Certainly you could gain Hit Points and improve Defense. Also, you could start with some base number of Hit Points (Con or 10), so 2nd level wouldn't mean twice the Hit Points of 1st level. Further, you could even toss the notion of Hit Dice and gain Hit Points the same way you improve BAB, Saves, etc. -- as a set bonus.
Banishing "Sacred Cows"
- Thread starter saersan
- Start date
Hammerhead
Explorer
Renshai said:
Tell people to use Deathward, and similar spells. I saved my character a few deaths with that spell, and would have saved the wizard another 3 if he asked for it earlier.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If I wanted a more realistic system, I'd use something that produced somewhat more plausible results in the first place, rather than attempting to modify an almost completely fantastic (refering to the results) system to be more realistic. Many other games incorporate many, if not all, of the ideas mentioned here.
DnD should be like DnD, not like GURPS, or whatever other system.
However, many of the Sacred Cow spells should be altered, and I think the designers took the whole DnD = cool magic items idea a bit too far at higher levels. Non spell casters should be able to have better innate powers. Many of the ideas in the ELH could be adapted for lower level characters.
Oh, please, Psion. A Defense bonus of +1 AC is hardly "another layer of complication" compared to +3 hp. And it doesn't just "achieve the same thing"; it achieves the same level of heroism and combat prowess without the "wonkiness" of "missed me" Hit Points for hits that don't hit but need healing, etc.
Last edited:
Agreed. Once you have the Bonus Feat mechanism, use it! Most classes' Special Abilities could easily be Feats (in Feat Chains), and a Lawful Good Fighter with a Code of Honor who takes the Aura of Courage and Smite Evil Feats could meet the description of a Paladin (or whatever).
I started a thread on Monte's "Genius of D&D" essay awhile back.
In his conclusion, Monte states:
I think there's quite a bit to the idea that D&D arrived "firstest with the mostest" and has owned the niche it created ever since. For something like a game, particularly a complex game, finding other dedicated players who know the rules and want to play is a huge barrier to getting a game going. It's like plugging into a telephone or computer network; the biggest network will get bigger and bigger as more people join it rather than a "better" alternative with fewer members to connect to.
On levels, Monte says:
I won't deny that, but I do have to think there's more than one way to provide the "carrot on the stick". First, power-ups don't have to come in the form of levels. Picking up a Feat (Power Attack) and following a Feat chain (Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave) could easily serve the same purpose. So could Spells with chains of prereqs.
Then there's the fact that many power-ups in D&D aren't associated with levels at all but with magic items acquired as loot. As many people gloat over their hoard as over their level.
And then there are whole other genres of advancement: roleplaying rewards for having saved the princess, political power, etc. Owning a castle and ruling over the land could make quite a carrot.
I think D&D's levels are a bit too granular -- the jump is too big -- but I can see the advantage of meaningful jumps over incremental improvements. Again though, a Feat or Spell certainly seems significant and impressive.
The modern 3E notion of classes differs quite a bit from previous editions'.
True. If everyone has a clearly defined role, each member of the group should get a chance to shine.
Also true. Many alternatives to D&D didn't value simplicity, and that's a shame.
Monte explicitly states that "The Genius of D&D" isn't his doing, that it "has to do with the early days of the game's development, and nothing to do with 3rd Edition." Oddly then, his defense of classes rests on 3rd Edition's flexible classes and multiclassing.
D&D's reputation goes back to its 1st edition, and 1E clearly did have classes as straightjackets. Sure, you could make up a different backstory, but the difference between two 5th-level Fighters was negligible, and any two 5th-level Thieves had the same skills with the same emphases.
Even in 3E, many, many classes are surprisingly inflexible. Couldn't every class have used Bonus Feats instead of set Special Ability progressions?
One serious issue with classes (and levels), already mentioned, is the inflexibility. Another, especially now that we have easy access to multiclassing, is that the classes don't often encapsulate just related abilities. That warrior training grants extra Hit Points and an improved BAB surprises no one -- but any training grants extra Hit Points and improved BAB in D&D. High-level scribes and wizards fight dramatically better than their low-level counterparts, even if they aren't supposed to be great adventurers but just great scholars.
At any rate, the problem isn't classes so much as how classes have been implemented so far.
Monte seems to prop up a Straw Man in his defense of Hit Points:
The number one complaint about Hit Points from the beginning of time has never been their lack of complexity -- although that has come up. The chief complaint with Hit Points has always been that they increase way too fast to the point where they don't match reality -- or even the fantastic "reality" of epic heroes.
We all know the standard arguments:
"How can my Fighter take a dozen sword blows?"
"Oh, well, he's not actually hit just because he's, er, 'hit'"
"Huh?"
"Well, those hit points represent the fatigue of dodging blows and the minor scratches he takes as he rolls with attacks that would've skewered a 4-hit-point Commoner."
"Then why does he have to heal these hit points over days and weeks? And why doesn't a healing potion heal those little scratches? Or a healing spell?"
"Why don't you just play GURPS and leave us alone!"
What is true is that Hit Points are an easy-to-use mechanic, and many alternative games made it their priority to be as complex as possible -- all in the mistaken belief that complexity equals realism equals fun.
Monte complains about not hit-point damage systems:
From my experience, other game systems try to make combat super-deadly, in an effort to distinguish themselves from D&D.
What I find fascinating is Monte's support of Hit Points for scaling well, when, of course, they don't. Mundane attacks (1d8 swords and spears) just stop mattering at higher levels. We all know the pain of cornering a PC at sword point or surrounding him with crossbowmen only to either (a) institute rules that sidestep Hit Points to keep these attacks lethal, or (b) twist the rules/expectations of the game to make those crossbowmen Rogues with extra Sneak Attack damage, or (c) plead with the players to go along and pretend their characters are in fact threatened.
D&D has a tendency to scale everything together. Hit Points, Armor Class, Attack Bonus, and Damage all increase in almost lock-step, and low damage for a high-level monster is almost always very, very high damage for anyone except high-level heroes.
On Dungeons, Monte says:
I think we can all agree that dungeon-style adventuring is simple, lighthearted fun.
If I look back on my own early D&D days though, I can see that inexperienced DMs need help making the transition from mindless dungeons (a room full of Orcs, followed by a room full of Gnolls, followed by a room full of Bugbears) to sensible adventures.
Also, it's a shame that the rules clearly expect dungeon adventuring. Wizards are balanced for dungeon adventures. Their spell lists are almost all combat spells, and the limitations of their magic (N spells per day) really aren't very limiting at all -- except in a dungeon.
Lord Vangarel
First Post
That's exactly my gripe with hit points. They represent damage that isn't really supposed to be damage. By definition the healing spells shouldn't be required because the damage isn't real? If the damage is real then the high level character can absorb alot more actual damage than the commoner. I think the mechanic is good and shouldn't be replaced but hit points should come back alot faster unless real damage is inflicted. So how to inflict 'real' damage? One possibility I'm considering is that all damage is subdual unless a critical hit is scored. If a critical is scored then a special 'real damage' effect occurs.
Levels are great but some of the classes don't implement them well. Front loaded classes such as the Ranger are wrong. Also why should every Monk have the same abilities (anyone remember the 1st Edition Thief?).
Instant kill spells should allow saves. Harm is the often quoted killer spell example. 3E has balanced alot of the spells, go the whole way and finish the job.
My only other concern is potentially differing rules as high levels approach. Having spells in levels sets a straight jacket that hits problems at high levels. Sure for those that don't play that high it's great but for those that do the ELH introduces a different mechanic. Why? You spend years learning to play the game and then the designers say it doesn't work once you get past this point. Also the attacks and saves, they say that the reason they become standard for all classes is a character may make a difficult save on say Fortitude every time but have no chance with Willpower. I'd like a system where classes scale indefinately without requiring a different ruleset. It appears that they said ok, we're going to redesign D&D but we'll only consider it to 20th level. Then a couple of years later they say wow loads of people want to play higher level games but no one thought of that when the original rules were put together.
mmadsen said:
Hey, if someone else can dig up hoary old posts that should have died a natural death 20 years ago, I can do the same!
The Gettysburg Address, the hit point version
Two score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this Hobby, a new Ruleset, conceived in Wisconsin, and dedicated to the proposition that not all hit points are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that ruleset, or any ruleset so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here took massive damage that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, with positive and negative hit points, and -10 hit points, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or subtract more hit points. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say about hit points, but can never forget that actually they lost all their hit points here. It is for us, those who have hit points left, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the hit points remaining to us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of damage -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have lost their hit points in vain; that this nation shall have eight hours of rest and healing; and that this ruleset of hit points, by hit points, for hit points, shall not perish from the earth.
Similar Threads
