Arcana Unearthed: Pro's and Con's

[Henry]

I can't speak for some of these, but I can speak for others...

Cyberpunk is considerably more lethal than D&D and you can't Raise Dead in that. Nor do you miss it.

Isn't there Braintaping and Cloning in Cyberpunk 2020? I don't know about the original, but the GURPS version does.

Shadowrun is considerably more lethal than D&D and you can't Raise Dead in that. Nor do you miss it.

Docwagon Gold. As long as you aren't vaporized, or clinically dead for more than a few minutes, I think Docwagon Gold handles you, by the rules. Of course, the contract cost is steep.

Twilight 2000 is considerably more lethal than D&D and you can't Raise Dead in that. Nor do you miss it.

Which is why I haven't played it since 1990 or so.

Call of Cthuhlu is considerably more lethal than D&D and you can't Raise Dead in that. Nor do you miss it.

There is a "Charles Dexter Ward" version of it, but overall, this is the only game I've yet seen where it isn't missed - because it's EXPECTED.

I, too, think D&D is too free with resurrections, especially with no consequences, but I also think that there are many games out there that have resurrections built in, they just don't call it that by name.

 

[Henry]

I also think that this thread needs to tone down the harsh words a little. I am glad that the previous argument settled down recently (kudoes to our excellent forum members!) but let's try to disagree more argeeably.

 

[Bagpuss]

I can't speak for some of these, but I can speak for others...

Isn't there Braintaping and Cloning in Cyberpunk 2020? I don't know about the original, but the GURPS version does.

Nope, at least not in the R.Talsorian stuff I have, there was a computer virus copyed your brain to the net before it killed your body, but that isn't going to help when you full of holes dead in the street.

Docwagon Gold. As long as you aren't vaporized, or clinically dead for more than a few minutes, I think Docwagon Gold handles you, by the rules. Of course, the contract cost is steep.

You still have a tough target number for stablization assuming they arrive in time, dead is still dead.

Which is why I haven't played it since 1990 or so.

Nothing to do with this being 2003 and its whole history being a bit of a joke now?

Never seen the point in raise dead myself, makes dice rolling pointless to me if you know you are effectively immortal.

 

[Felon]

Anyone else who wants to be able to cast a sorcerous blast "fireball" in AU needs to pay a feat - either 'Complex Spells (3rd level)', 'Energy Mage', or 'Elemental Mage'. Not everybody's going to want to do that - greenbonds and runethanes don't get any bonus feats making it a tough choice, and the mageblade has melee to keep up with as well.

Essentially, I'm worried that taking that feat becomes like 3e Haste--technically optional, and likely there's a mage or two out there not making the power play, but it's such a no-brainer choice that every caster you're likely to ever see has it written (or typed) on to their character sheet.

 

[Felon]

I can't speak for some of these, but I can speak for others...

Well, I think cataloguing how specific games handle death isn't as significant as noting that some RPG's assume that death is usually something permanent and irrevocable, and yet people still enjoy playing them.

Remember, the claim being disputed is that D&D is so lethal that some form of resurrection is without a doubt necessary. D&D is certainly not as lethal as most of those games Bagpuss and I listed.

As I played Cyberpunk (R. Talsorian brand), brain death equated to character death. Technology provided a GM mcguffin for resurrecting characters through means such as cloning, but it was pretty clear that characters were decidedly mortal. I believe the same goes for Shadowrun, although I haven't kept up with its latest versions.

As for CoC, I don't know if horror RPG's should really count. As you say, characters are expected to snuff it when they're confronted with monsters.

I, too, think D&D is too free with resurrections, especially with no consequences, but I also think that there are many games out there that have resurrections built in, they just don't call it that by name.

And I guess that's what lies at the heart of this discussion--not whether or not characters should have a way to cheat death (both heroes and villains do that all the time) but whether or not there should be a routine, repeat-n'-rinse formula that can be taken for granted. Give players a way to cheat death, but include that as something that adds to the action and excitement of the game, rather than something that diminishes it (as a Raise Dead spell does). I first said this a couple of pages back, and provided some examples of how magic could accomplish this .

I thought Monte's hero point system provided a perfectly elegant way to keep characters alive that obviated the need for ressurection spells. Take Aragorn surviving his fall into the river in The Two Towers. The character wants to spend a hero point to survive, and appeals to the GM. The GM says "Looks to me like you're one drowned ranger; tell me how the heck you could have survived." And the player now has to earn his resurrection by employing his grey matter and expending a precious hero point (which he only gets at DM discretion in the first place, and thus can't take for granted).

So, here's the part where I start running the AU campaign, and start doing the exact same thing I do with vanilla D&D--decide whether or not it's worth the trouble to excise the parts I don't like. There is one big difference though; if I find myself looking at remodeling large portions of AU, I might as well just go back to vanilla D&D. I bought AU to give new, innovative options, not the same old options warmed over.

 

[drnuncheon]

Essentially, I'm worried that taking that feat becomes like 3e Haste--technically optional, and likely there's a mage or two out there not making the power play, but every caster you're likely to ever see has it written (or typed) on to their character sheet.

I doubt it. I've seen plenty of casters who don't use fireballs in regular D&D, and I see no reason for AU to be different.

If every caster in every game uses fireballs, I have to wonder whether those DMs aren't lacking a bit in the variety of their tactical/combat settings. Maybe I have a different perspective because I've got a largely urban-based game where a fireball would be a Very Bad Idea...but that kind of variation is what makes for variation in tactics, isn't it?

The trick to avoiding one-trick ponies is not to be one yourself.

J

 

[Felon]

I doubt it. I've seen plenty of casters who don't use fireballs in regular D&D, and I see no reason for AU to be different.

Okay, clarify for me a bit here. So you've seen plenty of mages eschew fireball in favor of lower-damage, single-target ranged touch spells instead?

Granted, there's a certain margin of mages that are fans of utility spells like Fly or buffing spells like Haste. But for the pragmatic battlemage looking for direct damage it's pretty straightforward. He has to go with fireball at third. Even if it costs a feat, it's still one the best power plays out there for a character's sixth-level feat--if not the best.

If every caster in every game uses fireballs, I have to wonder whether those DMs aren't lacking a bit in the variety of their tactical/combat settings.

No, don't blame the DM's. Fireball is just quantifiably superior to most direct-damage spells. A lot of folks say there's a big danger in harming comrades, but the reality of it is that the pinpoint accuracy with with fireballs can be placed means that you can still safely target several opponents far more often than not. In fact, a melee character is often content to let himself be caught in the blast if it means that a mulititude of the opposition get burned too.

Maybe I have a different perspective because I've got a largely urban-based game where a fireball would be a Very Bad Idea...

Well, that could indeed make a big difference.

but that kind of variation is what makes for variation in tactics, isn't it?

To a certain degree, but as both a DM and player I find it a bit kludgey to have the battle settings constantly tinkered with so that characters are intentionally deterred from using optimal tactics.

 

[drnuncheon]

Okay, clarify for me a bit here. So you've seen plenty of mages eschew fireball in favor of lower-damage, single-target ranged touch spells instead?

No, I've seen them eschew it for summons, area-denial spells (stinking cloud), resource-denial spells (dispel magic), and force multipliers (haste, invisibility sphere) though - stuff that has a tactical impact for longer than the instant it takes for the fireball to go 'boom'.

But for the pragmatic battlemage looking for direct damage it's pretty straightforward. He has to go with fireball at third. Even if it costs a feat, it's still the power play.

Well, duh. Of course it's the best spell if you're only interested in what it's good at - that's a bit of a tautology, isn't it? But maybe I tend to run into people who are interested in playing things other than 'the blaster', I don't know.

Anyway, the only way you'll see 'everybody' taking the feat and using the spell is if 'everybody' is playing the 'pragmatic battlemage looking for direct damage'. And given the nature of, say, the greenbond and mageblade classes, they're less likely to go for that sort of thing than the magister.

To a certain degree, but as both a DM and player I find it a bit kludgey to have the battle settings constantly tinkered with so that characters are intentionally deterred from using optimal tactics.

Now that's just wacky - you assume that there is a set of "optimal tactics" that is good for all places and all opposing forces, when there is no such thing. Read any book on the subject. The opposition, the terrain, and the capabilities of your force are what determine 'optimal tactics', not just the last of those 3 elements.

J

 

[ascendance]

Yes, but you should take some pleasure in knowing that fireball--the attack spell that patently outclasses all of those low-damage single-target ranged touch spells--is not only still present in AU, but it's available to far more classes.

As a DM, I sure hope calling off initiatives in AU doesn't amount to one Sorcerous Blast coming out of the hopper after another. We'll see.

Fireball/Sorcerous Blast is highly overrated because of its area effect, its save, and its ability to be resisted by spell resistance. Of course, its upgunned a bit in AU simply because Improved Evasion is no longer around. Its also upgunned a bit because the caster can control the damage type.

That being said, there are far better (i.e. more abusable) spells that people can throw around, especially once they get 4th and 5th level spells. Especially in 3E... polymorph was really loads of fun, and you'd save your 3rd level spell slots for haste anyway.

However, if your fights consist of hordes of monsters throwing themselves at you, well, no wonder fireball seems really powerful.

Concerns about lethality will be answered in another message.

 

[ascendance]

Why?

Cyberpunk is considerably more lethal than D&D and you can't Raise Dead in that. Nore do you miss it.
Flashing Blades is considerably more lethal than D&D and you can't Raise Dead in that. Nore do you miss it.
Shadowrun is considerably more lethal than D&D and you can't Raise Dead in that. Nore do you miss it.
Twilight 2000 is considerably more lethal than D&D and you can't Raise Dead in that. Nore do you miss it.
Call of Cthuhlu is considerably more lethal than D&D and you can't Raise Dead in that. Nore do you miss it.
Insert none D20 system here is considerably more lethal than D&D and you can't Raise Dead in that. Nore do you miss it.

None of those games are more lethal than D&D.

In Shadowrun, its nigh impossible for someone to get a one-hit kill with a gun. I know, because I always play twinked Street Samurai. Usually, you'd incapacitate them first.

With the exception of CoC, there's very little Save or Die in any of those games (and even then, CoC has very little Save or Die... usually its just Die). And if you're dealing with something that forces you to Save or Die in CoC, you've done something very, very wrong. Like let Cthulhu awaken.

Also, at the low end, the starting character in every one of those games you mentioned (again, with the exception of CoC), is way more tough and competent than a starting D&D character, making death less likely.

In D&D, a 1st level mage has a good chance of getting killed by a housecat.

In D&D, a 1st level anything has a good chance of getting killed on a critical hit by virtually anything.

In D&D, a 5th level anything has a good chance of getting killed by the average fireball if he or she fails his save.

In D&D, a 10th level cleric can almost always force a character to save or die.

D&D is a very, very lethal game. Contrary to popular belief, hit points don't make a game any less lethal.