbows work, heck, someone in their party likely uses one. And  they've seen their pal shoot some poor mook through the neck, killing  him instantly.



They have also seen that mooks die even if hit in their arms, stomach, legs, and so on.

But they have also seen that they (the PCs) can be hit several times in their arms, stomach, chest, legs, whatever, even on their heads, and they don't die.

That's their experience.

They have also seen that they can survive lava, falling from great heights, poison, acid pools, earthquakes, tsunami, being swallowed by a colossal dragon, being hit by thrown boulders, and so on.

That's their experience.



> Sure, they survived encounter after encounter, taking arrows to the  arms (or dare I say knee?), and lived. [snip]
> 
> So when the PCs come up to that town with a dozen bowman on the walls  with nocked arrows, shouldn't the characters (not players, the  characters) at least give pause to the potential threat?



Nope, unless these PCS are so stupidly lucky that every single hit in their career has always hit their arms.

Not to mention that seeing how many crossbows bolt a high level PC can sustain, they also should know that they are different from common people, cause no country bandit could sustain being hit 20 or 30 time by crossbows bolts, even if they are always hit in their arms.

Besides, your point of view should be applied for _every single danger_ the PCs could face, making them a jumble of incredible idiots, cause they otherwise would never go adventuring knowing that they can face threats immeasurably greater than a bunch of country bandits.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 13, 2012)

In these discussions, I'm always reminded of a an old Dragon Magazine comic where the evil barbarian is tied to a tree in front of a firing squad of archers.  He's festooned with arrows and a scribe off to the side is calling out, "Load up again boys, he's still got 30 hit points left!"


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 13, 2012)

I think the issue is people are looking too small.

You can't send 12 level 1-3 guys to arrest Belkar Bitterleaf, Paragon level Halfling Ranger/Barbarian And Sexy Shoeless got of War...

You have to send 50+ level 1-3 guardsmen.
Or 10+ level 4-6 guard lieutenants
Or 1-3 level 10 guard captains


 And he'll kill half of them while you bring him down.

The problem is not the crossbows.
It's the numbers.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 13, 2012)

Balesir said:


> Yes, the "romantic heart" comment was meant in sympathy



I quite liked that part of the comment 


Balesir said:


> I'm pretty confident that wishing for a system to model A > B and B > C but C > A is not a concept that is going to fly, overall.



I understand where you're coming from, I guess I am just more optimistic. This is also based on my own RPG, of course, but still, I do understand.


Balesir said:


> Looking at what is suggested so far, modifications are put forward to solve each problem, but each modification produces a new problem - which another suggestion is proffered to solve. And so (I think) it will go on.



I wouldn't call most of them "problems" for the feel I'd prefer, but I guess that it's personal preference. Obviously, no one "gritty" style module will have solutions in all areas for people that want "gritty" games. And, no "gritty falling" module will satisfy all people who want more dangerous falling. But, obviously, my contributions don't bother me on any deep level (even if I don't prefer every option I've thrown out there).


Balesir said:


> As a result, my argument would be, not that the system you seek is necessarily _impossible_ to formulate, but that a far simpler remedy leaps out that seems to fit the bill (id est, pick a system that does not use levels or hit points).



Again, my RPG uses both levels and hit points (though hit points are not used traditionally -but, that's the point of a module, in my mind!). My RPG also satisfies my want of a grittier style when it comes to lava, falling, or twelve crossbowmen. This is the main source of my optimism.


Balesir said:


> What seems perverse, to me, is the insistence that these game tropes - long associated with D&D - should be kept, while striving for a tenor of game to which they are so clearly unsuited.



Well, you can probably see this coming, but I don't find hit points or levels _inherently_ ill-suited to this style of game. But, as they have always been presented in D&D, they do fall far short of what I'd prefer in a grittier style of game. Plus, I want "gritty" D&D with full level support, and both levels and hit points help make up a game that "feels like D&D" to me.


Balesir said:


> But, as you say, play what you like. There is plenty more nonsense in the world; this mild incursion will do no great harm, I'm sure!



It wouldn't bug me, but I guess that's the real thing here, isn't it? Who knows who it would bug, even amongst people that want a "grittier" game when it comes to lava, falling, and twelve crossbowmen? As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Apr 13, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I think the best answer is to scale the archers.



Works for me. This is one reason I play 4e, which makes this especially easy. I don't know how well 3E handles it.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 13, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Works for me. This is one reason I play 4e, which makes this especially easy. I don't know how well 3E handles it.




You can do this in 3e.  There's absolutely no reason you can't do this in 3e.  About the biggest difficulty from an adventure design standpoint is the amount of work it takes to make 14th level NPC's.  Not my idea of a fun time, but, it's certainly doable.

What 3e would generally have a problem with is all the world implications.  If you play 3e in a certain way, and I believe there are people here who do - where the rules of the game have a fairly direct correlation to the in-game reality, then scaling NPC's doesn't make any sense.  After all, just how did you get 20x12th level fighters in your city guard?  Why aren't they ruling the city?  

Look at the reaction to that Epic level city in the the Epic Level Handbook for 3e.  Union it was called IIRC.  20th level city guards and artisans and whatnot.  It was 3e with the dial cranked up.  I don't think it was well received at all and I think most people have just blanked it out of their mind that it even exists.  

I think you'd run into the same reaction if you tried to posit a city where the archers on the walls are double digit level fighters.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 13, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Works for me. This is one reason I play 4e, which makes this especially easy. I don't know how well 3E handles it.




It doesn't handle it well at all. My players are okay with it but when my son and his players found out I do it they went on and on about how the game is not supposed to run that way and that it breaks the world building.

Which is why I have hope 5E may be the game for me. Especially if it adds some of the improvements from 4E with the things I liked about past editions.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 13, 2012)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]

There are ways to have many high level and epic characters walking around normies.

My game has them too busy in this four way war between the angels, devils, giants, and fey.
My friend gave all his too many enemies (each other) to spend too many resources and leave themselves open. 

Then there are plenty words where the powerful DO rule. 20th level aristocrat kings and presidents leveled up on election campaigning. That is worse than the dungeon.


----------



## triqui (Apr 13, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> Because the militia doesn't cost 2 gold each. They're all equipped, and armoured, and trained, and fed, all by this lord. Heck, leather armour and crossbows, we're talking 2,500 gold invested already. They're an investment in keeping order in the town. He can't have them traipsing off into the wilderness all the time.



 No, but the Baron has alredy paid the equipment (and in all fairness, if they are militia, they probably came with their own weapons. That's why they are militia, not professional soldiers). 

In any case:


> And if that's the case, why hire 1st level adventurers to clear out a kobold den, when clearly 50 trained militia could?* Because it's a game*, and so the plot is developed to give a reason why. It doesn't mean that the 50 guards couldn't do it.



EXACTLY. And that's the reason they can survive 12 crossbows as well.


> On the flip side, if the town guard can't fight off a couple of manticores, why is the town still around and not razed to the ground by them already? Something must be preventing them. Perhaps the acknowledgement that arrows can hurt and kill, especially when a lot are being shot at you.



That's easy. Because of adventurers . Which is the way the game is developed to have a plot reason, as you said 2 minutes ago.




> Sure did. Notice he didn't say a baby D&D troll. While we can keep going back and forth, drawing parallels, the fact is that D&D does not emulate Middle Earth. Inspired in some ways, certainly, but that's about all. So why is your troll any more acceptable than mine?



 That's a moot point. You could assing that baby troll whatever CR you want in D&D, yes. He could be a baby troll 25 level solo. Just like Smaug could be a lvl 4 minion and a LotR rat could be level 30 elite. That does not make any sense, however. If you judge a troll like the one in the book/film, by D&D standards, it's no more than CR 4-5. It does not have the size, or the strength, or the resiliance, of a Giant. It is not tougher than a D&D troll (it does not even regenerates). It's not invulnerable, have no magic, does not fly...



> And it's not a bunch of low levels. We even agreed that Gandalf is level 27 at least, and he's running from the low level goblins just as much as the others.



 Just like Fizban did in Dragonlance. Because he is a NPC controlled by DM, a plot device who is there to give advice and some nice plot hooks. He is able to go toe to toe with Balrogs, go figure.



> I don't want to really limit my game. I'd prefer access to levels and abilities. Obviously, a Middle Earth D&D would be a heavily modified version of the game. You could model it by limiting leveling, or you can redefine what the levels represent in respect to the world being modelled. You prefer the first method, I prefer the second, neither is wrong.



 The problem is level and abilities make the characters break the LotR inmersion. At 15 level, in D&D, a fighter can put his full plate, jump, and break the world record. That's not believable in LotR. There are two ways to avoid that:
a) forbid the player to be 15th level
b) forbid the player to have the skills, abilities, powers and feats of a 15th level character.

Both are actually the same, the second one just disguises it. It's like saying "you are 15th level, but you have skills max as a 6th level char. You can have spells, but you are limited to 6 caster levels. You have hit points, but not too much, aproximatedly like a 6th level character. But hey, I allow you to be 15th level. I am so much generous than E6, am I not?




> Sure, but for game purposes, the dragons may as well be ancients.



 I think I do not make my point across. There's no way Aragorn could kill a dragon, being ancient or not. If a Portal is open between Middle Earth and GreyHawk, Aragorn travels to GreyHawk, he could not defeat a regular, normal adult dragon. If the Fellowship finds an ice trapped normal, adult dragon in a iceberg, Captain America  style, he couldn't defeat either. The martial prowess Tolkien gives him in his description is not just enough. A dragon, regular, normal, would eat several baby trolls for lunch. Aragorn can't. They aren't even in the same league. Drizzt Do Urden, however, can defeat dragons. Beowulf can, as  well. Or Sigfried. Sir Lancelot could defeat dragons. Achilles could, for sure. Or Cuchulain, or Bhima. Elric of Melnibone could defeat dragons too. Aragorn can't, for the same reasons Jon Snow can't either. It's not their league. 


> It's not like D&D can support a character like Feonor either, as even a level 30 character couldn't take on platoons of level 27 elites. But the First and Second ages are different scales. The balrogs then were likely paragon threats to Feonor's epicness.



 That's true. Feoner would be like 35+.

Hoewever, there are other characters in LotR who aren't first age. Let's take a look to them. If, in your opinion, Aragorn is paragon (around 10th level in 3.5, or around 15th or so in 4e)... what level are then Elrohir and Elladan, Elrond's sons?. What level is Celeborn? What's the level of Glorfindel then? What's the level of Khamul the Dragon Lord? Or the Witch King? Or Elrond himself? It's simply impossible to fill them in the same scale, if Aragorn is 15th level.



> I do think it's little. My current 4E character has leveled up to 8 in less than a month game time. It's never taken a character of mine 10 years to go up a level. So why wouldn't I think a seasoned adventure of 50 years would have a good number of levels under his belt?



 Background is not adventure. Aragorn is a dunedain, a long lived character. He has being adventurign for 50 years. I once made a lvl 1 elf character who was 200 years old and had been adventuring for a century. That does not change the adventure itself, it's background, in D&D terms. The adventure starts when Frodo takes the ring from Bilbo.



> Why couldn't Aragorn kill 12 archers? He certainly kills multitudes of orcs, and we've been equating low level bowmen to low level orcs.



 Because his character isn't described badass enough to dodge arrows. However, let's assume he does. Isn't exactly that your problem? That you find unbelievable that characters survive 12 shots?



> My comments on Achilles were in relation to the movie rendition as well. Hence my comments that if a character has never been hit before (as the movie Achilles is presented as), then sure, he wouldn't be concerned by the bowmen.
> 
> But PCs have been hit and hurt by arrows likely a dozen times over, maybe even brought to near death by them. Why shouldn't they then still be concerned about bows?



 Remember, hit points also represent dodges, etc. In that scene, Achilles character maybe has 350 hp and the Dm is describing him dodging the arrows, getting a bit of fatigue and nothing else.



> Hrm ... I seem to remember Leonidas and Co. being concerned about the rain of arrows on them, else they wouldn't have bothered with shielding themselves. They also weren't expecting to survive, it was a matter of stubborn honour and of how many enemies they could drag down with them.



 I don't see the difference. The PC might have shields too.





> Again, I'm not saying that higher level PCs should go running and crying when some guards point bows at them. All I'm wanting is for there to be a perception that this is a dangerous situation. If all the characters are cocky badasses, then sure, the guardsmen aren't a concern. For a grittier kind of mindset, like say LotR or 300, the characters should be going into things feeling like it could be their last.



 for those, it's better to use a system that does not use levels. Or use levels, but in a different way, not a way that implies that when you are 20th, you kill ancient wyrms and balors.





> Maybe not everyone's cup of tea, but it's the D&D style that I prefer playing. It's not likely something to be fully achieved in D&D, since in the end 'save or die' and insta-deaths are usually not fun.




I agree with that. There are systems that get this kind of gritty systems (and actually I enjoy a few of them). In Legends of the Five Ring, for most characters, 1 hit is almost 1 ko. Nobody will laugh at 12 bows. Nobody.

However, D&D isn't well suited for that. You could suit it, or a d20 variant, but the cost is getting Balors, Ancient Dragons and beholders out. You can't make a 12th level character who can survive a Beholder, but is scaried of 12 goblins with shortbows. It just does not float.


----------



## triqui (Apr 14, 2012)

Elf Witch said:


> I think the best answer is to scale the archers. After all they are not sitting on their tushes knitting while the PCs are out fighting goblins. So it makes sense that they level too.



This. This is completelly the solution and the way to go, imho. Goblins with crossbows won't threat High Level PC.

But Ranger 4/rogue3 goblins with poisoned crossbows? That's another matter.

And if your players don't know which goblins are garbage and which goblins aren't, they will be wary in front of those 12 crossbows. Because yes, if those are lvl 1 CR 1/4 goblins, this is a feast. If they pack 3d6 sneak attack and have favourite enemy human, that's another matter.

4E style won't give them class levels, but will use higher level goblins. They are not "filthy goblins" but "fell goblins" or "killer goblins" or whatever.

This is the solution. Not making 12th level warriors weak enough so anyone with 35gp can buy a crossbow and challenge them.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 14, 2012)

Hussar said:


> In these discussions, I'm always reminded of a an old Dragon Magazine comic where the evil barbarian is tied to a tree in front of a firing squad of archers.  He's festooned with arrows and a scribe off to the side is calling out, "Load up again boys, he's still got 30 hit points left!"



This is a very valid point.

But in all seriousness, I believe it is important to take into account that there are a great number of us out here who could really laugh at a comic like that and also see it as making fun of taking the rules literally.

I mean, do you really need to go to an old issue of Dragon?

May I suggest that Order of the Stick, particularly in its earlier portions, was built around mocking the 3E rules in specific and RPG tropes in general?
I love OoTS and my 3E loving friends (in general) do as well.  

A key point is being able to see the great humor in how such a tiny application of common sense makes the difference between the absurdity of that comic and the awesomeness of a great game.
I remain a firm believer that the scope of RPGs is such that no ruleset can ever achieve greatness without presuming that a thoughtful GM will intelligently adapt the spirit and intent of the rules on a regular basis.  And any time the rules try to bypass that synergy, they end up achieving less.

So you end up with excellent rules that can easily be isolated from that quality GM they presume and instantly become ready fodder for absurdity based comics.  And yet when not isolated from the context they deserve, they remain outstanding.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 14, 2012)

Hussar said:


> You can do this in 3e.  There's absolutely no reason you can't do this in 3e.  About the biggest difficulty from an adventure design standpoint is the amount of work it takes to make 14th level NPC's.  Not my idea of a fun time, but, it's certainly doable.
> 
> What 3e would generally have a problem with is all the world implications.  If you play 3e in a certain way, and I believe there are people here who do - where the rules of the game have a fairly direct correlation to the in-game reality, then scaling NPC's doesn't make any sense.  After all, just how did you get 20x12th level fighters in your city guard?  Why aren't they ruling the city?





Elf Witch said:


> It doesn't handle it well at all. My players are okay with it but when my son and his players found out I do it they went on and on about how the game is not supposed to run that way and that it breaks the world building.



Interesting that the main problem isn't mechanical as such, but the mechanics/fiction interaction.

Another reason I like 4e is that it takes a much more relaxed approach to the mechanic/fiction interface.

Rolemaster is more like 3E in this respect, but because of its open-ended dice rolls, and its crit system, even modest attack bonuses with a bow can still be a threat to a high level PC.



Elf Witch said:


> Which is why I have hope 5E may be the game for me. Especially if it adds some of the improvements from 4E with the things I liked about past editions.



I hope you get a game you like!


----------



## Hussar (Apr 14, 2012)

BryonD said:
			
		

> So you end up with excellent rules that can easily be isolated from that quality GM they presume and instantly become ready fodder for absurdity based comics. And yet when not isolated from the context they deserve, they remain outstanding.




I would describe the HP mechanic as a lot of things.  Simple, fast, easy to use, but outstanding?  Not so much.  

It's easy to make HP look silly because, at their heart, they are silly.  We're assigning a numerical value to something that has absolutely no qualitative measure for the purpose of allowing our fictional heroes to get smacked around like a pinata and keep on trucking.

But, then again, I have no problems with something being silly.  I spend several hours a week pretending I'm an elf.  Silly isn't something that comes even remotely close to bothering me.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 14, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I would describe the HP mechanic as a lot of things.  Simple, fast, easy to use, but outstanding?  Not so much.



OK



> It's easy to make HP look silly because, at their heart, they are silly.  We're assigning a numerical value to something that has absolutely no qualitative measure for the purpose of allowing our fictional heroes to get smacked around like a pinata and keep on trucking.
> 
> But, then again, I have no problems with something being silly.  I spend several hours a week pretending I'm an elf.  Silly isn't something that comes even remotely close to bothering me.



You are mixing two very different meanings of silly there to make a connection that doesn't apply.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 15, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Interesting that the main problem isn't mechanical as such, but the mechanics/fiction interaction.
> 
> Another reason I like 4e is that it takes a much more relaxed approach to the mechanic/fiction interface.
> 
> ...




Yeah, it is very much a "this violates my notions of how games should be played" thing. I also really appreciated 4e's relaxed attitude towards how fiction and rules interact. Of course you can do pretty much ALL the same things with 3e that you can do with 4e. It just goes against the 'feel' of what the designers were after (and sometimes it is a bit harder, but honestly not much).


----------



## BryonD (Apr 15, 2012)

If I may, I think ya'll are taking a pretty corner case issue (crossbow mooks vs. great dragon) and then applying some vague comments from two people and drawing some really sweeping generalizations about game design.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 15, 2012)

BryonD said:


> If I may, I think ya'll are taking a pretty corner case issue (crossbow mooks vs. great dragon) and then applying some vague comments from two people and drawing some really sweeping generalizations about game design.




I think the same logic generally applies to any situation. Either the PCs are capable of things that ordinary people aren't, in which case logically they have a unique place in the world and it is logical that THEY are the ones doing the adventuring. OR they do not have any really special capabilities and either big bad monsters don't figure into things, or anyone can kill them, or the PCs can't kill them any more than the town guard can.

It isn't a 'corner case', it is a capsule summary of the entire mathematical concept of a system. Does it HAVE to work perfectly? No, but if it doesn't then there's always that strange question in everyone's minds about what the heck the PCs can actually do, or you have to postulate bizarre properties for armor etc, or make somethings highly abstract in an attempt to obscure the issue. You can DO it, and you can even justify it in a purely gamist sense, but IMHO you won't make most players like it. Has 4e not taught people about gamist mechanics?


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (Apr 15, 2012)

If you're concerned with a grittier approach to falling, massive damage or wound effects module (based on size threshold) could impose a save or die or at least a horrendously crippled effect.

As for mooks vs. heros, the swarm concept, seen in 4th ED for one, may effectively allow large numbers of weak opponents to scale, thereby providing a challenge without stretching "believability" too much.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 15, 2012)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I think the same logic generally applies to any situation. Either the PCs are capable of things that ordinary people aren't, in which case logically they have a unique place in the world and it is logical that THEY are the ones doing the adventuring. OR they do not have any really special capabilities and either big bad monsters don't figure into things, or anyone can kill them, or the PCs can't kill them any more than the town guard can...




Yes.  Both are true.  It depends on the type of game you want to play.  D&D has been able to be played both ways since it's creation.  Though mechanically, different editions have made this easier than others, and all have been mechanically weighted away from the ordianry hero style.

I'm certianly hoping that 5E is designed in a way that both can be supported equally...which is really the point of this whole, long, circular discussion.

However, I think your characterisation of the differences between the two styles is a little misleading.  Sure, in the ordinary hero style, it is true that anyone can kill the big bad monsters.  The difference is that the hero's actually have the audacity or insanity to try...while the rest of the ordianary people, and the town guard, do not.


----------



## Aaron (Apr 15, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> s.  The difference is that the hero's actually have the audacity or insanity to try...while the rest of the ordianary people, and the town guard, do not.



No matter the audacity and/or insanity of the guards: they can't defeat an ancient red wyrm.

High level PCs can, even if they are a bunch of cowards.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 15, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Yes.  Both are true.  It depends on the type of game you want to play.  D&D has been able to be played both ways since it's creation.  Though mechanically, different editions have made this easier than others, and all have been mechanically weighted away from the ordianry hero style.
> 
> I'm certianly hoping that 5E is designed in a way that both can be supported equally...which is really the point of this whole, long, circular discussion.
> 
> However, I think your characterisation of the differences between the two styles is a little misleading.  Sure, in the ordinary hero style, it is true that anyone can kill the big bad monsters.  The difference is that the hero's actually have the audacity or insanity to try...while the rest of the ordianary people, and the town guard, do not.




Well, I would say you could have a system where at high enough level the PCs (or NPC heroes) are playing in a different league than the town guard, or you don't. If you don't then well, sure, ALL monsters could be killable by anyone with the luck and audacity to try it, but that doesn't leave a lot of way for the PCs to really be special. 

There are of course systems that DO work like this, to some extent. Generally though your big nasty dragons and such are very 'off stage' most of the time. It is sort of like CoC, you don't bring Great Old Ones into the picture often, and when you do it is only at the very climax of some long story arc. You generally don't expect the game to continue (at least in the same direction) past that point. Of course in CoC GOO's are pretty much unkillable, which need not be true of say a dragon in some other genre, but you are winning with a lot of luck and probably a lot of casualties.

IMHO the overall popularity of D&D has a lot to do with the way you DO progress 'beyond' certain threats and into a level where other threats can usually be defeated or at least it isn't crazy to try. Many other FRPGs have TRIED to do this in various ways, but I think D&D's level based system does it most clearly and distinctly and that's why we all play D&D most of the time and not RQ or GURPS Fantasy.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 15, 2012)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, I would say you could have a system where at high enough level the PCs (or NPC heroes) are playing in a different league than the town guard, or you don't. If you don't then well, sure, ALL monsters could be killable by anyone with the luck and audacity to try it, but that doesn't leave a lot of way for the PCs to really be special.




You mean other than the PC's actions and choices making them special, compared to those who won't _dare_...

Potential, training, and raw talent can certainly _facilitate_ becoming a hero...but it's not a given that those who possess these _do_ become hero's.

There are a lot of different things that can be described as special. Gonzo superhero abilities are certainly not the only ones.






AbdulAlhazred said:


> There are of course systems that DO work like this, to some extent. Generally though your big nasty dragons and such are very 'off stage' most of the time. It is sort of like CoC, you don't bring Great Old Ones into the picture often, and when you do it is only at the very climax of some long story arc. You generally don't expect the game to continue (at least in the same direction) past that point. Of course in CoC GOO's are pretty much unkillable, which need not be true of say a dragon in some other genre, but you are winning with a lot of luck and probably a lot of casualties.




And this means what...? Those who want something else out of D&D should just stop bothering you all with our desires and go play something else...?

How about...NO.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> IMHO the overall popularity of D&D has a lot to do with the way you DO progress 'beyond' certain threats and into a level where other threats can usually be defeated or at least it isn't crazy to try. Many other FRPGs have TRIED to do this in various ways, but I think D&D's level based system does it most clearly and distinctly and that's why we all play D&D most of the time and not RQ or GURPS Fantasy.




The popularity of D&D has a lot to do with a lot of things, with the way characters progress as only a part of that...and a variable part at that, based on each and every gamers individual preferences. And NO...that's not why we _*all*_ play D&D most of the time.

But apparently, wanting to have a D&D that can support a more realistic style of play (as well as all other styles of play) is important to a large number of D&D fans...as the 350+ pages of this thread can attest to.

Talk all one wants about how to make this a module in 5E. Talk all one wants to about what mechanics best provide this sense of realism that some want. But having one talking about why this should not be a part of D&D, is a futile conversation from the start. You want what you want out of D&D. Other people want what they want out of D&D. D&D is a big enough game that all can be accomodated without impinging upon what you want.

Why is that such a problem to so many...?


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 15, 2012)

Aaron said:


> No matter the audacity and/or insanity of the guards: they can't defeat an ancient red wyrm.
> 
> High level PCs can, no matter if they are a bunch of cowards.




Really...?!?

Why is that?


Given enough time and enough of them, I'd say not only can they, but it would be inevitable that they would.

Simple water drops can wear down a mountain to nothing.  A swarm of Ants can reduce an Elephant to bones.

City Guards can defeat an Ancient Red Wyrm.  They only don't because the think they can't, or aren't willing to pay the price necessary.

That's the idea behind the Ordinary Hero style of play.  That may not be what you like, but enough do.  And D&D is big enough to accomodate us all.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 16, 2012)

To me, this whole conversation is about which version of high level PCs will be core: Freaks of Nature, Superheroic Paragons, or More Skilled Regulars.

I think FoN will be core and MSR and SHP will be modules. Mostly because FoN requires the fewest rules.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 16, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Really...?!?
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> ...




There's a problem with your analogy though.  Drops of water and ants will eventually wear something down.  But, it's awfully hard on each ant or drop of water.  Do you want the game to presume that you're going to burn through a couple of dozen PC's every adventure?  IIRC, there's an old Strategic Review (Or really, really early Dragon) article talking about how the party went through a thousand PC's in a single campaign.

Because, that's what Ordinary Hero means.  At least, that's what you're saying here.  We only succeed by failing ten thousand times first.  

Realistically, no, the commoners cannot defeat the dragon.  They run out of people first.  Again, going back to the old saw about 1 million 5th level NPC's vs a 20th level lich and the lich wins.  A largish (CR 15+) 3e dragon is nigh-invincible to anything you would find in a town, barring DM fiat Macguffins.


----------



## Balesir (Apr 16, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> There are a lot of different things that can be described as special. Gonzo superhero abilities are certainly not the only ones.



Quite right, they are not - but they _*are*_ the ones specifically modelled by "levels" in every edition to date of D&D.



El Mahdi said:


> Talk all one wants about how to make this a module in 5E. Talk all one wants to about what mechanics best provide this sense of realism that some want. But having one talking about why this should not be a part of D&D, is a futile conversation from the start. You want what you want out of D&D. Other people want what they want out of D&D. D&D is a big enough game that all can be accomodated without impinging upon what you want.



Let's start with "You want what you want out of *roleplaying*. Other people want what they want out of *roleplaying*. *Roleplaying* is a big enough [hobby] that all can be accomodated without impinging upon what you want".

This I will very happily agree with. Trying to compress all of the scope of roleplaying into one game system, however, strikes me as abject folly.



El Mahdi said:


> Why is that such a problem to so many...?



Possibly because taking a shaft of wood with a dirty great cube of steel stuck on one end and suggesting that, as well as being used for hammering in pegs and nails, it could be useful for cutting planks of wood and screwing in screws as well seems frankly daft?

There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with wanting a (pseudo-)realistic roleplaying game. The only mystery is why anyone would conceive of starting with (_any_ edition of) D&D as a set of mechanics for doing so!


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 16, 2012)

Hussar said:


> There's a problem with your analogy though. Drops of water and ants will eventually wear something down. But, it's awfully hard on each ant or drop of water. Do you want the game to presume that you're going to burn through a couple of dozen PC's every adventure? IIRC, there's an old Strategic Review (Or really, really early Dragon) article talking about how the party went through a thousand PC's in a single campaign.
> 
> Because, that's what Ordinary Hero means. At least, that's what you're saying here. We only succeed by failing ten thousand times first.
> 
> Realistically, no, the commoners cannot defeat the dragon. They run out of people first. Again, going back to the old saw about 1 million 5th level NPC's vs a 20th level lich and the lich wins. A largish (CR 15+) 3e dragon is nigh-invincible to anything you would find in a town, barring DM fiat Macguffins.




I wasn't talking about just ordianary heros in that quote. I was mostly responding to one specific point: that the city guard couldn't defeat an ancient red wyrm.

And Yes, I know it would be hard on the guards that are part of it, and most would die. Which is why I said: _They only don't because the think they can't, or aren't willing to pay the price necessary._

Ordianry Hero's are Heros that don't have supernatural or special abilities above any other common man. What they do have is the knowledge, and the audacity, to take on the challenges that others won't...and succeed.

And we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether the guards can accomplish this or not. I'm not going to get into a debat involving specifics about a hypothetical fantasy scenario.

What I will say, is that there is nothing that mankind can't accomplished when we put our minds and resolve to it. And if Ancient Red Wyrms were real, then that statement would be true concerning them also.



But really, why is this something you've chosen to debate? Why is it you want to nix the very idea of Ordinary Hero's?

You may not be interested in them, wouldn't read a story about them, or play a game like this...but why do you feel the need to nullify the very idea...? Is it that you just don't want D&D to be played this way at all...? Is it you don't want the rules to support this even if it doesn't impinge upon your playstyle...?

I just don't understand why your still continuing to argue against this...


----------



## Mattachine (Apr 16, 2012)

I think part of the problem is that many folks feel that the standard D&D of the edition they like does simulate the realistic style of play they've come to like, and that other people feel that that very same edition simulates the heroic fantasy style of play they have come to like.

Weird--people take away very different experiences from the same game. I wonder how many folks are forgetting or overlooking their various house rules, optional rules/Dragon Magazine modifications, and the rules that get ignored in their games?


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 16, 2012)

Balesir said:


> Quite right, they are not - but they _*are*_ the ones specifically modelled by "levels" in every edition to date of D&D.




I agree.  But that doesn't mean that D&D Next can't support _both_.  Why is that a problem for you?



Balesir said:


> Let's start with "You want what you want out of *roleplaying*. Other people want what they want out of *roleplaying*. *Roleplaying* is a big enough [hobby] that all can be accomodated without impinging upon what you want".
> 
> This I will very happily agree with. Trying to compress all of the scope of roleplaying into one game system, however, strikes me as abject folly.




No, I think I'll keep it as it was, thank you very much.



> "You want what you want out of *D&D Next*. Other people want what they want out of *D&D Next*. *D&D Next* is a big enough hobby game that all can be accomodated without impinging upon what you want."




What part of a _unifying_ edition do you not understand...?  If you consider the goals of D&D Next as _abject folly_, then why are you here in the D&D Next forums...?

Seems to me that posting in a thread, in a forum about the next edition of D&D, an edition that has stated it's goals as unyeildingly _unifying_, when one is against that very notion...that is _abject folly_.



Balesir said:


> There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with wanting a (pseudo-)realistic roleplaying game. The only mystery is why anyone would conceive of starting with (_any_ edition of) D&D as a set of mechanics for doing so!




If you haven't figured it out by now, by reading this thread, then you're simply not ever going to understand it.  That's okay though, you don't have to.  What would be nice from you though, is tolerance for opinions and desires that don't match your own, whether you understand them or not.  May as well simply start accepting that and move on.  Leave talk of the inclusion of things in D&D Next that you don't like, to those that do like them, and just be happy that D&D Next will also continue to have what you want.


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 16, 2012)

Aaron said:


> They can't be considered a threat thanks to Mike Tyson experience in real world.
> 
> The same goes for the country bandits facing a high level PC.




I still fail to see how something that even 0 level peasants wouldn't consider to be a threat equate to a group of armed and practiced people. There's nothing to suggest that an unarmed child is a threat in any way (except maybe to get your ankle bitten). Weapons in the hands of skilled enemies is a credible threat.



Aaron said:


> But he is not, and luck, chance, fate means nothing: this will happen every time the monk happens to be bitten by this colossal dragon.
> 
> Now, you can't dismiss my examples taken from the game rules with "this is ridiculous": what I'm showing you is that the game has an internal consistency, that you are throwing out of the window asking for a dozen country bandits with crossbows to be a serious threat.
> 
> ...




I'm not dismissing your example. But I can still think it's ridiculous. I accept it because I know that in order for a game to be fun, there has to be some balance and consistency, but that doesn't always work with expectations. Really, there should be no clamping bite attacks or swallowing effects. They should be saved for when characters go down. I would be very hard pressed to come up with any concievable reason for why an unarmoured, unresilient otherwise normal mortal being could survive being crunched in a ancient dragon's jaws.

But I accept it because that's how the rules have written the creature, and they wanted it to do something different than just claw/claw/bite/breath. I can still think the ability is poorly implemented.

But I'm still not seeing how facing a monstrous threat in any way means that any mundane threat is now a cakewalk. By the mechanics and numbers, I can see, but from a character's POV, I'm just not seeing it. 

Who's to say that all those bandits aren't of equal level to the PCs? Unless the PCs have seen these exact people in action and know that their aim is crap and their tactics very basic, there's nothing to say that they wouldn't be pincushioned. 



Aaron said:


> They have also seen that mooks die even if hit in their arms, stomach, legs, and so on.
> 
> But they have also seen that they (the PCs) can be hit several times in their arms, stomach, chest, legs, whatever, even on their heads, and they don't die.
> 
> That's their experience.




Hoping this is hyperbole, but if not, I can see why our experiences and expectations are different. I would never have a mook die because of an arrow to the arm. A killing blow is a killing blow, so such hits would strike vital areas; arrow through the neck, driven deep into the chest or gut, throw the eye, etc.

If your PCs are taking shots to the head with any regularity, then things are on a very different perception scale. If I have a PC take a solid arrow hit to the head, they're going down and bleeding, if not dying outright. Grazes and near misses are entirely different.

Which is why my characters can believe that a bow in the hands of a trained marksmen is dangerous, because they've seen the death and injury arrows can do.




Aaron said:


> Nope, unless these PCS are so stupidly lucky that every single hit in their career has always hit their arms.
> 
> Not to mention that seeing how many crossbows bolt a high level PC can sustain, they also should know that they are different from common people, cause no country bandit could sustain being hit 20 or 30 time by crossbows bolts, even if they are always hit in their arms.




PCs are incredibly lucky, and skilled. I'm not saying that a PC shouldn't be dodging arrows, or only being nicked by them, or having them bounce off shields and armour. But at the same time, every arrow shot isn't going directly into the heart either.

And that's the crux for me. HP are not a giant sack of meat points. If your PCs are pincushions of dozens of arrow shots, then I can see that mindset. The only time I have PCs take an actual solid hit from an attack is on crits, or very high damage. I can in no way suspend my belief to have a hero wandering around with 20 arrows sticking out of them. It may work in your game mindset, it doesn't in mine. Thankfully HP are abstract enough to support both views.



Aaron said:


> Besides, your point of view should be applied for _every single danger_ the PCs could face, making them a jumble of incredible idiots, cause they otherwise would never go adventuring knowing that they can face threats immeasurably greater than a bunch of country bandits.




I have no idea where you're getting this idea. Every single danger should be approached with caution. It's not like we go sticking our hands into boiling pots of water for lols. We know the water's not going to kill us, but it's going to hurt worth a damn. We don't go disturbing hornet's nests just cause. Individually they can't even be considered a serious threat, but I would bet there would hardly be anyone who wouldn't be trying to get away from a swarm of even a dozen of them. But it's not like you're concerned with dying (unless you're allergic, of course), but because it hurts, and most everyone has an aversion to being hurt. Likewise it should be for the PCs. It's not that they'll die, it's not that the 12 bandits are a serious threat if push came to shove, it's that arrows are going to hurt and why take pain when you don't have to? 

But it seems your PCs act just like this, and wade through lava, take arrows to the face, and fall 200 feet and brush themselves off. In such a world, then yes, I happily concede that 12 bowmen mean nothing to the PCs. It's great that you enjoy this viewpoint of play. It's never been mine in all my years of playing D&D.




triqui said:


> EXACTLY. And that's the reason they can survive 12 crossbows as well.
> That's easy. Because of adventurers . Which is the way the game is developed to have a plot reason, as you said 2 minutes ago.




So the town has 24/7 protection by adventurers for time imperpetual? Why is it not logical to assume that if a town cannot protect itself from the threats around it on it's own, that the town should no longer be there? If the guard is so ineffectual against manticore, say, they why aren't the manticores just roosting in a tower and having easy pickings? The manticores must perceive at least some danger in the townsfolk that keeps them from more than just raiding them for food.

And now we have the plot, that the local town is suffering predations by the manticore, often where the militia aren't (say local farms, or a raided caravan taking by suprise, or whatever). And so the PCs are brought forth to deal with the problem for the local lord.




triqui said:


> That's a moot point. You could assing that baby troll whatever CR you want in D&D, yes. He could be a baby troll 25 level solo. Just like Smaug could be a lvl 4 minion and a LotR rat could be level 30 elite. That does not make any sense, however. If you judge a troll like the one in the book/film, by D&D standards, it's no more than CR 4-5. It does not have the size, or the strength, or the resiliance, of a Giant. It is not tougher than a D&D troll (it does not even regenerates). It's not invulnerable, have no magic, does not fly...




As the PCs themselves show, size and mass have absolutely nothing to do with the difficulty level of a creature. After all, that 20th level halfling rogue isn't invulnerable, may have some magic items, can't fly on his own, certainly isn't as strong or resilient as a giant. So by this logic, the rogue should be pretty easy to defeat. Which of course isn't the case.




triqui said:


> Background is not adventure. Aragorn is a dunedain, a long lived character. He has being adventurign for 50 years. I once made a lvl 1 elf character who was 200 years old and had been adventuring for a century. That does not change the adventure itself, it's background, in D&D terms. The adventure starts when Frodo takes the ring from Bilbo.




Sure, for Frodo, and Sam, and Merry and Pippin. All of whom I happily consider 1st level. They've never adventured before, never faced dangers beyond Farmer Maggot. Why would they be anything but?

But for Aragorn, his adventure started 50 years ago. He's just ported into the new campaign with this group of first level hobbits.

I have to ask why your 100 year adventuring elf didn't learn anything in all his adventures?



triqui said:


> Because his character isn't described badass enough to dodge arrows. However, let's assume he does. Isn't exactly that your problem? That you find unbelievable that characters survive 12 shots?




No, as I've stated many times, what I find unbelievable is a character totally scoffing at 12 bows aimed at them. I don't expect the characters to be defeated, certainly not killed, because I too know and understand the underlying mechanics of the game, and because they are heroes who in the end should win through.

But it's clear we have differing views on how PCs should perceive their worlds. Totally fine, of course, I do see how your interpretation of the levels in D&D can give a different impression on how characters view the world.



triqui said:


> Remember, hit points also represent dodges, etc. In that scene, Achilles character maybe has 350 hp and the Dm is describing him dodging the arrows, getting a bit of fatigue and nothing else.




Yes, which is why I argue that HP represent much more than pure physical health. Which is why I believe characters should be concerned about arrows pointed at them. Which is why I argue that PCs shouldn't just meta-game that because they have 300 hps, that a dozen bowshots shouldn't matter. The _players_ certainly can, and it's virutally impossible not to. But I would like the _characters_ to feel that it's at least a risky proposition, that the arrows are going to hurt, and they might even be unlucky and take a fatal shot.



triqui said:


> I don't see the difference. The PC might have shields too.




One or two, maybe, but I don't think I've ever seen a party of all shield users, and fewer still that would offer complete cover, from all angles of attack. 



triqui said:


> This. This is completelly the solution and the way to go, imho. Goblins with crossbows won't threat High Level PC.
> 
> But Ranger 4/rogue3 goblins with poisoned crossbows? That's another matter.
> 
> ...




But then we're getting back to the metagaming. Why are these ranger/rogue goblins perceived as such a threat, when bandits weren't? To the characters, they're just goblins with bows, and aren't goblins not worth worrying about if you're challenging manticores and beholders?

Reading the threads here on the forums, and my own preparations, I'm happy to see the 4E can at least better model some of what I'm looking for, in that's it's easier to scale threats to the PCs, even if the bandits are just minions.


----------



## Balesir (Apr 16, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I agree.  But that doesn't mean that D&D Next can't support _both_.



So, levels support what you don't want, but don't support what you do want, and you want both? The only way I can see for that to happen is for D&DNext to both have levels and not have levels - how can that work?



El Mahdi said:


> Why is that a problem for you?



It bothers me because both having levels and not having levels is impossible, and an irrational thing to desire.



El Mahdi said:


> No, I think I'll keep it as it was, thank you very much.



OK, in that case I'll just stick with disagreeing with you. D&DNext cannot both have and not have levels, so we are down to one or other desired system not being D&D Next, as far as I can see.



El Mahdi said:


> What part of a _unifying_ edition do you not understand...?  If you consider the goals of D&D Next as _abject folly_, then why are you here in the D&D Next forums...?



I'm here because I'm interested to see what D&DNext does turn out as, and I'm hoping that it's a coherent enough system to be useful for something.



El Mahdi said:


> Seems to me that posting in a thread, in a forum about the next edition of D&D, an edition that has stated it's goals as unyeildingly _unifying_, when one is against that very notion...that is _abject folly_.



Its stated goals are unifying the "play styles" (exact meaning unclear) of all previous editions *of D&D*. That seems likely, to me, to exclude those things that D&D has never done. That still leaves a considerable scope for D&DN to cover - possibly an impractical amount. To add even more scope for it to "unify" seems beyond any semblance of reasonable ambition.



El Mahdi said:


> If you haven't figured it out by now, by reading this thread, then you're simply not ever going to understand it.  That's okay though, you don't have to.  What would be nice from you though, is tolerance for opinions and desires that don't match your own, whether you understand them or not.  May as well simply start accepting that and move on.  Leave talk of the inclusion of things in D&D Next that you don't like, to those that do like them, and just be happy that D&D Next will also continue to have what you want.



I understand perfectly well why you want the style of game you describe - it's a perfectly valid, cogent and sensible desire. I just don't understand why you want to get that game with the words "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover. I have nothing against you having it - it just seems a bizarre thing to demand. It also seems to me likely to surprise and confuse those who thought they knew what "D&D" could be expected to provide, as an RPG. But, if that's the game you want, I'd have a use for it, quite honestly, if it did the job well - I would just be really puzzled why they ever called it "D&D" (if that's what they did).


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 17, 2012)

Balesir said:


> So, levels support what you don't want, but don't support what you do want, and you want both? The only way I can see for that to happen is for D&DNext to both have levels and not have levels - how can that work?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Where in the hell did you get the idea that I don't want levels or progression through levels??? I've never said that, nor said that I endorsed such an idea. And as far as I can tell, nobody in this thread has said that either...(though it is a long thread, and though I've read almost all of it, I may have missed or overlooked somebody saying that).

Adding realistic rules through modules, or vice-versa - making the core more realistic and adding the more superheroic concepts through modules, is what I and everybody else in this thread has been talking about.

What makes the concept of _Levels of Experience_ and subsequent improving of abilities counter to either type of game style?



> Its stated goals are unifying the "play styles" (exact meaning unclear) of all previous editions *of D&D*. That seems likely, to me, to exclude those things that D&D has never done. That still leaves a considerable scope for D&DN to cover - possibly an impractical amount. To add even more scope for it to "unify" seems beyond any semblance of reasonable ambition.




Incorrect. D&D has been played as, and has been capable of in every edtion, damn near every type of playstyle possible in RPGs. That's the beauty of D&D. D&D has most certainly been able to play standard High Fantasy, Grim n' Gritty, Ordinary Hero, Zero to Hero, Zero to God, etc., and with variable mixes of Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist elements.

Some editions have focused on different aspects to different degrees. But they have all been able to do that. But with 5E, we have the chance to have a D&D that does all of those things, exactly as each and every gaming group wants them to be. And that _*is*_ the design goal of D&D.



> Mike Mearls, Legends and Lore 4/9/2012
> *Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity*
> 
> Traditionally, D&D editions have focused on specific play styles. This approach has fragmented the community over time. The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options. By looking at past editions and incorporating their elements as core or optional rules, we can allow players and groups to place the focus where they want it.




In other words: *Unifying the play styles of the gamers that play D&D, under one versatile edition.*



> I understand perfectly well why you want the style of game you describe - it's a perfectly valid, cogent and sensible desire. I just don't understand why you want to get that game with the words "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover. I have nothing against you having it - it just seems a bizarre thing to demand. It also seems to me likely to surprise and confuse those who thought they knew what "D&D" could be expected to provide, as an RPG. But, if that's the game you want, I'd have a use for it, quite honestly, if it did the job well - I would just be really puzzled why they ever called it "D&D" (if that's what they did).




Because believe it or not, tons of people have been playing D&D for decades, in ways that you likely wouldn't call or recognize as _*D&D*_. And that's the whole point of a unifying edition.

What D&D *IS* varies from group to group, table to table, and player to player...and they are *ALL D&D!* Such changes might be ones that won't look recognizable as D&D to you. To others, that is exactly what D&D is and has always been.

It's time for fans of D&D to stop viewing D&D through their own narrow definitions, and accept that D&D is many different things, to many different people, and has always been that way.

It's more than just accepting, it's acknowledging and embracing an inclusive attitude towards the game, rather than an exclusionary and limiting attitude.

The designers have already done that, it's time for us as fans to do the same.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 17, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> If you consider the goals of D&D Next as _abject folly_, then why are you here in the D&D Next forums...?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What would be nice from you though, is tolerance for opinions and desires that don't match your own, whether you understand them or not.  May as well simply start accepting that and move on.  Leave talk of the inclusion of things in D&D Next that you don't like, to those that do like them, and just be happy that D&D Next will also continue to have what you want.



Speaking for my own part, my interest in D&Dnext is a bit like Balesir's: I'm curious to see what will be in it, and whether it will be a viable and coherent system.

I think, if it is to be viable and coherent, there must be some limits on what can and can't be done with it.



El Mahdi said:


> Adding realistic rules through modules, or vice-versa - making the core more realistic and adding the more superheroic concepts through modules, is what I and everybody else in this thread has been talking about.
> 
> What makes the concept of _Levels of Experience_ and subsequent improving of abilities counter to either type of game style



"Levels", in D&D, have typically meant (i) better attacks (whether weapons or spells), (ii) better resilience (AC and hp), and (iii) tougher challenges.

At a certain point, the PCs typically have had attacks strong enough to fell dinosaurs and dragons (as measured in the mechanics of the game), and have been resilient enough to survive impossible falls, point-blank dragon fire, and the like. In AD&D it is not impossible for a high level fighter to confront and defeat an army of 100 or more goblins, kobolds or mercenaries in 15 or so minutes of fighting (using the 1 attack per round per level rules when facing foes with < 1 HD).

Not in B/X or AD&D, as written - let alone 3E or 4e - is it possible to conceive of a 15th or 20th level PC as "just like an ordinary person, only more talented". I'm not saying one therefore has to assume that they have muscles (literally) of steel and huge layers of meat. But they are "chosen", or blessed, or insanely lucky, or something similar, and therefore superheroically capable, in terms of the exploits they can undertake.

If people are running "ordinary heroes" campaigns with 15th or 20th level PCs, it seems that they must either (i) changing the mechanics or (ii) ignoring parts of the mechanics: for example, ruling that PCs die from 100' falls (10d6 is not fatal damage for the typical 15th level PC, except perhaps a magic-user), or from being shot by 12 NPC archers (ditto 12d6 with attack rolls needed for each die), even though the mechanics say that they can survive.

In 2nd ed AD&D and 3E, the massive damage rules (a mechanical change) will make a difference to some of these cases - some falls, some breath weapons, etc will trigger massive damage saves - but not others - 12 separate arrow attacks, for example, will not trigger a massive damage save.

If D&Dnext is going to support "ordinary heroes" play for the full 10 or 20 levels of the game (I'd be surprised if they go for 30 levels this time around), but also support the same sort of play as one gets from using prior editions' high level rules as written, the only straightforward way I can see to do it is via some sort of "reflavouring" toggle: when you press the "ordinary heroes" button, then your 10th level opponents are well-trained soldiers, whereas when you push the "Silmarillion" button, your 10th level opponents are Balrogs.

It's seems likely that there would have to be some changes to these opponents other than merely reflavouring - perhaps 10th level Balrogs have a few mechanical abilities that 10th level soldiers lack - and therefore perhaps some changes to the mechanical abilities of the PCs when toggles are switched. (Maybe the pool of feats or spells to choose from is different depending which toggle is pushed.)

But the changes can't be very extensive - eg whole new realms of PC building can't be opened up or shut down by pushing the toggle, and whole new action resolution techniques can't be opened up or shut down by pushing the toggle - or else we won't be talking about a modular system anymore, but simply multiple games being published side-by-side by the one publisher.

[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] and [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] have better ideas than me about how these "tier" toggles might work.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 17, 2012)

pemerton said:


> -Good Stuff-




Can't XP you yet.
This is what I've been saying for pages.

I am sure there will be many modules and options that can make D&D into a Semi-realistic world. But I really doubt any of them will be core due to the traditional nature of D&D's levels being only of increasing numbers. Eventually the increasing numbers will clobber the low numbers. 

Making D&D more realistic (or more superheroic) wold require a lot of extra rules and the Design staff have mentioned that the core with be rather simple and only contain the most important and required rules. And there is a limit to how much could be added until the core rules are smothered by the new rules and the game not longer feels like a homebrewed version of the same game others are playing.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2012)

El Mahdi said:
			
		

> But really, why is this something you've chosen to debate? Why is it you want to nix the very idea of Ordinary Hero's?
> 
> You may not be interested in them, wouldn't read a story about them, or play a game like this...but why do you feel the need to nullify the very idea...? Is it that you just don't want D&D to be played this way at all...? Is it you don't want the rules to support this even if it doesn't impinge upon your playstyle...?




Because, in your quest for "ordinary heroes" you gum up my game?

D&D has never, ever, out of the box, supported ordinary heroes.  Yet, people insist that, not only did it previously, but this should also be a design goal for the future.  In earlier editions, a 2nd level fighter was already head and shoulders above the common man.  By 5th level, he was super-human, routinely capable of surviving completely unrealistic situations.  

D&D is heavily based in pulp fantasy and sword and sorcery fiction.  That's the roots of the game.  And S&S and pulp fantasy do not do "commoner done good" fiction.  S&S heroes are Big Damn Heroes.  Conan was never a common man.  Fafrd and the Grey Mouser were never Joe Q Average.  Elric was miles away from being the guy just off the turnip truck.  

What I don't get is why you insist that D&D be something that it has never been.  By flattening the game to the point where your common man hero can survive anything, you make it impossible for me to run my game.  

OTOH, by scaling opponents to fit with whatever narrative situation the PC's find themselves in and recognizing that the mechanics are NOT defining the world but are rather simply the method by which the PC's interact with the world, we both get what we want.

You want Common Man Hero fiction?  Why on earth are you playing D&D?


----------



## Balesir (Apr 17, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Where in the hell did you get the idea that I don't want levels or progression through levels???



I got the idea from the fact that you said:


El Mahdi said:


> There are a lot of different things that can be described as special. Gonzo superhero abilities are certainly not the only ones.



To which I replied:


Balesir said:


> Quite right, they are not - but they _*are*_ the ones specifically modelled by "levels" in every edition to date of D&D.



To which _you_ replied:


El Mahdi said:


> I agree.  But that doesn't mean that D&D Next can't support _both_.  Why is that a problem for you?



So, levels have always modelled superheroic abilities in D&D, and you want something else instead of superheroic abilities, but you also want D&D. D&D has levels, so you want a "D&D" that has no levels, but is still the "inclusive D&D" so still does have levels.

To me, there only seems to be one complicating factor - that you insist on calling any roleplaying game "D&D".



El Mahdi said:


> Incorrect. D&D has been played as, and has been capable of in every edtion, damn near every type of playstyle possible in RPGs. That's the beauty of D&D. D&D has most certainly been able to play standard High Fantasy, Grim n' Gritty, Ordinary Hero, Zero to Hero, Zero to God, etc., and with variable mixes of Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist elements.



Through copious houserules, sure.

Look, if you are really this invested in having whatever you play called "D&D" just buy the IP and stick the label on every game you ever play - no problem for me.



El Mahdi said:


> In other words: *Unifying the play styles of the gamers that play D&D, under one versatile edition.*



I'm a gamer; I play D&D. I play a whole range of styles, but I don't expect or even want D&D to cater to all of them. Frankly, I'm not interested in "unifying" all the different styles _I_ play, never mind mixing in all the (potential) styles I don't play/haven't played yet. As someone else put it quite evocatively, I like steak and I like chocolate, but that doesn't mean I like chocolate-flavoured steak.



El Mahdi said:


> Because believe it or not, tons of people have been playing D&D for decades, in ways that you likely wouldn't call or recognize as _*D&D*_.



Right - because they houseruled it. In some cases I've seen the "houserules" go to the extent of making what is essentially a different game. That's fine; they are allowed to do that! If they want to call what they are doing "D&D" they can even do that - the worst it will be is a bit confusing, but I think we've all got used to it by now.



El Mahdi said:


> And that's the whole point of a unifying edition.



I think the "whole point" of a "unifying edition" is to get as many people to buy the thing, to be brutally honest - for whatever personal reason they may have.

What I am *hoping* will happen is that they will make a coherent game that is good for _something_, and maybe that is pretty flexible and captures the spirit of D&D setting elements, and that the "D&D Next will be all things to all men" stuff will get lots of gamers to at least try it and have a chance to discover just what the game is good at (which was one of the things most notably screwed up with 4e's launch).



El Mahdi said:


> What D&D *IS* varies from group to group, table to table, and player to player...and they are *ALL D&D!* Such changes might be ones that won't look recognizable as D&D to you. To others, that is exactly what D&D is and has always been.



Well, they are all *roleplaying*, that's for sure. "D&D" is nothing more than a trademark property of a published roleplaying system, but you seem to have some model in your head in which it is something different - possibly even identical with "roleplaying" - and what you call "D&D" in that otherworld I can't really know or allow for.



El Mahdi said:


> It's more than just accepting, it's acknowledging and embracing an inclusive attitude towards the game, rather than an exclusionary and limiting attitude.
> 
> The designers have already done that, it's time for us as fans to do the same.



I'm very, very happy to have an "inclusive attitude" towards my hobby - and that hobby is *roleplaying games*. "D&D" is just one published set of rules. It cannot be "inclusive". It can be "flexible", up to a point, before it becomes so vague as to be worthless, but published sets of rules do not "include" or "exclude" anybody.

There is the wish to play the RPG you want to play.

There is wanting to play an RPG called "D&D".

People like to play a huge range of RPGs, so if everyone took the view that they want both of these things, some will be disappointed.

The first of the wishes is natural and to be expected. The second is irrational and potentially causes conflict. So, it seems to me that the sensible thing to do is to pursue the first one and let the second be an incidental.

I am interested in D&D Next. If it's a game I want to play, I'll play it. If it's not a game I want to play, I won't. But I'm not about to insist that it does what everybody wants of it, because I don't think that's possible.



pemerton said:


> It's seems likely that there would have to be some changes to these opponents other than merely reflavouring - perhaps 10th level Balrogs have a few mechanical abilities that 10th level soldiers lack - and therefore perhaps some changes to the mechanical abilities of the PCs when toggles are switched. (Maybe the pool of feats or spells to choose from is different depending which toggle is pushed.)
> 
> But the changes can't be very extensive - eg whole new realms of PC building can't be opened up or shut down by pushing the toggle, and whole new action resolution techniques can't be opened up or shut down by pushing the toggle - or else we won't be talking about a modular system anymore, but simply multiple games being published side-by-side by the one publisher.



As far as I'm concerned, if you have "toggles" you have different games - but maybe this would be a really smart move for WotC. There do seem to be a number of people who are very heavily invested in having what they play be called "D&D" on the cover, so publishing a whole range of, say, 3-4 games, all with the brand name "D&D" on them could be a winner. The design focus should, in that case, include making sure that the components of the different games are clearly identified and their use explained - without insinuating too hard that they are actually different games... 

Edit: actually, I can almost see right now the posts here and elsewhere arguing blue-in-the-face that random assemblages of such a "multi-game" actually work perfectly together, despite being designed for very different "modules"!


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 17, 2012)

Depending on how 5E scales, it is at least possible that the math could be further compressed to allow everyone and their dog the ability to kill a dragon.


----------



## triqui (Apr 17, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> As the PCs themselves show, size and mass have absolutely nothing to do with the difficulty level of a creature. After all, that 20th level halfling rogue isn't invulnerable, may have some magic items, can't fly on his own, certainly isn't as strong or resilient as a giant. So by this logic, the rogue should be pretty easy to defeat. Which of course isn't the case.



 I already conceded that point. You could go as far as saying that regular LotR orcs are level 15, uruk hai are level 25 elite, mordor flies are level 30, and regular rats are level31 solo if you want. It wouldn't make a lot of sense, though, and claiming that a baby rock troll is CR 10 by D&D standards dont make any sense either. You could try and say so if all what you want is to find a lame excuse to keep saying that Aragorn is high level, just like you could go and say hunters are lvl 25 because all rabbits are level 25 as well (killer rabbits!)

But, in all fairness, the rock troll is not a 20th level rogue. He can't became quasi-invisible with 30+ stealth, isn't incredibly well versed in backstabbing and is not described as having supernatural dexterity. It's a baby troll, which does NOTHING but hit and bash. He is not as strong as a D&D hill giant, and he has NOT any other ability beyond what a hill giant has. Sure, Tolkien could had described this baby troll as a fast, swift dextreous character with an awesome fencing technique, incredibly high sneaking skills and some lightning reflexes. But he didn't. He described it as a slow, hulking beast who was half-chained, using a crude club. By what he described, that baby troll is *at best* CR4 (in a 1-20 range), as a regular D&D troll. I'd say it's less than that, as regular trolls regenerate.



> But for Aragorn, his adventure started 50 years ago. He's just ported into the new campaign with this group of first level hobbits.



 Gimli is 139 years old when the Fellowship assemble. That's 52 years more than Aragorn. By your standard, Gimli should be epic level then. And let's not start with Legolas, son of Thandruil, who is probably in the thousands.


> I have to ask why your 100 year adventuring elf didn't learn anything in all his adventures?



Because it's background. If you use logic, as the elves learn just as fast as humans (they get the same XP once the game starts), any elf character with a background would be level 15 before the game starts, by human standards. Any elf with a military background has been fighting for decades.




> But it's clear we have differing views on how PCs should perceive their worlds. Totally fine, of course, I do see how your interpretation of the levels in D&D can give a different impression on how characters view the world.



 Just to point, my interpretation is the base assumption of the game. 







> But then we're getting back to the metagaming. Why are these ranger/rogue goblins perceived as such a threat, when bandits weren't? To the characters, they're just goblins with bows, and aren't goblins not worth worrying about if you're challenging manticores and beholders?



For the same reason a group of Navy Seals are extremelly cautious when facing a group of Spetnaz, but extremelly confident when they face a group of somalian pirates. Just that exponentially more, because they are in a world where magic exists, including healing magic and raise dead.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 17, 2012)

triqui said:


> You could go as far as saying that regular LotR orcs are level 15, uruk hai are level 25 elite, mordor flies are level 30, and regular rats are level31 solo if you want. It wouldn't make a lot of sense, though



The idea I mentioned above, of toggling a given tier on or off (so level 10 enemies are either soldiers, or balors, depending whether one is playing an "ordinary hero" campaign or an "epic" campaign), is a version of this that is at least conceivable. It draws in part on the idea of "reskinning" and scaling in 4e. But it also resembles the approach of HeroQuest revised, in which Speed 17 might mean you're as fast as a professional sprinter (if you're playing a pulp game) or as fast as The Flash (if you're playing a superhero game). In HQ revised, he numbers and mechanics don't change betwen pulp and superheroes, just the flavour around them.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 17, 2012)

Balesir said:


> What I am *hoping* will happen is that they will make a coherent game that is good for _something_, and maybe that is pretty flexible and captures the spirit of D&D setting elements, and that the "D&D Next will be all things to all men" stuff will get lots of gamers to at least try it and have a chance to discover just what the game is good at (which was one of the things most notably screwed up with 4e's launch).
> 
> I'm very, very happy to have an "inclusive attitude" towards my hobby - and that hobby is *roleplaying games*. "D&D" is just one published set of rules. It cannot be "inclusive". It can be "flexible", up to a point, before it becomes so vague as to be worthless, but published sets of rules do not "include" or "exclude" anybody.
> 
> I am interested in D&D Next. If it's a game I want to play, I'll play it. If it's not a game I want to play, I won't. But I'm not about to insist that it does what everybody wants of it, because I don't think that's possible.



Exactly. Out of the box D&D has ALWAYS had particular characteristics. The power curve for characters has varied somewhat over the years, but it has played pretty close to the same way in all editions. At level 1 the PCs are a cut above the normal man, and capable of much more potentially. At some point, pretty quickly, they completely surpass any normal NPC human(oid) and any realistic human. Before too long beyond that they're capable of surviving things and defeating things that the normal "0 level" humans of the world could never defeat except maybe under highly favorable circumstances (500 level 0 bowmen mass firing at close range in pretty much any edition could defeat many monsters up to a point). Beyond that the PCs become almost godlike superheroes and can defeat things that would laugh at entire armies, and defeat said armies themselves to boot.

This is part of the essence of what makes D&D "D&D". I like D&D. I like other RPGs too. I'm perfectly happy if people can adjust the way they play D&D as long as the ability to do that doesn't adversely impact D&D's core play style.



> As far as I'm concerned, if you have "toggles" you have different games - but maybe this would be a really smart move for WotC. There do seem to be a number of people who are very heavily invested in having what they play be called "D&D" on the cover, so publishing a whole range of, say, 3-4 games, all with the brand name "D&D" on them could be a winner. The design focus should, in that case, include making sure that the components of the different games are clearly identified and their use explained - without insinuating too hard that they are actually different games...
> 
> Edit: actually, I can almost see right now the posts here and elsewhere arguing blue-in-the-face that random assemblages of such a "multi-game" actually work perfectly together, despite being designed for very different "modules"!




Agreed. I think in order to accommodate both a nearly flat power curve where PCs can always be threatened (which means defeated) by a few non-adventurer bowmen AND the typical D&D power curve is asking a lot from one game. At best what I'm seeing is the suggestion that the entire Monster Manual would have to be different, rules for hit points, damage, and defenses would have to be different, and probably other things as well. 

That just doesn't sound like the same rule system. It might be VERY similar and it is probably possible to create these things as variations on a set of common core mechanics. In effect though I'd have to buy different books, different adventures, maybe even different settings in order to play these different variations. It might make sense to WotC to brand all these things D&D, but I'm not really sure that would be a great idea. It SURE wouldn't make it easy for someone trying to get into the game to understand which books and supplements and which optional rules to use. 

IMHO D&D really should be designed around its traditional play style as much as possible. It should do that play style really well. It should showcase that play style and nurture it and explain it so that people know what D&D is and what it does. Sure, it should allow for some variations around that, but all those should be lesser choices that all serve basically the core play style of D&D. Trying to be all things to all players is simply going to, IMHO, not work. At best it will be horribly confusing and complicated and thus make it very hard for people to use D&D as an entry point into RPGs.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 17, 2012)

pemerton said:


> The idea I mentioned above, of toggling a given tier on or off (so level 10 enemies are either soldiers, or balors, depending whether one is playing an "ordinary hero" campaign or an "epic" campaign), is a version of this that is at least conceivable. It draws in part on the idea of "reskinning" and scaling in 4e. But it also resembles the approach of HeroQuest revised, in which Speed 17 might mean you're as fast as a professional sprinter (if you're playing a pulp game) or as fast as The Flash (if you're playing a superhero game). In HQ revised, he numbers and mechanics don't change betwen pulp and superheroes, just the flavour around them.




I think the issue here is like I said above, you CAN do that to an extent. You will have to rewrite your Monster Manual and probably use a different or modified setting as well, on top of the mechanical tweaks you'll still probably need to make. At that point is there a value in WotC calling it D&D? Is it in fact even in their best interests or the best interests of the game to have such different games confusingly going under the same name? 

The key thing is with HQ A) it has been this way for a long time/forever so people expect it, and B) you play a specific genre, nobody expects superheroes in their pulp game. They are entirely different genres. Magneto may appear in your supers game, but he isn't even presented in the pulp setting manual and if you translated him across he'd come off as some deluded idiot with a big ego and some minor powers.

I think D&D can allow for some leeway, and traditionally it has been somewhat achievable, but not THAT much. Honestly the traditional way to play D&D with different power curves has been basically to have faster or slower advancement and stop playing or cap level advancement at some point. Rather than confusing people who come into the game about exactly what a 'dragon' is, I think it would just be better to do that. If the DM wants to play 'low power gritty heroes' then dragons are going to be utterly terrifying beasts well beyond anyone killing them in combat. Instead either you avoid them or the DM provides some plot device by which they're defeated.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 17, 2012)

pemerton said:
			
		

> If D&Dnext is going to support "ordinary heroes" play for the full 10 or 20 levels of the game (I'd be surprised if they go for 30 levels this time around), but also support the same sort of play as one gets from using prior editions' high level rules as written, the only straightforward way I can see to do it is via some sort of "reflavouring" toggle: when you press the "ordinary heroes" button, then your 10th level opponents are well-trained soldiers, whereas when you push the "Silmarillion" button, your 10th level opponents are Balrogs.




FWIW, my current favorite solution to this is to make a game that doesn't toggle automatically like previous D&D editions, but toggles as the DM decides to toggle it (if at all). The key here is vertical advancement -- if you cap attack bonus, damage bonus, AC bonus, HP bonus, etc., at a given point (say, every +5), but still allow horizontal advancement at that point (more spells, more powers, just not higher level spells and powers), you wind up with "E6 With Speedbumps:" you never have to reach the point at which your PC can survive a 100-foot fall, but at any point (including at character creation!), you can opt into it. And if you wanted to play through all of them, you'd change over as soon as you reached the cap. 

I don't think it's just a reskinning (though I do think getting the skin right is part of the bag): it's a mechanical limit on, say, maximum HP, while keeping the possibility to still get cool new toys as you gain XP.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 17, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> FWIW, my current favorite solution to this is to make a game that doesn't toggle automatically like previous D&D editions, but toggles as the DM decides to toggle it (if at all). The key here is vertical advancement -- if you cap attack bonus, damage bonus, AC bonus, HP bonus, etc., at a given point (say, every +5), but still allow horizontal advancement at that point (more spells, more powers, just not higher level spells and powers), you wind up with "E6 With Speedbumps:" you never have to reach the point at which your PC can survive a 100-foot fall, but at any point (including at character creation!), you can opt into it. And if you wanted to play through all of them, you'd change over as soon as you reached the cap.
> 
> I don't think it's just a reskinning (though I do think getting the skin right is part of the bag): it's a mechanical limit on, say, maximum HP, while keeping the possibility to still get cool new toys as you gain XP.




Then add to that. The assumption we are working on right now is relatively flat (but not completely flat) attack and defenses, with hit points and damage scaling somewhat faster. 

The easiest way to dial lethalness of the system, which is about 75% of what is being discussed here, in essense, is to vary hit points and/or damage while leaving everything else alone. The problem with both, of course, if making that easy to use for everyone--and even worse, not having undesired side effects on combat pacing.  But supplement what KM is talking about with such a system, and I think his idea covers most of the other 25%, and smooths out a lot of rough edges that will result in the rest.  

About the only clean, obvious way I can see towards something like that is to list hit points and damage not as flat amounts, but as base amounts to which a factor is applied. You apply a "lethalness" factor to hit points, giving more or less of them. You apply a "lethalness" factor to damage, doing more or less damage. If you apply the factors roughly in sync, you'll maintain default combat pacing. If you apply them out of sync, you won't, and will need to adjust or live with it. 

The rub, then, is if the factors getting out of sync produces results that people can live with. For example, you leave hit points alone but double damage outputs. This doubled damage is often wasted when a dragon or other high level creature tangles with extreme low-level creatures, because it was already going to kill them anyway. In the meantime, it makes the dragon even more dangerous to heroes--or at least more risky, since presumably their damage is doubled to. However, the low-level creatures, trying to take that dragon down, can kill it more readily.

That brings us to the impossible thing--A > B > C > A, which Balesir so aptly identified. The only way that equation "works" is if you change the meaning of one of the variables mid-calculation! So in the above example, because low-level creatures in mass are a "threat" to PCs, they get the doubled damage dice when fighting them. But they aren't much of a threat to dragons. So no "lethalness" boost for them, then. That is, the "lethalness" factor is not something supplied as a flat adjustment for the campaign, but is a flavor thing provided by the DM, with whatever resulting inconsistency the group is prepared to tolerate.


----------



## triqui (Apr 17, 2012)

pemerton said:


> The idea I mentioned above, of toggling a given tier on or off (so level 10 enemies are either soldiers, or balors, depending whether one is playing an "ordinary hero" campaign or an "epic" campaign), is a version of this that is at least conceivable. It draws in part on the idea of "reskinning" and scaling in 4e. But it also resembles the approach of HeroQuest revised, in which Speed 17 might mean you're as fast as a professional sprinter (if you're playing a pulp game) or as fast as The Flash (if you're playing a superhero game). In HQ revised, he numbers and mechanics don't change betwen pulp and superheroes, just the flavour around them.




I've already said in other threads that the "wuxia" aspect of the game should be a Dial. If you want to play a Diablo II style of game, your Fighter should be cleaving and then using whirlwind and leaping over huge pits and your archer should shoot volleys of incendiary arrows almost from level 1,  while a Conan  King Campaign should stay more "realistic" even in high level.

That is feasible. What is not, though, is combining both *at the same time*. You can make a game system where level 20 fighters die with two arrows, *or* you can make a game system where level 20 fighters face Balors, Pitfiends and Ancient Great Wyrms. What you can't, is making a system where the 20th level fighter both defeat great Wyrms *and* die to a pair of arrows at the same time


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 17, 2012)

For a blend of KM's suggestion and mine, try this power out for grins:

*Smack Epic Creatures Really Hard* - You've got that heroic quality to know exactly how to get through the defenses of epic threats.  Gain +6d6 (or whatever fits) damage to hit creatures with the "epic" keyword.

You can do some similar things with conditional DR, special equipment, etc.  Basically, you need asymmetric abilities, thus changing the *relationship* between pairs of opponents. 

If town guards all had that power, they'd be a threat to dragons with their crossbows.  But they don't.  Meanwhile, presumably, their crossbows are still somewhat of a threat to PCs.  The dragon is now a huge threat to the guards, not because he can kill them fast (though he can wade through a fair chunk of them in a hurry), but mainly because they can't do substantial damage to him without lots of time.

To keep from going completely bonkers, you'd have to do something like that with keywords, based off of a few categories, because the number of relationships is astronomical, when looked at one creature at a time.


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (Apr 17, 2012)

You can't have a "dial" with more than 1 or 2 options; either you have "x" module that allows certain effects that are easily applied, or not.  Modules have to be simple; you either fall from 1000 feet/suffer 100 points of damage from a single strike, and continue unabated if you have the HP, or you apply the "gritty module" that imposes limits.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 17, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Because, in your quest for "ordinary heroes" you gum up my game?




How can the manner in which I play my game possibly gum up your game...?

How can an edition _*that is going to be modular*_, possibly have any extra negative significance to your game if what I and others want is included...?

It's just phenomonally silly to think it will.

And D&D has supported Ordinary Hero style play in past editions.  The most obvious example is Zero Level Characters.  Has support for this been uncommon and infrequent...?  Absolutely.  Non-existent...?  Absolutely Not.  But I'm pretty sure you know that.  Just because you don't like it, denying it's very existence is not going to make it fact.

If all boiled down, these are your central objections, then they're objections based entirely on false perception, self-designed bias, and fallacy.

With that statement, you just lost any rational justification for objecting to the ideas put forth in this thread...


----------



## triqui (Apr 17, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> And D&D has supported Ordinary Hero style play in past editions.  The most obvious example is Zero Level Characters.  Has support for this been uncommon and infrequent...?  Absolutely.  Non-existent...?  Absolutely Not.  But I'm pretty sure you know that.  Just because you don't like it, denying it's very existence is not going to make it fact.




D&D always have supported low level gritty style of play. A first level character can die to a single great axe chop. What it does *not*  support, so far, is to stay like this for a long time. Your zero level commoner will be a zero level commoner 1st level fighter as soon as he starts to play. A couple months later, he will be a 10th level fighter, and he will be jumping awesome distances, surviving the most dangerous venoms, and falling 100ft with no problems. He will be killing 15 grunts in no time, and can go toe to toe with a giant.

Could it be done? Sure. For example, a simple way:
Module: PC don't gain hp per level. Done. 

However, that will change *greatly* how D&D works and feels. You can have a 10th level fighter with 15 hp and make a great Game of Thrones rpg. You can't make that and face beholders, chimaeras, manticores and dragons. Can a game without those things be "D&D"? Tough call. It can share the same system. D20 Modern or StarWars Saga aren't D&D though. Call of Cthulhu d20 isn't D&D, and Runequest probably isn't D&D either. A Song of Fire and Ice is not D&D, in my opinion.

It's hard to get an agreement about what is D&D. Some people will argue that Vancian Magic and Alignment are D&D, othes will argue the opposite. But, at the very minimum, I think D&D need to have two things:
a) Dungeons
b) Dragons.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 17, 2012)

Balesir said:


> I got the idea from the fact that you said:
> 
> To which I replied:
> 
> ...




Ahhhh...Okay.  We had a misunderstanding.  No big deal.

For clarificaton purposes: I don't feel that the level progression system is a problem.  Gonzo superhero abilities have also been front loaded.  And, even though they are typically aquired by levelling up, aquiring such abilities is not a necessity.  I'd say that OD&D and BD&D most definitely did not have that, and were very much Ordianary Hero type games.  Even moreso if Zero Level Character rules were used.

With talk of having a much more flatter progression in D&D Next, and being able to pick and choose modules for your play style; D&D Next should  be able to even better support, and equally support, both Ordinary Hero and standard Super Hero D&D..and just about every other type.



Balesir said:


> To me, there only seems to be one complicating factor - that you insist on calling any roleplaying game "D&D".[\quote]
> 
> I don't call _*any*_ roleplaying game "D&D"...just actual D&D.  But, D&D has had multiple iterations; all with very different emphasis, style support, play feel, and of course - mechanics and rules.  D&D is _*already*_ many different games, and has always been so.  Even D&D RAW cannot be defined in one singular way due to the different edtions.  People insisting that D&D is only what each thinks D&D is, is what's complicating the issue...and becoming a roadblock to inclusive acceptance.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 17, 2012)

Dour-n-Taciturn said:


> You can't have a "dial" with more than 1 or 2 options; either you have "x" module that allows certain effects that are easily applied, or not. Modules have to be simple; you either fall from 1000 feet/suffer 100 points of damage from a single strike, and continue unabated if you have the HP, or you apply the "gritty module" that imposes limits.




All effects do base damage + dial damage.  Let's say a shortsword by default, does 1d6 + Str mod + dial damage.  You can set dial damage to any number (including zero), or set of dice, or even worded effects, that the math will tolerate.  It's not infinite, but it is a lot more than 1 or 2 options.

And in any case, a "dial" with only 1 or 2 options isn't a "dial" in the first place.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 17, 2012)

triqui said:


> D&D always have supported low level gritty style of play. A first level character can die to a single great axe chop. What it does *not* support, so far, is to stay like this for a long time. Your zero level commoner will be a zero level commoner 1st level fighter as soon as he starts to play. A couple months later, he will be a 10th level fighter, and he will be jumping awesome distances, surviving the most dangerous venoms, and falling 100ft with no problems. He will be killing 15 grunts in no time, and can go toe to toe with a giant.
> 
> Could it be done? Sure. For example, a simple way:
> Module: PC don't gain hp per level. Done.




Or with the idea they're looking at right now, flatter progression as you level up (slower and flatter BAB, Defense, etc. progression).



triqui said:


> However, that will change *greatly* how D&D works and feels. You can have a 10th level fighter with 15 hp and make a great Game of Thrones rpg. You can't make that and face beholders, chimaeras, manticores and dragons. Can a game without those things be "D&D"? Tough call. It can share the same system. D20 Modern or StarWars Saga aren't D&D though. Call of Cthulhu d20 isn't D&D, and Runequest probably isn't D&D either. A Song of Fire and Ice is not D&D, in my opinion.
> 
> It's hard to get an agreement about what is D&D. Some people will argue that Vancian Magic and Alignment are D&D, othes will argue the opposite. But, at the very minimum, I think D&D need to have two things:
> a) Dungeons
> b) Dragons.




Cool!


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 17, 2012)

The way it seems to be going, based on what the articles and blogpost have been hinting, is that attack, AC, DCs, and saves wont increase much....

but damage and HP will still stay at around the same rate. 
Joe the level 15 fighter will still have over 100 hp but his AC wont be 30 and his attack might be +12 after bonuses.

The town guard will have to still use overwhelming numbers like the old days because he can still kill 4-10 of them a round.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Apr 18, 2012)

So...

... that's a "no" on new falling damage rules then?


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (Apr 18, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> All effects do base damage + dial damage.  Let's say a shortsword by default, does 1d6 + Str mod + dial damage.  You can set dial damage to any number (including zero), or set of dice, or even worded effects, that the math will tolerate.  It's not infinite, but it is a lot more than 1 or 2 options.
> 
> And in any case, a "dial" with only 1 or 2 options isn't a "dial" in the first place.




You can indeed, if you have 10 modules.  My point is that a "dial" is not feasible, you have core rules and up to a handful of options.  The math can tolerate any number of variations, most of us mortals, alas, cannot.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> How can the manner in which I play my game possibly gum up your game...?
> 
> How can an edition _*that is going to be modular*_, possibly have any extra negative significance to your game if what I and others want is included...?
> 
> ...




Umm, no?  Pulling out a single thread out of what I've said and claiming I've lost any rational justification in this thread is playing silly buggers.

Look, I'm saying the same thing as everyone else.  You can have grim and gritty.  You can have wahoo.  What you can't have is the same at the same time.  Not, as CJ rightly points out, without changing elements midstream.

Yes, you can have zero to hero in D&D.  Never said you couldn't.  What you can't have is everyday heroes.  Never could.  You are only 0 level for one level  By the time you're 3rd, you're no longer an everyday person.  You're not superhuman, but, you're well on the way.

So, explain to me how your 15th level character, in any edition of D&D you care to pick, is an "everyday person".


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> So...
> 
> ... that's a "no" on new falling damage rules then?




How did you come to that conclusion...? Or is this just wishful thinking on your part...?

For education purposes...it helps tp look at the whole story:



> Rule-of-Three: 04/17/2012
> Rodney Thompson
> 
> 
> ...




Just because they haven't specifically mentioned such a rule or module, doesn't mean it's not on the list...*the list that they have not released*.

And you can be damn sure that once the open playtest starts, I will be a voice...*a PERSISTENT and INESCAPABLE voice*...for the inclusion of such things.

Nice try, SW...but no dice.


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (Apr 18, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> So...
> 
> ... that's a "no" on new falling damage rules then?




No, not unless you want a module that factors in "believability", in which case you apply 1d6 damage cumulatively for every 5 feet you fall (don't worry there will be a table) and if the DM feels that you consciously leaped into the breach, you have to make a death save.  Further more, if you fall on a group of city guards, or common bandits, they all get to shoot at you, and if the DM feels that you are taking them too lightly, your character is demoted to 1st level until you run away, or grovel appropriately with the new "out-of-combat" skill module.

So that's a no?

In all seriousness, the threads here are an important tool in demonstrating at least some of the possibilities, which are entertaining to discuss, but the reality is likely to ignore most of these ideas, with their many conflicting points of view.  Some people believe that a modular system will be applicable to a broad range of styles, I do not have such faith.  I believe that the designers will attempt to develop a rule set that may or may not emulate the "feel" of 2nd ED and incorporates some of the ideas from later EDs.  What the net effect will be can only be analyzed once the betas are play tested.

My apologies in advance for the snark, carry on...


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 18, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Umm, no? Pulling out a single thread out of what I've said and claiming I've lost any rational justification in this thread is playing silly buggers...




I don't think it's silly one bit.  Especially when I asked you a direct question: How do such things gum up your game?...and you conveniently just shoot right past it and not answer.

But you sure go on and want me to answer your questions.



Nope.  Uh-uh.  Not happening.



Answer my question first.  Give me a rational explanation of how any such rules, like including a module for realistic falling damage, gums up your game?

Otherwise I'm going to consider this conversation absolutely pointless and stop discoursing with you.  However, you can be certain I'll continue to point out irrational statements as they're made.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 18, 2012)

triqui said:


> IYou can make a game system where level 20 fighters die with two arrows, *or* you can make a game system where level 20 fighters face Balors, Pitfiends and Ancient Great Wyrms. What you can't, is making a system where the 20th level fighter both defeat great Wyrms *and* die to a pair of arrows at the same time



I showed my players this quote, and they basically shrugged it off. Nobody in my group (using my RPG) thinks this is true (and that's from experience). And, my method is certainly not the only way to accomplish this goal. As always, play what you like


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 18, 2012)

Dour-n-Taciturn said:


> You can indeed, if you have 10 modules. My point is that a "dial" is not feasible, you have core rules and up to a handful of options. The math can tolerate any number of variations, most of us mortals, alas, cannot.




I think you are confusing "module" with "major replacement subsystem".  The way they are discussing, some "modules" could be as small as a feat write up.  

Dial is most definitely feasible.


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (Apr 18, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I think you are confusing "module" with "major replacement subsystem".  The way they are discussing, some "modules" could be as small as a feat write up.
> 
> Dial is most definitely feasible.




This dial system would not be major if several are combined?  What would you permit in your "dial", accuracy modifiers? armor penetration? proficiencies/feats?  How many sources would you allow for modifiers:  item, magic, conditional, feat, racial?  Can you fabricate an all-inclusive dial modifier?  If you have a monster, or a group, how many dials do you want to apply?  Each encounter would have dials, balanced to match the PC's dials.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2012)

El Mahdi said:
			
		

> Answer my question first. Give me a rational explanation of how any such rules, like including a module for realistic falling damage, gums up your game?




Because, in order for your module to work, requires an entire reworking of how D&D works from the ground up.  In order for a PC to still be credibly threatened by mundane threats (20 archers) while at the same time be able to deal with high level threats such as demons or dragons, you have to scale SOMETHING.

If that's built into the game, then it makes things that much harder to run my game.  Now, if it's an entirely optional module, then fine, who cares?  But, I don't think you can actually make it an entirely optional module.  The changes you want to make affect every single aspect of the game - power level, advancement rates, power ratios between NPC's and PC's, the level system, the magic system (since with a much flatter scale, you cannot have high powered casters, that breaks the system).

What you're asking for is not possible to do in a module.  You're asking to rework the entire game system from the ground up.  If the game is based on what you want, then it makes what I want impossible to do with the game system.

Since D&D has never actually been based on the idea of "normal people doing extraordinary things", why would I want a new edition of the game to be based on this?

There, I've nicely repeated everything I've been saying for the past several pages in one nice neat package.  

So, could you return the favour?  Can you explain how a 15th level character in any edition is an "average guy"?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 18, 2012)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Look, I'm saying the same thing as everyone else. You can have grim and gritty. You can have wahoo. What you can't have is the same at the same time.




FWIW, in my proposed system, this would be a hypothetical possibility. Probably not a lot of fun for anyone stuck in grim-n-gritty mode, but certainly within the realm of possibility to give one character a higher tier than another.

I also think this is somewhat at the root of the wizard/fighter issue. Wizards shouldn't belong in a different "tier" than fighters just by virtue of being wizards, generally speaking. Comparing leaping between dimensions with _jumping really far_ doesn't really gel. If you want to keep fighters basic people, you can keep wizards within the realm of basic magic, too. If you want your wizard upgrade, your fighter should probably get one, too (and by the time she's a demigod or a destined ruler or whatever, she's working well beyond the "jump far" limitation of the lower levels, too). 



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> In order for a PC to still be credibly threatened by mundane threats (20 archers) while at the same time be able to deal with high level threats such as demons or dragons, you have to scale SOMETHING.




This works reasonably well as long as the numbers are reasonably close. If the difference between level 20 and level 1 is, I dunno, a total of 10 hp, that works fine. 

This is what I'm babbling on about when I refer to capping vertical advancement. In a single tier, the bottom and the top shouldn't be too far apart.

Now, between tiers, you could conceivably have a dramatic difference. And you probably should. But as long as Normal Joe is fighting something Normal Joes can fight (even if, in someone's campaign, that's a dragon), it's pretty much working as intended.


----------



## illwizard (Apr 18, 2012)

Can't 20 archers _and_ a wyrm be credible threats? Sure, the wyrm is more of a threat but that doesn't mean 20 face arrows aren't threatening to a hero. facing 20 enemies always increases the risk. Leonidas could have bested almost anyone in single combat (even a demi-deity) but a hail of arrows still cuts him down.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 18, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The key here is vertical advancement -- if you cap attack bonus, damage bonus, AC bonus, HP bonus, etc., at a given point (say, every +5), but still allow horizontal advancement at that point (more spells, more powers, just not higher level spells and powers), you wind up with "E6 With Speedbumps:" you never have to reach the point at which your PC can survive a 100-foot fall, but at any point (including at character creation!), you can opt into it. And if you wanted to play through all of them, you'd change over as soon as you reached the cap.
> 
> I don't think it's just a reskinning



You're right, this is different from what I envisaged.

It has some similiarities - different pools of spells, feats etc to be drawn on depending on the "tier" of play - but also changes the action resolution numbers (ie by capping them).

A comment and a question.

Comment: This is very different from any version of D&D to date (other than E6, as you noted) - even in classic D&D, hit points keep going up (though they slow down), and saves, attacks etc don't slow down at all! That's not an objection to it. But it's a reason to think that it might be controversial in some quarters - "level-less D&D" or something similar would be the criticism.

Question: To what extent do you envisage the need for multiple monster manuals, treasure lists etc? If each tier is 5 levels, and I'm level 10 tier 1, then I've got the action resolution numbers of a 5th level PC, though backed by a suite of options closer to a level 10 tier 2 PC. Presumably a monster that would be challenging to a level 10 tier PC will be very challenging for me, because my action resolution numbers are smaller. Is this a feature? - ie if I'm playing a tier 1 game, I expect monsters above level 5 to be more threatening than their level would indicate by default. Or is it a bug? - the solution to which is to publish level 10 tier 1 monsters, who are a good threat for level 10 tier 1 PCs, but not so useful against level 10 tier 2 PCs.

The same sort of question arises for magic items - are there separate lists by level and tier, or are we expected to recognise that a level 10 item will have a more dramatic impact when dropped into a level 10 tier 1 game than when dropped into a level 10 tier 2 game?

(Regardless of the answer to this question about monsters and items (and other non-pC level-defined game elements), presumably the game would need GM guidelines to tell the GM how to handle the intersection of levels and tiers in adventure design and adjudication of action resolution.)


----------



## pemerton (Apr 18, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Give me a rational explanation of how any such rules, like including a module for realistic falling damage, gums up your game?



A massive damage save option, that I can just ignore, won't gum up my game.

But if the module is more complex than that, or attempts to operate over a greater range of the game than just falling (eg point blank dragon breath), and if the part of the game that I'm using has to be built a certain way so as to support the integration of that module into the game, then it can gum things up.

On the list mentioned in Rule of Three, the potential game-gummer that stood out for me was hit locations. Because once a system is going to support hit locations, it is probably going to have to support piecemeal armour. And piecemeal armour brings with it all sort of issues in turn. For example, it doesn't work that well with an AC system, because you get the oddity that your heavy breastplate makes you overall harder to hit, but doesn't reduce the likelihood of your taking damage to your torso as opposed to your arms or legs. (HARP has this issue, and Rolemaster to a lesser extent.) It can work better with a damage reduction system, but then the game probably needs called shot rules too, so that combatants can aim their attacks at the less-protected part of the body. (This is an issue in Runequest.) And workable called shot rules then put constraints on the design of the attack rules more generally.

Lingering wounds are a different sort of case here. Because they complicate the encounter design guidelines (by changing the expected numbers of the PCs, due to wound penalties), they may lead to the encounter design guidelines being written in a particular sort of way, which might reduce the utiity of those rules for me compared to what they otherwise might have been.

I'm not saying that making hit locations work mechanically, or integrating lingering wounds into a worthwhile set of encounter-buidling guidelines, is impossible. I just use these as illustrations of the conceivability of one person's module gumming up another person's rules.


----------



## Balesir (Apr 18, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Ahhhh...Okay.  We had a misunderstanding.  No big deal.
> 
> For clarificaton purposes: I don't feel that the level progression system is a problem.  Gonzo superhero abilities have also been front loaded.  And, even though they are typically aquired by levelling up, aquiring such abilities is not a necessity.  I'd say that OD&D and BD&D most definitely did not have that, and were very much Ordianary Hero type games.  Even moreso if Zero Level Character rules were used.



OK, but I didn't get the overall impression that it was the "gonzo abilities" that were really the issue - more the escalating hit points and defences. The suggestion is that this edition will have a much shallower defence escalation, but hit points seem still to be expected to increase with level - isn't that the core of the "falling damage" and "mundane archer" problems?

And, if level does not increase hit points, or defences, or 'to hit' bonuses or "gonzo abilities" - what is the purpose of retaining the idea of "levels"?



El Mahdi said:


> With talk of having a much more flatter progression in D&D Next, and being able to pick and choose modules for your play style; D&D Next should  be able to even better support, and equally support, both Ordinary Hero and standard Super Hero D&D..and just about every other type.



I would point out that, in OD&D, an 8th level fighting man was labelled "superhero"...

Having an "ordinary hero" at level 1 is easy; but if they are still "ordinary heroes" at level 15 I have to ask what all the "levelling" stuff was all about...



El Mahdi said:


> Now you're just being silly.  Did you honestly expect a serious answer to this...



No, of course not 

I was just frustrated with the misunderstandings - one you pointed out, another I will discuss below.



El Mahdi said:


> I play a range of styles that I like.  But every style I play _*IS*_ D&D. And every other style is also D&D.



And this is where I think the second miscommunication comes in.

To me, this is a nonsensical set of assertions. I can only assume that we are talking about radically different things. *Not* every style _I_ play is D&D. Especially if I am playing HârnMaster, Ars Magica, Runequest, Traveller, Shadowrun or Universalis.

To me, "D&D" is not a style of play at all - it's a set of (published) roleplaying game rules. As such, it is not capable of being "inclusive", "accepting" or anything else you call out for in the following section of your post.

You seem to me to conflate two things, here.

One is "D&D the roleplaying game", which is a piece of collected intellectual property published and expanded upon by the IP owner, currently Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc.

The other is some sort of cultural-political entity I can perhaps best identify as "D&D fandom". This entity, as a cultural and political phenomenon, most certainly could be "inclusive" and "accepting".

Viewed in this light, perhaps what you want to see in D&D Next is a manifesto (which is inclusive and accepting) for this cultural-political entity? Presumably with some roleplaying rules and guidelines included as well?

If this is the case then we are just looking for different things. I just want the published roleplaying rules system (if it's any good). I have no real interest in any published manifesto, and I would much rather see the wider (and, by definition, more inclusive and accepting) cultural-political grouping of "roleplayers" cultivated and developed than any commercially-centred, product-linked subset of it.



El Mahdi said:


> D&D Next *IS* going to be an edition that unifies all of these playstyles (as much as possible) under one umbrella of core rules and optional modules.  If you don't want that, why are you posting in the D&D Next forums...?



Marketing BS aside, a set of roleplaying rules can't "unify" anything. It can't even determine "playstyle" (though it can, I think, support it), let alone "unify" several of them.

I don't need an "umbrella" of rules to allow me to play the styles I want to play - I'll choose what I want to use for each style, thanks very much.

And I'm here on the D&D Next forums to discuss and speculate about a set of roleplaying rules that have been announced for future publication. I'm really not that interested in discussing political agendas or manifestoes for some sort of "D&D zealotry movement" and I am, in general, opposed to the identification of such a "movement" as distinct from the wider fellowship of "roleplayers".



El Mahdi said:


> If D&D as you see it, is such a singularly defined game, how is it that we have such a divisive fan base...?  Why is it that these fans didn't move on to other game systems...?  Why is it that different editions of D&D are so _*distinct*_ from each other...?



Oh, easy - because roleplayers, quite naturally, have a range of styles and conceits around which they like to focus their roleplaying. Some of them, instead of taking the rational course of simply finding or writing a system that suits their preferences, dedicate themselves to playing one specific "label" and try their damndest to haul that property toward their own preferred style. In the actual property owner (and their hired staff) this is just about functional; among customers and roleplayers in general, less so.



El Mahdi said:


> The answer is that D&D has never been a singularly defined game.  It has been and is many different things, both officially and semi-officially (and even uniquely different at different tables); and they are all D&D...and will continue to be so.



D&D has always been a corpus of published rules and advice - nothing more and nothing less. Customers have used the product in many ways - including the quite rational way of houseruling, sometimes extensively, when the basic, published rules don't suit them. The owners of D&D have even written suggestions and advice concerning such houseruling - a fine idea!

D&D Next will be added on to this corpus of published material (all being well). I will be interested in it if it provides a coherent, focussed system that supports some sort of play that I wish to engage in. I have no "beef" if this is not what it turns out to be - I have plenty of other published supports for my roleplaying already.

More suggestions and guidance for houseruling I really don't need. It's not that I don't think they are useful - it's merely that I have copious amounts of them already.



El Mahdi said:


> No almost about it.  I can see it right here; people arguing blue-in-the-face about exactly what the nature or definition of D&D is.  This time around, it looks like a more inclusive and universal definition is going to win out (finally).  May as well start accepting it.



Well, that's really a different tenor and type of arguing than I'm talking about, but, yes, I guess it's an indication of just how argumentative we all are


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 18, 2012)

Dour-n-Taciturn said:


> This dial system would not be major if several are combined? What would you permit in your "dial", accuracy modifiers? armor penetration? proficiencies/feats? How many sources would you allow for modifiers: item, magic, conditional, feat, racial? Can you fabricate an all-inclusive dial modifier? If you have a monster, or a group, how many dials do you want to apply? Each encounter would have dials, balanced to match the PC's dials.




The wiring system in your home, apartment, office, or school is quite complex--it works on basic principles, but there is a lot of stuff there, built within some rather severe constraints (both physical and safety).  In contrast, the outlet where you plug things in and the switch were you turn them on or off is much simpler.  It isn't completely foolproof, but compared to the system as a whole, it is very close.

Designed properly, modules are a lot like things you can plug into an electrical outlet.  Does the existence of hundreds or even thousands of possiblities complicate your life when you plug in a radio?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 18, 2012)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Question: To what extent do you envisage the need for multiple monster manuals, treasure lists etc?




I don't think we'll need that much. Assuming we keep the maths that work from 4e, we'll have a very handy way to generate basic stats at any point. Given that, we can peg "default" monsters and treasure (and spells and even things like prestige classes or epic destinies) to a given tier. Orcus or the Terrasque or Lolth might be Epic Tier. Orcs might be Common Tier. Most dragons might ping at "Paragon" (or high Heroic). Magic items can work similarly: Resurrection and Polymorph might be Epic tier, while Fireball and Fly might be Heroic, and Teleportation hits more the Paragon.

It's sort of self-defining. If you're fighting Orcus, or a mind flayer, or a dragon, _you're not a common joe anymore_. Common joes that go up against these things die like minions. Only those of close-to-equal power can hope to contend with these threats. Of course, you can start as a common joe who goes on to fight Orcus later, after becoming something more -- *that* particular arc is very commonin D&D gameplay. 

This is a feature. Dragons _should_ kill townsfolk in droves. When you're strong enough to take on a dragon, you _should_ be able to handle a dozen orcs.  

It's also true that the difference between +5 and +6, while it may be a tier threshold, is not that big of a mechanical difference. If you have most dragons at Paragon tier (starting at, say, +11), you can still make them a tough fight for a party of Heroic-tier PC's (capping out at +10).

Magic items work much the same way -- a _sphere of annihilation_ is a bigger effect than a _+1 longsword_. You can also peg this to the spell lists -- something capable of granting a _Wish_ might be Epic, something capable of dealing extra fire damage might be more like Heroic or even Common. 

All this needs is a little blurb in the stat block, like:

*Level*: 10 (Heroic)

or

*Level*: 21 (Epic)

You could conceivably have a Level 21 (Common) item, but I imagine it would be something like a very strong potion (_Potion of Polymorph_?) or a ritual scroll capable of a big one-time effect (_Scroll of Plane Shift_?). Whereas a Level 21 (Epic) item might be more like the Armor of Achilles, or a Vorpal Sword.

The advice is pretty simple. You clearly explain the tiers and what kind of vibe they're going for, and then you tell the DM how to award "levels" without awarding a "tier" (that is, give the party more spells, but not more powerful spells, or whatever). This is the basics of E6, and can be pretty easily grokked in a sentence or two, like:

"When you gain a level after hitting the cap for your tier, you gain an additional ability, but your Level Bonus does not increase."

For DM's, it might be:

"Monsters have a level and a tier. PC parties can be considered to be balanced against threats in their own tier. Against lower-tier enemies, PC's are more effective. Against higher-tier enemies, PC's are less effective."

And:

"Magic items have a level and a tier. PC's are generally good matches for treasures in their own tier. If you give them something from a lower tier, it might be hawked at the nearest pawn shop. If you give them something from a higher tier, it might make them more powerful than most of the encounters assume."



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Comment: This is very different from any version of D&D to date (other than E6, as you noted) - even in classic D&D, hit points keep going up (though they slow down), and saves, attacks etc don't slow down at all! That's not an objection to it. But it's a reason to think that it might be controversial in some quarters - "level-less D&D" or something similar would be the criticism.




I think of it as just sort of codifying what groups are doing informally, anyway. That group that starts over at level 12? That DM who thinks that all high level D&D is insane no matter what? That group that spends years just getting to level 5? The group that begins play at level 3? This is all an attempt to play in a particular "tier." 

The disadvantage with keeping it the same is that the game then changes underneath you. DMs are surprised when PC's can teleport and raise the dead and thus wreck adventures. Players never get those high-level awesome abilities they work toward. Players expect a game where they feel like heroes and the DM has them slaying goblins for months. Or vice vesa. Or whatever. That's not what a lot of people seem to want -- they want to control the change in scope based on what they want. 

I think the "default mode" D&D might change every 5 levels or so, thus making tier transitions a natural part of play, and helping to keep D&D firmly ensconced in leveled territory. The main feature is the ability to "turn off" tier advancement without having to turn off ALL advancement.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2012)

illwizard said:


> Can't 20 archers _and_ a wyrm be credible threats? Sure, the wyrm is more of a threat but that doesn't mean 20 face arrows aren't threatening to a hero. facing 20 enemies always increases the risk. Leonidas could have bested almost anyone in single combat (even a demi-deity) but a hail of arrows still cuts him down.




Just as a point, Leonidas stands up to thousands of archers, and comes through without a scratch.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdDdHMwhU2s]300 - We will Blot out the Sun. - YouTube[/ame]

THIS is what a high level fighters in D&D look like.

20 archers on the walls?  Not even a speed bump.


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (Apr 18, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> The wiring system in your home, apartment, office, or school is quite complex--it works on basic principles, but there is a lot of stuff there, built within some rather severe constraints (both physical and safety).  In contrast, the outlet where you plug things in and the switch were you turn them on or off is much simpler.  It isn't completely foolproof, but compared to the system as a whole, it is very close.
> 
> Designed properly, modules are a lot like things you can plug into an electrical outlet.  Does the existence of hundreds or even thousands of possibilities complicate your life when you plug in a radio?




Not at all, because the radio has an internal processing system that functions whether I understand its working or not.  My concern is that let's say we have 100 modules, you decide for a game to pick modules: 1, 3, 4, 13, 20, 55, 77, 132, and 147; now you have to "plug" those all in to both PCs and NPCs, on top of powers and abilities these already have.  My radio can be wi-fi capable, get AM/FM, be an alarm clock, and make my coffee, but all I have to do is flip a switch, not bust out my calculator and slide-rule for that fight with 30 orcs, 2 sorcerers, and 6 assassins.

My point is that I don't think a system can realistically tolerate a large number of alternate "rule packets", not because the PCs have to keep track of them, but because the DM has to apply these to each NPC.  Too much work, on top of conditions, effects, and actions.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 18, 2012)

Dour-n-Taciturn said:


> Not at all, because the radio has an internal processing system that functions whether I understand its working or not. My concern is that let's say we have 100 modules, you decide for a game to pick modules: 1, 3, 4, 13, 20, 55, 77, 132, and 147; now you have to "plug" those all in to both PCs and NPCs, on top of powers and abilities these already have. My radio can be wi-fi capable, get AM/FM, be an alarm clock, and make my coffee, but all I have to do is flip a switch, not bust out my calculator and slide-rule for that fight with 30 orcs, 2 sorcerers, and 6 assassins.
> 
> My point is that I don't think a system can realistically tolerate a large number of alternate "rule packets", not because the PCs have to keep track of them, but because the DM has to apply these to each NPC. Too much work, on top of conditions, effects, and actions.




Certainly there are limits, both in what the system can provide as options and what a given group will want to adopt for a given campaign.  If you turn a whole bunch of options all the way up to 11, and have a fight with those 30 orcs, 2 sorcerers, and 6 assassins, you'll feel the pinch.  Plug enough stuff into the same circuit *without knowing what you are doing*, and you'll feel a pinch.  Plug even more stuff, and it doesn't matter if you theoretically know what you are doing or not--as really *knowing* was not plugging that much into the system in the first place.

You seem to be under the impression that the only workable numbers for options are either zero, 1, 2, or inifinity.  5, 8, 10 or some other such discrete number are all manageable possibilities--depending on the nature of the option, of course.  Sometimes zero, 1, or 2 is the correct number.  Thus, I sense that the elaborate system in your head, to which you are addressing your arguments, does not resemble what I have in mind at all, or is otherwise missing key components.  I'd write out a complete subsystem to address this communication issue, by way of example, but I lack the time to do so, and the inclination to do for free what the design team does for a living.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 18, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Because, in order for your module to work, requires an entire reworking of how D&D works from the ground up. In order for a PC to still be credibly threatened by mundane threats (20 archers) while at the same time be able to deal with high level threats such as demons or dragons, you have to scale SOMETHING.




You're right, it does require an entire reworking.  However, it does look like that's exactly what they are doing with the flatter progression.  There's been quite a bit of talk from the designers about what people want as the game progresses into higher levels.  The flatter progression seems to be their answer for it.  The idea being that it can make common monsters viable threats even to high level characters, but still make high level characters capable of dealing with high level threats.  It looks like the idea is that in order to support the standard type of D&D, modules for the addition of extra Feats, or High Level/Epic/etc. Feats and Abilities, is what will differentiate between Ordinary Hero and more Standard D&D.



Hussar said:


> If that's built into the game, then it makes things that much harder to run my game.




I don't agree, but I certainly see why you might think that.



Hussar said:


> Now, if it's an entirely optional module, then fine, who cares? But, I don't think you can actually make it an entirely optional module. The changes you want to make affect every single aspect of the game - power level, advancement rates, power ratios between NPC's and PC's, the level system, the magic system (since with a much flatter scale, you cannot have high powered casters, that breaks the system).
> 
> What you're asking for is not possible to do in a module. You're asking to rework the entire game system from the ground up. If the game is based on what you want, then it makes what I want impossible to do with the game system.
> 
> Since D&D has never actually been based on the idea of "normal people doing extraordinary things", why would I want a new edition of the game to be based on this?




I can't answer that for you.  But it seems as if that may be the direction the game is going.  Likely not as far as I would like it to go, but probably much farther than you want it to go.



Hussar said:


> There, I've nicely repeated everything I've been saying for the past several pages in one nice neat package.
> 
> So, could you return the favour? Can you explain how a 15th level character in any edition is an "average guy"?




I don't think a 15th level character in any edition is an average guy.  The way this has been addressed by me and other gamers is to simply not advance beyond a certain point, or to use something like the E6 houserules.  Unfortunately, neither of those are perfect fixes either.  I think what they are doing with the game is probably going to be much better for what I'm looking for than in past editions.  Though I obviously can't be sure until I actually see it.  Also, before you say "why don't you just play something else?", I have not found any other game that's any closer to what I want.  And since I started with D&D, D&D is what I know best.  You may see that as something that impinges on your playstyle.  WotC would likely see that as a feature of their game, one that causes it to continue to have the widest appeal and commonality among RPG'ers.

But if that is the way the core game is pointing, then that, with the addition of modules for more realistic falling damage, etc., will be just about perfect for me.

If you're worried that the game you like to play won't be possible with the D&D Next Core+Modules, then I'd recommend being a part of the open playtest when it starts, to have that perspective represented and influencing the game.  I'd suggest though that constructive ideas and criticisms would likely be more apt to be listened to and adopted, as opposed to "don't include this because it will gum up my game".


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 18, 2012)

pemerton said:


> A massive damage save option, that I can just ignore, won't gum up my game.
> 
> But if the module is more complex than that, or attempts to operate over a greater range of the game than just falling (eg point blank dragon breath), and if the part of the game that I'm using has to be built a certain way so as to support the integration of that module into the game, then it can gum things up.
> 
> ...




Fair enough.  Though I'd bet that those things you're talking about are going to be purely in the realm of modules.  Honestly, I'm expecting a presentation that's likely similar to UA.  Optional rules that explain what kind of feel it will support, what implications it may have, and what other adjustments need to be made to incoporate it.  I think the core is going to be exactly what they are shooting for, a simple, basic, easy to start and run, universally D&D base system.  I also think the the core system is not going to be, whole cloth, the same as any edition that came before (though likely closest to OD&D/BD&D with some of the more modern expressions - like Feats, Powers, etc., but in a simple OD&D presentation).


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 18, 2012)

Balesir said:


> OK, but I didn't get the overall impression that it was the "gonzo abilities" that were really the issue - more the escalating hit points and defences. The suggestion is that this edition will have a much shallower defence escalation, but hit points seem still to be expected to increase with level - isn't that the core of the "falling damage" and "mundane archer" problems?




I understand what you're saying.  HP's being at the levels they are, or climbing to the levels they do, does seem to be a problem to some.  It's not a problem to me, because I don't see Hit Points as purely physical, I see them as an abstract quantification of luck, stamina, ability to avoid or turn damage, fatigue, and yes, a bit of phyisical damage.  I'm fine with other people thinking differently.  But I don't think Hit Point levels are the core of the problem.  I think that, mechanically, fixing the problem with realism (like falling) by reducing Hit Points is a mechanically poor way to do it.  I'd much rather want the damage expression of a fall to be changed.  Like what Elf Witch was saying.  Higher Hip Point loss for falls (more than just 1d10 per 10 foot), and a save vs. death after a certain height (for me, anything above 20").

As for Archers, I'd fix it by not allowing Dex or Defense bonuses to be part of avoiding an arrow, only armor and shields.  In real life, nobody has the ability to "dodge" arrows in real combat.  People do put on exhibitions of this, but it's from a specific distance, and constistently practiced at that distance, with the same bow, same arrows, same everything, so that it's just a matter of timing.  In real combat, those are variables one can only guess at, and though someone might occasionally get lucky and dodge or bat away an arrow, they are still going to be hit more times than they succeed.

I don't feel though that the amount of damage an archery hit inflicts needs to be increased.  People live through arrow wounds all the time.  But it should be more realistic in "defending" against them.



Balesir said:


> And, if level does not increase hit points, or defences, or 'to hit' bonuses or "gonzo abilities" - what is the purpose of retaining the idea of "levels"?




While I don't want to cease increasing Hit Points as one levels, I can see that those that do would still have an use for levels.  They are still a representation of "aquired experience" and would still determing when one learns new Feats, Skills, or Abilities.  Even in the real world, we continue to grow and learn new things.



Balesir said:


> I would point out that, in OD&D, an 8th level fighting man was labelled "superhero"...




True.  But I'd also point out that all levels had titles which had very little to do with actual experience level or abilities...



Balesir said:


> To me, this is a nonsensical set of assertions. I can only assume that we are talking about radically different things. *Not* every style _I_ play is D&D. Especially if I am playing HârnMaster, Ars Magica, Runequest, Traveller, Shadowrun or Universalis.
> 
> To me, "D&D" is not a style of play at all - it's a set of (published) roleplaying game rules. As such, it is not capable of being "inclusive", "accepting" or anything else you call out for in the following section of your post.




It's ability to support different play styles can be inclusive of other play styles (by supporting them), or exclusive of other play styles (by not supporting them or supporting one exclusively).

As to the rest, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## triqui (Apr 18, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Or with the idea they're looking at right now, flatter progression as you level up (slower and flatter BAB, Defense, etc. progression).



That I'm totally supporting them. However... notice that they did *not* say there won't be differences by level. They have stated there are other things (like Hit points, damage, and "powers") that make 10th level characters much better than those low level. 

So the 12 crossbow wielder militia will lose anyways, I think. They won't be untouchable by AC as in 4e (in 3e that was not as much, as the AC did not increase by level, and often some high level characters did not have much more AC than low level ones.). But they'll have hit points, access to powers, etc, that probably will allow them to kill the 12 militia. 




> Cool!


----------



## triqui (Apr 18, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> I showed my players this quote, and they basically shrugged it off. Nobody in my group (using my RPG) thinks this is true (and that's from experience). And, my method is certainly not the only way to accomplish this goal. As always, play what you like




Will like to see a little bit of your RPG. How can a level 20th fighter defeat Dragons, Balors, Liches and Pitfiends, and die to level 1 fighters with common arrows?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 18, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I'd bet that those things you're talking about are going to be purely in the realm of modules.



I agree with you about this. My point was that making the rest of the game suitable to accomodate these modules can, conceivably, have implications for the rest of the game.


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 18, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Just as a point, Leonidas stands up to thousands of archers, and comes through without a scratch.
> 
> 300 - We will Blot out the Sun. - YouTube
> 
> ...




By hiding behind cover, since they know that the arrows are going to do damage to them, if not outright kill them, without it. Sure, they act all cool and badass about it, but they're also not metagaming the fact that the arrows were shot by low-level mooks, or that they have a ton of HP so can take a few arrow hits.

Now have a look at the end battle. Without the cover of shields, the spartans end up going down by 2 or 3 arrows each, fired by mooks.

The thing is, D&D is great for simulating a pitched battle between two sides. Levels give interesting powers and the basic battle modifiers, and the HP to go up against tougher opponents. But then HP break down when presented outside of regular battles. Stuff like falling damage, or when helpless, or wading across a river of lava. 



El Mahdi said:


> I understand what you're saying. HP's being at the levels they are, or climbing to the levels they do, does seem to be a problem to some. It's not a problem to me, because I don't see Hit Points as purely physical, I see them as an abstract quantification of luck, stamina, ability to avoid or turn damage, fatigue, and yes, a bit of phyisical damage. I'm fine with other people thinking differently. But I don't think Hit Point levels are the core of the problem. I think that, mechanically, fixing the problem with realism (like falling) by reducing Hit Points is a mechanically poor way to do it. I'd much rather want the damage expression of a fall to be changed. Like what Elf Witch was saying. Higher Hip Point loss for falls (more than just 1d10 per 10 foot), and a save vs. death after a certain height (for me, anything above 20").




The issue with HP are that they are applied all the time, despite there being situations where certain aspects of it don't apply. But since a lot of what makes up HP are intangible, and in undefined amounts, it's not really practical to try and pick out which 'bits' of HP apply to each unique circumstance. Nor could a set of rules really implement it in such a way that it satisfies every possible situation. So it might be too much to ask of D&D 5E to codify detailed rules for things like a 'realistic' amount for falling damage, while keeping things in check so that fights with potential falls can still be fun without characters being all but auto-killed if they're pushed off.



El Mahdi said:


> As for Archers, I'd fix it by not allowing Dex or Defense bonuses to be part of avoiding an arrow, only armor and shields. In real life, nobody has the ability to "dodge" arrows in real combat. People do put on exhibitions of this, but it's from a specific distance, and constistently practiced at that distance, with the same bow, same arrows, same everything, so that it's just a matter of timing. In real combat, those are variables one can only guess at, and though someone might occasionally get lucky and dodge or bat away an arrow, they are still going to be hit more times than they succeed.




Deflecting arrows may not be something that is possible in real life, I still don't feel it's out of bounds for it to be a possibility in heroic fantasy. I wouldn't want D&D to be distilled down into a real world combat game. One thing I will agree on is that D&D has always been about grand heroics. We're not playing Storm Trooper #5, we're playing characters akin to Luke and Han and Leia, those who have it in them to go beyond the bounds of normal life. The characters who have the will and fortitude to push through nigh-impossible odds to win the day.

There are limits, of course, that are usually defined by the world in which the characters exist. Even in the same world, as this very thread has shown, there are differing POVs and levels of believability that people are willing to accept. Even with a goal of unifying, I doubt that the rules will be so comprehensive as to satisfy everyone, nor do I think they really need to be. 99% of the time, D&D is a fun and enjoyable experience and a great vehicle in which to tell the fantasy stories I enjoy. When 5th comes out, I'm sure I'll end up playing it at some point, and enjoying things, as I've done with all the previous editions, even if the falling damage expression doesn't suit every fall, or it takes 20 arrow shots to finish off a helpless fighter.

At the same time, it would make me happier if there were rules, even optional ones, to cover such situations more to my satisfaction, without having to resort to house rules or DM fiat.


----------



## Aaron (Apr 18, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> I still fail to see how something that even 0 level peasants wouldn't consider to be a threat equate to a group of armed and practiced people. There's nothing to suggest that an unarmed child is a threat in any way (except maybe to get your ankle bitten).



That's because even a 0 level peasant has a "in game" life experience that suggets him that 4 years old kids are no threat for him.

The same goes for a high level PC and country bandits: the experience is the key.



> Weapons in the hands of skilled enemies is a credible threat.



For the PCs, to be skilled enough to be a threat means you are a high level NPC, something that common town guards or country bandits are not.



> I'm not dismissing your example. But I can still think it's ridiculous. I accept it because I know that in order for a game to be fun, there has to be some balance and consistency, but that doesn't always work with expectations. Really, there should be no clamping bite attacks or swallowing effects. They should be saved for when characters go down. I would be very hard pressed to come up with any concievable reason for why an unarmoured, unresilient otherwise normal mortal being could survive being crunched in a ancient dragon's jaws.



But, again, you have to deal with this example, or your ingame coherence will abruptly crumble.

And, again, from where do you derive that high level PCs are unresilient otherwise normal mortal being?



> But I'm still not seeing how facing a monstrous threat in any way means that any mundane threat is now a cakewalk. By the mechanics and numbers, I can see, but from a character's POV, I'm just not seeing it.



Why?

What you call "game mechanics" is what the PC live in their in-game lives.

I have already shown it.



> Who's to say that all those bandits aren't of equal level to the PCs? Unless the PCs have seen these exact people in action and know that their aim is crap and their tactics very basic, there's nothing to say that they wouldn't be pincushioned.



The same could be said for a 4 years old kid, that could be a polymorphed red wyrm. Nonetheless you wrote that 0 level peasants wouldn't consider him to be a threat.



> Hoping this is hyperbole, but if not, I can see why our experiences and expectations are different. I would never have a mook die because of an arrow to the arm. A killing blow is a killing blow, so such hits would strike vital areas; arrow through the neck, driven deep into the chest or gut, throw the eye, etc.



Are you saying that being hit by a crossbow bolt in your arm couldn't kill you?



> If your PCs are taking shots to the head with any regularity, then things are on a very different perception scale. If I have a PC take a solid arrow hit to the head, they're going down and bleeding, if not dying outright. Grazes and near misses are entirely different.



Uhm...no.

In 3.5 you can have a guy who can lift 200 lb over his head (Str 15) armed with a dagger, and a sleeping (and even tied) PC in front of him.

Well, if this strong guy would execute a coup de grace on the helpless PC, he would roll 2d4+4 damage for the automatic critical hit.
That means a DC of the Fort save for the PC being 10 + [2.5x2 + 4 (Str modx2)] = 19.

Even newbies play 20th level barbarians who could make a succesful Fort save with that DC with a success rate of 95%.

Now, are you seriously going to say that such a coup de grace could result in a graze or near miss?

The rules point directly toward my view of the game: I did not create it, and in no way I'm saying is the best system ever designed, but it's, nonetheless, the view the rules clearly show.



> PCs are incredibly lucky, and skilled. I'm not saying that a PC shouldn't be dodging arrows, or only being nicked by them, or having them bounce off shields and armour. But at the same time, every arrow shot isn't going directly into the heart either.



But, by your words, no arrow shot would ever hit them in their heads, or heart, or other vital point, unless the PCs are already being hit several times (i.e., the shot is the killing one).

How is that coherent or believable?



> And that's the crux for me. HP are not a giant sack of meat points. If your PCs are pincushions of dozens of arrow shots, then I can see that mindset. The only time I have PCs take an actual solid hit from an attack is on crits, or very high damage. I can in no way suspend my belief to have a hero wandering around with 20 arrows sticking out of them. It may work in your game mindset, it doesn't in mine. Thankfully HP are abstract enough to support both views.



Well,  I can in no way suspend my belief if the PCs are so outrageously lucky that every single victory they attain is due to sheer luck/divine intervention.



> It's not that they'll die, it's not that the 12 bandits are a serious threat if push came to shove, it's that arrows are going to hurt and why take pain when you don't have to?



They are going to hurt, but does this mean the PCs should surrender to the bandits?

Come on.



> But it seems your PCs act just like this, and wade through lava, take arrows to the face, and fall 200 feet and brush themselves off. In such a world, then yes, I happily concede that 12 bowmen mean nothing to the PCs. It's great that you enjoy this viewpoint of play. It's never been mine in all my years of playing D&D.



Don't make it personal.

My PCs "wade through lava, take arrows to the face, and fall 200 feet and brush themselves off" only if they are forced to by the circumstances.

But yes, they would not fear the aforementioned bandits, cause thay have defeated bigger menaces.

Not to mention that, as I wrote before, your luck/divine approach intervention has many flaws, IMHO.

1) what if my players don't like to play PCs who are blessed by this  "predestination" profile this approach implies?

2) the number of deadly menaces a standard adventurer faces in his  career would make him look more like Gladstone Gander or Nedward  Flanders;

3) if the Pc doesn't know what he can do (since everything he achieved  was due to sheer luck/divine intervention), what can he plan?

How can he know if a mission is too hard to accomplish?

How can assess the risks involved, if every single deadly attack in his life missed him thanks to luck/divine intervention?

If he opts to face hundreds of deadly menaces thinking about how lucky he  was before, either he's basing his decision on the "metagame rules" you  despise, or he's simply outrageously silly.

Absit iniuria verbis.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 19, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> By hiding behind cover, since they know that the arrows are going to do damage to them, if not outright kill them, without it. Sure, they act all cool and badass about it, but they're also not metagaming the fact that the arrows were shot by low-level mooks, or that they have a ton of HP so can take a few arrow hits.
> 
> Now have a look at the end battle. Without the cover of shields, the spartans end up going down by 2 or 3 arrows each, fired by mooks.




Absolutely.



fenriswolf456 said:


> The issue with HP are that they are applied all the time, despite there being situations where certain aspects of it don't apply.




I don't agree.  It's one of the few abstractons I'm willing to accept because I simply haven't found a better alternative.



fenriswolf456 said:


> But since a lot of what makes up HP are intangible, and in undefined amounts, it's not really practical to try and pick out which 'bits' of HP apply to each unique circumstance. Nor could a set of rules really implement it in such a way that it satisfies every possible situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2012)

> By hiding behind cover, since they know that the arrows are going to do damage to them, if not outright kill them, without it. Sure, they act all cool and badass about it, but they're also not metagaming the fact that the arrows were shot by low-level mooks, or that they have a ton of HP so can take a few arrow hits.




Cover?  Really?  This is going to be your excuse?  That they have shields?  So, this entire conversation about 20 archers on the walls can be negated if I carry a shield?  If you stroll back into the thread, the point was that the PC's, caught in the open at the foot of the walls of the castle, should be threatened by a handful of archers.

But, hey, they've got shields!  No problem, they can laugh at 20 archers now.

------

El Mahdi - I get what you're saying about flatter progression.  I do think, however, that you're projecting a bit onto what they're saying.  Since the goal here is to capture iconic D&D elements, the whole zero to hero thing is going to be the baseline.  It's one of the few elements that every single edition of D&D shares.

Now, sure, as you say, you can E6 D&D or whatever and stick to a particular style of game.  I imagine that a lot of groups actually do that.  But, expecting a baseline where you can have "everyday" heroes in D&D, I predict, is not going to happen.  It never has, so I don't think it will this time around.

What I can never understand though is when people have very strong playstyle differences with D&D, why they insist on playing D&D.  It's not 1985 anymore.  There's a bajillion well supported and fantastic games out there that will already DO what you want.  Warhammer Fantasy sounds a lot closer to what you're looking for.  D20 certainly doesn't.  Why do people cling so hard to D&D?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2012)

Adding a later thought.

If all we're talking about here is strictly falling damage?  Fine, no worries.  You could have the most intricate, lengthy, complicated set of falling damage rules in the world and it's not likely going to have any impact on a lot of games, because I really don't think falling is as common as all that.  Sure, it happens sometimes, but, it's not like it's going to come up every session.

So, go nuts on falling damage.  Not going to care either way.

However, where I do draw the line is with this idea that the same level of grittiness get applied to the entire system.  No thank you.  Well, if you want it in a completely separate module, again, fine.  No problems with that.  But, if you make this the baseline, then it makes iconic D&D hard to play out of the box and that's not a goal I think should be chased after.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 19, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Adding a later thought.
> 
> If all we're talking about here is strictly falling damage? Fine, no worries. You could have the most intricate, lengthy, complicated set of falling damage rules in the world and it's not likely going to have any impact on a lot of games, because I really don't think falling is as common as all that. Sure, it happens sometimes, but, it's not like it's going to come up every session.
> 
> ...




I Agree Completely.


----------



## YRUSirius (Apr 19, 2012)

If you fall in lava you die. If you fall more than 50 meters/75 feet you die.

Okay?

-YRUSirius


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 19, 2012)

Hussar said:


> What I can never understand though is when people have very strong playstyle differences with D&D, why they insist on playing D&D. It's not 1985 anymore. There's a bajillion well supported and fantastic games out there that will already DO what you want. Warhammer Fantasy sounds a lot closer to what you're looking for. D20 certainly doesn't. Why do people cling so hard to D&D?




No, there aren't a bajillion well supported and fantastic games out here that will already do what I want.  I've looked.  D&D fits what I want the closest.  I'm sorry you don't like me getting peanut butter in your chocolate, but I guess that's just something you're going to have to get used to...or not, your choice.  I guess when my peanut butter gums up your game, you'll either decide to move on and play the edition you prefer, or you'll see the new edition for what it is, and play your game despite my peanut butter sitting in the book (likely unused by you).

As to why people cling so hard to D&D, I can only answer for myself.  But I've answered this question multiple times throughout this thread, and actually once again in this post.  I can't explain it for you any better.

What I wonder though, is why does people clinging so hard to D&D bother you so much?

As to never being able to understand, I'd say that as long as one continues to view D&D as only one specific type of game, playable in only one specific way, then of course one will never understand.

One has to _choose_ to look beyond their own biases, in order to see that something is not as narrowly defined as they once thought.


----------



## triqui (Apr 19, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> By hiding behind cover, since they know that the arrows are going to do damage to them, if not outright kill them, without it. Sure, they act all cool and badass about it, but they're also not metagaming the fact that the arrows were shot by low-level mooks, or that they have a ton of HP so can take a few arrow hits.



 In D&D terms, they don't hide behind cover. Shields don't give cover. They just have a very high AC naked and wearing a Shield, and arrows miss.


----------



## triqui (Apr 19, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> If you fall in lava you die. If you fall more than 50 meters/75 feet you die.
> 
> Okay?
> 
> -YRUSirius




If a Tyrannosaurus bites you, you die too.
Which makes fights against dragons kinda dissapointing in a game that's called "Dungeons and Dragons", you know.


----------



## YRUSirius (Apr 19, 2012)

You can dodge a Tyrannosauraus Rex. Wanna see how you dodge a lava pit if you're already falling.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Aaron (Apr 19, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> You can dodge a Tyrannosauraus Rex. Wanna see how you dodge a lava pit if you're already falling.
> 
> -YRUSirius



Dodge the breath of a red wyrm while he uses the Snatch feat against you (3.5).

Your replies have been covered a while ago.


----------



## Balesir (Apr 19, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I understand what you're saying.  HP's being at the levels they are, or climbing to the levels they do, does seem to be a problem to some.  It's not a problem to me, because I don't see Hit Points as purely physical, I see them as an abstract quantification of luck, stamina, ability to avoid or turn damage, fatigue, and yes, a bit of phyisical damage.  I'm fine with other people thinking differently.  But I don't think Hit Point levels are the core of the problem.  I think that, mechanically, fixing the problem with realism (like falling) by reducing Hit Points is a mechanically poor way to do it.  I'd much rather want the damage expression of a fall to be changed.  Like what Elf Witch was saying.  Higher Hip Point loss for falls (more than just 1d10 per 10 foot), and a save vs. death after a certain height (for me, anything above 20").



As a module I think this would be fine - it supports some specific world-model elements that people might want without warping the other rules to do so. I could see variants of this working, too, with conditions like Daze and Stun being applied for serious falls.



El Mahdi said:


> As for Archers, I'd fix it by not allowing Dex or Defense bonuses to be part of avoiding an arrow, only armor and shields.  In real life, nobody has the ability to "dodge" arrows in real combat.  People do put on exhibitions of this, but it's from a specific distance, and constistently practiced at that distance, with the same bow, same arrows, same everything, so that it's just a matter of timing.  In real combat, those are variables one can only guess at, and though someone might occasionally get lucky and dodge or bat away an arrow, they are still going to be hit more times than they succeed.



In actual fact I am pretty sure arrows can be dodged for a variety of circumstances. I used to shoot longbow in field archery, and have stood near targets as people were shooting to announce scores. Dodging wayward arrows was quite easy, but its very important to note that (a) the range was more like what one would see in a real battle - 60 feet plus - than is typical in a D&D 'battle', and (b) there was nothing else of similar note going on, so I was concentrating totally on watching the archer (and could bar them from shooting while I was not). I think the "use of dodging" thing has a much wider range of issues, to be honest. For one-on-one duels it's dandy, but for a confused melee it becomes near-worthless and other factors, such as teamwork (covering your buddies) and fatigue - as well as the sort-of-analogue footwork - come to the fore.

As an aside, if you really want D&D to be anything even vaguely approaching a "realistic" model of combat, you have one heck of a lot of "modules" to write!!



El Mahdi said:


> While I don't want to cease increasing Hit Points as one levels, I can see that those that do would still have an use for levels.  They are still a representation of "aquired experience" and would still determing when one learns new Feats, Skills, or Abilities.  Even in the real world, we continue to grow and learn new things.



If you have problems with hit points, it seems likely to me that you would also have an issue with skills and such advancing in lock-step. Surely, at this stage, a system of independent skills and talents would be preferable? Some could be grouped, as you find in DragonQuest (_not_ the boardgame, the RPG), but they are trained in/bought separately. This also allows increasing skill to come from practice and training instead of killing things and taking their stuff...



El Mahdi said:


> It's ability to support different play styles can be inclusive of other play styles (by supporting them), or exclusive of other play styles (by not supporting them or supporting one exclusively).



I'm not going to argue with wanting to support more play styles - as many as possible - because that's like arguing against free money. Obviously, it's desirable as long as the side effects aren't taken into account.

But D&D in all of its incarnations has covered only a fraction of the styles possible in roleplaying games - and it has covered a far smaller fraction than that well.

When D&D tries to be "all things to all men" it has an unfortunate tendency to compromise itself - and that's when you start to see the "oh, we can't take that out - that's part of the core of D&D!" D&D has a number of these "core features" (hit points, levels, classes, certain "iconic" monsters) that are seen as "defining" it. These features in themselves support some styles of play far better than others. Can you add "modules" around the edges to make it (look like it would) support other styles? Sure. But you will still have those core elements - and they will still cause issues for those who don't want the style(s) they support out of D&D.

So, WotC's options seem to be:

- Make a D&D that caters primarily to the style best supported by the "core elements" of hit points, levels, classes and so on, maybe with additional "modules" as, essentially, a marketing gimmick.

- Publish a set of rules that don't really achieve coherent support for any style, but that have a few "buzzwords" and systems in them that will appeal to all sorts of roleplayers for marketing purposes. I don't believe the designers or developers at WotC would do this, actually, but the marketeers and business realities may suck them into it if things do not go well with the planned development.

- Abandon the "core elements" so as to make a game that supports playstyles dissimilar to those supported by the "core elements", in the hope that you can get a game that supports a wider range of styles by doing so (which, looking at other games which do support other styles, seems unlikely, since they, too, are limited in their coverage - just limited to a different range of styles).



El Mahdi said:


> As to the rest, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.



Sure.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 19, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Han is absolutely an Ordinary Hero.  He has no special abilities, no magical force to protect him, no massive amount of Hit Points...just the guts to dare things that others don't.  Those guts are something that D&D does not, and has never, quantified.



Huh? On the mojo interpretation of hp, this is exactly what hp are.



fenriswolf456 said:


> The issue with HP are that they are applied all the time, despite there being situations where certain aspects of it don't apply.



In AD&D I would say that this isn't an issue, so much as a deliberate design decision (see Gygax on the rationale for saving throws, in particular - the whole point is that you get a save vs dragon breath even if you're chained helpless to a rock face).

The easiest way to change the game in 3E would be to multiply all damage taken outside of combat (eg falling, ambushes, dragon breath while chained helpless to a rock face) by the PC's level. (This is a tiny bit wonky because of the max hp at 1st level, but we'll probably cope. It will work fine for classic D&D up until the maximum HD are reached. It won't work for 4e, because damage in 4e is balanced against a much bigger pool of 1st level hp.)


----------



## triqui (Apr 19, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> You can dodge a Tyrannosauraus Rex. Wanna see how you dodge a lava pit if you're already falling.
> 
> -YRUSirius




Sure, you can. That's what happens if he fails. But as the Tyrannosaurus Rex has the "grab" ability and the "swallow whole" ability, you didn't. He BITED you, for sure, because you are grabbed (and swallowed next round). Same goes with a dragon that snatch you in his jaws.

So your character can, and routinarelly do, survive the 4d6+18 or whatever damage a Tyrannosaurus Rex bites do. Your character *should die* to a 10' jaw closing on them with a 5000 pound force. Actually, being human sized, he should be cut by half. Yet he didn't.

In your implementation of the game, where the 4d6+18 from the T.Rex should "kill you, period", fighting with T.Rexes (or dragons) is pretty much impossible. Characters die on first hit. Not very heroic.

I could say the same with a 15' giant hitting you with a maul that weights 2000lb. Or a 2000lb axe, for that matter.

That you selectivelly blind yourself so falling in lava *breaks your inmersion* but being completelly surrounded by a dragon's firebreath (arguabily hotter than lava) because you failed your save, or that falling from 100' should mean death, but being hit with a 2000lb maul by a creature that has enough stregth to lift a truck shouldn't, does not make it any more believable. It just makes you selectively blind.


----------



## YRUSirius (Apr 19, 2012)

Yeah, exactly. I'm selectively blind. With purpose. I don't want characters to survive if they fall into lava. I don't want characters to survive if they fall a very high fall.

BUT: I DO want them to survive a T-Rex attack, I DO want them to survive a dragon's breath attack, etc. (T-Rex could just hit the arm, and have the adventurer in his mouth, the adventurer could duck behind his shield.)

What's my rationale? If a T-Rex swallows you I want the adventurer to survive and continue fighting even IN the T-Rex. If a dragon's breath is successfull I want the adventurer to be burned pretty badly, but I want him to continue. If he fall's a very big height I don't want him to continue to fight, I want him dead. He's smoosh. Nothing there to that could continue the fight. If he falls into lava he's marshmallowed and can't continue fighting cause he's stuck in the larva, he already burned down and all that (Terminator, goodbye).

So what exactly is the problem? Are you a player and want to keep on fighting if you fall from a specific height? Are you a DM and think that players actually care that much? Are you a rules layer who just looks at hit points without using common DM sense?

-YRUSirius


----------



## triqui (Apr 19, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> So what exactly is the problem?



 Ingame coherence. Your proposal has none. 



> Are you a rules layer who just looks at hit points without using common DM sense?



It's not like you have any kind of common sense. You have a selective blindness that works for you because you are blind, but that does not make your "way to play D&D" possesing any kind of common sense. When a Huge Dragon comes and uses the "crush" ability and lands *on* your character, pinning him, that's 5+ tons crushing you. Making him survive because he has more HP than the crush damage does not make more "common sense" than surviving 100' falls in any sense. Actually, quite the opposite.

Your vision of the game completelly lacks of common sense. That you pretend otherwise using selective blindness does not change your senseless game at all. Just like you being color blind does not make strawberries become blue.


----------



## YRUSirius (Apr 19, 2012)

triqui said:


> When a Huge Dragon comes and uses the "crush" ability and lands *on* your character, pinning him, that's 5+ tons crushing you. Making him survive because he has more HP than the crush damage does not make more "common sense" than surviving 100' falls in any sense.




Okay, then let's use common sense, shall we? Why does a character survive a dragon stepping ON him that has a crush ability? Cause the dragon doesn't crush him completely, but only get's his arm, only his leg under his feet. Dragon still pins him down and the dragon still deals massive damage. The character survives this because I want him to survive this. I don't want characters to survive a very long fall, because they'd be careless because of their high hit points. I don't want characters to survive a high fall. As I said: Yes, I'm blind. But with purpose.

So how did Gandalf survive the fall from height, after the fight with the Balrog? Didn't he fall onto the balrog?

How does a character survive a 100 feet fall? Does he slow down the last 10 feet and lands savely? Does he use the tumble skill to negate falling damage?  Does he use the tumble skill to negate damage from a fall into lava? o_<

Yeah, some people have survived a 100 feet fall. But what are the chances? 1 in a 500 chance? Okay, roll a percentile dice, if you roll a 100 your character survives the fall. But hit points are the wrong mechanic to decide this. End of story.

-YRUSirius

(Btw, didn't a Troll step on Aragorn or someone else during the movies?)


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2012)

El Mahdi said:
			
		

> What I wonder though, is why does people clinging so hard to D&D bother you so much?
> 
> As to never being able to understand, I'd say that as long as one continues to view D&D as only one specific type of game, playable in only one specific way, then of course one will never understand.




Because you are insisting that the game be changed to suit your tastes.  That's why it bothers me.  If I repeatedly insisted that Battlemechs be added to the rules, complete with classes, equipment and in-game justifications for their existence, would that be reasonable?

I certainly don't think so.  Battlemechs have never really had much of a place in D&D and I probably wouldn't want to see them built into the game.  It would make too many other things difficult.  It screws with the game balance too much to have 50 foot tall plasma wielding mecha firing guided missiles in the game.  

Unless you're playing Rifts.    But, that's a bit of a different animal.  

But, you're insisting that we should build into the game a baseline that has never been part of the game before and doing so in the name of being "inclusive" of other playstyles.  Well, it's true that it is inclusive of other playstyles, but, somehow building in elements into the game which have never existed before, not to fix any perceived problems with the existing mechanics, but simply to cater to a segment of gamers that have been never been catered to before doesn't really seem like a good plan to me.

Not when doing so will make the game that has always been supported in every edition, virtually impossible.

Again, if it's a supplement book?  No worries.  Got not problems at all.  But, you cannot have everyday heroes and zero to hero in the same set of rules.  It just doesn't work.  The end goals are too different.

It's not a case of being biased here.  It's recognizing that NO version of D&D has ever done what you're suggesting.  To build that into the baseline assumptions of the game would be a radical shift for the entire system.  D20 as it is, does a very poor job of doing what you want.  E6 is a prime example of this.  To make D20 do what you're suggesting, E6 ejects well over 2/3rds of the game.

Hey, I get having wish lists.  I do.  There's all sorts of things I'd like to see in D&D.  But, let's be realistic about this.  I'm REALLY unlikely to get zone based combat rules as opposed to grid based or non-grid based.  It's just not going to happen and I know that.  I know that because zone based mechanics are FAR too far away from the simulationist veneer that people insist is part of D&D.

I would put your ideas in the same category.  Great idea.  Fun game.  Not going to happen.


----------



## triqui (Apr 19, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Okay, then let's use common sense, shall we? Why does a character survive a dragon stepping ON him that has a crush ability? Cause the dragon doesn't crush him completely, but only get's his arm, only his leg under his feet. Dragon still pins him down and the dragon still deals massive damage.



 You keep  *trying* to rationalize things. If that works for your selective blindness, fair game. If that's how you want  to delude yourself, fair game. But don't try to tell us that your version is "more logic" or "more common sense", because it is not. A Tyrannosaurus Rex that bites a man in the arm kills him too. Instantly. Traumatic dismemberment does kill people you know. There was a kind of execution that worked like that. And there's no way a normal human being can be chewed by a 10' jaw with more than 3000 pound force pressure and remain attached to the body.  It's as much impossible as it is to survive 100' fall, or more.  Same goes with a 10ton creature landing on you from the skies, even if it is in your arm or leg.

Fact is: you *want* to believe D&D is realistic, although it is not, by any means. So when you see something you feel it is not realistic, like falling 100' and surviving, you rule it out, which is fine if that suits your style. When you find some other thing that isn't realistic, but that you CANT rule out because it simply destroys the game playability (like dragons instantly killing any human sized character they bite), your brain take the option to selectively blind yourself instead. You rationalize it, you skip it, you simply look to other side and prettend the incoherence is not there. But that's false, it's selective blindness. Your character WAS crushed by a dragon, who then DID snatch him with his giantsized claw, and then MOVED it to a 10' giantsized jaw with thousands of pounds in force, and CHEWED it, and firebreathing him with molten fire that is hotter than pure lava. Then he flied into the skies, drop him from mere 100', and suddenly your brain jumps and claim "THAT'S UNBELIABLE!!! HOW COULD A HUMAN BEING SURVIVE THAT FALL".  If it works for you, that's ok. But I find it quite hilarious, to be honest.



> So how did Gandalf survive the fall from height, after the fight with the Balrog? Didn't he fall onto the balrog?



 Because he is a high level heroes. Heroes survive incredible damage all the time.  Why on hell should a stupid fall kill Gandalf? He is able to fight for *weeks* against a giant sized demon that spread hot flames, and you care about falling damage? Beowulf fought one week underwater, holding his breath. Cuchulain eyes were sucked into his skull when he raged, and the warp spasm was so strong that his feet turned backwards. Several times. Why would something as stupid as a fall will damage them?



> How does a character survive a 100 feet fall?



Like this, 50''

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Azykolhz4]"Why do we fall? So that we can learn to pick ourselves up." [Batman music video] - YouTube[/ame]

Like this, in 1'30'':
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZXw9LgQiRE]Fall For You (Bruce Wayne x Rachel Dawes --- The Dark Knight) - YouTube[/ame]

Like this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdk3b7sHdPA]"The Fugitive" (1993) - Inappropriate Soundtracks - YouTube[/ame]

Or like this, 2'30'':
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGuX0BuHp2w&feature=related]Underworld 1 2003 Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

Or like this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66imrid90UM&feature=related]Gandalf vs. Balrog Epic Battle 1080p - YouTube[/ame]

Or like this, 0,18'':
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwyLbX4uOS0&feature=relmfu]Sin City (6/12) Movie CLIP - Miho vs. Jackie Boy (2005) HD - YouTube[/ame]

It's not like surviving a fall is hard at all for heroes, isn't it? They do so in a regular basis.



> But hit points are the wrong mechanic to decide this. End of story.



As much as they are to decide if your character survive being crushed, then snatch, then chewed by a 10 ton giant winged firrbreathing lizard.


----------



## Balesir (Apr 19, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> What's my rationale? If a T-Rex swallows you I want the adventurer to survive and continue fighting even IN the T-Rex. If a dragon's breath is successfull I want the adventurer to be burned pretty badly, but I want him to continue. If he fall's a very big height I don't want him to continue to fight, I want him dead. He's smoosh. Nothing there to that could continue the fight. If he falls into lava he's marshmallowed and can't continue fighting cause he's stuck in the larva, he already burned down and all that (Terminator, goodbye).



Okay, well, if it's simply down to arbitrary events that you want to do far more damage than others, how can that be handled with anything but a completely arbitrary game system? Just houserule a multiplier for all the sources of "damage" that you consider "non-U", like falling damage, lava damage, whatever.

You might get annoyed at how those precise damage sources become the "killer app" situations that characters try to manoeuvre their opponents into at every opportunity, but that's just a consequence of any arbitrary rule.



triqui said:


> As much as they are to decide if your character survive being crushed, then snatch, then chewed by a 10 ton giant winged firrbreathing lizard.



Nuh-uh - dragons don't weigh 10 tons! One ton at most (they have bird-style bones and stuff). I have documentary proof; what you are suggesting here is unrealistic.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 19, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Because you are insisting that the game be changed to suit your tastes. That's why it bothers me. If I repeatedly insisted that Battlemechs be added to the rules, complete with classes, equipment and in-game justifications for their existence, would that be reasonable?
> 
> I certainly don't think so. Battlemechs have never really had much of a place in D&D and I probably wouldn't want to see them built into the game. It would make too many other things difficult. It screws with the game balance too much to have 50 foot tall plasma wielding mecha firing guided missiles in the game.
> 
> Unless you're playing Rifts.  But, that's a bit of a different animal.




I'm not insisting that the game be changed.  I'm insisting that with the innovative design goals of D&D Next, supporting all of these things is now possible by adding them in the form of modules.  To let this opportunity go by without even trying...that would just be heartbreakingly sad.  If you don't like those modules, don't use them.  But complaining that my modules are going to mess up your game, when modules like what I'm talking about are already being discussed and designed, seems like an exercise in futility on your part.  The core is going to be designed with the use of modules in mind.  There's simply no escaping that.

Also, D&D did do Mechs, Plasma Weapons, and  Guided Missiles...and did them well.  They were called D20 Modern, Future, and Star Wars SAGA.  They do mix and match quite well with D&D, which they were based off of.  It's not impossible, not even that difficult, and doesn't overly strain the core system in the least.  I don't believe having realistic modular mechanics will overly strain or alter the core system, and definitely not to the point where you can't play your game.



Hussar said:


> But, you're insisting that we should build into the game a baseline that has never been part of the game before and doing so in the name of being "inclusive" of other playstyles. Well, it's true that it is inclusive of other playstyles, but, somehow building in elements into the game which have never existed before, not to fix any perceived problems with the existing mechanics, but simply to cater to a segment of gamers that have been never been catered to before doesn't really seem like a good plan to me.




Yes, I am insisting exactly that, and have been insisting exactly that for years.  Apparently Monte and Company agree.  That ship has already sailed.



Hussar said:


> Not when doing so will make the game that has always been supported in every edition, virtually impossible.




This is a massive assumption, one which is not supported by any fact (at least not yet).  I'd suggest waiting until one actually sees the game before "flipping out".



Hussar said:


> ...But, you cannot have everyday heroes and zero to hero in the same set of rules. It just doesn't work. The end goals are too different.




I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  I know this is simply not true.  You feel just as strongly that it is true.  Neither of us is going to convince the other differently.



Hussar said:


> It's not a case of being biased here. It's recognizing that NO version of D&D has ever done what you're suggesting. To build that into the baseline assumptions of the game would be a radical shift for the entire system. D20 as it is, does a very poor job of doing what you want. E6 is a prime example of this. To make D20 do what you're suggesting, E6 ejects well over 2/3rds of the game.




It is a bias, but no more of a bias than I have.  I believe this is possible, and no better time to do this than with the system that's been proposed.  I really do think that this edition has a strong chance of being everything I've always wanted out of D&D, and also being what a very large percentage of other D&D fans have always wanted out of D&D, and still being exactly what you want out of D&D.  However, only time will tell.



Hussar said:


> Hey, I get having wish lists. I do. There's all sorts of things I'd like to see in D&D. But, let's be realistic about this. I'm REALLY unlikely to get zone based combat rules as opposed to grid based or non-grid based. It's just not going to happen and I know that. I know that because zone based mechanics are FAR too far away from the simulationist veneer that people insist is part of D&D.
> 
> I would put your ideas in the same category. Great idea. Fun game. Not going to happen.




On the contrary, I see this edition as the perfect one for the inclusion of a Zone module.  I'd absolutely love to see that.  I thought _The Dresden Files_ game had a good implementation of this, and [MENTION=13650]AeroDm[/MENTION] 's ideas broadened it significantly as a feasible add-on for 4E.  I think 5E wold be the perfect vehicle for this.  That's something you should definitely propose over on the WotC boards, or when the Open Playtesting begins.

That's a damn good idea there, Hussar.


----------



## YRUSirius (Apr 19, 2012)

Balesir said:


> Okay, well, if it's simply down to arbitrary  events that you want to do far more damage than others, how can that be  handled with anything but a completely arbitrary game system?




How can that be handled? By a DM.






triqui said:


> Fact is: you *want* to believe D&D is realistic, although it is not, by any means. So when you see something you feel it is not realistic, like falling 100' and surviving, you rule it out, which is fine if that suits your style. When you find some other thing that isn't realistic, but that you CANT rule out because it simply destroys the game playability (like dragons instantly killing any human sized character they bite), your brain take the option to selectively blind yourself instead. You rationalize it, you skip it, you simply look to other side and prettend the incoherence is not there. But that's false, it's selective blindness.




Yeah, it's called suspension of disbelief for the greater good of playability. EVERY rule in D&D can be bend like you did. NOTHING in D&D is realistic. It's a GAME. It's not a theory of everything.



Then tell me, triqui, where do YOU draw the line? When does your suspension of disbelief stop working? When do YOU think something shouldn't be survivable? A singularity? Or should heroes survive a black hole too?

-YRUSirius

(Btw, are you mainly a DM or mainly a player?)


----------



## triqui (Apr 19, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Yeah, it's called suspension of disbelief for the greater good of playability. EVERY rule in D&D can be bend like you did. NOTHING in D&D is realistic. *It's a GAME*. It's not a theory of everything.



I bolded the important part for me. Just to point, I did not bent ANY rule. It's you who are trying to convolute then. "snatch" rule is clear. "crash" rule is clear. "grab" rule for T-Rex are clear. The Dragon DOES crash on you, the T-Rex DOES bite you with his giant jaw. The str 15 fighter with a falchion coupdegracing you DID try to decapitate you executing style. It's your brain the one that is not able to accept it and try to veil through some half-baked rationalizing excuses, not me bending the rules. The rules are clear.



> Then tell me, triqui, where do YOU draw the line? When does your suspension of disbelief stop working? When do YOU think something shouldn't be survivable? A singularity? Or should heroes survive a black hole too?



I stoped to worry about suspension of disbelief when I managed to learn that it's a game. The heroes are bound to the game rules, and that's it. They don't die when they fall 100', because Batman does not die when he falls 100' either.

Something is not survivable, when it does more damage than your PC has hit points. 100' fall is lethal for a lvl 1 fighter, but not for a lvl 10 one. Just like a T-Rex bite is lethal for a lvl 1 fighter but not for a lvl 10 one. This is D&D. It's not realistic, never have been. Realistic humans can't survive a dragon tail slap. I no longer try to delude myself with that.

Btw, in D&D, heroes CAN survive worm-hole type singularities (retributives strikes and portable hole/bag of holding combos), although not black holes (sphere of annihilation artifact) But if the Sphere of annihilation says it does 200 damage, and your character has 201, he will survive, and I'm fine with it. Just like he survives a partial desintegration. 







> (Btw, are you mainly a DM or mainly a player?)




Mainly DM. Currently a player, until we finish a Pathfinder AP.


----------



## YRUSirius (Apr 19, 2012)

Okay, the fronts have been cleared, I'm out of this conversation.

We both agree that it's a game and every group has a different style of genre they want to emulate with their rules. You can accomplish this with pretty easy rules if you want (if you fall in lava you die etc.) - heroic or gritty.

I'll move forward. Bye.

-YRUSirius


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Apr 19, 2012)

Regarding modular design:

Okay, everyone saying "there's a module for thatTM" or "just throw it in a module and we'll be fine"?  Modular design just Does Not Work That Way.

Modular design implies a solid core to which modules are added that can add to or modify this core.  Modular design _also_ implies that modules do not modify other modules or change the core such that other modules become incompatible.  Video game DLC is a good example of this: You can add a module to Mass Effect 1 to give you some new missions, but (A) you can't add another module to Mass Effect 1 that modifies that other DLC, since you can't guarantee that people will have that other one, and (B) you can't turn ME1 into ME2 with some DLC, you need to rewrite the game from scratch.

That's essentially what's being asked for here, rewriting the game from scratch with a module.  Even if you can make a module that technically makes all of the necessary changes in and of itself, the _consequences_ of that change will affect other modules.  To use the ME example, ME1 has all of your powers on different cooldown timers while ME2 has them all on the same timer.  It's pretty trivial to change ME1 to use a universal cooldown--I could probably do it myself with 3-4 lines of code--but doing so changes tactics, enemies, difficulty curves, and the metagame almost beyond recognition.  If you want a universal cooldown, you have to build that into the game, and ME2's combat system is quite different as a result.

In the same way, you can trivially write a single paragraph describing the changes you need to make to HP to make them more realistic.  Drop them by 3/4, or remove Con bonuses, or whatever it is that reduces them to a satisfactory level.  But then enemies change difficulty (you can't survive higher-level monster unless they're rewritten), tactics change (a bunch of 1st-level crossbowmen can take out PCs...and everything else under the sun), the metagame changes (martial types have a much smaller comparative HP advantage, so defense becomes much more important than offense and thus the favored builds and strategies change), and so forth.  To be able to have both traditional and gritty mechanics available with one standard and one in a module, the core has to be built to be able to handle both of them, and that _will_ in fact impact the quality of both systems even if the traditional people and the gritty people use zero modules in common.

And yes, I _know_ Monte has said that they're taking D&D Next in this exciting new direction to a magical land where modular design totally works that way and the game can be everything to everyone.  I've interned before for people who have said that yes, they can totally take this buggy software platform written by a different team and make it work to specifications within the 1-week deadline.  PR people can say whatever they want, and aim for whatever goals they wish, but that doesn't mean it will actually work, or that if it _does_ work it actually pleases people.  I mean, look at the 4e announcements: plenty of people were clamoring for better martial abilities and simpler combat maneuvers and ritual magic and other things, and loved what they saw in the previews, and yet when the full game came out many of those people hated it despite the fact that all of those design goals were fulfilled.

-----------------------------------------------------

Regarding suspension of disbelief:

Internal consistency and realism are different things.  It is not _realistic_ that you can expect survive roughly 1 sword to the gut for every 2-3 levels you have, but it is _internally consistent_, because it is observable in-game, it works that way for everyone, and the implications of this are taken into account.  Both PCs and players can make plans and decisions based on this information and won't be surprised at the outcome, because that's the way the game physics work.  It would be _realistic_ to suppose that lava and falls instantly kill people, but it would not be _internally consistent_ if those same people routinely survive fires hotter than lava and blunt force trauma more lethal than those falls.  If a 10-ton weight falling on you kills you but a bite that conveys more than 10 tons of force doesn't, you can't assess threats accurately or plan around various factors of the game world.

Suspension of disbelief works fine as long as the world is internally consistent.  Many people easily suspended disbelief about the Force in Star Wars, because the explanation of it, its power, and its wielders was internally consistent...until Episode I, when they tried to explain that the Force comes from microorganisms, and that replacement of magic with biology broke many peoples' suspension of disbelief even though it's technically more realistic to attempt to give a scientific explanation for the Force.  Action-movie or comic-book physics aren't realistic in the slightest, but are plenty consistent, to the point that you can tell how plots will play out (the Joker will survive _again_ and escape Arkham Asylum _again_...) because they're fairly formulaic, and if you tell someone that a world or game operates on comic-book physics they can easily grasp what you mean and play along.

DM fiat is not the best way to achieve internal consistency and thereby achieve suspension of disbelief.  In fact, it is a terrible way to do so: DM fiat in other media is better known as deus ex machina, and it is generally regarded as a terrible way to resolve things because it happens regardless of whatever other rules of the world have already been established.  In Doctor Who, you get plots all the time where something happens and is "fixed in time" and can never ever ever be changed, and then later on the Doctor goes and changes it anyway because *mumble mumble wibbly wobbly timey wimey*.  It's usually entertaining because of the technobabble and humor and flashy effects, but if you tried to do the same thing in a game ("The BBEG is immune to fire and lives in a volcano.  Just kidding, fire is his special weakness because plot.") the players would rightly complain that it makes no sense and really screws with their perception of the world.

In some games (i.e. not D&D) a T-Rex is a threat to everyone.  In some games (i.e. not D&D) a freakin' disintegration ray is instant death for everyone.  In other games (i.e. D&D) this isn't the case.  Games of both kinds come with certain expectations, and changing those expectations arbitrarily by DM fiat mid-game (or even stating before hand "some things will insta-kill you for realism's sake" without outlining every case) just isn't a good strategy and is _certainly_ no way to design a complex rules-heavy game like D&D.


----------



## triqui (Apr 19, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Okay, the fronts have been cleared, I'm out of this conversation.
> 
> We both agree that it's a game and every group has a different style of genre they want to emulate with their rules. You can accomplish this with pretty easy rules if you want (if you fall in lava you die etc.) - heroic or gritty.
> 
> ...



Never said you can't have heroic or gritty rules. You can let people die when they fall. You can also kill people that fall, and let them survive dragons that crush on them, but at the cost of in-game coherence.

What you can't is to claim that your system make "common sense"  and other's (like the regular RAW d&d)  don't, because it has t-rex sized dragons chewing people that don't die. And that's not common sense, at all.


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 19, 2012)

Aaron said:


> For the PCs, to be skilled enough to be a threat means you are a high level NPC, something that common town guards or country bandits are not.




And how do they know this? If they fought them before (say at a lower level in the past), then sure, they have in-game experience and can judge based off of that. Otherwise, they are meta-gaming based on the assumption that all town guards are 3rd level (for example). But if you're traipsing through the woods when you're suddenly surrounded by 12 armed bandits you've never seen before, with crossbows raised and ready, should the characters not take pause? 



Aaron said:


> And, again, from where do you derive that high level PCs are unresilient otherwise normal mortal being?




Because that's a reasonable base assumption? All characters start this way. Sure, characters could end up with magic or abilities to change their nature as they level, to become resilient to damage. But it could be argued just as easily that they don't get those magic items or choose those abilities/powers/feats as they level. 



Aaron said:


> The same could be said for a 4 years old kid, that could be a polymorphed red wyrm. Nonetheless you wrote that 0 level peasants wouldn't consider him to be a threat.




Why would they? It's a 4 year old kid to them. Unless they know it's a dragon in disguise. And unless it's a world of 4-year olds ripping people's throats out, they just won't be considered a threat. But in a world where arrows do kill, from 1st to 30th level, how can PCs not end up treating a dozen aimed arrows at them to not be any kind of threat? I'm not saying they should cower in fear, or run away, and the PCs will most likely risk injury and death to fight them, but this doesn't mean that such a threat isn't there or not in the character's minds.



Aaron said:


> Are you saying that being hit by a crossbow bolt in your arm couldn't kill you?




No, but I wouldn't say anyone instantly dies from such a hit (I could be wrong on this count, as I have never come face-to-face with heavy body trauma before). Plus if we're talking skilled PCs here, they should be making those dramatic hits, rather than having all their opponents bleed-out (which by RAW would have to be on-going damage anyway).

As for PCs ... well, that's what Death Saves are about.



Aaron said:


> In 3.5 you can have a guy who can lift 200 lb over his head (Str 15) armed with a dagger, and a sleeping (and even tied) PC in front of him.
> 
> Well, if this strong guy would execute a coup de grace on the helpless PC, he would roll 2d4+4 damage for the automatic critical hit.
> That means a DC of the Fort save for the PC being 10 + [2.5x2 + 4 (Str modx2)] = 19.
> ...




Coup de grace rules have always been one of the unbelievable aspects of the game to me. And it's akin to the original topic of this thread. 

And no, of course it wouldn't be a graze. By all rights, the characters should be auto-killed, or at least on their way to dying. This is one of the extreme cases where the general rules don't work to create a believable framework, unless you somehow find 20 throat cuts to be at all believable.

In the midst of combat, I can at least sort of buy the CdG rule, since the creature delivering the blow is in a threatening situation, even if not immediately threatened by an enemy. The blow is certainly heavy, but not necessarily deadly enough as the deliverer has to concern itself with everything going on around it.



Aaron said:


> But, by your words, no arrow shot would ever hit them in their heads, or heart, or other vital point, unless the PCs are already being hit several times (i.e., the shot is the killing one).
> 
> How is that coherent or believable?




Because for me it's a lot more believable than a character taking 5 arrows to the heart and still running around and fighting as fresh as a daisy.

And it's a trope in nearly every action movie out there. The heroes are constantly missed/grazed, even by the "deadly precise stormtroopers". It may pushing the bounds of believability at times, but it doesn't prevent us from accepting it.



Aaron said:


> Well, I can in no way suspend my belief if the PCs are so outrageously lucky that every single victory they attain is due to sheer luck/divine intervention.




And by skill, and teamwork, and intelligent tactics, and powerful spells and abilities. Luck and fate play only a part in the whole. I've never said otherwise (or at least meant to imply otherwise).




Aaron said:


> 1) what if my players don't like to play PCs who are blessed by this "predestination" profile this approach implies?




Tough? No-one gets to choose their fate, and the gods bless whom they please, whether they want it or not. And luck is tied into the entire base mechanics in the game, in every die roll we make.

If your players want your HPs to be simply how much meat you have on you, go ahead, it's certainly possible to play with that assumption. But don't take away the fact that the base assumption is and has always been that HPs do encompass all these other intangible qualities. Some of us have always played with HPs being this way.



Aaron said:


> 2) the number of deadly menaces a standard adventurer faces in his career would make him look more like Gladstone Gander or Nedward Flanders;




It is quite amazing that this group of (likely) disparate people just happened to get together at just the right time to face these menaces, in the nick of time, and triumphed over every obstacle they ever faced.



Aaron said:


> 3) if the Pc doesn't know what he can do (since everything he achieved was due to sheer luck/divine intervention), what can he plan?
> 
> How can he know if a mission is too hard to accomplish?
> 
> How can assess the risks involved, if every single deadly attack in his life missed him thanks to luck/divine intervention?




Again, luck and fate are only parts of the whole. Of course a character knows what they can do. And I never said that these attacks miss, they obviously didn't, as that's a facter of THAC0/Defenses.

But how do you say that the heroes take a dozen deadly blows? Deadly implies, well, death is soon to follow. Otherwise, well, I guess the blow wasn't that deadly after all. Perhaps they ducked that deadly blow to the head and took it in the shoulder by instint and skill, or were lucky, or fate has other plans.

And I'm not against the tough hero at all. I enjoy the combat system that allows me to emulate such things. I don't want PCs to die in one blow, as that is not my idea of the fun I want when I play D&D. But seeing as we don't have an injury system or any sort of penalty for being heavily beat up, it's hard (for me at least) to consider that the characters are taking hits like Boromir did at his death and not be adversely affected in a meaningful way, as he certainly was.

But that doesn't mean I want things to be beyond the bounds of my believability. And I realize this is a differing concept amongst gamers.



Aaron said:


> If he opts to face hundreds of deadly menaces thinking about how lucky he was before, either he's basing his decision on the "metagame rules" you despise, or he's simply outrageously silly.




No, just like any living, breathing person, a PC should base their decisions on what they believe they are capable of, and how they perceive what's in front of them. Boiling water hurts, I'm not going to stick my hand in that pot. Arrows to the face can kill, maybe I should appraise the situation carefully. 

Because yes, I agree, basing things purely on luck is very silly. Case in point, my group faced a white dragon recently, and it was a total cakewalk, mainly because the DM rolled one entire hit on us in the combat. But we're not suddenly going to think that the next dragon we come across will be as easy. Simularly, we're not going to assume the next group of guards with bows aimed at us will be a stroll through the park, even though as players and gamers, we know we have the health and healing surges to survive 4 or 5 encounters.


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 19, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Cover? Really? This is going to be your excuse? That they have shields? So, this entire conversation about 20 archers on the walls can be negated if I carry a shield? If you stroll back into the thread, the point was that the PC's, caught in the open at the foot of the walls of the castle, should be threatened by a handful of archers.
> 
> But, hey, they've got shields! No problem, they can laugh at 20 archers now.






triqui said:


> In D&D terms, they don't hide behind cover. Shields don't give cover. They just have a very high AC naked and wearing a Shield, and arrows miss.




Well, as we've seen, it's not really possible to equate every single action in movies to a game that has nothing to do with it. I suppose we could discuss the D&D movies, but I shudder at the concept. 

But sure, we can try. Why can't the shields be considered cover in this instance? They hide entirely behind them, not just holding it out in front of them to deflect some incoming blows (which is usually how it's represented as AC). And it's clear that multiple arrows are hitting the shields but not piering through, as cover would suggest.

Or you could say they all took Full Defensive actions to increase their AC, and that out of dozens of rolls, not a single natural 20 was rolled.

And in the case of 300, the 'blot out the sun' attack was volleys, not aimed shots. We see aimed shots and their effects at the end of the movie, where their naked + shield AC isn't enough. So the 20 archers on the walls seems to stand up. And I highly doubt that a group of PCs would be all using shields. In my last 3 groups, I think we've had 2 shield-bearers total, with 0 for 6 in the current group (well, maybe the Warlord, I honestly don't remember, as he works from range).



Hussar said:


> What I can never understand though is when people have very strong playstyle differences with D&D, why they insist on playing D&D. It's not 1985 anymore. There's a bajillion well supported and fantastic games out there that will already DO what you want. Warhammer Fantasy sounds a lot closer to what you're looking for. D20 certainly doesn't. Why do people cling so hard to D&D?




Familiarity, nostalgia, wanting to have a set of rules that at least seem familiar, rather than trying and learn new systems. Maybe just not realizing what other games are out there, or perhaps lack of availability/support. And who's to say there's a playstyle difference not found in D&D? I play D&D more zero-to-hero style, and I can see how people can play editions with a more super-heroic playstyle. Neither is strictly wrong for D&D, it's a matter of what people find fun.

I myself tried Warhammer, and it didn't suit my tastes, despite liking the general idea. MERP and Pendragon and Game of Thrones are too situated in their source material, and don't have the scope of variety that D&D offers. Palladium had interesting characters, but the system is rather broken for me. Never got into GURPS. I haven't really looked into many others, due to time. I've been wanting to give Anima a looksee, but I'm doubtful we'd get a group together for that over D&D which we all now know.

So I don't really see a problem with people who have enjoyed a system wanting to see potential in the next iteration of it so that they can continue to play it.


----------



## triqui (Apr 19, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> Well, as we've seen, it's not really possible to equate every single action in movies to a game that has nothing to do with it. I suppose we could discuss the D&D movies, but I shudder at the concept.
> 
> But sure, we can try. Why can't the shields be considered cover in this instance?



Don't know about you, but if I ask my DM, while standing still in the middle of a Plain "can I have a cover bonus?", his answer will be no. 



> They hide entirely behind them, not just holding it out in front of them to deflect some incoming blows (which is usually how it's represented as AC). And it's clear that multiple arrows are hitting the shields but not piering through, as cover would suggest.



 Some people would argue that you *need* to use the shield to get some bonus from it. But whatever, yes, it might be represented as full defensive action. That's like +4 AC in most D&D editions, I think. They are still *impervious* to it. Not only they don't get damaged... they aren't scared about it at all either. Same goes with Braveheart similar scene. And that is about what this debate is going around for a couple of pages already. That some people find "unbelieveable" that a group of high level fighters fo against 12+ archers /crossbowmen and do not surrender, because they would be "metagaming". 

Leonidas is not metagaming. He is just plain badass. He is brave, impervious. He *knows* for sure that he is heads and shoulders above those self-called inmortals. He is not going to just give up and surrender only because the DM Dario thinks it's cool, and he is for sure not going to let a few thousands arrows to intimidate him. 

So he stands still there, and just laugh at the thousand arrows becouse he has very high AC, and a ton of HP



> And in the case of 300, the 'blot out the sun' attack was volleys, not aimed shots. We see aimed shots and their effects at the end of the movie, where their naked + shield AC isn't enough. So the 20 archers on the walls seems to stand up. And I highly doubt that a group of PCs would be all using shields. In my last 3 groups, I think we've had 2 shield-bearers total, with 0 for 6 in the current group (well, maybe the Warlord, I honestly don't remember, as he works from range).



 No, but they have armor . Of the magically enhanced kind. Some of them have shield spells, or magic vestments. Others are able to evade fireballs and have uncanny dodge abilities.


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 19, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I agree about the multiple elements of HP's, but I disagree that specific situations need to have which bits of of HP applie, picked out for each situation. I also don't agree that such a thing would be impractical though. It's already been done with Fatigue.




Well, depends on how into the details you get. Sure, HP and Fatigue are easy enough to track. But do we want there to be a Morale value, and Luck, and Fate, and so on? I too am fine with the abstraction of HP for most instances. But I fail to see how say Skill and Fatigue play a part in being tied up and helpless and having someone stabbing your neck.

But I also agree that a lot of these things are more cornercase concerns, and during the bulk of play, abstracted HP are perfectly fine for getting the job done. But they do crop up and at times break the believability factor. 



El Mahdi said:


> Also, a game with potentially auto-kill falls may not be fun for you, but it is fun for me.
> 
> Fun is a variable concept and purely subjective. No other person, nor a rule system, can define what I feel is fun.




True enough. I was speaking more from the current design directions, where 4E took virtually all the 'save-or-die' and auto-kill effects out. Though I'm in the 'falls should be deadly' camp. 



El Mahdi said:


> I disagree. *We* may not be, when *we* includes *you;* but there are some who do like to play a style such as "Storm Trooper #5". *"We"* play D&D a lot of different ways. Also, Luke and Leia have the force, so yes, they aren't ordianary hero's (despite Luke's farmboy beginnings). But Han is absolutely an Ordinary Hero. He has no special abilities, no magical force to protect him, no massive amount of Hit Points...just the guts to dare things that others don't. Those guts are something that D&D does not, and has never, quantified. Yet there it is. The character of Han actually proves my point...




Sure, I'm not saying you couldn't play Storm Trooper #5. But if you're playing with D&D core rules, then your Strom Trooper is levelling, and getting better, and maybe becomes and Imperial Elite Guard at paragon, or multiclasses into a TIE Pilot. I suppose you could play where ST5 is always just a mook, and quickly dies, and you pull out ST6 to continue on with, and so on.

My point is that the vast majority of D&D players will be playing the heroes, and the heroes have a certain spark in them that lets them rise above the rabble. Luke is clearly a zero-to-hero type. And after a few levels he's got a magic sword, some neat-o magical abilities, a faithful companion, a high rank in an army, and so on. As for Han, he may be ordinary, but he's still a hero. He's more skilled than a regular mook trooper for a start. He's pretty much the sci-fi equivalent to how I envision most fighters and rogues and other 'mundane' martial characters.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 19, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> ...My point is that the vast majority of D&D players will be playing the heroes, and the heroes have a certain spark in them that lets them rise above the rabble. Luke is clearly a zero-to-hero type. And after a few levels he's got a magic sword, some neat-o magical abilities, a faithful companion, a high rank in an army, and so on. As for Han, he may be ordinary, but he's still a hero. He's more skilled than a regular mook trooper for a start. He's pretty much the sci-fi equivalent to how I envision most fighters and rogues and other 'mundane' martial characters.




I agree completely about the "spark". It's paramount in the fictional archetypes I like also. As is gaining more skills and becoming more formidable as one gains experience. However, I've never read any fictional archetype (excepting super hero's), where jumping off a 200' cliff is a tactical option rather than certain death. And one does not have to be a Fantasy Super Hero to be a Hero.

Even D&D Fiction doesn't break those rational bounds. I don't see why the game needs to either (unless one specifically wants that). I think the core rules should make the most sense when applying logic based on real world experience, rather than needing to understand the in's and out's of an unrealistically contrived world. I want my players to be able to play that way. I want a newbie to be able to come into the game, and not knowing the system, be able to make basic practical tactical and strategic decisions. I don't want them to know, or have to know, that their 10th level Fighter can jump off a 200' cliff and survive with bumps and bruises. I think internal concepts like this, along with not knowing the rules themselves, are also a barrier to new players...one that's easy to fix. If one wants the super heroic world, then apply the rules modifications to the base system and super fantasy hero away.

Newbie: *to DM* (thinking this is a realistic tactical option) This Orc is killing me in this fight. I'm going to have to do something big to survive this. Can I try pushing the Orc off of this 200' cliff?
DM: Uhmm...Sure. Just make an attack roll at a -4. However, if you're succcessful, the Orc gets a Reflex saving throw to see if it grabs the edge of the cliff.
Newbie: Cool. Here goes...*rolls dice*...Woo Hoo! I Hit!
DM:  Okay.  The Orc rolls it's Reflex Save...*rolls dice*...Nope.  No Luck.  The Orc falls.
Newbie:  Yes!!!!!!  Scratch out one Orc!!!
DM:  As you look over the edge to where the Orc landed, you see it get up and limp off.
Newbie: Huh...  Damn!  No wonder it was going to kill me.  That things a freaking Super Hero!
DM:  No.  I just made it using PC rules.  It was about 10th level.  That's only a couple of levels higher than your character.  Youre character could probably survive it also.
Newbie:  Huh...  10th level or not, unless it's a Super Hero how the hell did it survive a 200' fall...?!?  That doesn't make any sense!  What are you going to tell me next, I can survive falling onto molten lava...?!?  How am I supposed to make logical decisions if there's no logic to the game...


----------



## triqui (Apr 19, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Newbie: *to DM* (thinking this is a realistic tactical option) This Orc is killing me in this fight. I'm going to have to do something big to survive this. Can I try pushing the Orc off of this 200' cliff?
> DM: Uhmm...Sure. Just make an attack roll at a -4. However, if you're succcessful, the Orc gets a Reflex saving throw to see if it grabs the edge of the cliff.
> Newbie: Cool. Here goes...*rolls dice*...Woo Hoo! I Hit!
> DM:  Okay.  The Orc rolls it's Reflex Save...*rolls dice*...Nope.  No Luck.  The Orc falls.
> ...




That's a wonderful story. And actually, the newbie is right, the orc is a superhero. He is 10th level, and that's a superhero. If he were a 5th level orc or so, he would had been an ordinary hero, just like Aragorn. At 10th,, that orc was nearly superhuman. I mean... what's the athletic score of a 10th level orc? With his strength, he can beat the long jump record wearing chain mail. He can get bited by a king cobra and won't die. The party mage could try to coup de grace him with his dagger and probably would need a dozen attempts. If he faces a group of militia archers, he need to be hit like 15 times to die.

If that's not a superhero orc, I don't know what it is.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 19, 2012)

[MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION]

Well... technically your Orc and PC situation sounds pretty off. At about 10th level, an NPC orc has to be very tough (Con) or very lucky (lots of 1's on damage) to survive a 00' fall unless the DM does max HP or is playing 4E. Then the PC really has too tough or lucky to survive jumping after the orc to survive. Especially with lower levels. And after the butt kicking the orc was giving him. The DM is probably giving bad advice.

Either way, both would have to be extremely lucky to have many hit point left and would probably be in single digits. So to me it would be a-okay as the orc is one arrow to the body from death. The orc must have instinctively spinned around, bent his knees, landed on the balls of his feet and rolled. Because the orc is level 10 and is a superhero. Notsomething of our mortal realm called Earth where the level cap is 5.

Now as a DM, I would have still killed the orc. Or at least make the first arrow/rock shot by the PC kill him for the funny.

"Woohoo! I made it. Thank Gru-" Bonk! Thud!


----------



## pemerton (Apr 20, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Battlemechs have never really had much of a place in D&D



What about the Mighty Servant of Leuk-O?!


----------



## pemerton (Apr 20, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> I want a newbie to be able to come into the game, and not knowing the system, be able to make basic practical tactical and strategic decisions. I don't want them to know, or have to know, that their 10th level Fighter can jump off a 200' cliff and survive with bumps and bruises.
> 
> <snip dialogue>
> 
> Newbie:  Huh...  10th level or not, unless it's a Super Hero how the hell did it survive a 200' fall...?!?  That doesn't make any sense!  What are you going to tell me next, I can survive falling onto molten lava...?!?  How am I supposed to make logical decisions if there's no logic to the game...



Are you saying that you've seen this take place in a game? That you would expect this to take place in a game?

Or that it's typical for newbies to play 10th level PCs, who can teleport, plane shift, fight and kill T-Rex's, but then be puzzled that they can survive improbably terrible falls?

Or are you just making stuff up?


----------



## BryonD (Apr 20, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Battlemechs have never really had much of a place in D&D and I probably wouldn't want to see them built into the game.



Total pointless tangent:

Fairly early on in OGL days I was doing some play testing for a well known 3PP.
They e-mail saying that they have a new D&D / mech game for me to look at.
I replied that I personally had no interest in mechs in D&D and didn't think I would offer any worthwhile insight or comments.
They insisted that I should look at it because it was really still just D&D.
So they sent me a copy and not all that long after I told them I didn't really have any comments because it was battlemechs and I wasn't interested and didn't have enough background to comment if they got the feel right anyway.

They never asked me to review anything else ever again.


----------



## YRUSirius (Apr 20, 2012)

30 pages about falling damage in D&D.

You'd think that this would be a major component of the game...

"Hey, let's play Dunk & Dive!"

-YRUSirius


----------



## BryonD (Apr 20, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Are you saying that you've seen this take place in a game? That you would expect this to take place in a game?
> 
> Or that it's typical for newbies to play 10th level PCs, who can teleport, plane shift, fight and kill T-Rex's, but then be puzzled that they can survive improbably terrible falls?
> 
> Or are you just making stuff up?



Just speaking for myself and I can't claim "newbies" but...

I know a lot of players who find this to be a bug in the system.   To be clear, it isn't a deal breaker by any means.  But it is a little wart on the system.

If they teleport or plane shift then cool.
If they teleport and accidentally end up in outer space, they would expect to die.
If they fight a t-rex then cool.
If they fight a t-rex and the DM says it tears their guts out and crushed their spine "take 27 points damage, it is now your turn", then they would have a problem with that.

There is nothing implicit that suggest severe harm is automatic when you say "teleport", "be in a sword fight", "battle a t-rex".  Serious harm may very well easily result, but there is nothing that is a foregone conclusion about it.

Even accepting the amazing stories of rare cases of survival of great falls in real life, it is understood that very serious damage is a foregone conclusion.  

The idea that a player of any experience wouldn't have a brief pause over the ease of fall survival seems really odd to me.  A player can go through a 100 sword fights and think nothing of it.  But describe a sword through their lung and spine and they are going to leap the presumption of PC death.  In RPGs fighting T-rex is just a glorified sword fight.  But falling from a great height is a "lung and spine" event.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 20, 2012)

El Lord said:
			
		

> In some games (i.e. not D&D) a T-Rex is a threat to everyone. In some games (i.e. not D&D) a freakin' disintegration ray is instant death for everyone. In other games (i.e. D&D) this isn't the case. Games of both kinds come with certain expectations, and changing those expectations arbitrarily by DM fiat mid-game (or even stating before hand "some things will insta-kill you for realism's sake" without outlining every case) just isn't a good strategy and is certainly no way to design a complex rules-heavy game like D&D.




Can't xp you again, but, this is precisely what I would say if I was smarter and better looking.  

El Mahdi - I've repeatedly agreed with you that a separate module for the level of game you are looking for would be groovy.  That's fine.  I think you'd need a completely separate game honestly, like something like d20 Modern, in order to do it justice, but, it can be done.

My point always has been that I don't want this in the baseline assumptions.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 20, 2012)

triqui said:


> Will like to see a little bit of your RPG. How can a level 20th fighter defeat Dragons, Balors, Liches and Pitfiends, and die to level 1 fighters with common arrows?



Surprise, or numbers. (Sorry for the delay, I was running a game for most of yesterday.)

When attacks are made against your ACvS (Armor Class vs. Surprise), you basically lose most of your AC. A lucky hit can cause ongoing blood loss, punctured lungs, or other effects (again, it needs to be a lucky hit). Also, you have two different HP pools in my RPG (HP and THP [temporary hit points]). If an attack deals only THP (which recovers some every round), you avoid any attached negative effects (such as the lucky shots mentioned above). However, you do not get any THP when you're surprised.

When you're attacked multiple times in a round, you take a cumulative penalty to your AC (excluding ACvS). This means that 20 guys with crossbows give you a -19 penalty as of the last attack (AC tops out around 30 by level 20 in my RPG). Any of the attacks (that finally hit your HP after you lose your THP) that do connect might be a lucky shot, inflicting ongoing blood loss, skull fractures, etc. 

So, you can fight a Balor, and if you're not surprised, you're getting your full AC and THP, and he's not making 20 attacks at you. You can have this epic drag-out fight with him, but later on feel threatened when 40 archers appear on the walls when the city guard yells for you to halt.

It's just how my system handles it. Again, I don't think it's the only way, and I don't expect this to be anywhere near base for D&D 5e. But, I am positive that you can have deadly 1st level archers in a world where level 20 Fighters can fight Balors.

Now, players can certainly obtain ways to negate level 1 archers, too. Get enough damage reduction (achievable by level 20, for sure), making you monstrously tough. Get abilities or combat maneuvers that reduce penalties for being attacked multiple times. Etc. But, these are probably only going to apply to a couple PCs in a party of 5-6, meaning most are vulnerable to common arrows while challenging Balors, dragons, liches, and Pit Fiends. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Apr 20, 2012)

BryonD said:


> There is nothing implicit that suggest severe harm is automatic when you say "teleport", "be in a sword fight", "battle a t-rex".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In RPGs fighting T-rex is just a glorified sword fight.



But this is exactly [MENTION=57948]triqui[/MENTION] and [MENTION=52548]Aaron[/MENTION]'s point (as I read them): that in D&D 3E (at least - maybe other versions as well) fighting a T-rex or a dragon can involve being picked up by it in its jaws, being crushed by its jaws or its body, etc. Which entail "automatic severe harm" just as much as does falling 100 feet.

And hence that, whatever story you tell about your mojo that let's you survive those things ("I wedge it's jaw open with my sword"; "I use my shield to create a little pocket where I survive under the crushing bulk of the dragon") you also tell to explain how you survive the fall ("At the last minute, I use my cloak (which is probably as magical as my sword and shield) like a parachute, Batman-style").

Also, when you say "in RPGs fighting T-rex is just a glorified sword fight", you presumably mean "in D&D". There are plenty of fantasy RPGs in which fighting a T-rex is not a glorified sword fight - in which a T-rex is modelled so as to do damage that a PC can't take, or to pierce armour/DR in a way that a sword can't match, etc. In which, in effect, if the T-rex actually gets to bite you, let alone grab you, then you're dead.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 20, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Surprise, or numbers. (Sorry for the delay, I was running a game for most of yesterday.)
> 
> When attacks are made against your ACvS (Armor Class vs. Surprise), you basically lose most of your AC. A lucky hit can cause ongoing blood loss, punctured lungs, or other effects (again, it needs to be a lucky hit). Also, you have two different HP pools in my RPG (HP and THP [temporary hit points]). If an attack deals only THP (which recovers some every round), you avoid any attached negative effects (such as the lucky shots mentioned above). However, you do not get any THP when you're surprised.
> 
> ...




Certainly sounds rather complex and rules-heavy to me, but I wouldn't really presume to critique a game I know practically nothing about. Still, I'd think that the mere fact it requires so many 'moving parts' to get where you are tells you something about the likelihood that WotC is going to establish rules for this one subtype of game in the core rules. I wouldn't count on it. I'd think it is VASTLY more likely to be some sort of 3PP thing, assuming licensing and whatnot is amenable to that.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 20, 2012)

pemerton said:


> But this is exactly @triqui and @Aaron 's point (as I read them): that in D&D 3E (at least - maybe other versions as well) fighting a T-rex or a dragon can involve being picked up by it in its jaws, being crushed by its jaws or its body, etc. Which entail "automatic severe harm" just as much as does falling 100 feet.




I think the problem is that what people demand for suspension of disbelief is so all over the place, that it is now practically impossible to have the discussion from that standpoint.  In the "old days" of D&D, you had three basic groups:

"Engineers", who applied all kinds of real-world physics to the game, and did funky things with lightning bolt angles and fireball spreads, but were a pain to DM for if you weren't one yourself. They read a lot of hard science fiction.
"Artists", who really didn't care, as long as it was dramatic and something that was remotely plausible if you didn't look at it too hard.  These were the types that were fine with all the craziest James Bond stunts in the later Roger Moore years.
Everyone else, who might dabble a bit in both camps, generally being slightly more educated/bright than the average populace--or in some cases, more of the "stoner" type, who just went along with what everyone else was doing.  Crucially, a lot of these people had done something with their hands or on a farm or worked on an engine. This acted a check to some of the more nonsensical readings of game rules.
For any one of these groups, it is fairly easy to draw lines that will lead to easy suspension of disbelief.  Now, we have people all over the place.  Some of those places I won't list here, but suffice to say that they are not very impressive compared to any of the above. Add to that lack of understanding of the "real world" in its various aspects a much wider view of desirable verisimilitude, due to wider range of fantasy literature, film, etc.  Last but not least, we have the generational aspect, of having 40+ years of heavy gaming going on.  A lot of views are thus formed from the game, rather than the thing the game purports to model.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 20, 2012)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Certainly sounds rather complex and rules-heavy to me, but I wouldn't really presume to critique a game I know practically nothing about. Still, I'd think that the mere fact it requires so many 'moving parts' to get where you are tells you something about the likelihood that WotC is going to establish rules for this one subtype of game in the core rules. I wouldn't count on it. I'd think it is VASTLY more likely to be some sort of 3PP thing, assuming licensing and whatnot is amenable to that.



It's definitely more rules-heavy than without the moving parts. More flexible, too. Ups and downs to rules, and all that.

The argument at the moment, however, seems to be whether or not it's possible to have a game where 12 guys with crossbows can be a threat when fighting something like a dragon. I think that's achievable without porting all of my methods over.

For example, if you have a game with even flatter math, that -1 penalty per attack means you don't need the "lucky shots" (bleeding effects, etc.), which gets rid of a lot of the fiddly bits. HP and THP is easily made less complicated (instead of getting back THP each round, get it all back after a couple minutes of rest). Make ACvS = flat=footed (no Dex or defense bonus), and no THP. Done.

It won't be nearly as flexible as my game is when it comes to things like wounds, etc., but you can pretty much add a couple steps to get a feel people like. HP/THP is basically a hit point "wounds/vitality" system. Penalties to AC are pretty easy to track, and meaningful in a game with much flatter math. ACvS is pretty easily written down as "flat-footed" and it's easy to note that you don't get your "vitalty" or "THP" on such a hit.

Just make THP scale higher than HP ("the module says all hit points past level 1 are actually THP"), and have certain effects bypass THP completely (falling, lava, being on fire, surprise attacks, etc.). Done. More complicated than HP? Oh, for sure. But, I think it's certainly something that people that want a more complicated game (those calling for more "realism" or "verisimilitude" within the flavor of this thread) can accept. Just my opinion. As always, play what you like


----------



## Grabuto138 (Apr 20, 2012)

This is a very long thread and I have done my honest best to read through it but I appologize if I am repeating what someone else has said.

I would like to see DM fiat play a larger role. There should be an easy mechanism (d6 or d10 per 10'). In an encounter, a DM should avoid a realistically instant death environment. If he does not, he should have a mechanism to avoid it (e.g. saving throw) or environmental conditions to explain why a character survived, like a clumb of soft bushes at the bottom of the cliff.  

Otherwise, a Dm should feel empowered to just tell the player, "If you do that you will die." And then kill him if he does it anyway.

I prefer the "superhero" play style. If the story takes you to a place that you didn't expect and a hero jumps off a high cliff or into a vat of acid for heroic or roleplaying reasons (rather than "I know it can't kill me") give him a fighting chance by rolling the dice. Occasionally it might be worth it to fudge the dice. 

I would never let a player jump into a 100' pit because he knows he has enough HP and its the end of the day and we have plenty of healing anyway and scaling down is a pain in the arse. That dude is dead. But if he does it as a last ditch effort to prevent his capture and save his honor, or to drag the evil goat possesses by Asmodeus before he can get at anyone else, he gets a chance at least.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 20, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> The argument at the moment, however, seems to be whether or not it's possible to have a game where 12 guys with crossbows can be a threat when fighting something like a dragon. I think that's achievable without porting all of my methods over.
> 
> For example, if you have a game with even flatter math, that -1 penalty per attack means you don't need the "lucky shots" (bleeding effects, etc.), which gets rid of a lot of the fiddly bits. HP and THP is easily made less complicated (instead of getting back THP each round, get it all back after a couple minutes of rest). Make ACvS = flat=footed (no Dex or defense bonus), and no THP. Done.
> 
> ...



In the late 70s (I think - maybe early 80s) Roger Musson had an article in White Dwarf called "How to lose hit points and survive". I think it was the first proposal for a wound/vitality system for D&D. His version uses CON as wound points, regular hit points as vitality points, and uses a "make your to-hit by more than X" as the criterion for wounding. He also adds a few bells and whistles: every step up on the attack matrix (2 levels for AD&D fighters, 3 levels for AD&D clerics, etc) increases the value of X by 1; when you are at 75%, 50% or 25% CON your hit points can't be higher than that percentage; and at each of those percentages you also have a chance of a mortal wound (with a 100% chance when you drop to 0 CON).

I can't remember whether he discusses falling, but he suggests that, for dragon breath and fireballs, on a save you take half damage to hp (for the effort of ducking etc) and on a failed save you take full damage to hp and half damage to CON. I think that when you're helpless you take full damage to CON, but not simply when you're surprised.

If you use a system like this, and change it so that:

(i) X does not increase with level;

(ii) X _decreases_ for each subsequent attack in the round;

(iii) when surprised, all hits go straight to CON;

(iv) falling damage is doubled (or more), but falling gives a save comparable to dragon breath or fireball;​
then you could get a system in which a PC can have a better chance against a dragon who doesn't surprise him/her than against 12 archers who do surprise him/her.

To make it consistent, though, you'd probably have to rule that surprised PCs automatically fail their saves vs breath, fireball etc, which would make scry-buff-teleport even more deadly.

But offering this as a module isn't just tweaking a dial or toggling a switch on or off. It's jacking on a wholly different subsystem that may well not work with signficant other parts of the system (eg the encounter building guidelines, the healing rules, etc).


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 20, 2012)

pemerton said:


> you could get a system in which a PC can have a better chance against a dragon who doesn't surprise him/her than against 12 archers who do surprise him/her.



I'm glad that you think such a system is possible. I think it is, as well.



pemerton said:


> But offering this as a module isn't just tweaking a dial or toggling a switch on or off. It's jacking on a wholly different subsystem that may well not work with signficant other parts of the system (eg the encounter building guidelines, the healing rules, etc).



Well, to be fair, that's not the model I suggested. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Apr 20, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> I'm glad that you think such a system is possible. I think it is, as well.



I've played a lot of a game in which active defence is penalised by number of attacks - namely, Rolemaster.

It's never been part of D&D, though, and I'd be a little surprised if D&Dnext puts it forward.



JamesonCourage said:


> Well, to be fair, that's not the model I suggested.



But your model would have the same implications. If anything, your model has them even more strongly, because in your model (unlike my variation of Roger Musson's), surprise produces _both_ all hits straight to wounds, and a reduction in AC (or, to flip it around, a significant bonus to hit against many builds of PC).

Scry-buff-teleport - to get advantage of the surprise benefits, and also to exercise control over the ratio of attackers to defenders (so as to avoid the penalties for being swarmed) - becomes even more tactically superior!

One thing I personally like about 4e is that it removes most of the incentives for scry-buff-teleport: teleporting is hard, scrying is hard, there is next-to-no buffing, and the mechanical benefits of ambushing are at best minor.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 20, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I've played a lot of a game in which active defence is penalised by number of attacks - namely, Rolemaster.
> 
> It's never been part of D&D, though, and I'd be a little surprised if D&Dnext puts it forward.



I would too, as a base. I could see it in a module where people want 12 crossbowmen to be dangerous. Personally, I wouldn't want it in the base assumption of the rules.



pemerton said:


> But your model would have the same implications. If anything, your model has them even more strongly, because in your model (unlike my variation of Roger Musson's), surprise produces _both_ all hits straight to wounds, and a reduction in AC (or, to flip it around, a significant bonus to hit against many builds of PC).
> 
> Scry-buff-teleport - to get advantage of the surprise benefits, and also to exercise control over the ratio of attackers to defenders (so as to avoid the penalties for being swarmed) - becomes even more tactically superior!



If you're trying to say that by making changes to how the game is played, the game will be different, I agree. I think that's kind of the point, though, so I don't think it's a bad thing.



pemerton said:


> One thing I personally like about 4e is that it removes most of the incentives for scry-buff-teleport: teleporting is hard, scrying is hard, there is next-to-no buffing, and the mechanical benefits of ambushing are at best minor.



I like most of those things as well (I made teleporting hard, scrying hard, buffing not stackable and with limits on how much you can maintain). You can easily go for both in the same system. That is, you can make being surprised, large numbers of low level warriors, falling, and lava all dangerous, while also basically trying to get rid of scry-buff-teleport. I prefer a system where that's the case for most of my games, in fact. To me, those two facets are near independent of one another. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Apr 20, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> I like most of those things as well (I made teleporting hard, scrying hard, buffing not stackable and with limits on how much you can maintain). You can easily go for both in the same system.



Yes, Burning Wheel doesn't have a lot of scrying or teleporting (it does emphasis preparation, but in the form of linked skill checks and gathering information that can be used to generate advantage dice, rather than buffs). And it does involve multiple foes penalising active defence. But my own view is that the more you take the game in this direction, the less it becomes like D&D.

I'm not therefore saying it's a bad game. I'm just doubting that it would be something that the designers of D&Dnext would make it a priority to support.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 20, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Yes, Burning Wheel doesn't have a lot of scrying or teleporting (it does emphasis preparation, but in the form of linked skill checks and gathering information that can be used to generate advantage dice, rather than buffs). And it does involve multiple foes penalising active defence. But my own view is that the more you take the game in this direction, the less it becomes like D&D.



Whereas some people have been bugged by this for years or decades with D&D, and still others have house-ruled it into their game all along ("you fall into lava, you die"), and it feels very D&D to them. Again, I don't expect it to be in the base game.



pemerton said:


> I'm not therefore saying it's a bad game. I'm just doubting that it would be something that the designers of D&Dnext would make it a priority to support.



I was replying to people who said they didn't think it was feasible. I don't know whether or not Wizards will include it or not with 5e via a module, but that's another topic, in my mind. As always, play what you like


----------



## triqui (Apr 20, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Surprise, or numbers. (Sorry for the delay, I was running a game for most of yesterday.)
> 
> When attacks are made against your ACvS (Armor Class vs. Surprise), you basically lose most of your AC. A lucky hit can cause ongoing blood loss, punctured lungs, or other effects (again, it needs to be a lucky hit). Also, you have two different HP pools in my RPG (HP and THP [temporary hit points]). If an attack deals only THP (which recovers some every round), you avoid any attached negative effects (such as the lucky shots mentioned above). However, you do not get any THP when you're surprised.
> 
> ...




Quite interesting. It produces a particular enviroment, with its own implications.
I'm not sure if the cumulative penalties for attacks are for different attackers, or different attacks. If it is the former, as I said, it makes fighting a 12 headed hydra "easier" than fighting 12 goblins, because the 12 headed hydra is a single oponent, and thus their 12 attacks. If it is  per attack, it makes some oponents harder to beat than others, depending the number of attacks (a 12 headed hydra being more dangerous than a Titan, for example, because of the number of attacks). It's not a bad issue per se, it just makes a different scale of CR (the Hydra would be higher level than in regular D&D, Monsters with 1 single hard-hit attack like titans would be lower CR than in regular D&D). "Lurker" monsters that surprise PC as a basic routine (like Phase Spiders) are particularly more dangerous that those that do not, even if they are more powerful in theory. Again, that's not strictly a problem, just have different scale for CR. A phase spider in that system would be 4 or 5 CR above a non-surprising foe of equivalent stats.

However, assuming your game has hp and levels, and those scale in d&d style, I still doubt your solution really works. AC is only *part* of the problem about 15th level characters ignoring 12 lvl 1 archers. But the main problem is HP. Even for *naked* 15th level PC in D&D, where they don't have untouchable AC, they will obliterate 12 archers. In seconds. Their HP are simply too much, and they can do a lot of damage to several oponents at a time (rapid firing archer, cleaving fighter, and fireballing wizard and you kill the 12 archers in a round). If your game has HP/level, and the damage/level scales too, this is very hard to avoid.

What's your average lvl 1 goblin archer damage? What's your average non-surprised Lvl 12 fighter HP? What's your average lvl 20 ancient dragon damage?


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 20, 2012)

This thread is constantly going in circles.

I do thing a more realistic modules of D&D where falling and being outnumbered by 10 is extremely dangerous, enough so that both falls and characters will be weary of them.
Both there will be many thing that go with it.

It won't be core as zero to hero to superhero was always the cure of D&D.
It might require a stamina/wound point system that will add a few other effects on the game.
Other straight "cornercase" rules would have to be added to deal with the A>B>C>A  numbers problem.

I would love to play a campaign like that, but I would hate it as core due to all the consequences on other game styles (mostly subtracting rules). 

My Sunken World campaign world requires 12 people surviving a 70' drop and charging into an army for a crucial part of its re-creatable fluff.


----------



## Balesir (Apr 20, 2012)

pemerton said:


> One thing I personally like about 4e is that it removes most of the incentives for scry-buff-teleport: teleporting is hard, scrying is hard, there is next-to-no buffing, and the mechanical benefits of ambushing are at best minor.



I'm not at all sure that ambush is all that weak in 4e. _Mechanically_ the advantage seems quite weak, I accept, but my experience is that, when they are "bounced", the party do pretty poorly, while they do far better when they gat surprise.

In our last run we had two pretty big fights. In the first, after a "standard form skill challenge" that I'm making available on certain encounters, now, they not only avoided getting surprised and scouted the strength of the enemy (i.e. I laid out the monsters before they had to decide their entry point), they got surprise as well. The party seized the initiative with what they did in the surprise round and held onto it throughout - the result was an easy victory over a tough encounter. The second encounter they tried to use diplomacy (which had worked OK on a couple of occasions already) when the "target" had ample motivation to want a fight. They got 'bounced' and had a very tough battle to achieve their objective in full (the opponent had underestimated them, thanks to smart moves in an earlier negotiation, but they really wanted to stop the main opponent - who turned out to be a vampire lord - from escaping). Now, ideally, they would press on - but they are really a bit beaten up for that...

Finally, to get back on topic after the self-indulgent ramble (sorry) - [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]: I get how your system works in general, but if the party engage in combat against the town guards of their own volition (which was, I understand, the case), how do you justify them being "surprised"?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 20, 2012)

triqui said:


> Quite interesting. It produces a particular enviroment, with its own implications.
> I'm not sure if the cumulative penalties for attacks are for different attackers, or different attacks. If it is the former, as I said, it makes fighting a 12 headed hydra "easier" than fighting 12 goblins, because the 12 headed hydra is a single oponent, and thus their 12 attacks. If it is  per attack, it makes some oponents harder to beat than others, depending the number of attacks (a 12 headed hydra being more dangerous than a Titan, for example, because of the number of attacks). It's not a bad issue per se, it just makes a different scale of CR (the Hydra would be higher level than in regular D&D, Monsters with 1 single hard-hit attack like titans would be lower CR than in regular D&D). "Lurker" monsters that surprise PC as a basic routine (like Phase Spiders) are particularly more dangerous that those that do not, even if they are more powerful in theory. Again, that's not strictly a problem, just have different scale for CR. A phase spider in that system would be 4 or 5 CR above a non-surprising foe of equivalent stats.



I don't disagree at all (though personally, I'd make a 12-headed hydra roll one attack, not 12).



triqui said:


> However, assuming your game has hp and levels, and those scale in d&d style, I still doubt your solution really works.



My game does have HP and levels, though HP is greatly scaled down (having over 100 HP at high level is pretty rare), and, as I said, I use a HP/THP system.



triqui said:


> AC is only *part* of the problem about 15th level characters ignoring 12 lvl 1 archers. But the main problem is HP. Even for *naked* 15th level PC in D&D, where they don't have untouchable AC, they will obliterate 12 archers. In seconds. Their HP are simply too much, and they can do a lot of damage to several oponents at a time (rapid firing archer, cleaving fighter, and fireballing wizard and you kill the 12 archers in a round). If your game has HP/level, and the damage/level scales too, this is very hard to avoid.



Damage just needs to outscale HP. For example, it's pretty easy for a level 1 warrior to deal 1d10+10 damage (and, as an aside, the system assumes that level 4 is "the average settled adult", which deals 1d10+12 pretty easily). So, if we're dealing 1d10+10 per attack against someone who has a lot of HP and THP (34 HP + 63 THP at, say, level 20), then it only takes about 6 attacks to bring them down or kill them. If you've got 20 guys with crossbows, that's pretty much going to happen to most PCs.

If you've got 12, there's a good chance that the PC will win. Though, in my RPG, there's a decent chance it'll end badly, which is _especially_ true if they surprise you (you lose your THP, and your AC drops pretty dramatically).



triqui said:


> What's your average lvl 1 goblin archer damage? What's your average non-surprised Lvl 12 fighter HP? What's your average lvl 20 ancient dragon damage?



*Level 1 goblin archer:* 1d10+10 damage (15.5 average).
*Level 12 non-surprised warrior HP:* 22 HP + 39 THP (61 total). (Though, to be fair, I said level 1 fighters would be in danger against numbers or if the guy was surprised.)
*Level 20 ancient dragon damage (I assume colossal-sized):* 2d12+30 (43 average).

The trick against the dragon? Don't get hit, recover your THP before he overcomes it (one hit will probably break it), get a ton of damage reduction, etc.

The trick with the goblins? Get cover, get a boatload of damage reduction, don't let them get the drop on you, or design your PC to resist swarm tactics (apply THP to surprise attacks, use the Whirling Movement style, grab multiple instances of the Adapted Style feat for being attacked multiple times, etc.).

If you don't do either of those things, then both dragons and low level goblins are dangerous. If you mitigate the danger from one, you probably can't afford the other while contributing much beyond your own survival. There's a certain natural balance from only having so many character points to work with. As always, play what you like 



Balesir said:


> [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]: I get how your system works in general, but if the party engage in combat against the town guards of their own volition (which was, I understand, the case), how do you justify them being "surprised"?



I wouldn't. "Surprised" only applies when they aren't expecting a fight at all. They can become "flat-footed" in combat by being caught off-guard, but all that does is lower their defenses, it does not completely remove their THP. If 12 guys shoot them from cover while they're walking through the woods and they didn't notice them, though, I'd count it as surprised.

If the party attacked the town guard of their own volition, they'd probably fear volley fire the most (multiple attacks to the same AC), but they could definitely win that fight at high levels with some smart tactics. Waiting to throw area attacks when enemies appear, using cover or corners, etc. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Apr 20, 2012)

JC, I like your idea, but, this:



			
				JC said:
			
		

> Level 1 goblin archer: 1d10+10 damage (15.5 average).
> Level 12 non-surprised warrior HP: 22 HP + 39 THP (61 total). (Though, to be fair, I said level 1 fighters would be in danger against numbers or if the guy was surprised.)
> Level 20 ancient dragon damage (I assume colossal-sized): 2d12+30 (43 average).




I do not like.  Your collosal dragon, presumably one of the absolute biggest threats in the game, only does 3 times as much damage with its bite than a goblin with a bow?  

If the goblin with a bow is averaging 15 points of damage, why isn't the dragon averaging about 200?  The dragon is certainly hundreds of times bigger and stronger than the goblin.  The dragon is big enough to swallow a horse whole, and the goblin is using a bow.

Don't you think that the damage for that goblin is way too much?

But, otoh, I suppose if the goal is to simply make sure that everything is a threat, this is one way to do it.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 20, 2012)

Hussar said:


> JC, I like your idea, but, this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, it _looks_ like 4 arrows will take a level 12 warrior down (62 damage versus his 61 hit point total), but that's a little misleading.

If he has an 18 Con (a good chance by level 12 in my RPG for a warrior with 61 hit points), he recovers 5 THP per turn. So, one goblin that somehow hits him every turn needs to hit him with 6 arrows (each arrow is effectively doing 10.5, or about 63 damage over 6 attacks).

If the warrior is wearing full plate armor, he's going to be reducing that damage down to 1d4+10. This means he's dealing about 7.5 per arrow (after the warrior regains THP), meaning he'll need to be shot with an arrow every round for 9 rounds (67.5 damage).

Against one goblin, he's going to mop up. Especially considering that his AC is high enough that he won't be hit often (whereas my math was calculated at the warrior getting hit once per round). Against 12 goblins, they're a threat, but he's got a very real chance of winning without any injuries (only THP damage), or no THP damage at all if he's very invested against multiple attacks.

A dragon might be doing 1d8+30 against the level 12 warrior if he's got full plate on. That's 34.5 damage average (against a level 12, who's got 39 THP). The level 12 warrior will avoid the first hit (only THP damage), but after that he's going to get creamed. A dragon will likely two-round the level 12 warrior, and probably drop or kill him in one real "hit" (HP damage).

If you're complaining that "the dragon should always kill him in one hit because he's so huge!" then we want different things out of a "more realistic" module. I want it to stay fantastic, but more realistic. I don't want it to make it impossible for a knight in armor to fight a dragon. I just want to make it hard -or even unlikely- for that knight to win (at those levels).

Now, my system can accommodate myth pretty easily, too (I mentioned the PC that could grapple as if he was gargantuan-sized, for example). I'm not against that style of play, either. But, in a "more realistic" type of game, I want fantasy, too. I had three main goals when designing my RPG: realism, fantasy, and balance. I want healthy doses of each.



Hussar said:


> But, otoh, I suppose if the goal is to simply make sure that everything is a threat, this is one way to do it.



Thanks  As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Apr 20, 2012)

Oh, no, I don't want the dragon to take him out in one hit.  I was just a bit surprised that a dragon's damage was actually so low in comparison to a goblin archer.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 20, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I think the problem is that what people demand for suspension of disbelief is so all over the place, that it is now practically impossible to have the discussion from that standpoint.  In the "old days" of D&D, you had three basic groups:
> 
> "Engineers", who applied all kinds of real-world physics to the game, and did funky things with lightning bolt angles and fireball spreads, but were a pain to DM for if you weren't one yourself. They read a lot of hard science fiction.
> "Artists", who really didn't care, as long as it was dramatic and something that was remotely plausible if you didn't look at it too hard.  These were the types that were fine with all the craziest James Bond stunts in the later Roger Moore years.
> ...




I don't think the types of players have really changed CJ. I hate to tell you this, but there's such a thing as old age, and we is gettin' there! (slowly perhaps, kicking and screaming for sure, but the river of time moves on...).

Not that nothing has changed, but I think in the old days the divisions just played out differently. I also suspect that D&D has occupied a different part of the overall RPG player space over the years.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 20, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Oh, no, I don't want the dragon to take him out in one hit.  I was just a bit surprised that a dragon's damage was actually so low in comparison to a goblin archer.



I get ya. I was just pointing out that the numbers might be a little deceptive without some nuances of the system.

That is, a level 1 goblin would need about 9 straight rounds of hits (very unlikely to happen) to take out a level 12 warrior, while a dragon would need two consecutive hits (69 damage versus the level 12 warriors 66 HP [counting 1 round of recovering THP]), and the dragon gets two attacks per round (making it very possible for the dragon to take the level 12 warrior out in one round, and about 50% to take him out in two rounds).

So, while 1d10+10 might _seem_ close to 2d12+30 at first glance, once you factor in damage reduction (from armor) and odds of hitting (the dragon has a much better chance than the archer), it's not as close as it looks. As always, play what you like


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 20, 2012)

[MENTION=26918]JAM[/MENTION]ersonCourage

I like your rpg. It gave the little DM in inside of me a heart attack thinking of the complex formulas to calculate things and all the aspects to tract. But to like it.

To me it could be complished in 5E with a simple core, a Armor as DR system, a Stamina system (or some degenerative regenerating DR system), and a couple other tweaks.

But I still don't see how it is different than any other version of D&D other that the stats. You still need about X+20 level 1s to defeat a level 12 hero (X is how many level 1s the hero killed before they got their attacks off because of initiative).

But I just don't get this topic. I don't think 5E will break the trending power curve of all of D&D (maybe not 4E sinceit skipped gritty): gritty to semifantasy to superfantasy to gonzofantasy. Anyone who want to flatten the curve, change the starting point, change the ending point; has to add modules. Then they can play whatever they feel like, yo.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 20, 2012)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I don't think the types of players have really changed CJ. I hate to tell you this, but there's such a thing as old age, and we is gettin' there! (slowly perhaps, kicking and screaming for sure, but the river of time moves on...).
> 
> Not that nothing has changed, but I think in the old days the divisions just played out differently. I also suspect that D&D has occupied a different part of the overall RPG player space over the years.




Well, it's not like I said all those changes were bad, though I suppose I did focus on the negative ones more than the positive ones. You should have seen the unedited version before submission. 

But I can't help compare some of the things now to some of the stoner-types I knew in the 70s--folks that weren't all that bright to begin with, and their habits had in no way enhanced the situation. Yet, because of their time and circumstances, they had a certain amount of minimal common sense about some things. If you helped gather hay, or fed cows, or picked your own tomatoes (and other things ), then a little bit of that "rural reality" will have rubbed off on you. Maybe stoners from the big city then were as bad as meth heads are now, but I doubt it. Maybe it is a "rural vs urban" thing, and there is less and less contact, on average, with a rural environment every year. I do think that if someone had done one of those, "ask the city kids where hamburger comes from," studies in 1975, it wouldn't have been nearly as shocking. But who knows for sure, since no one thought to ask then? 

There is a certain kind of "educated into stupidity" that can occur. We've had more "education" in general over the last generation or so, and I think you take the good with the bad on something like that. A great deal of wisdom and foolishness are timeless, and so those haven't changed. Maybe some wisdom and foolishness are a bit situational, though.

The media side is neutral, though it has an effect.  There is more varied fantasy media available, and it covers a wider range of styles and topics.  It is easier to get, too.  There are some things in print now that you couldn't readily get in the 80s and 90s, if you missed out on them earlier.  So that's a "difference" in expectations of verisimilitude that is a reflection on the facts on the ground, not because I've gotten old over the course of it changing.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 20, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Are you saying that you've seen this take place in a game? That you would expect this to take place in a game?
> 
> Or that it's typical for newbies to play 10th level PCs, who can teleport, plane shift, fight and kill T-Rex's, but then be puzzled that they can survive improbably terrible falls?
> 
> Or are you just making stuff up?




It was an obvious hypothetical situation to highlight a factor that people may not be considering.  But yes, I have seen actual game situations very similar to this when introducing new players.  Specifically, I find it happens more often with adult players who are new to RPG's.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 20, 2012)

pemerton said:


> But this is exactly [MENTION=57948]triqui[/MENTION] and [MENTION=52548]Aaron[/MENTION]'s point (as I read them): that in D&D 3E (at least - maybe other versions as well) fighting a T-rex or a dragon can involve being picked up by it in its jaws, being crushed by its jaws or its body, etc. Which entail "automatic severe harm" just as much as does falling 100 feet.
> 
> And hence that, whatever story you tell about your mojo that let's you survive those things ("I wedge it's jaw open with my sword"; "I use my shield to create a little pocket where I survive under the crushing bulk of the dragon") you also tell to explain how you survive the fall ("At the last minute, I use my cloak (which is probably as magical as my sword and shield) like a parachute, Batman-style").



I don't buy this.

I think the root difference comes from presuming player control over the world as you and I have described our disagreement on previously.

First, you've changed my comment on fighting a t-tex to defacto include "getting crushed".  That isn't a fair modification.  "Getting crushed *IS* in the same category as falling from a great height.  If I told a player they "got crushed" they would expect very serious damage or death.  If I told a player they were falling from a great height then they would expect very serious damage or death.  If, OTOH, I told them they were grabbed by a T-Rex they would expect a real danger of getting crushed, in turn leading to death.  Just as if I had told them they were on a ledge over a great height, they would expect a real danger of falling.  You are freely mixing and match "real danger" which can be heroically overcome, with after the fact "it happened".  You can't do that and address my issue here.

Falling from heights doesn't happen all that often in my games.  But it does just so happen that it DID happen in a game I ran last Saturday night.  And the circumstances do a great job of being an example of my issue with your "parachute" example.  And, once again, it comes back down to getting the narrative concept of the character correct.

The party was exploring around a keep built into the side of a cliff, looking for a back door or other way in.  At one point they are on the top of the cliff and became ambushed by a dragon.  Gaining surprise the dragon grabbed a heavily armored dwarf fighter and flew out over the edge with him.  After the surprise attack the party monk tried to leap onto the dragon and help the dwarf.  This did work out as the player had it on paper and the monk fell.  The dragon then flung the dwarf to the ground and breathed on the people still on the cliffside.  The party witch blasted the dragon with lightning and, using her persistent feather fall, leapt off the cliff to go aid those on the ground.

I use my all rolls of 1 result in a 1 point of CON damage.  Both the dwarf and the monk took 1 point each, plus enough HP damage to concern them , but neither was outright killed or even knocked out.  

The dwarf player joked about crawling out his crater and made a wiley e coyote reference.  Nobody was shaken from the fun, but it was clear that "the wart" on the rules had poked up.  Whatever, move on, keep playing.

The monk had slow fall.  It was not nearly enough for the height, but it reduced the effect nicely.  It also provided more then adequate narrative justification for his survival.  No one thought his condition was jarring.  There were no cartoon jokes.  

The dwarf fighter's narrative concept includes the ability to not automatically be crushed just because he was grabbed.  The dwarf fighter's narrative concept does NOT include cloak parachuting.  I can think over my player group and readily imagine that one would joke about trying something like that.  But it would be purely a "making light of the bad thing" joke.  They would know I'd say "no", and they would expect and WANT me to say "no".  They don't want the character to be handled "wrong".




> Also, when you say "in RPGs fighting T-rex is just a glorified sword fight", you presumably mean "in D&D".



Yes, this clarification is fully correct.  
I meant to say D&D or at least RPGs consistent with D&D .


----------



## Umbran (Apr 20, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Or are you just making stuff up?





Mod Note: Accusations of intellectual dishonesty are not attractive.  You might want to avoid them in the future.

And, no, he isn't making things up.  The issue has been around a long, long time.  I remember an incident back in the 1e era. 2e hadn't been published yet...  

Our party was in a dungeon, running from a Purple Worm.  The tunnel ended in a tens-of-yards wide pit, with a staircase running along the inside wall.  We all managed to dodge to the side onto the staircase, the worm did not.  The pit was terribly deep, and we were not at the bottom.  The rest of the party had various fast ways up, but I did not.  So, I began to march up the stairs.  Like, a quarter mile up of stairs.

The last step, at the very top, was an illusion I didn't notice.  It was a half-mile and more to the bottom.  The bottom was, in fact, the first plane of Hell.  

The DM grinned an evil grin, and picked up his 20d6, expecting a nice clean, old-school "you didn't see the trap, aren't you stupid!" kill.  But I was playing a high level ranger with a boatload of hit points.  I survived the damage.  I survived the system shock roll.

We all sat staring at each other - how the heck did a guy survive falling over a half mile to pancake onto the first layer of Hell?  Collectively, we had to come up with an excuse to be able to make this fit our heads - I'd landed on the Purple Worm, and it's fleshy corpse had broken my fall - because otherwise it didn't make any darned sense at all!


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 21, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> [MENTION=26918]JAM[/MENTION]ersonCourage
> 
> I like your rpg. It gave the little DM in inside of me a heart attack thinking of the complex formulas to calculate things and all the aspects to tract. But to like it.



First of all, thank you 

Secondly, it's not _that_ bad, but it's definitely more complex than D&D 4e. It's streamlined 3.X in a lot of ways, but it does have more complex parts as well.



Minigiant said:


> To me it could be complished in 5E with a simple core, a Armor as DR system, a Stamina system (or some degenerative regenerating DR system), and a couple other tweaks.



I think so, too. You can definitely make a gritty module without jumping through the hoops I did.



Minigiant said:


> But I still don't see how it is different than any other version of D&D other that the stats. You still need about X+20 level 1s to defeat a level 12 hero (X is how many level 1s the hero killed before they got their attacks off because of initiative).



Yeah, in my RPG, 20 level 1s is a very real threat to mots PCs at level 12. It's enough to make them pause, at any rate. In 3.X, that certainly wouldn't be the case (if the PCs are judging things based on mechanics).



Minigiant said:


> But I just don't get this topic. I don't think 5E will break the trending power curve of all of D&D (maybe not 4E sinceit skipped gritty): gritty to semifantasy to superfantasy to gonzofantasy. Anyone who want to flatten the curve, change the starting point, change the ending point; has to add modules. Then they can play whatever they feel like, yo.



I doubt it'll be the base assumption for 5e, too. I've said that. I don't think it should be the base assumption of 5e, either. I've said that, too. But, some people seem to think that you _cannot_ make a module for a "gritty" game for 5e without affecting the core design; I just strongly disagree, there. Make it a module, and make it as an afterthought. I could easily tweak my game to be a lot more gonzo _and_ less deadly to the PCs with a few tweaks. I'm sure you can add a couple rules to make something more gritty. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Mod Note: Accusations of intellectual dishonesty are not attractive.  You might want to avoid them in the future.



I didn't at all intend to imply that [MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION] is lying or being dishonest, and for that I aplogise unreservedly.

I was meaning to query the debating style of setting up hypothetical table conversations that (on this occasion, in my opinion) are unlikely to actually happen.



Umbran said:


> The issue has been around a long, long time.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Collectively, we had to come up with an excuse to be able to make this fit our heads - I'd landed on the Purple Worm, and it's fleshy corpse had broken my fall - because otherwise it didn't make any darned sense at all!



I like the narration. But the thing that puzzles me about this example - if your group finds it hard to cope with surviving these falls, how did you cope with people surviving being swallowed by a purple worm?

It's another version of the point upthread about being bitten by T-rexes, crushed by dragons etc. What is it about _falling_ - as opposed to any of the other many applications of body-destroying force that routinely take place in the game, and in which "hit points as dodging" won't work - that causes people grief?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2012)

From the Moldvay Basic rulebook (page B60):

[A] combat . . . is taking place on a ledge next to an unexplored chasm. One player suddenly decides that his character has no chance to survive combat. The player announces "My character wants to jump into the chasm to escape!" There may be a chance that he will fall to a nearby ledge or land in a pool of water at the bottom of the chasm. The DM . . . remembers that an underground river flows through some of the lower dungeon levels, so there _might_ be a pool below. Even so, the character will fall 60', and a normal fall will do 1d6 points of damage per 10' fallen. This character has only 7 hp, and seems likely to die even if the water cushions his landing and reduces the damage. However, there should always be a chance to something nearly impossible. A player should have, at the very least, a saving throw or a stated percentage chance of a miraculous occurrence saving the character. The DM answers: " . . . A result of 99 or 00 will mean that your character lives, but any other result will mean that he will die in the attempt. Do you still want to jump?"​
I think the tenor of this is pretty consistent with the discussion of saving throws in Gygax's DMG, and particularly of the emphatic insistence that, even - perhaps especially - when a PC is being breathed on by a dragon while chained to a rockface, a saving throw is still permitted.

For me, at least, that's part of what distinguishes D&D's action resolution mechanics from those of other fantasy games.


----------



## Mattachine (Apr 21, 2012)

pemerton said:


> For me, at least, that's part of what distinguishes D&D's action resolution mechanics from those of other fantasy games.




Yes! In D&D saving throws and hit points are the "fate points" used in other systems.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 21, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> Yes! In D&D saving throws and hit points are the "fate points" used in other systems.




No, they're not.

Fate Points are player-controlled, nothing demands you spend one, nothing causes you to lose them.  They are a metagame mechanic that allows a player to go beyond the whims of the dice.  Saving throws and HP loss are entirely subject to the whims of the dice.  These are not comparable mechanics.  HP or saving throws my occupy the same design space, but if I park a Honda Accord in a parking space previously occupied by a Ford F250, that doesn't make my auto a pickup.


----------



## Mattachine (Apr 21, 2012)

Still, hit points take their function, Shidaku, even if they are not used in the same way.
Different mechanics to accomplish the same goal. Instead of driving to work, a friend picks you up in a hovercraft.

Eels optional.


----------



## Aaron (Apr 22, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> And how do they know this? If they fought them before (say at a lower level in the past), then sure, they have in-game experience and can judge based off of that. Otherwise, they are meta-gaming based on the assumption that all town guards are 3rd level (for example). But if you're traipsing through the woods when you're suddenly surrounded by 12 armed bandits you've never seen before, with crossbows raised and ready, should the characters not take pause?



Nope, unless you believe that a bunch of thugs in your neighborhood could act as a Delta Force team.


> Because that's a reasonable base assumption? All characters start this  way. Sure, characters could end up with magic or abilities to change  their nature as they level, to become resilient to damage. But it could  be argued just as easily that they don't get those magic items or choose  those abilities/powers/feats as they level.



Unortunately, all the game rules point toward a third scenario: the PCs get unnaturally resilient because the get stronger and stronger. Nothing else.

And you are confirming this every time you say that you find many rules ridiculous, like the Snatch feat, or the coup de grace, and so on.



> Why would they? It's a 4 year old kid to them. Unless they know it's a  dragon in disguise. And unless it's a world of 4-year olds ripping  people's throats out, they just won't be considered a threat. But in a  world where arrows do kill, from 1st to 30th level, how can PCs not end  up treating a dozen aimed arrows at them to not be any kind of threat?



1 bolt can't take down a high level PC, aside very rare circumstances, no matter the level of his opponent.

Crossbow bolts fired by a bunch of country bandits can't be a threat for high level PCs, unless the scenario ridiculously lacks in in-game coherence (i.e. ,those bandits could face the same menaces the PCs routinely face).



> Because for me it's a lot more believable than a character taking 5  arrows to the heart and still running around and fighting as fresh as a  daisy.



Maybe it's believable (?), but it's incoeherent with things like critical hits, bite-improved grab-swallow whole, and such attacks.



> And by skill, and teamwork, and intelligent tactics, and *powerful spells  and abilities*. Luck and fate play only a part in the whole.



 Powerful abilities?

Ok, so, this means that they have only _offensive_ powerful abilities?

Anything for defense, that could help them sustain damage no normal mortal man could sustain?



> But don't take away the fact that the base assumption is and has always  been that HPs do encompass all these other intangible qualities. Some of  us have always played with HPs being this way.



Alas, the rules (in 3.5) tell us another story.

Every time you dismiss them as "no believable" you confirm my point.


> It is quite amazing that this group of (likely) disparate people just  happened to get together at just the right time to face these menaces,  in the nick of time, and triumphed over every obstacle they ever faced.



Uh?

In my campaign my PCs are a squad of high-level trained soldiers, grown together.



> Again, luck and fate are only parts of the whole. Of course a character  knows what they can do. And I never said that these attacks miss, they  obviously didn't, as that's a facter of THAC0/Defenses.
> 
> *But how do you say that the heroes take a dozen deadly blows?* Deadly  implies, well, death is soon to follow. Otherwise, well, I guess the  blow wasn't that deadly after all. Perhaps they ducked that deadly blow  to the head and took it in the shoulder by instint and skill, or were  lucky, or fate has other plans.



How do I say  that the heroes take a dozen deadly blows?

Because they are deadly for anyone but them and other high level characters.

Pools of acid, litres of poison, bites of Trexs, critical hits taken by massive giants, dozens of boltes taken, fire breathed by ancient wyrm, being swallowed whole by gargantuan behemoths of any kind, boulders thrown by catapults ... and that's all before lunch.

Should I continue?



> No, just like any living, breathing person, a PC should base their  decisions on what they believe they are capable of, and how they  perceive what's in front of them.[...] Arrows to the face can kill, maybe I should  appraise the situation carefully.



1) Arrows to the face can kill _you_, not high level PCs.

2) If the PCs should base their  decisions on what they believe they are capable of, and how they  perceive what's in front of them, they should laugh at the country bandits, knowing they can face red dragons.

It's a matter of in-game coherence and logic, nothing else.



> As for PCs ... well, that's what Death Saves are about.



Death saves for crossbow bolts?



> Coup de grace rules have always been one of the unbelievable aspects of  the game to me. And it's akin to the original topic of this thread.



So, we ended up with another rule that you don't accept.

We can count 3 of them by now (falling from great heights, the snatch feat, and now the coup de grace).

What about acid pools?

What about drinking barrels of deadly poison, that could kill a bull, but not a PC with the Steadfast determinaton feat and a high Fort save?

What about trex bites-improved grab-swallow whole?

What about *crushing room traps*?

Come on. Are you _seriously_ trying to assert that the D&D rules system (at least in 3.5) could be used to support your game POV?

How many cases do I have to cite before you can admit that the game depicts hig level PCs in a different way in respect of what you would prefer them to be?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 22, 2012)

shidaku said:


> HP or saving throws my occupy the same design space



That's not disagreeing with the post you're responding to - that's agreeing with it!

In 4e, a whole lot of other mechanical abilities fill this design space to - such as (pre-errata) Come and Get It, and (in my view) a lot of martial healing also. Also most minions.

No one is saying that the play in the same fashion as Fate Points. But they play the same functional role - of establishing "gaps" between the mechanics, read literally in terms of process simlations, and fictional outcome. To relate this to the topic - in a Fate Point game, if you spend a point to survive a fall you have to narrate what happened; in D&D, if because of your hp your survive the fall, you have to narrate what happened; and in both cases, the narration might have to go beyond the literal parameters of what's already been established via the mechanics in the fiction (eg as per Umbran's purple worm example, or the ledge or pool mentioned in the extract from the Basic rulebook).

Contrast a game, like Runequest or Classic Traveller, which has _nothing_ in this design space.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2012)

shidaku said:


> No, they're not.
> 
> Fate Points are player-controlled, nothing demands you spend one, nothing causes you to lose them.  They are a metagame mechanic that allows a player to go beyond the whims of the dice.  Saving throws and HP loss are entirely subject to the whims of the dice.  These are not comparable mechanics.  HP or saving throws my occupy the same design space, but if I park a Honda Accord in a parking space previously occupied by a Ford F250, that doesn't make my auto a pickup.




Yes and no.

As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, you most certainly can use HP as Fate Points.  I challenge the 20 archers, knowing that by the ruleset we are using at the time, I cannot die, is essentially the same as burning a Fate Point (or whatever) that works the same way.

I jump off the cliff, knowing I'll survive, is no different than spending a Fate Point to add a soft fir tree at the bottom of the cliff to fall through, thus preventing my death.

If I have enough bonuses to a saving throw that I will only fail on a 1, I'm certainly going to behave differently than if I fail on a 15 or less.  I've actually had players do that.  Kinda funny story.  His rogue found a trap.  The DC for the trap was so high that he could only disarm it on a 19 or better.  But, the resetting lightning bolt that shot out of the trap had a save DC so low, that he only failed on a 1.  

He played the odds, but, unfortunately failed, and the character died, having set off the trap eight or ten times first.

I just about fell of my chair I was laughing so hard.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 22, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, you most certainly can use HP as Fate Points.  I challenge the 20 archers, knowing that by the ruleset we are using at the time, I cannot die, is essentially the same as burning a Fate Point (or whatever) that works the same way.
> 
> ...




No, your examples are of abusing the rules that were never designed to scale in the way you're using them.  Fate Points allow you to adjust the results of a given action.  Jumping off a cliff because the rules for fall damage don't scale with character HP is just abusing the system.  It's NOT the same, it may result in a similar outcome, but similar outcomes does not in ANY way prove similar methods.  This is the typical lay-science that is so popular today, you are putting the conclusion(surviving the fall) before the theory.



pemerton said:


> That's not disagreeing with the post you're responding to - that's agreeing with it!
> 
> In 4e, a whole lot of other mechanical abilities fill this design space  to - such as (pre-errata) Come and Get It, and (in my view) a lot of  martial healing also. Also most minions.
> 
> ...




Lets go back to my car analogy.  On Friday, Parking Lot A is filled with Fords, while Parking Lot B is filled with Hondas.  A&B are both Parking Lots, and they are both filled with cars.  But are Fords and Hondas the same thing?  No.

So if I have two designs with the same spaces, why then are you suggesting that because the space is taken up by something wholly unsimilar, that they must be the same because they occupy the same space?  How is that logic or reasoning?

Here's a great saying "Shady things are not to be trusted, trees are shady, so trees are not to be trusted."  There are two words here, with the same spelling and the same pronunciation that mean completely different things.  Being in the same spot, or looking similar does not mean they serve the same function, does not mean they work the same way, does not mean ANY of the things you're attempting to prove here.

D&D HP may represent a lot of things, and what that represents is up to personal rationalization.  But D&D HP is NOT, in any way shape or form, a stand-in for Fate Points.  Fate Points allow the player to adjust a given outcome independent from table mechanics, HP does not do this.  HP is not Fate Points.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 22, 2012)

shidaku said:


> So if I have two designs with the same spaces, why then are you suggesting that because the space is taken up by something wholly unsimilar, that they must be the same because they occupy the same space?



No one is saying they are literally the same. In a part of my post that I quoted, I  even said that "No one is saying that the play in the same fashion." I am not entirely sure on the criteria for identity of game rules (when they fall short of being expressed in formally identical ways) but playing in the same way is probably among them.

The point, rather, is that the two mechanics occupy the same space. So that, when a high level PC with no shield or cover survives being attacked by a dozen skilled archers because s/he has so many hp, the relationship between mechanics and fiction is something like when a PC in a fate point game who has no shield or cover survives being attacked by a dozen skilled archers because the player of that PC spends a fate point. In both cases, the narrative established by the mechancis - "A dozen skill archers shot at your PC, and you survived despite your lack of shield and cover" - may stand in need of supplementation in some fashion for it to be clear in the fiction what happened. Did all the archers missed because the gods intervened and turned their aims? Did the PC duck or deflect all the arrows?

Similarly for surving the fall. In both cases, where many hp or expenditure of a fate point results in survival, the fiction as established by the mechanics goes "Your PC jumped over a cliff, and despite falling 100' s/he survived to run away." How did s/he survive? The mechanics on their own - be they hp or fate points - don't tell us.

In some fate point mechanics, it may be incumbent upon the player who wants to spend the point to first stipulate, in the fiction, how his/her PC is surviving: "I spend a fate point to make the archers miss;" or, "I spend a fate point to land on a ledge, or in a pool at the bottom of the cliff." But this is not true of all such systems (eg it is not true in HARP, and is not always true in Burning Wheel). Hit points are more like this second sort of approach: the mechanics don't _require_ explaining what has happened in the fiction, but leave it open for the table to fill the narrative gap, or not, as the mood and the need take them. (Likewise with 4e powers like pre-errata Come and Get It or Inspiring Word.)



shidaku said:


> Being in the same spot, or looking similar does not mean they serve the same function, does not mean they work the same way, does not mean ANY of the things you're attempting to prove here.



My gut feel is that, given that "design space" in a game is more-or-less defined in terms of function, proving that two mechanical elements occupy the same space means proving that they serve the same function.

But even if that general claim is false (like I said, it's just a gut feel on my part), my argument that the two mechanics occupy the same functional space is the one stated in [MENTION=6678226]Mattachine[/MENTION]'s original post, plus the post of mine that you quoted, and that I have now reiterated above - like fate points, hit points operate to create a _gap _within the fiction that has been established via the mechanics. "That PC was shot by 12 skilled archers, and yet survived? What happened?" "That PC fell 100' down a cliff, yet survived? How?"

Note again that in games with no mechanic in this functional space - like Runequest, or Classic Traveller - this sort of question never arises. If a PC survives the shots of 12 skilled archers or a fall of 100', the mechanics themselves explain how, in the fiction, this stange event occurred: improbably enough, for example, his/her armour deflected all the arrows; improbably enough, for example, the fall only broke his/her legs.



shidaku said:


> D&D HP may represent a lot of things, and what that represents is up to personal rationalization.



Obviously this characterisation of hit points is not uncontentious. It's at odds with the "hp = meat" school of thought. But I think that school of thought was not so prevalent until 3E (the original AD&D rulebooks had lengthy passages devoted to dispelling it).

It's also at odds with the "hp = dodging" school of thought, which the 3E rulebooks hint at, and which was probably also a fairly popular school of thought in classic D&D play. But that school of thought has always had trouble explaining how hit points work outside of melee (ie outside contexts where a level-dependent dodging ability makes sense).

But that's part of Mattachine's point, I believe: if you want a more process-simulationist game, in which hp _don't_ lead to gaps within the fiction that have to be retrosectively narrated shut, then you are adopting the same sort of approach to play as a game like RQ or Traveller that has no fate point mechanic. You can treat hp as dodging, and have to use some sort of variant massive damage rule, or wound and vitality systems, or modified coup-de-grace rule, or whatever it might be, to produce "gapless" fiction in which no one survives 12 arrows at point blank range, nor a 100' fall; or you can go the way that I believe Aaron and Triqui are going in this thread, of treating hp as meat - PCs survive 12 arrows at point blank range, and 100' falls, simply because they are tough enough to do so.

The point of the "hit points are a version of fate points" claim (or, to use the language of AD&D, the claim that they represent luck, divine favour etc) is not to elide the obvious differences you note between fate points and hit points, but to draw attention to a way in which hit points can work as written, without the need for new mechanics, but equally without requiring a "hit points = meat" approach.



shidaku said:


> D&D HP is NOT, in any way shape or form, a stand-in for Fate Points.  Fate Points allow the player to adjust a given outcome independent from table mechanics, HP does not do this.  HP is not Fate Points.



I don't understand your phrase "independent from table mechanics". Fate points are part of the mechanics used at any given table. In a game like HeroWars/Quest, they are integral to action resolution - the action resolution mechanics cannot be stated without reference to "bumping" via Hero Point expenditure.

It's a given that, unlike fate points, hit points don't require a player choice to expend them. It's as if the button saying  "Do you want to spend a fate point to avert that consequence for your PC?" was switched permanently to ON.

It's a given that, unlike fate points in (say) HARP (but not in, say, HeroWars/Quest), the action resolution mechanic in D&D can't be stated without reference to hit points.

The mechanics are not identical. They don't play the same way. But they serve the same function: of ensuring PC survival, by creating gaps within the fiction established by the mechanics. Although the situation _seems_ to be one of certain death, _something _- the mechanics on their own don't tell us what - has occurred which resulted in the PC's survival.

(To use some jargon: both fate points and (under this interpretation) hit points are "fortune in the middle" mechanics.)


----------



## Hussar (Apr 23, 2012)

shidaku said:


> /snip
> 
> Lets go back to my car analogy.  On Friday, Parking Lot A is filled with Fords, while Parking Lot B is filled with Hondas.  A&B are both Parking Lots, and they are both filled with cars.  But are Fords and Hondas the same thing?  No.
> /snip




Well, at the risk of torturing an analogy, I would say that they're pretty darn close.  Four wheels, used for the same purpose (transportation), largely made from similar materials, based on the same principles.  Yeah, for all intents and purposes, I'd say they are the same.

The difference between the two comes down to preference and little else.

Which is pretty much what you're saying about HP and Fate Points.  Both systems allow the player to choose actions which would normally be impossible given the in game reality.  The player of the hero with buckets of HP can do impossible things because he knows that he will survive.  The player of the hero with Fate Points can do impossible things because he knows he will survive.

The end result is largely the same.

I think the issue here is one of immersion.  If I'm not mistaken, shidaku, you want HP to be a purely in-game element.  Characters don't do impossible things, because doing them would get you killed and the characters should know that.  Players don't act on meta-game knowledge, because that would break immersion.

I think Permerton and I are coming at this from the position that HP are a purely meta-game mechanic, similar to Fate Points.  A character never really has 100 HP.  He has 3 HP and 97 fate points.  Thus the combination of luck and meat.  And, because the player knows that he has 97 fate points, he's free to act in whatever manner he wants, because the fate points are not a point of immersion for him.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 23, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I think Permerton and I are coming at this from the position that HP are a purely meta-game mechanic, similar to Fate Points.  A character never really has 100 HP.  He has 3 HP and 97 fate points.  Thus the combination of luck and meat.  And, because the player knows that he has 97 fate points, he's free to act in whatever manner he wants, because the fate points are not a point of immersion for him.



Agreed.

But even the metagaming can be brought in game if you want to think of the luck and divine favour as something the PC and other inhabitants of the gameworld are aware of ("He must be loved by the Raven Queen, to have survived that fall!).



Hussar said:


> I think the issue here is one of immersion.  If I'm not mistaken, shidaku, you want HP to be a purely in-game element.  Characters don't do impossible things, because doing them would get you killed and the characters should know that.  Players don't act on meta-game knowledge, because that would break immersion.



I think this just reinforces the functional resemblance of hit points to fate points.

In a game with fate points, the players will take risk in reliance on their knowledge that they can spend points to blunt the consequences. That is part of the point of a fate point mechanic. And hps have the same effect on play - players will take risks, like having their PCs recklessly charge the 12 archers, because they know they have enough hit points to soak the damage.


----------



## Mattachine (Apr 23, 2012)

Hit points are a mechanic that allow PCs to survive what would otherwise be fatal incidents. That is the same design space, so to speak, as Fate points.

Players take risks with their PCs in relation to, among other things, their hit points.


----------



## Balesir (Apr 23, 2012)

I recently read a (somewhat refreshing) article that proposed that roleplaying games are, at root, simple "let's pretend" with some rules. Like "cowboys and indians", but with written rules and randomisers.

"Bang! You're dead!"

Hit points are "fate points" that are restricted to saying, in this situation, "No, I'm not!"

Player 1: "I hit you with my sword - you're dead!"
Player 2: (spends required hit points) "No, I'm not!"

...and so on, until, eventually:

Player 1: "I hit you with my sword - you're dead!"
Player 2: (finds s/he does not have the required number of hit points) "Oh, yes - it seems I am!" (may or may not do over-dramatic fall to the floor)...


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 23, 2012)

Took long enough for a cowboy & indians analogy/reference.

Essentially Hit Points are Excuses For Not being Dead.

The whole argument is about what is inexcusable in core.

Is there a core excuse for being not dead after falling?
Is there a core excuse for being not dead after shoot at a dozen times with arrows?

Depends on who you ask and what table you are on.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 23, 2012)

Right, and of course if you don't like that sort of game where people can survive impossible odds on a regular basis at high level (or whatever) then systems with fate points and high level D&D will equally violate one's sense of verisimilitude. 

Where I get lost is when some people are insisting on a setup where in SOME types of situations the player or the mechanics say you survive impossible things or do impossible things are OK, but others aren't. Surely in any system there WILL be limits, but it makes sense to have the limits apply pretty consistently across all types of threats to me. It becomes hard to reason about what you should and shouldn't try when being bitten or trying to hold back a giant is OK, but falling off a 100' cliff isn't. Maybe the later type of system is perfectly feasible, but IMHO you're going to have players constantly wondering which things they can and can't do. Their reasoning based on the real world won't help them much. Instead D&D gives you a level and basically says "well, your level roughly gives you a scale for how crazy you can get and still pull it off." IMHO 4e does a really nice job of that by making threat levels pretty consistent and tending to match up threats to the PCs level. For me that's a good system because the players can generally assume that if they're given a choice that that choice is feasible in the context of the challenges they will be facing. Of course there aren't any total guarantees, even in 4e. Still, IME it fosters a lot of "do crazy stuff" because the game isn't filled with gotchas. If the DM throws in something you can't handle then it is probably fairly singular and he should be able to say "you know you can't survive a fall like that" and the player knows it isn't an option.

I see a lot more of player's pulling out the stops and trying crazy stuff with 4e than with past editions. Not all choices are GOOD, but generally most of them are at least feasible options.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 24, 2012)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> It becomes hard to reason about what you should and shouldn't try when being bitten or trying to hold back a giant is OK, but falling off a 100' cliff isn't.



Fantasy genre tropes. I'll name all the books/movies I can where people overcome or hold off a giant/dragon/etc., and you name all the books/movies you can where people fall off a 100' cliff onto the cold hard dirt (with no slope or anything) and live. We'll see who names more.

I think that's a huge factor when it comes to verisimilitude. While it's subjective, breaking someone's suspension of disbelief is what breaks verisimilitude. That suspension of disbelief is often based on the mediums through which that person has observed the genre being played (usually some sort of medieval fantasy). If those tropes are ignored, twisted, or otherwise broken in the mind of the player, it'll break their suspension of disbelief and ruin their sense of verisimilitude.

Sure, it's subjective, but I don't think you need to wonder why people accept fighting dragons and giants but not 100' falls onto the pavement. We see the former in fantasy all the time; we hardly see the latter at all. As always, play what you like


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (Apr 24, 2012)

I'm reminded of that scene in the recent "Immortals" where Theseus is meeting with Hyperion (don't get me started on how badly they fudged the original story), the man (not a Titan as per the original...) who killed his mother in cold blood.  As Theseus realizes who Hyperion is, he lunges at him, but halts as Hyperion's troops all draw their bows against him.

Now, what level was this version of Theseus?  If he was 10th level or less, keep in mind that he was not wearing any armor or magic items, and the archers were say around 3rd level, they may still pose enough of a threat for him to not charge in without pause.

The same film had the gods coming down from Mt. Olympus and intervening in some of the battles.  Such characters would be at least 20th level, were wearing armor, and are deities, so those same archers would pose no threat.  In the same film, Poseidon jumped off Mt. Olympus and dove into the sea, creating a tidal wave (he did survive handily).

So based on this cinematic trope alone, we have two disparate tiers of power.  D&D should be able to demonstrate both, and does.

I also seem to recall Johnathan Harker jumping off the edge of Dracula's mountain castle walls, falling into a river below; he was brought back to health by the nuns who later found him.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2012)

Well, starting at 1:48, we have a pretty long drop and no serious effect.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onPXqpjeSTA&t=1m48s]The Three Musketeers (2011) FIRST FIVE MINUTES - HD Mila Jovovich Movie - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Fantasy genre tropes. I'll name all the books/movies I can where people overcome or hold off a giant/dragon/etc., and you name all the books/movies you can where people fall off a 100' cliff onto the cold hard dirt (with no slope or anything) and live. We'll see who names more./snip




Not an entirely fair comparison.

Name all the fantasy movies/books where the character is seized in the jaws of the dragon, the dragon bites down and the character is more or less unhurt and you've got a better comparison.  Or the number of times the character is directly slammed by a giant and walks away from it.

Because, at the end of the day, that's the issue here.  People want to pick and choose their examples.  A giant will never, ever directly hit my fighter, thus never actually killing him, at least not until the final blow, but, 20 archers will drop me.  The dragon will never get a clean hit, but, if I fall, there will never be anything to break my fall.

It's The Flying Snowmen all over again.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 24, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> Fantasy genre tropes. I'll name all the books/movies I can where people overcome or hold off a giant/dragon/etc., and you name all the books/movies you can where people fall off a 100' cliff onto the cold hard dirt (with no slope or anything) and live. We'll see who names more.
> 
> I think that's a huge factor when it comes to verisimilitude. While it's subjective, breaking someone's suspension of disbelief is what breaks verisimilitude. That suspension of disbelief is often based on the mediums through which that person has observed the genre being played (usually some sort of medieval fantasy). If those tropes are ignored, twisted, or otherwise broken in the mind of the player, it'll break their suspension of disbelief and ruin their sense of verisimilitude.
> 
> Sure, it's subjective, but I don't think you need to wonder why people accept fighting dragons and giants but not 100' falls onto the pavement. We see the former in fantasy all the time; we hardly see the latter at all. As always, play what you like




Eh, I think I can find plenty of instances of 100' falls and justifications for why people survived them (heck, people survive them in real life sometimes, it doesn't take THAT much of a stretch to justify). Of course it really depends on the person, but speaking for myself I have no more or less trouble imagining how a fighter can melee with a 12' tall 3000 pound giant wielding a club that weighs 40lbs and has 7' of reach on him and 10x his strength as I do imagining said fighter falling 100' and walking away. Both are THOROUGHLY in the realm of pure fantasy. I could point out far more things that are unrealistic about the melee than I could about the fall. 12' tall humanoids are literally physically impossible. There's really not much further you can get from reality than that, reality is the possible and nothing beyond it. 

Beyond that I think personally that it is all a matter of 'tone' and genre appropriateness. What do players expect and what fits in with the imagined conventions of the game they are playing and fits in with it in a satisfying way? I certainly wouldn't feel discomfited by a scene in a Conan novel where Conan fell 100' off a cliff and somehow walked away from it. Now, maybe if that kind of thing was just a regular ordinary thing that happened every day in the story it would start to feel cartoonish, but I don't think that's likely to happen in most D&D games. Given that the location and height of cliffs are entirely under the DM's control I'd argue that were a game to get to that point it is less a system issue and more an issue of the DM failing to match the player's genre/tone expectations.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 24, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Not an entirely fair comparison.
> 
> Name all the fantasy movies/books where the character is seized in the jaws of the dragon, the dragon bites down and the character is more or less unhurt and you've got a better comparison.  Or the number of times the character is directly slammed by a giant and walks away from it.



I can name a few (Strider vs the baby troll in the Fellowship movie, or the dragonslayer from DragonHeart), but I imagine mechanics that dictate this sort of fiction in-game _is_ disrupting to people. However, as hit points have been described by many people _in this very thread_ (and by you on occasion), it's presented as things other than physical damage. As pemerton puts it, it's mojo. This makes things like a dragon biting someone directly seem like it's wiping out the PC's hit points (while mechanics like Snatch for a dragon's jaws have already been described as poor quality in this regard).



Hussar said:


> Because, at the end of the day, that's the issue here.  People want to pick and choose their examples.  A giant will never, ever directly hit my fighter, thus never actually killing him, at least not until the final blow, but, 20 archers will drop me.  The dragon will never get a clean hit, but, if I fall, there will never be anything to break my fall.



Well, the dragon _can_ get a clean hit. It _can_ kill you in one hit in the fiction. On the flip side, there will _always_ have something that breaks your fall. Always. The dragon gives us a possible of fiction of attacks and near misses, or attack and unconsciousness/death, both of which are commonly reflected in modern fantasy fiction. The fall is _always_ interrupted, however; there is no falling to your death when you're high level. This isn't commonly reflected in modern fantasy fiction.

I think it's a fair comparison. As always, play what you like 



AbdulAlhazred said:


> *Of course it really depends on the person*, but speaking for myself I have no more or less trouble imagining how a fighter can melee with a 12' tall 3000 pound giant wielding a club that weighs 40lbs and has 7' of reach on him and 10x his strength as I do imagining said fighter falling 100' and walking away.



I highlighted the section I was pointing out. It depends on the person. You said "_It becomes hard to reason about what you should and shouldn't try when being bitten or trying to hold back a giant is OK, but falling off a 100' cliff isn't_." I answered that people have a certain suspension of disbelief based on the mediums they've observed the genre through.

I'm not saying you're wrong to think about the game the way you do. I'm not trying to change the base assumptions of D&D's next edition. I was just answering your seeming inquiry into how people make this sort of illogical leap, where one unrealistic things is acceptable but another isn't acceptable. It's based on the individual person's suspension of disbelief, and if they want to mimic the fantasy fiction they've read/watched, then mechanics that make you _always_ survive a fall and mean that you _never_ feel threatened by low-level archers (no matter the number) sometimes break their sense of verisimilitude.

It's just based on genre expectations. People who are first exposed to the fantasy genre through the Riftwar Saga (with Pug/Tomas) and the Wheel of Time series (with Rand al'Thor, god of thunder dragons and magic) are going to have a very different set of expectations from someone who was exposed to Conan and the Lord of the Rings. The former person can probably take a lot more gonzo events in the game without breaking their suspension of disbelief than the latter.



AbdulAlhazred said:


> Given that the location and height of cliffs are entirely under the DM's control I'd argue that were a game to get to that point it is less a system issue and more an issue of the DM failing to match the player's genre/tone expectations.



Personally, I'd rather see this sort of scenario viable to anybody who wants to use it, not say "well, if you want gritty over gonzo, don't use cliffs!" I'd like both preferences to have options, honestly. But, back to my original reply to you: genre expectations are going to greatly influence any individual's suspension of disbelief. You didn't understand how somebody rationalize fighting giant monsters but not falling 100' and walking away; well, there it is. Agree to disagree, sure, but it makes perfect sense to see fiction and want to mimic it with an RPG. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2012)

JC said:
			
		

> Well, the dragon can get a clean hit. It can kill you in one hit in the fiction. On the flip side, there will always have something that breaks your fall. Always. The dragon gives us a possible of fiction of attacks and near misses, or attack and unconsciousness/death, both of which are commonly reflected in modern fantasy fiction. The fall is always interrupted, however; there is no falling to your death when you're high level. This isn't commonly reflected in modern fantasy fiction.




Sure there is.  You can die of a fall at high levels in exactly the same way that the dragon can kill you - you have less than enough hit points to survive the attack.

If you have more HP though, the dragon can NEVER kill you.  No matter what that dragon does, he cannot kill you without first ablating your hit points down.  If the dragon does X damage maximum, and I have X+1 HP, that dragon can never, ever kill me in that first hit.  The exact same logic applies to falling.  If falling does X damage and I have X+1 HP, I can never die in that fall.  

What's the difference?  Why is it inherently more believable that a dragon can never, ever kill you on the first hit, but, you can survive a fall?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 24, 2012)

Hussar said:


> If you have more HP though, the dragon can NEVER kill you.  No matter what that dragon does, he cannot kill you without first ablating your hit points down.  If the dragon does X damage maximum, and I have X+1 HP, that dragon can never, ever kill me in that first hit.  The exact same logic applies to falling.  If falling does X damage and I have X+1 HP, I can never die in that fall.



Yes, but from a fully-healed, full-mojo perspective, I can always survive a fall. Always. This isn't the expectation most people would come to after observing most fantasy fiction.



Hussar said:


> What's the difference?  Why is it inherently more believable that a dragon can never, ever kill you on the first hit, but, you can survive a fall?



Because of standard fantasy genre tropes. I just went over this. People are used to seeing people fight dragons and dodge, or get knocked around and live. They are not used to seeing a group of people jump off of a cliff towards the hard ground and surviving the fall without some outside influence. You could get saved by landing on a giant intelligent eagle, for example, and people will accept that. However, I don't think HP is really meant to model reinforcements arriving. That's not its niche.

I really don't understand why some people in this thread can't grasp why others see things a certain way. I mean, I have my leanings, but I at least _see_ both sides. You're asking why something is more believable to some people, and I've answered that. Not only in this post, but the previous couple posts. If you're still wondering about it, go and reread them. I've said about as much as I can on people's reasoning. AbdulAlhazred summed it up: "it really depends on the person". As always, play what you like


----------



## Balesir (Apr 24, 2012)

In a way I think the "fall" thing is a red herring. I know that is what the OP was about, but its an example of where I can see that different groups will (quite irrationally, but that's allowed) differ and it's really easily fixed. I think the best fix is likely to be just to have a "dial" (since they seem to be in vogue) for the die type that fall damage does. That keeps surviving high falls _possible_ to the same extent, while making the "usual" result much more deadly if you roll d12 than if you roll d6 for each 10'.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 24, 2012)

Balesir said:


> In a way I think the "fall" thing is a red herring. I know that is what the OP was about, but its an example of where I can see that different groups will (quite irrationally, but that's allowed) differ and it's really easily fixed. I think the best fix is likely to be just to have a "dial" (since they seem to be in vogue) for the die type that fall damage does. That keeps surviving high falls _possible_ to the same extent, while making the "usual" result much more deadly if you roll d12 than if you roll d6 for each 10'.




Yeah, basically. Of course this ends up getting back to the proportionality thing in the long run. Cliffs are a bit of an oddity because it is a passive danger and doesn't have to really directly relate to anything outside of the PCs that happen to fall off of it. When you get back to a situation like archers, PCs, and a dragon you start to run into problems. There should be a strict hierarchy there, according to some people, yet there isn't one order to their threat level which is satisfactory. 

In the final analysis I put all of this kind of stuff into a largely theorycraft category. In my entire 35+ years of running and playing D&D a character has survived some tremendous fall 2 times that I can remember. It isn't exactly a major consideration on which I'd put a large amount of emphasis or design the rules around at the expense of any other goal I wanted to accomplish. It is certainly WAY down there in my priorities.


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 24, 2012)

I think a simple open ended guideline like falling damage up to distance x is xdx per x distance of the fall. Falling further than distance x may have consequnces beyond damage in the guideline see your DM for details. I see no reason there has to be a hard fast rule that falling over distance x is instant death. This determination could be based largely upon situation and or the tone of the campaign. The important factor to me is that the players have a clear understanding how such falls will be adjucated in the context of the campaign.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2012)

JC said:
			
		

> Because of standard fantasy genre tropes. I just went over this. People are used to seeing people fight dragons and dodge, or get knocked around and live. They are not used to seeing a group of people jump off of a cliff towards the hard ground and surviving the fall without some outside influence. You could get saved by landing on a giant intelligent eagle, for example, and people will accept that. However, I don't think HP is really meant to model reinforcements arriving. That's not its niche.




But, you're missing my point.  You're saying that it's not believable for a character to survive the fall.  I agree.  I'm just wondering why it's believable for the dragon to do maximum damage - to hit the character as absolutely hard as it can - no dodging, no ducking and weaving, a square on the head, perfect chin music hit - and the character keeps on trucking.

You're changing the examples.  You're saying it's believable because the PC always dodges the dragon.  No matter what.  The PC will always dodge the dragon, and that's believable.  But, it's not believable that the same character survives the fall.

Again, it's Flying Snowmen all the way down.  

I get that you set your "believability" dial at a certain point.  And fair enough.  My point is that your believability dial is a bit strange when you start to actually look at it.  

But, honestly, we've wandered so far from the point now that I'm not even sure where this rabbit hole goes.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 24, 2012)

Hussar said:


> ...at the end of the day, that's the issue here. People want to pick and choose their examples. A giant will never, ever directly hit my fighter, thus never actually killing him, at least not until the final blow, but, 20 archers will drop me. The dragon will never get a clean hit, but, if I fall, there will never be anything to break my fall.
> 
> It's The Flying Snowmen all over again.




I read the Flying Snowman piece, and I'd have the same question for John Scalzi as I do for those here...

Why does it matter so much that people may be making illogical choices as to what bothers them and doesn't bother them?

Why is it so important for one to point out the irrationality or ridiculessness of others choices?

Are anybodies choices so perfectly reasonable and sound, that they can become a universal reference point for determining when someone else has strayed from what's reasonable and sound?

Aren't those who point out peoples irrationality about their preceptions of believability, also choosing what irrationalities to be bothered by?

And, is it really a _choice_ to be bothered by one thing and not another? Are people really choosing things on purpose to break their suspension of disbelief? Or is it just a byproduct of how our individual minds work and percieve the world around us?

If one doesn't believe it's a choice, that what bothers one might not bother another (and vice versa), and that we have no real choice in the matter (it's just how our particular reasonings work)... Then why try so hard to point out how illogical others perceptions are, and fight so hard for the inclusion of ones own perceptions, and the exclusion of others perceptions, when it comes to the next edition of D&D?

I've seen it mentioned here in this thread many times (and specifically by yourself numerous times) that D&D at it's core, is illogical and ridculous. It's make believe with no real correlation to the real world. Yet we all have chosen to play this illogical game of make believe. However, I'm also sure that we also understand there needs to be a certain level of commonality as to expectations at our individual tables. Otherwise we're just talking gibberish to eachother. So, we group together in groups that have a (mostly) shared perception of believability. And we play this illogical game based on those perceptions.


So, as said earlier: Why is it so hard for one to accept other peoples choices as to what they consider rational, realistic, or acceptable at their tables...and that if there is enough people who feel the same, why their ideas, styles, and assumptions can't also be presented in D&D Next?


And if one can accept these differences, then what are we still arguing about?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 25, 2012)

El Mahdi - The simple answer is, it depends.  

If you're specifically talking about falling?  Then no worries.  We've agreed on this pages ago.

If you're specifically talking about a broad based changed to the mechanics that is going to impact virtually every aspect of the game - changing the genre from heroic fantasy to gritty is a change that is going to impact virtually every aspect of the game - then the disagreement starts.  What you're asking for is a lot more than a simple rules module.  You're looking at an entirely new game.  There's a reason that D20 Modern rules are separate from d20 baseline rules.  

You want a separate book that will let you do what you want?  Fine and dandy.  You want to eat up about a third of the core books to let you do what you want?  Not so much.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 25, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, you're missing my point.  You're saying that it's not believable for a character to survive the fall.  I agree.  I'm just wondering why it's believable for the dragon to do maximum damage - to hit the character as absolutely hard as it can - no dodging, no ducking and weaving, a square on the head, perfect chin music hit - and the character keeps on trucking.



Dude, no offense, but I think you're missing _my_ point. I think many people wouldn't describe that blow if they have a problem with people falling and living. It blows their suspension of disbelief just like falling and walking away does. They'd described a full-damage blow as something like trying to parry with a weapon while dodging, the dragon's tail just _glancing_ with the sword, and the PC falling down briefly before rolling to his feet. That "full HP hit" does _not_ need to be described as physical with the dragon. People object to falls because you don't have much of another option without shifting into a much more extreme dramatist mode (rather than combat abstraction), and that's not what they want out of hit points.

Secondly, as I said, it's believable to people _because of genre tropes_. I've got like three posts on it in this thread recently. I'm not going to go over it again (until the second half of this post, apparently!).



Hussar said:


> I get that you set your "believability" dial at a certain point.  And fair enough.  My point is that your believability dial is a bit strange when you start to actually look at it.
> 
> But, honestly, we've wandered so far from the point now that I'm not even sure where this rabbit hole goes.



Whoa, we're not even talking about where _my_ dial is set. I guess I never did make that clear. I was elaborating for someone else. I have seen a PC fall 130 feet, get up, and start kicking undead ass once again. It was in my group's most memorable fight. We got a couple "that's ridiculous" but we moved on really quickly. We _can_ do that, even if that moment is a tiny deal-breaker SOD-wise for just a moment.

However, when people say "how can you think _this_ about suspension of disbelief when it comes to things like _these_?" the answer seems very simple, to me: they've read/watched fantasy genre fiction where _this_ makes sense and they expect it (like fighting a dragon), and _these_ don't make sense and they don't expect it (like falling 100' or getting bit full-on by a dragon and being fine).

It's basic. Everyone's level of suspension of disbelief is weird. But, honestly, placing it at what you've read/watched seems incredibly reasonable, and less arbitrary than "reasoning" things out (and winding up at a place where your own SOD kicks in unreasonably), and much more satisfying than saying "anything goes, because it's fantasy" (and winding up with a time-traveling Darth Vader PC alongside Bugs Bunny). But, that's my take on it. As always, play what you like


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 25, 2012)

Hussar said:


> El Mahdi - The simple answer is, it depends.
> 
> If you're specifically talking about falling? Then no worries. We've agreed on this pages ago.
> 
> ...




I understand this from your answers pages back also.  However, I am curious about your answers to the rest of my post...



> I read the Flying Snowman piece, and I'd have the same question for John Scalzi as I do for those here...
> 
> 
> Why does it matter so much that people may be making illogical choices as to what bothers them and doesn't bother them...?
> ...


----------



## Hussar (Apr 25, 2012)

Well, El Mahdi, my basic answer is, who cares?

I really, really don't care what happens at your table.  The same way,  would never expect anyone to care what happens at my table.  Whether or not something is believable is entirely about taste.

You asked why continue to argue about it.  I answered that.  You want to add something to the game that will radically affect every aspect of the game and change the game into something else.  THAT'S what I'm arguing against.  I could not care less how you deal with believability issues at your table.  I can't.  There's nothing I can do about that.

However, you keep insisting that we include this giant bolus of mechanics.

Let me ask you a more practical question.  How long do you think this set of mechanics would be?  How many changes would it take to make it satisfactory?  How much space is that going to take up?

I have no ideological horse in this race.  I simply do not care.  My issue is practical.

If you can get what you want in a module that takes up a page, then great, no worries.  Include it in the books.  I don't see how you could though.  But, I'm willing to be shown.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 25, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Why does it matter so much that people may be making illogical choices as to what bothers them and doesn't bother them?




I don't care if people make illogical choices as to what bothers them and doesn't bother them.  Heck, I do the same things in my preferences sometimes, since I'm comfortable with paradox, and often take a more "holistic" view of how things fit together.

I do care if they try to make arguments upon such a foundation, as if their illogical choices were some kind of coherent platform that just makes sense.  It's only a small step from that to, "What you said happened in your game can't possibly happen, because in my (narrow, constricted) view of how things could work, that would mean X, and we can't allow that to be possible, because then I might have to rethink things."   "You can do Z if you don't mind [insert unflattering conclusion that very well may be true for them, but not most people who do Z and know how to do it.]".

Not everyone takes that last, nasty step, of course.  Most people have enough common sense to stop there.  Enough do that it gets old, fast.  And then every now and then you get someone who wouldn't know the difference between Preference and Fact if both lived at his house for 40 years, and kicked him down the stairs every morning via way of greeting.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Apr 25, 2012)

Hussar said:


> El Mahdi - The simple answer is, it depends.
> 
> If you're specifically talking about falling?  Then no worries.  We've agreed on this pages ago.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I'm in the same basic place. What other people are doing at their tables is really not any of my business and it is fine if they are or are not bothered by any particular thing or want a game with any specific features. 

IMHO building a fairly different game in parallel with what is presumably a fairly conventional D&D style that 5e will default to SEEMS like it would require a good chunk of different rules. My guess is too much to be practical as a module in the core. 

As was stated somewhere above, if it ends up being a page or 3 then great, that's probably different. If it is 40 pages of tweaks to half the stuff in the game, which I kind of suspect, or even 20 pages, then it probably deserves its own supplement or possible a whole RPG title.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 25, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I don't care if people make illogical choices as to what bothers them and doesn't bother them. Heck, I do the same things in my preferences sometimes, since I'm comfortable with paradox, and often take a more "holistic" view of how things fit together.
> 
> I do care if they try to make arguments upon such a foundation, as if their illogical choices were some kind of coherent platform that just makes sense. It's only a small step from that to, "What you said happened in your game can't possibly happen, because in my (narrow, constricted) view of how things could work, that would mean X, and we can't allow that to be possible, because then I might have to rethink things."  "You can do Z if you don't mind [insert unflattering conclusion that very well may be true for them, but not most people who do Z and know how to do it.]".
> 
> Not everyone takes that last, nasty step, of course. Most people have enough common sense to stop there. Enough do that it gets old, fast. And then every now and then you get someone who wouldn't know the difference between Preference and Fact if both lived at his house for 40 years, and kicked him down the stairs every morning via way of greeting.




Frankly, I don't understand why that last step would be "so nasty".  Just because someone provides their reasoning for why they would want it, and why it's more believable to them, doesn't mean they are being nasty, wrong, or any other negative connotation.  Nor does anyone have the right to criticize them for their reasoning.  Also, from what I've read in this thread, those that do want a different model of falling damage, have stated so because of the questions in the OP, have given their reasons why they want that (_their_ opinions and reasoning for _their_ wanting it, not an argument as to why _everyone_ should want it), and also answered the OP's question of whether they felt the current model is a feature or a bug.

Near as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with any of that, nor any grounds for having their opinions or reasoning criticized as illogical.  However, most of the responses they've recieved from those that don't agree with them, have basically taken the line that they are being ridiculous or illogical to choose that aspect to be bothered by, when there are so many other things in the game that also don't make sense...and also that their ideas, if included in the next D&D iteration, will "gum up _their_ game"...

Now that last part...That's Illogical.  Talking of WotC's D&D as if it's one's own personal game, as if that person has a form of ownership over it, and has the right to decide what should not be included in it or what form it should not take...

I'm not saying you specifically, Crazy Jerome, have responded this way or not (though I don't think you have, and haven't re-read your posts to see if that's the case or not, and really don't care anyways), but there have been a vocal minority in this thread doing just that.

And I honestly don't understand why...


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 25, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Well, El Mahdi, my basic answer is, who cares?
> 
> I really, really don't care what happens at your table. The same way, would never expect anyone to care what happens at my table. Whether or not something is believable is entirely about taste.
> 
> ...




How long do I think a set of mechanics would be to present an optional falling damage mechanic? How much space do I think it will take up? Very small. Likely no more than a paragraph.

How many changes do I think it would take to make it satisfactory? (and I'm assuming you mean changes to the core system...) Practically none.

Now to the rest of the post.

No. You didn't answer why you continue to argue this, or at least didn't answer the whole question but only addressed part of it. You say you have no ideological horse in this race. That it's purely about not wanting mechanics in the game that may mess up it's core structure in possibly widespread and unforeseen ways. That last part is a completely valid point and concern, but unfortunately, that hasn't been your predominant argument against it, or at least not your only arguement against it. You do argue not just from a standpoint of it's effects on the future edition, but also from an ideological standpoint. You continue to address peoples logic and preference to wanting it, especially through the use of the Flying Snowman concept, rather than predominantly from it's game effects. Introducing the Flying Snowmen concept as support for your argument, is making an _ideological_ argument. An argument that seems to have become the main point of your position (at least in these last couple of pages anyways). Maybe you really don't care about what happens at other people's tables (that's not for me to judge), but it does seem you care quite a bit about what's happening inside other gamers minds. You seem to care very much about their reasoning on this subject, and take issue with the seeming (to you) illogic of their choices.

And I'm honestly curious as to why?

In answer to your question _"Who cares?"_, I'd say that it seems you do...and very much so.

As to why I'm curious...well, it does have a bit to do with this:



Hussar said:


> Perhaps, as fans, we could rein in our tendency to flip out and massively over react to every little thing that people say. And, when people do flip out, I think, as a community, we need to completely hammer those who do. Make it absolutely clear that such behavior is not constructive and will not be tolerated. You (and I'm meaning you in the general sense, not you personally) want to brew tempests in a teacup, do so at your own peril. People who blow up these sorts of things should be treated with the ridicule they deserve.




Now, I don't agree that it's okay for anyone on ENWorld to hammer or ridicule anybody (excepting Mods). But maybe there is some validity to the community pointing out such responses and behavior to posters who do so. As long as that's done in a non-confrontational and respectful manner.

So, as part of that community, and with the above tacitly approved idea in mind, I'd posit that continuing an argument for so many pages, with at least an equal basis in personal ideology as well as it's effects on the future game, is a form of flipping out. Maybe not a quick, emphasized, and explosive flip out, but a flip out nonetheless...just a slow burning and persistent one.

I'd also say that nobody in this thread has put forth or recomended a _"giant bolus of mechanics"_ (or more accurately, I haven't noticed anyone doing that). That seems to be an exaggeration of what people have stated in this thread. I would consider exaggeration in order to reinforce an argument as a sign of flipping out also.

Even a mechanics module for dealing with the 20 archer problem, wouldn't necessarily have a far reaching effect on the core system, nor be a giant bolus of mechanics. It could probably be done in a page or two and described as _"How to tweak for a Grim n' Gritty game" _or_ "How to introduce Real-World Realism to the game"_: including some basics like lowering hit points; increasing damage (perhaps even more so for specific weapon types); adding save or die rolls; and how, where, and when to apply these mechanical changes and their likely implications. The core system does not need to be designed with these ideas in mind. Instead, the modules need to be designed with the core system in mind. Though I do believe that most of us still in this conversation have a good enough grasp of RPG game mechanic design to already know that.

I feel such concepts being codifed in the rules, as modules, is important so that they are available on DDI, and can be applied to character creation, monster creation, encounter planning, etc. That opens up the usefulness of the DDI tools to the significant enough portion of the gamer community who want these type of elements.



So, especially considering that actual effects to the core system have not been expressed except as a generalized hypothetical, and with no real examples or any actual evidence...is it necessary to question people's personal reasoning in order to protect the game from being gummed up, rather than just/only addressing the actual potential game effects...?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 26, 2012)

Wow, El Mahdi, you really, really don't want to let that go do you?  

Have I posted using lots of exclamation points?  Have I been using multicolored scary text to make my point more dramatic?  Have I, in any way, used language like "stupid" or "idiotic"?

Yeah, didn't think so.  So, you can keep banging this drum and trying to make this into something it's not, but, my basic point has always been the same.



> And I honestly don't understand why...




As I've repeatedly stated, if all you want is falling damage rules, then no problems.  Hey, go for it.  Really.  It's perfectly fine by me.  I have not the slightest, teensiest, tiniest quibble with it.  Is that clear enough?  

Let me state it as plainly as I can.

If all you want is falling damage rules, then I one hundred percent support you and back you all the way.

On the other hand, many people in this thread have talked about making much more sweeping changes, such as allowing the rules to make low level threats credible against high level characters.  This is a broad sweeping change that will affect every single aspect of the game.  Under these rules, an adventure like Keep on the Borderlands would be a credible threat to a 15th level party since many of the caves include encounters with dozens of opponents.  That is a very large change to the game.

Such a large change would require a great deal of space in the books to explain.  This is not something you could do in a paragraph, or even a page.  This is something that will take up a lot of space.  Now, I could be mistaken and someone could come up with simple mechanics that can be fitted into a page or so.  That's true, and, if so, I would withdraw my concerns.

So, that's why I talk about it gumming up the game.  If the core rules have to expend significant page count on a module that is only geared for a selection of players, I'd rather it was in its own book.  I would make the same argument for specific setting mechanics as well.  I wouldn't want to see Faerun take up 20 pages of the DMG, for example.  

Now, there is an ideological issue here as well.  I find it somewhat hard to comprehend why people would find X perfectly acceptable while finding Y unacceptable, when, to me, they are pretty much the same.  So, I discuss it.  Not dismiss it.  Not call it stupid or ridiculous.  I do so to try to drill down why they find X believable and Y not.  

And mostly I do it because I'm a huge, honking nerd.  

But, it's getting rather tiresome El Mahdi, when you continue to drag in other conversations into this one, simply to try to prove something that isn't even being discussed.  If I started calling JamesonCourage an idiot for believing what he does, then you'd have a point.  I disagree with JC, and that's fine.  But, I certainly don't think he's foolish or ridiculous for holding to his sense of disbelief.  I just think he's quite obviously wrong.    (The preceeding sentence is a joke, in case that wasn't obvious)


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 26, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Frankly, I don't understand why that last step would be "so nasty".




I'll give you an example that is not at all hypothetical, though I'm paraphrasing from a composite of all the times I've seen it. The "argument" goes something like this:

1. Gamers who don't use extensive character backgrounds are hack and slashers.

2. We know this because you can't really get into your character unless you know where the character is coming from, and can get into his head.

3. Oh, you don't use extensive backgrounds? Well, I guess you could still be doing a little bit of real roleplaying if make sure to name your character something profound sounding and have a tragic past, but that is kind of a pastiche of real character development. But you couldn't possibly be consistent with it over the course of a campaign.

4. I know this because all the people that I game with either write extensive backgrounds or are hack and slashers with no interest in roleplaying whatsoever.

Of course, it's never presented that plain, because it isn't that plain in their heads. And in fairness, not everyone that has ever uttered that tired canard of "we roleplay, not rollplay" means something like the above. (Replace "extensive background" with their pet gaming fetishes.) If they thought it through more carefully, they'd reject it, given all the logical holes when you write it out more carefully. 

But some people do mean it. It's quite plain that this is, at best, an expression of the felt need to justify their hobby--which, frankly, I find rather sad.

The nasty bit is after someone like me says, "You know, we don't write extensive backgrounds because we enjoy having the characters develop in play. If you read around a bit, you'll find that this is an alternate form of artistic expression that doesn't require, and can even be harmed by, setting too much in stone before play starts. There are variations on it, too, where people establish canon for that campaign as it goes, and others where it is deliberately more freewheeling." 

Then we get the argument that it *cannot* be as we say. At that point, the original person is projecting their own limitations or inexperience or bloody muleheadedness on gaming onto others who do something different. At no point have I said they can't play the way they play, and get a lot of enjoyment out of it. At no point have I said they should stop what they are doing and try my way (though if they want to branch out, I'm all for that). But they have insisted that not only can I not do what I say I do, that it isn't worth discussing, because it doesn't even exist.

It's the height of gaming snobbery, and an insecure snobbery precariously based on an aggressively narrow-minded ignorance, at that.

Have all the illogic you want. Ask for your illogic to be supported in the game, as much as possible. Meanwhile, I'll ask for my crazy brand of illogic to likewise be supported. The more the merrier. This is more or less what some of us have been doing. That you are doing this is why we are having this conversation still.

Don't take that fatal but small step of trying to justify your illogic as somehow inherently a good fit, using as a basis your own conception of how games *must* work, especially if your experiences are narrow compared to the reported experiences of the other participants. This has also happened, if not directly in this topic, it has been done by some of the participants in this topic, in other topics.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> the dragon _can_ get a clean hit. It _can_ kill you in one hit in the fiction. On the flip side, there will _always_ have something that breaks your fall.





JamesonCourage said:


> Yes, but from a fully-healed, full-mojo perspective, I can always survive a fall. Always.



It's important to get the modal verbs right.

The dragon _can_ always get a clean hit. But, while the PC has hit points remaining, it never _does_. The PC dodges, the dragon get's distracted and only nips instead of crushing, etc.

The fall _can_ always kill. But, while the PC has hit points remaining, it never _does_. The PC slows his/her descent on ledges, branches, etc, their is a stream/pool at the bottom (as per the quote upthread from Moldvay Basic), or something similar.

Now if a game consisted of _nothing_ but falls, with convenient ponds and haystaks at the bottom, it might get absurd. But as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said, that goes to scenario design - D&D is not equally good at a full range of scenarios. It won't support a game full of chase or race scenarios, either, because it has no very satisfactory mechanics for that (although skill challenges come closest, they still aren't all that good for races, I don't think).



El Mahdi said:


> I don't understand why that last step would be "so nasty".



Adding to [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]'s couple of posts on this (with which I entirely agree) - I've lost track of the number of times I've read posts along the lines of "If your players are pushing the rules hard, they're not really roleplaying", or "If you deliberately design encounters to respond to the flags of interest run up by your players in building and designing their PCs, you're railroading", or "If you deliberately design encounters to be interesting and relevant to the thematic concerns of the players and the campaing, you're just a narcisstic GM obsessing over "my precious encounter"", or "Because you leave the personalities of your NPCs flexible and underdefined before play, so you can develop them i play as part of the adjudication and resolution of encounters, you're railroading and/or you're not a real roleplayer and/or your game is just a hack&slash-fest" or, to bring it back to some of the issues in this thread, "If your players have their PCs charge the 12 archers because they know they can't be killed by a single volley of mortal archery, than your players aren't real roleplayers, they're just hack-and-slash min-maxers."

It seems fairly clear to me that at least some of these people have preferences for play heavily shaped by the style of RPGing that was dominant from the mid-80s through to the  mid-90s, and is exemplified in various forms by the games of that era - White Wolf, 2nd ed AD&D, etc.

One fairly common idea the comes through is that they don't want players to "metagame", that is, to make decisions based on the mechanical state of affairs. They want players to make judgements purely based on the fiction. And then they want the mechanics to validate those choices.

The two games that I'm aware of that are most likely to actually work this way in play are Runequest and Classic Traveller. (Maybe also HERO and GURPS, but I don't know them so well.) Rolemaster will come close. Probably also Chivalry & Sorcery.

D&D has never come close to this sort of play, though - that's why, from the late 70s, multiple generations of D&D-players "moved on" to those other games. From the earliest periods of D&D play, it's also been _obvious_ why D&D won't come close to this sort of play - because of hit points and saving throws. (Also, to a lesser extent - and of the more simulationist RPGs I mentioned, Rolemaster is closest to D&D here - because of its gonzo magic.)

3E "fixed" saving throws - turning them from a metagame mechanic to Fort, Ref and Will - and thereby giving rise to such odd questions as how Evasion works for a rogue who is pinned by a fire giant in the middle of a fireball. But it kept hit points. 4e keeps (and builds on) the 3E "solution" to saving throws, but is more overtly metagame-y about its hit points, relying on them to pick up the bulk of the metagame slack.

Now I've got no objection to people who dislike 4e. Nor to those who enjoy 80s/90s style gaming ("story"-oriented, or "fiction/narative first" gaming, as some describe it - gaming without player metagaming). But when their preference seems to cloud their understanding of mechanics, or of the way that _others_ might use mechanics - and their criticisms of those others are bundled in a package of "narrative" and "verisimilitude" and "roleplaying, not rollplaying" and "of course metagaming is bad", it is frustrating. And, as CJ said, sometimes nasty.

If people want a game with hit points _and_ with something like archery/falling grittiness, use hit points as a dodging mechanic. As I posted somewhere upthread, Roger Musson (as best I know) was the first to publish a version of this, in White Dwarf 30+ years ago. But - as Musson himself observed - it will require a wholesale rewriting of the saving throw, ambush etc rules. As others have pointed out in recent threads here (maybe including this one) it will also require changing the rules for delivering poison via attacks (ie no poison on "hits" that are really successful dodges).

But I have some doubts that WotC will go very far in this direction. It's one thing to have modules that change the build of a PC, and some of the details of action resolution. It's another thing to have modules that change the balance of play in relation to game elements (eg archers, or dragons, or cliffs, suddenly become noticeably more dangerous than trolls and ogres, compared to the game's basline assumptions). Because the latter sort of variability will make it hard for WotC to write and sell adventures.

On a final, sem-side note: 4e is the first version of the game, I think, to increase falling damage - from 1d6 per 10' to 1d10. It also tones down PC hit point escalation at higher levels compared to 3E (because there is no CON bonus per level). Should some of these 4e innovations be maintained?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 27, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Such a large change would require a great deal of space in the books to explain.  This is not something you could do in a paragraph, or even a page. This is something that will take up a lot of space.



*1)* If you ever have damage on you equal to your regular hit points + 10, you're dead.
*2)* In addition to hit points, you also have temporary hit points (THP). THP represent your character’s ability to avoid blows completely, and a sort of in-combat stamina. Whenever you would take any damage, you lose that much THP, and negate that many points of damage. As such, THP are always the first hit points lost. If an attack damages you and does no regular HP damage (it only takes away temporary hit points), then you take no attached ill effect (from status effects, spells, etc.), as you avoid the effect completely.
*3)* All HP at first level at regular HP, and all HP gained afterwards is considered THP.
*4)* You recover 1/10th of your HP per day, minimum of 1. You recover all of your THP after a short rest (a couple minutes of catching your breath). You don't regain THP if you can't rest (you can't breathe, you're vigorously climbing, etc.).
*5)* Certain things bypass THP, and deal damage to your regular HP directly. Such things include falls, coup de graces, being on fire, falling onto lava, etc. You don't get THP or Reflex saves in certain scenarios (you're helpless, etc.).
*6)* If you're attacked multiple times, you take a cumulative -1 penalty to your AC or Reflex save until the beginning of your next turn (when the penalty resets to 0).
*7)* If you want to convert monsters to the THP model as well (for things like orc warriors), they have regular hit points equal to (formula for 1st level HP), and all the rest is considered THP. Oftentimes, monsters have full regular hit points (like dragons).

The above changes mean that 12 archers are a problem for things that don't have good damage reduction or a way to surprise/kill them quickly, while things like armored giants and dragons and balors and pit fiends can all remain highly dangerous. So, epic fights for adventurer (or "hero") PCs are reserved.

What about things like orcs and goblins? Well, they'd better be equipped well enough (and in great enough numbers) to fight those archers. Maybe the town can only keep them at bay, and need help clearing them out. Maybe the country is busy with its troops, or is politically tied down with infighting, or just doesn't care, and the locals have enough money to scrape together something for the PCs. Definitely ways to make that work.

With this method, falling onto lava, off of cliffs, etc. are all just as dangerous at level 10 as they are at level 1 (you never want to let it happen if you can help it). What if you want to be more tough later on? Grab a feat that adds to your regular hit points. That'll add another 6 lines or so onto the above. Still a lot less than a page.

Do the changes above alter how the setting is assumed to work? Well, sure they do. Low level guys just got more dangerous in groups. Falling off cliffs or into lava is just as dangerous at all levels. These are things I think that a certain subset (in this thread) _want_ to see changed. And you don't need 20 pages to do it, either.



pemerton said:


> The dragon _can_ always get a clean hit. But, while the PC has hit points remaining, it never _does_. The PC dodges, the dragon get's distracted and only nips instead of crushing, etc.
> 
> The fall _can_ always kill. But, while the PC has hit points remaining, it never _does_. The PC slows his/her descent on ledges, branches, etc, their is a stream/pool at the bottom (as per the quote upthread from Moldvay Basic), or something similar.



I addressed that, too. Don't get all hung up on the wording, as context clearly matters more than that. I've expressed _why_ people are getting thrown out of their suspension of disbelief. In standard fantasy genre, you would expect the hero to be able to take on the dragon, and people _want_ mechanics to reflect that reality, especially "at full mojo". What they don't expect is falling onto lava and living at full mojo. That's not the niche they want HP to fill, and it's not what they expect out of the game (falling is in a little bit of a grey area here, but can easily go either way, in my mind).

We're still back to fantasy tropes and player expectations. People _expect_ you to be able to take on a dragon in the game. People don't expect you falling onto lava and then jumping out. It's just player expectation. Yes, it's subjective, but is it any wonder that there's a double standard here, when the goal of many is to capture a game feel that adheres to their sense of verisimilitude based on their exposure to the genre the game is based on? As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Apr 27, 2012)

I would say though, in fantasy genre, when the hero jumps off a cliff, he survives.

Or, if the hero falls off the ledge towards lava, there's a convenient outcropping to land on so that he doesn't actually fall into the lava.

Nearly every time.  So, why is it different?  Why does the dragon get the pass because of genre tropes, but, falling doesn't?  You have no problem blurring the believability line in one case, but the other is much more difficult?  

You are arguing that it's believable because of genre conventions.  Why don't genre conventions apply in all cases?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 27, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I would say though, in fantasy genre, when the hero jumps off a cliff, he survives.



I admit falling is more grey (said that, too). However, falls are often depicted as being very, very dangerous, too, thus the expectation that they will be if the hero falls.



Hussar said:


> Or, if the hero falls off the ledge towards lava, there's a convenient outcropping to land on so that he doesn't actually fall into the lava.



Pretty sure most people thought that if Frodo fell onto the lava, he'd die. Lava is also depicted as dangerous. Thus, the expectation



Hussar said:


> Nearly every time.  So, why is it different?  Why does the dragon get the pass because of genre tropes, but, falling doesn't?  You have no problem blurring the believability line in one case, but the other is much more difficult?



I've been over this too many times. Go and reread my posts.



Hussar said:


> You are arguing that it's believable because of genre conventions.  Why don't genre conventions apply in all cases?



Frequency. The dragon is depicted as dangerous, but not "death" in most scenarios. When the hero is pushed towards the ledge by the villain, it's a tense moment because the fall will kill him (just like it kills the villain when the hero flips him over it). As always, play what you like


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 27, 2012)

@JamersonCourage

Even with your rules I still don't see how a level 15 fighter losses to a dozen 1st level archers. He'll kill them all way before he take 125+ damage.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 27, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> @JamersonCourage
> 
> Even with your rules I still don't see how a level 15 fighter losses to a dozen 1st level archers. He'll kill them all way before he take 125+ damage.



Depends on a few things:

Does being surprised mean that you lose THP? If so, he has level 1 Fighter HP, and is probably going to get messed up.

Are the archers sufficiently spread out or protected (via cover or walls)? If so, he might only take 1-2 down per turn, while the others can whittle down his HP since he AC lowers with every shot.

Does he not have 125 HP because the system is more scaled in? If so, he's a lot more likely to go down to them.

On the other hand, maybe he does mop up. They're confident in a group, and not spread out. I mean, they've mowed down more than one wannabe "hero" before. Maybe he does rush in, and start cleaving his way through them, killing them before he gets "hit" (he only takes THP damage). I'm not opposed to that outcome, either. He's level 15, after all.

But, some hesitation never hurt anything (if that's your goal). If HP is a problem, tone it down. That's Hussar's suggestion for healing surge renewal. Personally, I think a level 15 Fighter probably should win a straight fight with 12 level 1 archers unless he's very, very focused on offense (to the detriment of his defense), and even then he should have a good shot (from his high offense). Smart tactics, however, should be able to beat him (surprise, cover, men with tower shields in the way while they shoot from small light stools they can carry around, etc.).

I'm admittedly basing a lot of this on "the math will be toned down" and I have assumed that it's included HP (a level 15 warrior in my game might have around 74 HP total, with a greater amount depending on how focused he is on it). If HP is the issue, though, just throw three lines in saying how HP scales slower (as in, the actual numbers). Problem solved. I just really reject the notion that the changes will take up 20 pages. Small-lined changes can go a long way. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Apr 27, 2012)

JC said:
			
		

> Frequency. The dragon is depicted as dangerous, but not "death" in most scenarios. When the hero is pushed towards the ledge by the villain, it's a tense moment because the fall will kill him (just like it kills the villain when the hero flips him over it). As always, play what you like




But, if the hero gets pushed over that ledge (or probably more frequently jumps), he survives.  Unless it happens to be the end of the movie, he survives every single time.  Butch and Sundance jump into the water, despite the fact that "the fall will kill you", yet, they don't die.  

If Frodo had actually landed in lava, sure, he would die.  But, if he fell, conveniently, narrativium would place an outcropping there so that he doesn't actually hit the lava.  

In exactly the same way that the dragon conveniently will not chomp the hero in half, despite that being the most probable result of being bitten by a fifty foot crocodile with halitosis.

Like I said, it's not a problem.  Believe whatever you like.  That's fine.  But, you're presenting this as more than just a personal preference.  People "expect" certain things from the genre, according to you.  Yet, for some reason, that expectation only gets applied sometimes.

The reason the PC doesn't die from the fall is because he has too many HP.  Well, that's the game reason.  The in game reason is because there is always something soft and springy to land on at the bottom of a cliff that you have enough HP to jump from and survive.  Again, in exactly the same way that the dragon will just never, ever be able to get a good chomp on you, until such time as his damage exceeds your HP.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 27, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, if the hero gets pushed over that ledge (or probably more frequently jumps), he survives.  Unless it happens to be the end of the movie, he survives every single time.  Butch and Sundance jump into the water, despite the fact that "the fall will kill you", yet, they don't die.



Right, but every single time the hero doesn't fall (which is more often than when the hero does fall), the fall is _depicted_ as "it will kill you if you fall" (just as it does to the villain when he _does_ fall). Heights are very often portrayed as "death if it happens" in fantasy, just like a dragon's bite is. If the hero is actually _bitten_, people expect him to be very injured or dead. If you actually _fall_, people expect the same thing.

Yes, things often intervene in falls. But, I'd say that since falls are depicted as dangerous more often than not (in my opinion), it's not hard to conceive why people make this connection when gaming.



Hussar said:


> If Frodo had actually landed in lava, sure, he would die.  But, if he fell, conveniently, narrativium would place an outcropping there so that he doesn't actually hit the lava.



See above, and my comments on the role that people expect HP to fulfill (as it differs from group to group).



Hussar said:


> In exactly the same way that the dragon conveniently will not chomp the hero in half, despite that being the most probable result of being bitten by a fifty foot crocodile with halitosis.



Again, combat abstraction vs. narrative device, HP niche, different expectations by group, etc.



Hussar said:


> Like I said, it's not a problem.  Believe whatever you like.  That's fine.  But, you're presenting this as more than just a personal preference.  People "expect" certain things from the genre, according to you.  Yet, for some reason, that expectation only gets applied sometimes.



Yeah. Which is why I've said things like "yes, it's subjective" while we've been having this talk. That's how suspension of disbelief works. I've been trying to explain to you why a certain set of people think the way they do, when "it doesn't make sense" to you. It's not _any_ more illogical than anyone else's level of suspension of disbelief, and I think that it's fairly understandable considering the depictions of fantasy genre that many people have been exposed to.



Hussar said:


> The reason the PC doesn't die from the fall is because he has too many HP.  Well, that's the game reason.  The in game reason is because there is always something soft and springy to land on at the bottom of a cliff that you have enough HP to jump from and survive.  Again, in exactly the same way that the dragon will just never, ever be able to get a good chomp on you, until such time as his damage exceeds your HP.



Again, combat abstraction vs. narrative device, HP niche, different expectations by group, etc. Addressed it in other posts. As always, play what you like


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 29, 2012)

Okay. I've spent a couple of days getting my thoughts together and deciding how I wanted to respond (and I've been a little busy...I've only had time for quick reads and simple posts).

So...



Hussar said:


> Wow, El Mahdi, you really, really don't want to let that go do you?




Thank you for the compliment. I value tenacity, consistency, and preseverence in others, and try to cultivate it in myself. I'm glad I've achieved some success at that, and that it's noticeable to those that discourse with me. (That's a joke.)



Hussar said:


> Have I posted using lots of exclamation points? Have I been using multicolored scary text to make my point more dramatic? Have I, in any way, used language like "stupid" or "idiotic"?




Lot's of exclamation points? No, (some occasional one's for emphasis, but no strings of them, which is what I think your point was...) 

Multicolored scary text? No

Language like "stupid" or "idiotic"? Yes

One doesn't have to actually use such words as "stupid" or "idiotic", to disparage someone or their ideas in that manner. So yes, you have used language that says those things. You've also used links that has someone else using those words and language for you (the Flying Snowmen). Whether veiled, by proxy, or explicitly stated, the intention and effect is the same.

I originally went back through the posts on this thread and copied quotes of where this was done by you, and was going to include them in this post. But, during the process of doing this, I noticed that I had been doing the exact same thing...to both you and others in this thread. For that I apologize.

If you would like the quotes I'm talking about, pm me and I'll pm them to you. But I've realized that it wouldn't be appropriate to post them here in this thread, and in this manner.

However, there are more ways to "flip out" than using strings of exclamation points, multicolored and scary text, bolding text, emoticons, and language consistent with flipping out. One can also consistently take issue with the same thing, over and over again, and simply not let it go. I have been doing that in this thread, and it is a form of flipping out. One I am acknowledging and taking personal responsibility for.

But, I haven't been the only in this thread that won't let things go. I think taking a stance to challenge any idea from anyone that might affect "your" game, is a fair example of this (among others). Especially as it is not "your" game. Talking with WotC on their forums (or here in the hopes they see it) about what you want in the game and directions you don't want to see it go in, seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However I feel that telling other posters that their ideas are unreasonable/faulty-perception, or you hope that they won't be included because it will mess up "your" game, doesn't seem so reasonable or appropriate to me. And doing it in as many posts as you have in this thread, speaks to a certain level of flipping out...at least in my opinion.




Hussar said:


> ...my basic point has always been the same.




Yes, your basic point has been consistent and stated many times, in response to many enquiries by me and others. But there has been a misunderstanding. The question you keep answering for me, isn't the question I'm asking. I'm not entirely sure how I continue to not state my question clearly, but somehow that keeps happening. So rather than bother you with this again, I'll just cut to the chase.

I think it's wrong to question someone elses perceptions, and to do so in a manner which seems to be saying those perceptions are wrong, ridiculous, or selectively silly...especially when having inconsistent and selective perceptions is something that we are all guilty of. It's just a universal trait and foible of all of us. I don't know if your intention was to come across in such a manner, but that's the way it did. Perhaps it was a subconcious, knee-jerk response to the way you felt JC was posting, or if you felt he was coming across like his perceptions should be the norm (whether he meant that or not)...I don't know either way. But I do feel that it's wrong to do this.

Your doing this rubbed me the wrong way, and I responded the way I did because of that. But that was a knee-jerk reaction also, and also wasn't right. I should not have been pursuing this line of question, and especially should not have been doing it in the manner I was doing it in. Consider this line of questions dead. I will not be bothering you on this subject again.


As to this:



Hussar said:


> But, it's getting rather tiresome El Mahdi, when you continue to drag in other conversations into this one, simply to try to prove something that isn't even being discussed.




Whether you liked it or not, the quote I brought in was related and applicable to the conversation I was having with you. The fact that it was your quote made it even more applicable. You made the argument that if someone on ENWorld was flipping out, the community had the right to hammer and ridicule that member, and advocated that the community should do so. If that's true for flipping out (which I feel you were), then it's also true for other behaviors which are unacceptable to the ENWorld community. I'm sorry my bringing in that quote upset you, but you don't get to advocate for what you did in that post, and then call foul when someone uses it as justification for the same thing concerning you.

As I said earlier though, I believe that no poster here has the right to hammer or ridicule any other poster for any reason. Though it seems that my take on this may not be officially supported. But whether it's tacitly approved or not, I shouldn't have indulged in it anyways, especially in contradiction to my own beliefs. And that is what I was attempting to do with my line of question. I apologize for breaking my own rule.


----------



## El Mahdi (Apr 29, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I'll give you an example that is not at all hypothetical, though I'm paraphrasing from a composite of all the times I've seen it. The "argument" goes something like this:...




Ahh, I understand.  I've seen that too.  I thought you were saying something else in your post though (the one I asked my question about), but that was completely my misunderstanding.

I also want to thank you for the pm.  And I want to apologize if I've come across in the manner you were talking about in your above post and your pm.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Apr 29, 2012)

El Mahdi said:


> Ahh, I understand. I've seen that too. I thought you were saying something else in your post though (the one I asked my question about), but that was completely my misunderstanding.
> 
> I also want to thank you for the pm. And I want to apologize if I've come across in the manner you were talking about in your above post and your pm.




You haven't, and absolutely no apologies necessary.  If anything, I should be apologizing for writing something rather vague and indirect on such a contentious subject.  I'm just glad pemerton came in an cleaned up behind me.


----------

