The "modernizing" changes they made going from 2E to 3E brought a lot of people back into the D&D fold -- many who'd left gaming for awhile, and many who'd left D&D for other games. And I think the designers have already stated that they wanted to clean up the game even more, but they were scared to change too many sacred cows. Once the game was so well-received, they realized they might have been able to get away with a bit more.
Banishing "Sacred Cows"
- Thread starter saersan
- Start date
Joshua Dyal said:
Very simple - Because there are only so many pages in the book, and only so much time in which to create and playtest systems.
The DMG isn't a small book - it already took a lot of space to get across the things the standard game needs. Adding an exhaustive list of options wouldn't be practical. It would be too large, taken too much time, used too many people, and sold for too much.
It was mentioned a few posts earlier that raising AC to make dodging more realistic instead of using "missed me" HP would not bog down the combat. This is true, but I'll tell you right now that it would make it damn boring. I don't care how much suspense there is in knowing who gets the first (and probably the most telling) blow, if your high-level fighter never hits, you get bored.
I think the sacred cows should stay for the most part, although I AM in favour of a limited feat-based progression as long as those feats are actually more like the rogue's Special Abilities: unique to one or two classes, and slightly more extreme than feats, not necessarily in power, but certainly in flavour
Other changes that need to be made, IMHO, are to the spell system and to the ranger. Monte Cook's ranger seems excessive to me, and I would MUCH rather use Wheel of Time's woodsman class, which is much closer to the image of ranger I have in my mind. The channeling system of WoT adds flexibility at the cost of danger to self, which is great. Also, the spells are much less overwhelmingly powerful, which is balanced by some channelers getting d6 HD.
Oh yes, and one of WoT's greatest innovations: THE INTERMEDIATE SAVING THROW. Starts at +1 at level one, ends at +9 at level 20. It seems so intuitive that I can't fathom why it wasn't used before.
I think the sacred cows should stay for the most part, although I AM in favour of a limited feat-based progression as long as those feats are actually more like the rogue's Special Abilities: unique to one or two classes, and slightly more extreme than feats, not necessarily in power, but certainly in flavour
Other changes that need to be made, IMHO, are to the spell system and to the ranger. Monte Cook's ranger seems excessive to me, and I would MUCH rather use Wheel of Time's woodsman class, which is much closer to the image of ranger I have in my mind. The channeling system of WoT adds flexibility at the cost of danger to self, which is great. Also, the spells are much less overwhelmingly powerful, which is balanced by some channelers getting d6 HD.
Oh yes, and one of WoT's greatest innovations: THE INTERMEDIATE SAVING THROW. Starts at +1 at level one, ends at +9 at level 20. It seems so intuitive that I can't fathom why it wasn't used before.
Desdichado
Hero
Yeah, Psion, but that's why I didn't advocate getting rid of the sacred cows. Just providing optional rules via the DMG for playing without levels, hit points, classes, etc. They completely neglected to do this.
Is that really true? Other books in the line-up are bigger than the DMG. Not only that, IMO, they wasted a lot of time in the DMG giving all that dungeon stuff. I really have to wonder how many gamers really think of dungeons when they think of role-playing anymore. The industry has so moved away from that, that it's just a retro fetish these days to do dungeons. IMO.
Yeah, the Wheel of Time rules are great. I actually prefer them to D&D these days. Take out the campaign setting, and you've got yourself a ruleset! However, the magic, while really neat, is probably too specific to the campaign setting. I'd prefer a skills and feats type of spellcaster class similar to Star Wars or Sovereign Stone, personally.
Last edited:
And why would your high-level Fighter never hit? What, is there no continuum between always hitting and never hitting?
As I said in a previous discussion:
Right now, a 10th-level Fighter (79 hp) facing a Fire Giant can take about four shots (averaging 24 hp). Facing another 10th-level Fighter armed with a mundane bastard sword, he can take eight blows (1d10+5, averaging 10.5); versus a +1 sword he can take seven (1d10+6, averaging 11.5). Against a horde of 1st-level Warriors with spears, he can take countless hits -- 18 supposedly good shots (averaging 4.5).
If we halved the Fighter's Hit Points, he'd still be able to take two good shots from a 12-foot giant wielding a 12-foot sword -- or four good sword strokes from his equal, or nine spear thrusts from spear-carriers (who have a 1-in-20 chance of even hitting him). If we then make him twice as hard to hit, he's just as powerful as before, without all the hand-waving of hits that aren't hits, non-injuries that need healing, etc.
That's hardly the "wait for the crit" scenario painted as the only alternative to high-hp heroes. The brave Fighter hopes to slay the Fire Giant unscathed, but if he takes a hit, it really hurts. (Sounds right.) If he pairs off against his equal, he expects to take three or four good sword strokes before it's over, and he'll be sorely wounded -- but those blows won't all land in the first or second round. And he's still able to take an ungodly amount of punishment from the spear-carriers -- expecting 180 of their attacks before nine of them land and actually bring him down.
Or we could give everyone one Hit Point (or a single d4 Hit Die) and just ramp up their AC. That seems to be the Straw Man everyone's knocking down.
No, no, I don't mean such a drastic thing. But you would have to rework the entire damage and to hit ratings for basically everything to fix it the way you suggest. Because as it is, fights finish VERY quickly, despite the so-called excessive hit points.
With lower amounts of hit points, you would have to increase AC by a whole lot to compensate. THAT is why it becomes a swing-fest.
To be honest, I much preferred the idea to make HP a set number per level instead of dice. Add Con bonus, and it seems viable. Or even the race HP idea; I know it wouldn't work, but it's appealing.
All in all, though, I don't see what the big fuss is about HP. It's a time-tested system that seems to work pretty well, all things considered. And I'm afraid I don't see what's wrong with having small HP damage be little insignificant cuts instead of serious wounds. The characters can cast magic, which none of us can, so why can't they take hits better???
With lower amounts of hit points, you would have to increase AC by a whole lot to compensate. THAT is why it becomes a swing-fest.
To be honest, I much preferred the idea to make HP a set number per level instead of dice. Add Con bonus, and it seems viable. Or even the race HP idea; I know it wouldn't work, but it's appealing.
All in all, though, I don't see what the big fuss is about HP. It's a time-tested system that seems to work pretty well, all things considered. And I'm afraid I don't see what's wrong with having small HP damage be little insignificant cuts instead of serious wounds. The characters can cast magic, which none of us can, so why can't they take hits better???
I know what you mean, Joshua. I think WoT would work fine if it were possible to tinker with it in order to make some traditional D&D spells accessible to the system. The channeling in and of itself (as a mechanic, not a story element) would be great for an alternate sorcerer.
Personally, my goal is to make a non-epic spell seed system. I think having to make a Spellcraft check whenever you cast is cool, and makes sense. Of course, lower-level DCs would be low; I don't want to totally neuter spellcasters either.
Psion
Adventurer
Indeed it did. But the kinds of changes some people have suggested here -- basically, making the system into a psuedo-GURPS, would drive more people away than it would draw.
Emphasis on might have. But the question remains: if so, how much more could they have gotten away with?
I can definitely spot some things that are being widely clamored for (eliminating monk and paladin multiclassing restrictions, for example.) But some changes suggested would compromise the broad appeal of D&D, in my estimation. See Monte's article, referred to earlier, for many of these salient points.
Similar Threads
