D&D General Hit Points. Did 3.0 Or 3.5 Get it Right?

[Staffan]

The truth though is all game systems are designed around situations where the 'bonus' to a roll is significantly smaller than span of fortune available from the fortune mechanic. In D20 this means the design is built around situations where your bonus on the D20 check is rather smaller than 19, and probably not larger than 10 or so. Any game system starts breaking down when the fortune is a rather small input to adjudication or where the range between bonuses of participants becomes large. It's not just a D&D thing. It has to do with the mechanics of playing well together and having reasonable expectations of failure or success.

I don't know. I consider a reasonable chance of success to be in the 75-90% range for the kind of things my character should be good at, with many things being automatic successes (generally not combat things, though). The Leverage crew is a good metric for how skilled PCs should be.

I am however OK with that success rate being achieved via some kind of meta-currency ("This is an important roll, and I'm not going to fail it.")

 

[Vaalingrade]

3.X's idea is that monsters should be built like PCs because we cannot know exactly what role or purpose an NPC will end up having - encounters aren't foreordained to be combat or set pieces. The goal is to have a single stat block that represents how the NPC can interact with the world regardless of what that interaction may turn out to be or what sort of encounter the DM is designing.

We can't tell whether a hamburger will be used, so it isn't foreordained that they won't be used as shoes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make sure they're edible for those wacky free spirits that might use them as food.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And I have yet to find a single good reason that everyone, whether a dragon or a clerk, should be built like an adventurer.

It makes sense if you're looking at stats as a biological readout instead of stats for how to to use them as part of a game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know. I consider a reasonable chance of success to be in the 75-90% range for the kind of things my character should be good at, with many things being automatic successes (generally not combat things, though). The Leverage crew is a good metric for how skilled PCs should be.

I am however OK with that success rate being achieved via some kind of meta-currency ("This is an important roll, and I'm not going to fail it.")

The Leverage crew always struck me as a bit too competent for a game with challenges. Also, really not a fan of meta-currency if it can be avoided.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't know. I consider a reasonable chance of success to be in the 75-90% range for the kind of things my character should be good at, with many things being automatic successes (generally not combat things, though).

Which is perfectly fine and reasonable. But as you level up, weird things happen. Let's say you have this thing you are good at and so have a 75% chance of success and that makes for a reasonable test. At low levels of play, probably every member of the party has a 40-50% chance of being able to succeed in that same task, so whatever the task is you can face it together or work on it together - your character just probably gets more spotlight during that challenge because that's "the thing you are good at" whether it is combat, parkour, evasion, investigation, or whatever. But as you level up, any test you have a 75% chance of succeeding at, your colleagues now have like a 5% chance of succeeding at.

4e and 5e both have tried to deal with this math by making everyone level up at everything, but one consequence of that is that you never get really good at something even if it is the thing you do. This is more observable in non-combat challenges in those systems than in combat challenges. For combat, both 4e and 5e usually do reasonably well albeit get grindy (the topic of this thread). For non-combat verisimilitude often demands "I have a 95% chance to craft a masterwork sword and you have a 0% chance to do it."

 

[Neonchameleon]

Who's talking about Fate Points?

Class is your adventuring profession. Level is an abstract indicator of general proficiency at your adventuring profession. Makes in-universe sense to me.

But a class isn't a profession. If you were a professional you'd cross-train and learn from your team mates (which admittedly you do in 4e). Hrothgar the Bold should be learning something from watching Milcax the Sneaky at work and from campfire conversations. Class is far more restrictive.

Meanwhile Solos are obvious, Elites are an in universe designation, so are regulars - and Minions are outclassed. Makes far more in universe sense.

 

[Celebrim]

We can't tell whether a hamburger will be used, so it isn't foreordained that they won't be used as shoes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make sure they're edible for those wacky free spirits that might use them as food.

Just because you can make an analogy doesn't mean it's a good one or tells you anything about the situation. Quite often an analogy is mere mental obfuscation being used to obscure rather than clarify.

I don't get the vibe that you are particularly interested in discussing this in a productive manner.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It makes sense if you're looking at stats as a biological readout instead of stats for how to to use them as part of a game.

But you 100% can't do this and have Hit Points. You can do it in many, many other games.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Just because you can make an analogy doesn't mean it's a good one or tells you anything about the situation. Quite often an analogy is mere mental obfuscation being used to obscure rather than clarify.

I don't get the vibe that you are particularly interested in discussing this in a productive manner.

The personal attacks are certainly a higher form of argument.

Let's make it plain then: Mechanically, monsters are primarily for combat encounters and setpieces. Trying to mechanically design them to do more things for this on the off chance someone wants to do something else dilutes their design and makes them worse for this actual purpose.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But you 100% can't do this and have Hit Points. You can do it in many, many other games.

I know this. But people still want the mechanics to also serve as an analog to naturalistic fact in-universe.