Falling from Great Heights

[Crazy Jerome]

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]

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).

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]

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]

So...

... that's a "no" on new falling damage rules then?

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

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]

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...

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]

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

Q: What thought, if any, have you given to deciding what modular rules go into the initial D&D Next release and what rules will be released in subsequent supplements?

A: I chose to answer this question because my answer is going to apply to the many, many product-related questions we get for Rule-of-Three. The work we're doing right now D&D Next isn't what you would call product development; we are not working on books, we're trying to create the game system that is going to be featured and expanded in various products. As such, there are many decisions about what goes into a product that we have not even started working on because it's far too early in the process. While we've got a running list of optional and variant rules we can include (Hit locations! Lingering wounds! Hexes! Firearms!), and many of those will likely appear right alongside the base rules in whatever products we release, no decisions have been made as to what rules variants will go into particular products.

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]

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]

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]

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