L&L 5/21 - Hit Points, Our Old Friend

[SkidAce]

It's more than that. if you take a look at the monster math, a 1st level monster has 15 AC. Based on what? The armour it's wearing? The dexterity bonus it has? A half level bonus to defenses? What if I have one soldier with a dex of 10 in chain and another in plate & shield? They both have 17.

Just to address this part. Your point about 4th not taking this into account is accurate.

However, nobody I knew of ever bothered rolling the stats for the soldiers (unless it was a special, named, etc etc.).

"All" the ones in plate mail had plate mail AC, all the ones in chain had chain AC. And they all had 5 hit points per level (AD&D) on average.

So your point is valid, the grunts had chain, the elite had plate, and they were differentiated by AC. And by weapon, grunts short sword, elites longsword.

BL: I agree with this weakness in 4th, but I think it was a shortcut intended to help the DM, similar to ones we already used, that went to far.

 

[FireLance]

Woot? A goblin is a goblin, regardless if he is wearing plate armor or stark naked, it doesn't make him a level 6 monster (what ever the hell that means) it's just make him tougher and harder to hit.

The difference is, I'm using level as a measure of how tough the monster is to defeat, so a monster that is "tougher and harder to hit" is, by definition, higher level. You seem to be equating level with Hit Dice.

 

[tomBitonti]

The whole business of scaling AC by level, without typing it, seemed off to me.

The problem appears in 3/3.5E, and goes back to 1E, with the scaling of AC by HD.

Using demons as an example, the table goes:

Hit Dice, Challenge Rating, Natural Armor Bonus

HD 2 CR 2 NAB 5
HD 7 CR 6 NAB 8
HD 12 CR 10 NAB 13
HD 12 CR 13 NAB 19
HD 17 CR 17 NAB 16
HD 20 CR 20 NAB 19

With full plate providing an armor bonus of 8, that gives the higher level demons the equivalent of 2 to 2.5 the value of full plate.

(There was a similar effect with drow and their very high armor plus values, +5 bucklers, +5 armor, and +5 rings of protection adding up to +15 to AC.)

The reasoning is given (I believe) as their otherworldly nature, which I can accept for a while, but the very high values begin to seem absurd.

That the game has bared progressions (+1 level give +1 attack bonus, +1 level gives +1 AC, or some multiple there-of) seems to degrade the narrative of the game. This is a residue of the original game design which was fun for a little while, but now seems thin.

From:
Demon :: d20srd.org

Dretch
Size/Type: Small Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)
Hit Dice: 2d8+4 (13 hp)
Armor Class: 16 (+1 size, +5 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 16
Challenge Rating: 2

Babau
Size/Type: Medium Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)
Hit Dice: 7d8+35 (66 hp)
Armor Class: 19 (+1 Dex, +8 natural), touch 11, flat-footed 18
Challenge Rating: 6

Bebilith
Size/Type: Huge Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)
Hit Dice: 12d8+96 (150 hp)
Armor Class: 22 (-2 size, +1 Dex, +13 natural), touch 9, flat-footed 21
Challenge Rating: 10

Glabrezu
Size/Type: Huge Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)
Hit Dice: 12d8+120 (174 hp)
Armor Class: 27 (-2 size, +19 natural), touch 8, flat-footed 27
Challenge Rating: 13

Marilith
Size/Type: Large Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)
Hit Dice: 16d8+144 (216 hp)
Armor Class: 29 (-1 size, +4 Dex, +16 natural), touch 13, flat-footed 25
Challenge Rating: 17

Balor
Size/Type: Large Outsider (Chaotic, Extraplanar, Evil)
Hit Dice: 20d8+200 (290 hp)
Armor Class: 35 (-1 size, +7 Dex, +19 natural), touch 16, flat-footed 28
Challenge Rating: 20

TomB

 

[Libramarian]

My, what big words you use.

So in other words, abstract gaming is best used for games? I think we agree.

So in other words, only a primitive, genetically-damaged mind would like abstract expressions for physical things? Pollock disagrees.

So abstract ideals are undesirable for our culture? Now, the entire Renaissance Movement disagrees with you.

But in the immortal words of You Just Now, "that's neither here nor there." The point, I think, is that you don't think abstract ideals are cool. And here is my response: Whatever, dude.

Sorry, I grabbed part of your quote and went off on a pet peeve of mine without adequately explaining it and it seemed more directed at you personally than I meant.

Basically the use of Gamism to mean "non-simulationism" rankles me, because I feel that it makes this idea appear more substantial than it is. It's not grounded in any sort of theory about what makes games more fun, it's just like a superficial suspicion of simulationist mechanics.

However if you truly feel like abstract mechanics have some sort of aesthetic value, analogous to Abstract Expressionist art, then that would be something different. That's pretty funky but OK. You should come up with a name other than Gamism for this line of thought though.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Another possibility of somewhat limited Hit Die use in a "short rest" is making food and rest conditions more important.

If you only have time to pop down a dirty corridor and silently catch your breathe while the orcs fan out searching for you, remaining alert the whole time, you might only get to use 1 die (and even then, assuming you manage to "rest" for 10 minutes). This is a time when a tense, 1 minute "chase sequence" round might be a lot of fun.

Kill all the orcs in the vicinity, hole up in a secret chamber you found, and rest with only the rogue listening at the door on the off chance you are discovered, you eat some rations, mostly relax, and get access to an extra die or two.

I doubt something like that will be the default, as it is very simulationist. But the base system makes such a variant rule easy to include.

 

[tomBitonti]

A question of scaling

Musing, I'm wondering how many hit dice a player should have, how quickly they should recharge, and how the numbers scale.

For example, if hit dice represent a limited ability to recover, then, should you get more if you have a higher con? Say, +1 HD per CON bonus.

That narrates well, but doesn't scale, and is much to large at low level. Maybe recovery should be 1DX + CON per hit dice?

Having 1 HD per level seems to be the plan, but I'm having trouble linking that to hit points, since rolling 1DX per hit dice for recover with a pool of DX hit points gives a result of rolling all hit dice would let you recover (on average) all of your hit points.

EDIT: Maybe, a fix would be to limit the number of short rests which are possible per day. A possible fix, but breaking the elegant symmetry of the model.

TomB

 

[Blackwarder]

The difference is, I'm using level as a measure of how tough the monster is to defeat, so a monster that is "tougher and harder to hit" is, by definition, higher level. You seem to be equating level with Hit Dice.

Sorry, I skipped two pages of the thread and didn't realized that you where comming from 4e POV. That being said higher AC with no correlation to attack bonus or saves or anything else just make a very boring monster, what dio I care if that Orc got 9999 AC if he can't hit the side of a barn? Not to mention any of the other characters?

Warder

 

[nnms]

Sorry, I skipped two pages of the thread and didn't realized that you where comming from 4e POV. That being said higher AC with no correlation to attack bonus or saves or anything else just make a very boring monster, what dio I care if that Orc got 9999 AC if he can't hit the side of a barn? Not to mention any of the other characters?

I generally agree, however I also see the strength in having all the various stats, abilities and special stuff contribute to the level assessment of a given monster. I want the system to be able to handle regular humans in the best equipment money can buy (custom full plate for example) and also regular humans in roughspun jerkins. I think going from AC 10 to AC 20 should probably merit some sort of change in level or XP value or whatever. And I shouldn't have to also increase their hit points, attack bonus etc., if, in the fiction, they are equal in ability to the guys without armour.

I want to be able to ask "What is this opponent the PCs will be facing? What's it like? How armoured is it? How fast? How tough? How deadly? What else can it do?" without the answer of one question limiting (or even predefining) the answers to other questions. Right now 4E has a system that fails in this regard. If I pick an AC for a creature and am using the normal monster math, I'm locked into some sort of combination of level and role which will then give me the stats for all the other questions, even if the actual description of the things in the fiction is nothing like that.

I want a system where you design based on fictional description but assess the level/threat based on the in game stats. And with a system to aid in the constructing of such creatures alongside a 4E simple framework approach for those who don't care as much about representing the fiction of the monsters in the game.

 

[tlantl]

I want a system where you design based on fictional description but assess the level/threat based on the in game stats. And with a system to aid in the constructing of such creatures alongside a 4E simple framework approach for those who don't care as much about representing the fiction of the monsters in the game.

There was just a system in the 1e dungeon master's guide that did just this. At least the first part. the experience point value of monster's table on pg 85 allow for dm's to add xp to creatures for higher than average abilities gear and defenses.

A similar chart could be just the thing. I may just use the one I have since it is pretty comprehensive. the numerical bonuses might need some tweaking though.

 

[tlantl]

I want a system where you design based on fictional description but assess the level/threat based on the in game stats. And with a system to aid in the constructing of such creatures alongside a 4E simple framework approach for those who don't care as much about representing the fiction of the monsters in the game.

There was just a system in the 1e dungeon master's guide that did just this. At least the first part. The experience point value of monster's table on pg 85 allow for dm's to add xp to creatures for higher than average abilities gear and defenses.

A similar chart could be just the thing. I may just use the one I have since it is pretty comprehensive. The numerical bonuses might need some tweaking though.