Ampersand: Sneak Attack

[Doug McCrae]

Oh yeah, I completely forgot about the 'NPC - Elf - Mastermind - Wizard'-entry in MM... sorry about that! How silly of me to think that NPCs -- even BBEGs -- would use PC creation rules.

The sample NPCs in the DMG have fixed hit point values, just like monsters in the MM.

In my group it's common practice to use those average values rather than roll. It saves time and the last thing you want to do with 3e fights is make them more random. They're crazy random as it is.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I may be the only one on this forum, but I see static HPs being rather boring... no variance (except between the number added by your Con score, which would amount to 5-10 HPs in most cases anyway) in HPs between PCs or monsters of equal level and class/role.

True, but it provides more predictability which makes for a better experience. It may be fun to roll max hitpoints and be "that fighter who has 30 more hitpoints than the other fighter in the group", but it isn't nearly as much fun for the OTHER fighter who nearly dies every session because he doesn't have enough hitpoints to survive the damage being put out by the more powerful creatures the DM is using since lowered power ones posed no threat at all to the fighter with max hitpoints.

The difference at 30th level between a creature with 50 hitdice and 20 con rolling average(475) and one rolling 80% of max(570) to a group that does 50 damage average per round is another 2 rounds worth of combat against the creature. With a couple of save or dies or enough damage output that can make the difference between no one dying at all and a TPK(or at least a death or two).

I want the ability to predict with fairly high accuracy if a creature will be appropriate for a party or not. If the players roll for hitpoints or the monsters roll for hit points any estimate of difficulty can go out the window.

 

[Spatula]

The more ranged weapons and abilities you give the rogue, the less unique the ranger gets. If you want to be a ranged striker, ranger is where it's at.

I don't want a ranged striker, I'm asking how it makes any kind of sense that a rogue can sneak attack with a crossbow but not a bow - assuming that there is some way for a rogue to learn how to use a bow. Furthermore, "sneak attack with bow" isn't a power, "sneak attack (w/ ranged weapon)" is, and the rogue can already do that, unless crossbows and slings are now melee weapons.

 

[Primal]

True, but it provides more predictability which makes for a better experience. It may be fun to roll max hitpoints and be "that fighter who has 30 more hitpoints than the other fighter in the group", but it isn't nearly as much fun for the OTHER fighter who nearly dies every session because he doesn't have enough hitpoints to survive the damage being put out by the more powerful creatures the DM is using since lowered power ones posed no threat at all to the fighter with max hitpoints.

The difference at 30th level between a creature with 50 hitdice and 20 con rolling average(475) and one rolling 80% of max(570) to a group that does 50 damage average per round is another 2 rounds worth of combat against the creature. With a couple of save or dies or enough damage output that can make the difference between no one dying at all and a TPK(or at least a death or two).

I want the ability to predict with fairly high accuracy if a creature will be appropriate for a party or not. If the players roll for hitpoints or the monsters roll for hit points any estimate of difficulty can go out the window.

Yet I think that a certain amount of randomness is what makes most games fun and exciting to play, because if I didn't want any unpredictability at all, I'd just play Chess, Go or Amber.

Why not just give all PCs, as the "protagonists" of the "story", +100 HP at 1st level? Would it make the game more fun? Or would you think that it'd better if attacks and damage were static, too? Or, even better, what if all PCs (as the protagonists) would get a +20 modifier to their static attacks and monsters/NPCs just +10? Again, would it make the game more fun from a player's perspective? If not for anything else, these suggestions *would* remove most of the randomness in combat, and more or less ensure that the PCs always win.

Death is part of the game, in my opinion. Even TPKs. If it's all about fun and tactics and eliminating randomness and "unfair" elements, I fear we may see things I suggested above in 5E. Would do you think -- would it be a step forward or backward in game design?

 

[Spatula]

I may be the only one on this forum, but I see static HPs being rather boring... no variance (except between the number added by your Con score, which would amount to 5-10 HPs in most cases anyway) in HPs between PCs or monsters of equal level and class/role.

Static HP (and point-buy ability generation) are boring and cookie-cutter... but they're also easy to balance. Random generation is fun, keeps things interesting, and so on, except not so much if you're the one stuck with the bad rolls, playing next to someone with all the good rolls. It works for one-off games, or those where you are otherwise not very attached to your character. It's not so great for long term games, unless the DM protects the players from their own luck (for example, letting them roll ability scores / HP until they get decent results). And if that's the case, you might as well give the players what you want them to have anyway.

 

[The Little Raven]

I don't want a ranged striker, I'm asking how it makes any kind of sense that a rogue can sneak attack with a crossbow but not a bow - assuming that there is some way for a rogue to learn how to use a bow. Furthermore, "sneak attack with bow" isn't a power, "sneak attack (w/ ranged weapon)" is, and the rogue can already do that, unless crossbows and slings are now melee weapons.

If you don't want a ranged striker, then why does the rogue need a bow?

 

[The Little Raven]

Random generation is fun...

....for you. You are not everyone. Randomly generating a substandard character is not fun for me or anyone else I know.

 

[mach1.9pants]

....for you. You are not everyone. Randomly generating a substandard character is not fun for me or anyone else I know.

Random generation gives you a good bit of suspense when you roll. But when your fighter rolls (at level 1) 3 HP then 1+1+1 at subsequent levels, it really does suck IMO.
Yes I have done that and had it enforced in my first long term BECMI DnD game.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well it will probably be a pretty easy thing to houserule if you really want it.

6 HP per level = roll d6 per level

8 HP per level = roll d8 per level

 

[shilsen]

Yet I think that a certain amount of randomness is what makes most games fun and exciting to play, because if I didn't want any unpredictability at all, I'd just play Chess, Go or Amber.

Just as a certain amount of randomness contributes to fun, a certain amount of non-randomness also contributes to the fun. After all, I presume in your campaigns the PCs start the same session at the same level. Having each player roll 1d20 to decide his PC's starting level would definitely add to the randomness, but do you think that would improve the game? I presume not. Every player and DM has a different amount of randomness which helps the game for them and going beyond which would hurt the game. And that also varies from point to point in the game, so whereas someone might be happy with a lot of randomness in combat, they might not want much randomness in character creation. That's not too difficult to understand, is it?