The Highway Man
First Post
I guess I should do that, too.
I pretty much just design in a vacuum.
I guess I have to agree, by your own admittance.
I guess I should do that, too.
I pretty much just design in a vacuum.
I hope that you do. I am quite fond of you. To say nothing of my moral obligation to keep your German mind occupied with thoughts other than its natural tendencies-- ie, world domination.
Action Points are a possible solution, but I feel ultimately this is just "add another subsystem instead of going to the foundation of the issue".
Spend an action point to re-roll any saving throw (including on a later round, if desired).
The problem with Save or Die/Save or Suck is that the relative risk shifts from an ablative measurement to a boolean measurement.
In "ordinary" play, the players are accustomed to viewing their hit points (ablative) as their means to measure their relative risk in the world. Low hit points, higher risk.
The Save or Die/Save or Suck spells bypass the ablative measurement and replace it with a boolean measurement. "I'm at full hit points-- yet I'm suddenly screwed!"
The simplest solution is to create an ablative replacement for relative risk, albeit on a different scale: Action points.
Low action points/high risk is as meaningful-- but on a higher scale-- as low hit points/high risk.
Action Points are a possible solution, but I feel ultimately this is just "add another subsystem instead of going to the foundation of the issue".
So, is it really a good idea to try having both in the same system?
Won't this cause all kinds of balancing issues?
Why not just use the one?
Ah, well, I can live with that. But who cares about me?As subsystems go, action points are simple enough.
Of course, I also think they're properly applied to solve lots of other problems, and they can do this without significant added complexity.
My answer is obviously yes. But this gets to the heart of what I mean about my assumptions. I start with a couple of very simple assumptions that are nevertheless very polarizing. ("Empower the DM." and "Use action points.")
For D&D, perhaps. But I mentioned Torg, and I somehow like Torgs approach more. Though it also has its drawbacks, I suppose. Possibilities are plot protection & moxie points. Damage is dealt as shock and as wounds - you just can spend your Possibilities to negate that damage. Basically it feels like it creates a "realistic" world and then adds the plot protection on. Maybe this is actually too complicated or to convoluted? Or maybe this is just brilliant for any fan of "realismn" or "versimilitude", because he understands "this is what would happen in the real world, but we don't let it happen!" While hit points confuse and conceal the issue.By which I assume you mean hit points.
I'm still waiting for a fix for most "save or die" situations, particularly the hold monster + coup de grace thing.
Already on it. Yes, it could be done quite easily - just do it under the OGL.While I'll grant this market may be small, certainly in a comparative sense, would it not be large enough for a 3PP to publish a game taking the best of 3e and 4e and making an altogether new system? No backwards compatibility, not jumping on the GSL, no nothing. Just do it under the OGL with the d20 mechanic. Could it not be done? Does licensing prevent it?
I meant figuratively, not literally. I know non-core material isn't OGC; my point is that WotC should've balanced that stuff against the core. Paizo's redesigning the core classes, sure, but they're amping the power level up to be on par with stuff that is far more powerful than core. The best way to do it would've been to determine a base power level and build everything to that level, but since they're hewing so closely to existing material, they're a bit hamstrung in that regard.While I agree with your criticism, I think licensing aspects prevent that from being an option. Those non-core are not "touchable", per se.
That's an interesting idea... but aren't templates just another name for roles? Say you have a goblin, and you want to make it a fighter goblin. Either he's got the "brawler" role, or he gets the "fighter" template - either way, he ends up basically the same (assuming, of course, that the templates change base HD; templates can't change BAB or saves, however, without changing the monster type, so how would you accommodate a goblin becoming a fighter?)I kinda agree with that. I don't think Roles need to be added to 3.x or PF. Not saying they're a bad idea per se, just not sure 3.x/PF needs 'em.
Stick with Types for BAB/saves/etc (but again- I think the types could be compressed somewhat). Create class templates if you want a specifc monster to be good at something (fighting, give it the fighter template; casting arcane spells; give it the wizard template).
Templates won't let the power level spiral outta control and would also keep monster design to something not akin to a friggin headache.
See, this is why roles are the best solution, IMO - you want a fighter fey? Change his base HD to d10, rearrange his saves, and BAM - fighter fey. It worked for MMV, and it's working for 4E... I don't see why it wouldn't work for 3.x. All you need are a set of guidelines telling the DM, "Okay, here's what you can do, and here's how to do it."From the DM side the major complaint seems to be Fey and Undead-- for whom it's hard to raise BAB to practical levels without raising HD, Saves, etc. The problem is that CR is inextricably linked to HD, and HD are inextricably linked to BAB, Saves, etc. There are "best practices" involved with monster design, so if you increase CR, BAB, Saves, etc. without a corresponding increase in HD (hp, really) you run the risk of creating a glass cannon with the potential to dramatically impact play balance.
What assumption is that? That a commoner with 1 HD can't be a master craftsman?This is all shades of housecats and expert commoners, again. And ultimately I think if you can't swallow this fundamental assumption of the D&D world, you're playing the wrong system.
That's an interesting idea... but aren't templates just another name for roles? Say you have a goblin, and you want to make it a fighter goblin. Either he's got the "brawler" role, or he gets the "fighter" template - either way, he ends up basically the same (assuming, of course, that the templates change base HD; templates can't change BAB or saves, however, without changing the monster type, so how would you accommodate a goblin becoming a fighter?)
See, this is why roles are the best solution, IMO - you want a fighter fey? Change his base HD to d10, rearrange his saves, and BAM - fighter fey. It worked for MMV, and it's working for 4E... I don't see why it wouldn't work for 3.x. All you need are a set of guidelines telling the DM, "Okay, here's what you can do, and here's how to do it."
Zombies! (CR: ACL -2)
Init I; Competence I
Defense III
Hit Points VIII
Resilience II
Speed 20ft.
Attack III
Melee Maul (1d6 20/x2)
Special Attacks Frightening
Combat Gear None
Abilities Str 10, Dex 10, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Skilled None
Possessions None
Attributes Construct, Frightening, Mooks, Natural Attack,
Speed Decrease, Tough 2
Roleplaying Notes None
Zombies! (CR: ACL -2)
Init I; Competence +0
Defense +0
Hit Points 16
Resilience +0
Speed 20ft.
Attack +0
Melee Maul (1d6 20/x2)
Special Attacks Frightening
Combat Gear None
Abilities Str 10, Dex 10, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Skilled None
Possessions None
Attributes Construct, Frightening, Mooks, Natural Attack,
Speed Decrease, Tough 2
Roleplaying Notes None
Zombies! (CR: ACL -2)
Init I; Competence +0
Defense +8
Hit Points 186
Resilience +5
Speed 20ft.
Attack +10
Melee Maul (1d6 20/x2)
Special Attacks Frightening
Combat Gear None
Abilities Str 10, Dex 10, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Skilled None
Possessions None
Attributes Construct, Frightening, Mooks, Natural Attack,
Speed Decrease, Tough 2
Roleplaying Notes None
See, this is why roles are the best solution, IMO - you want a fighter fey? Change his base HD to d10, rearrange his saves, and BAM - fighter fey. It worked for MMV, and it's working for 4E... I don't see why it wouldn't work for 3.x. All you need are a set of guidelines telling the DM, "Okay, here's what you can do, and here's how to do it."
I kinda agree with that. I don't think Roles need to be added to 3.x or PF. Not saying they're a bad idea per se, just not sure 3.x/PF needs 'em.
Stick with Types for BAB/saves/etc (but again- I think the types could be compressed somewhat). Create class templates if you want a specifc monster to be good at something (fighting, give it the fighter template; casting arcane spells; give it the wizard template).
Templates won't let the power level spiral outta control and would also keep monster design to something not akin to a friggin headache.
Frex- you want a 5 HD goblin that can throw a fireball. Make a 5 HD goblin. Tack on the wizard's template. Give it the fireball spell (and maybe a couple of other spells a 5th-level wizard might have). There. 5 HD goblin spellcaster. No need to multiclass into wizard, give it a wizard's hp and save progression, bonus feat(s), etc. No need to load it down with spells just to fill up its prepared spells (esp if you were creating a really high level wizard monster); give it only the stuff you think it needs for combat or concept. It's still a goblin 100%...it's just a nasty little bastard that can hurl a fireball at ya.
And of course- if you want to completely flesh out the goblin caster by using the wizard class, complete with saves, hp, all spells, etc. you could do that too. It's just not always worth it if the monster has a life expectancy of 5 rounds or whatever.