Falling from Great Heights

[Aaron]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's unnecessary to pick out the components of HP's that applie to falling. It only needs to be assumed that the aspect of Hit Points that involve falling, are affected so catastrophically that the rest doesn't matter. There are many realistic applications to the rules that I do see could be a problem with the overall game. But realistic falling damage expressions don't fall into that category. Having a rule, or a sidebar, or a mini-module, or whatever, that says: "Instead of 1d10 damag per 10' of falling height, you can make it more lethal (realistically lethal), by multyplying the 1d10 by 2 for each 10' above 20, and/or include a save vs. death at +1 or +2 to the DC for each 10 feat above 20 ft." That would have absolutely no effect on any other part of the game. But it would cause players to think: "whatever you do, do not fall off a cliff or you will die"...which is the point of wanting a mechanic like that.

As to why I want that in 5E, I want to have realistic modules and rule add-ons like this, that are part of the online applications also. I want to be able to use DDI with my game.

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.

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.

Neither do I. But not everybody plays D&D as Heroic Fantasy. Ordinary Hero is a viable style, a viable style with D&D, and one I'd like to see recieve full support with 5E.

I wouldn't want D&D to be distilled down into a real world combat game.

I do.

One thing I will agree on is that D&D has always been about grand heroics.

I don't agree with this. But I'm not going to go into it again. My previous posts cover this enough.

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.

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...

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.

I agree.

 

[Hussar]

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]

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]

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.

I Agree Completely.

 

[YRUSirius]

If you fall in lava you die. If you fall more than 50 meters/75 feet you die.

Okay?

-YRUSirius

 

[El Mahdi]

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]

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]

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]

You can dodge a Tyrannosauraus Rex. Wanna see how you dodge a lava pit if you're already falling.

-YRUSirius