An end to scry-buff-teleport?

[Rel]

So a zombie falling off a 100 foot cliff is unharmed?

As for lava, realistically speaking (yeah, big mistake!) lava is virtually as dense as stone. Sure, it's a liquid, but it is still stone, so falling into a lava pool wouldn't mean you sink to the bottom; you'd still be resting on the surface, sinking in only a small amount.

Of course you'd probably also be bursting into flames....

PROBABLY?!

 

[Henry]

So a zombie falling off a 100 foot cliff is unharmed?

That can be fixed... I'd move it to STR damage for undead, myself, since they don't have CONS - or leave it in, since they don't depend on internal organs and intact bones and ligaments to get around, anyway... Forcing people to systematically hack them apart to stop them.

 

[BryonD]

This is why I think that hazards in general should do CON damage, myself. Falling? CON. Lava? CON. Rock slide? CON. Steamroller or Robo-tree-cutter driven by a Goblin? Hit points. After all, if poison is supposed to screw up your immune system and resilience to bounce back from injury, then how much more would a 100 foot fall, or having your legs immersed in lava do the same thing?

My house rule is that falling still does 1d6 - 20d6. But all 1s are CON damage.
Seems to get a nice balance for me.

 

[Nebulous]

My house rule is that falling still does 1d6 - 20d6. But all 1s are CON damage.
Seems to get a nice balance for me.

That's pretty good. and the corresponding loss of CON equals the usual amount of hp loss on top of the d6 damage rolled?

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Okay. The surprise factor of that scene I get. And it is cool. But I've seen it in James Bond movies...and he doesn't have teleport.

That's because half of the fun of the Bond movie is seeing him accomplish the following prior to the "Throne Room" confrontation:

1) Drive a submarine car to a remote uncharted island.
2) Deactivate/Decoy permimeter defenses.
3) Incapacitate some inept guards with a judo chop to the neck.
4) Get captured by a larger force of inept guards.
5) Escape from a horribly elaborate death trap.
6) Sneak into the throne room.
7) Make a martini at the BBEG's wet bar.
8) Confront the BBEG.

The SBT tactic is like skipping to the end of a novel... you miss the story in between.

 

[Piratecat]

PROBABLY?!

Frankly, what we really need is some kind of d20 rules about lava.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Frankly, what we really need is some kind of d20 rules about lava.

Only if the lava lamp is a wondrous item.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

There is a suppliment that is coming out soon that will vastly simplify this lava issue. It's compatible with all editions of D&D including 4th.

Joke or serious?
{or in other words, link/news post?}

 

[Plane Sailing]

Frankly, what we really need is some kind of d20 rules about lava.

Well, it could provide a much needed distinction between AA and Pahoehoe for starters, and the basaltic vs igneous division seems like a foolish one to ignore. The big question to my mind is whether they would make pyroclastic clouds underpowered.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Please can the snarky comments with your "welcome to mid-high level D&D" cracks. Thanks.

Then I'd expect the same about the superfluous smileys and "most rediculous comments I've ever heard!"

What's good for the goose and all that.

I'll admit I have different esthetic sensibilities than some people. In my campaigns, the fighter didn't survive the Tarrasque stomping on his head. He didn't "endure the full brunt of the red dragon's fiery breath."

Hit points are an abstraction. They are not merely a measure of the character's ability to endure physical injury. A character who needs to cross a river of lava might be able to survive (with some hit point loss) but he most certainly didn't SWIM it. Similarly, if a d20 Modern character puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, he's DEAD or dying. Period. As they say, sometimes a dagger to the eye is a dagger to the eye.

There was more than a little hyperbole in the example I gave. It would be more accurate to how HP's are generally represented to say that if the fighter can turn the blow from a 30' tall lizard into a mere graze, he can probably avoid the worst of the lava damage, too.

Same in-character knowledge, different way of wording it.

I accept that your style is different than the style that D&D has encouraged in all of it's editions, but something you don't agree with isn't automatically "metagame." It could be flawed for a number of reasons, but treating statistics as character knowledge isn't one of the flaws.

That's in my world. And, as I noted by quoting the 1st Edition Dungeon Masters Guide, it's perfectly consistent with longtime perceptions of D&D. Gygax himself called it "unreasonable" and "preposterous." I said it was "ridiculous" and I stand by that for the same reasons Gary did. I wasn't trying to bait anybody, but I can't make the "increasing physical injury capacity" opinion make sense in my head.

If you're not trying to bait people, you could try not calling them unreasonable, preposterous, or ridiculous. Such insults are hardly unobtrusive.

You could also try using a criticism that actually applies. Not "metagame."

But play your game your way. If I have to houserule mine to get the game I want, I have no problem doing that. I'd rather not have to deliberately avoid an ambush tactic like S-B-T. People always seem to forget that the DM chooses NOT to do that BACK.

Do your PCs walk around with all those protections you mentioned up at all times? How would they feel if the BBEG dropped in on them when they were helpless or spent from a hard fight?

What's good for the goose and all that...

I didn't reveal at all how I play D&D. I just said that 4e should continue to have this strategy be a viable one. And I've said several times that I wouldn't mind in the slightest if it wasn't *as* viable (several of the limitations proposed in this thread, from lead and gorgon's blood and mythril circles to increased casting times to lightening up on the buffs are entirely decent). Because, in my mind, a game like D&D should never say "NO."

Individual DM's? Sure. The game itself making it more "interesting"? Absolutely. Removing the strategy entirely because some DM's can't be bothered to work around it? Lazy, limiting, and narrowminded, IMO.