Combat tweaks I would like to see.

What do you think?

  • Love it

    Votes: 3 7.9%
  • like the idea but not for me

    Votes: 3 7.9%
  • dont like it but wouldnt be a deal breaker

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • gack this sucks, trash it now!!!!

    Votes: 29 76.3%
  • Just as good as HP, no big deal either way.

    Votes: 2 5.3%

boredgremlin

Banned
Banned
Okay now before I start let me just say that I figure all the "one edition to unite them all" line is just marketing fluff and they are actually trying to improve the game rather then just scratch a bunch of nastalgia itches.

I also have 0 respect for sacred cows and I dont think a huge percentage care that much about them either, and new players dont even know what they are much less care about them. So they arent part of my consideration.

HP

Inspired by the HP debates what i would like to see is starting HP equals size + con modifier. Giants should be able to take the sort of punishment that would squash any man flat. That just seems logical no matter how you look at HP.

So medium size should get 12, large 24, huge 36, giant 48, and so on and so on. And small should get 6, tiny 3, and fine 1.
Going up in level should add a very small number of HP. 1 for casters, 2 for stealthy types, 3 for semi combatants and 4 for warriors.

When you get to 0hp you can act at a penalty -2, -4, whatever, doesnt really matter because if you choose to act with the sort of serious injury you have when you have 0hp you take an additional pt of damage.

When you hit negative HP equal to your size +Con modifier your dead.

Healing magic/

Heals a number of HP set by the recipient, not the caster. Cure light might heal 1pt per target level while cure serious heals 4pts per target level for instance.

That way the fact that 1 HP means something different to a 1st level fighter and a 10th level fighter is modeled better.


HP per level optional module
I give 1-4. Those numbers could be doubled or tripled to reduce lethality. Curative magic should be increased at the same rate. More heroic campaign? double HP and healing. Supers campaign? 3X them.


ATTACKING
Attack rolls should be opposed. Roll them both at the same time and it doesnt slow down the game one bit and gives more of a feel of a duel. I've done this for years and it increases the drama in every fight.

On that line allow players to either parry or dodge based on whats best for them for average attacks. Parry being an opposed att roll and dodge being a reflex type of save.

Let the reflex save bonus for quick classes go up at the same rate as ATT bonus for martial classes, BUT limit dodges to 1 per round while parries are unlimited.

Make some attacks only dodge-able. Titans greatsword, fireball, flying boulder? Dodge only.

STR adds to damage only. Not to hit rolls.



Optional Fluidity of combat rule
Dodge rolls can require room to actually get out of the way so that a character must be able to move 5ft in any direction into an unoccupied square. If thats not an option then the character must parry or suffer full damage.

DAMAGE/CRITS

Get rid of critical hits as they are. Every 2 pts an attacker beats the defender by ads 1 pt of damage to the attack.

Armor/
Should be DR. Shields should add to parry rolls. Base armor DR is the same as the Armor bonuses in 3e. 1-9, add magical bonuses. Shields can add 1-4 plus magical bonus.

OPTIONAL RULES MODULES

Crits/
I give 1pt of bonus damage per 2 pts over the defenders parry or dodge roll. For more lethality you could go 1/1 or for less 1/3 or 1/4. However swingy and potentially dangerous you want a good hit to be.

You can keep the "nat 20 is special" idea by allowing a natural 20 to count as a 20 AND give a reroll to add to that 20. Although i have had mixed results with that.

DR/
Armors DR could be increased or you could add a characters base CON modifier to DR to show inherent toughness.


Size/
To make large monsters scarier you could add a size mod to damage. Maybe +2 or even +4 per size difference between attackers. Do not reduce damage for smaller attackers however. A child stabbing you in the gut is just as bad as a grown up doing it.


From play observations.

I have used something pretty similar for a long time and its worked pretty well. Big things are scary, quick guys are hard to hit as long as they are 1 on 1 and can move, a high level fighter is hard to touch by rookies and mowes them down like grass.

One of my favorite aspects though is its effect on coup de grace type attacks. A helpless target is helpless, no roll so assume a 0 on the opposed roll. I had a rogue/assassin for a while that loved to sneak up on people and use the effect to cut a throat because he could regularly deal 20-30 damage with a dagger even at low level against unsuspecting enemies.

It makes every 1 one 1 fight feel like a duel. Which has led to pretty cool feeling fights. And it makes taking on multiple opponents truly dangerous with a really heroic feel after winning. Who remembers in Last Samurai when Tom Cruise slow motion killed the guys jumping him in the alley and being left with that "holy :):):):) I'm alive" look even though he was a total badass compared to them individually? I like that feel to a fight.

Its grittier base and you have to rewrite spell damages, but since they are making a whole new edition that will probably force them to redo a bunch of spells anyway thats not a big deal.

But what i really like best about it is that you can completely model it to make it as gritty or heroic as you want for an individual campaign. Without
changing any of the base mechanics, just switching out a few integers.

Now granted its somewhat swingier. Although Armor as DR mitigates that a lot. So you probably dont want to run this if your going with the typical 4-6 nearly equal strength to the party encounters a day unless you dont mind more dead characters then normal.

However since thats kind of silly anyway you can use this to encourage players to use strategy to minimize fair fights with bad guys and make the ones that happen that much more dramatic and dangerous. Sort of like real life or death fights.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Interesting, and I do agree to the point that all armor should come in the form of DR, not just higher AC, but I think overall it's too complex for my tastes. I don't mind some more complexity to these systems, but it's just a bit too much for my tastes.

I do like size mod for extra health, at least at starting level, though to be fair it should probably be a more exponential curve than a linear one. A Colossal Dragon is going to have significantly more than 5x a Large Giant's base health, I mean the creature would have legs alone bigger than that giant.
 

I was thinking the same thing about size at first too but I was worried about the numbers getting a little too ginormous. If it doubled every time for instance and you start with 12 for medium (for simplicity when shrinking size) then you wind up with a colossal dragon having 384 HP without CON or HD bonuses.

If you had the HD and CON bonus before multiplying it can easily have 1,000 hp and if you add them after they seem kind of meaningless compared to size.

I was trying to avoid either extreme.
 

I like your ideas and I'd like to see them incorporated in some mod for D&D Next. Personally, I like the idea of opposed rolls and less hp, but I'm not sure that that is D&D. I'd like to try it as an option. DR should be in the game as a passive defense too. (It reminds me of the old Fantasy Trip RPG and then GURPS - Steve Jackson products).

The hp for size rule could definitely be part of the core.
 

Cool. "Is D&D" is always something I find to be a head scratcher personally though.

To me D&D is sitting around with friends and telling a group story about ransacking things in a fantasy world with dice rolling to determine outcomes where random luck or character rather then player skill influences what happens.

I dont even really need magic for it be "D&D" for me. I was in a D20 modern game once that was basically the X-files as a campaign and I never felt that it wasnt D&D. I prefer it with magic and monsters as common place but if the stories good and the fights are hard and interesting thats all that really matters to me.
 

Cool. "Is D&D" is always something I find to be a head scratcher personally though.

To me D&D is sitting around with friends and telling a group story about ransacking things in a fantasy world with dice rolling to determine outcomes where random luck or character rather then player skill influences what happens.

I dont even really need magic for it be "D&D" for me. I was in a D20 modern game once that was basically the X-files as a campaign and I never felt that it wasnt D&D. I prefer it with magic and monsters as common place but if the stories good and the fights are hard and interesting thats all that really matters to me.

Well, see, for me (and I guess a lot of people), D&D is not simply a generic term for fantasy role-playing (or just a role-playing game). It's a specific sort of game with a specific feel and specific tropes.

Rather than have D&D turn into any one of the other 100s of fantasy role playing games, I'd rather have D&D stay D&D.

What you describe as wanting (and many people in the big hit point thread) is very similar to the system used in the original RuneQuest, or Chaosium's Basic Role Playing System. Why not simply just play that? It's been around for almost as long as D&D
 

Your poll options don't account for "I like a little of this but dislike much of it".

I do like the healing magic suggestion (though I'd use different numbers), but most of the rest would complicate the game and/or slow play and/or are just a change for taste rather than an actual improvement to the game, IMHO.
 


Your poll options don't account for "I like a little of this but dislike much of it".

I do like the healing magic suggestion (though I'd use different numbers), but most of the rest would complicate the game and/or slow play and/or are just a change for taste rather than an actual improvement to the game, IMHO.

LOL your right i should have included something like that. My first poll. Next time i will.

Oh and i never played runequest guys, sounds good though.

When it comes to the things that are D&D tropes to people I think thats where WoTC has gotten into trouble. 1e and 4e are basically completely different games. Theres a few similar names but other then rolling a D20 for lots of stuff how much do they really have in common mechanically? Not too much IMO.

3e was closer to 2e and probably closer to 4e then 4e is to 1e (geez thats a tongue twister) but now 5e is supposedly trying to bring them all together.

4e made a lot of people angry because they changed so much from 3e. I remember 3e making some people angry because it was so much more complicated then 2e and some stuff just felt weird in comparison.

Maybe thats a poll we need to see. What actually IS a D&Dism?

Iconic classes? They change all time.
Races? 4e added to that with decidedly mixed results among the gaming community.
the 6 ability scores? Thats probably safe to assume.

HP? A 4e guy starts out with almost as many HP as a 1e cleric MAXES out at. And anyway UA had variants and I believe a 4e book did as well.

Vancian magic? Lots of people hate it, 4e changed it, lots of people hated that too, 5e means to change it back and no one seems overly thrilled by that either.

So what actually IS a necessary D&Dism to everyone is probably the most important question for a new edition. And oddly, the only one they dont seem to have bothered to ask yet.
 

You've got some good stuff there. Some I really like, some I'm just kind of meh about, and some I'd probably not want. But really good ideas. I'm going to save this thread so I can mine it for ideas for my own houserules.

However, I didn't vote either, as it was pretty much an all or nothing Poll. Not very well thought out IMO.

Also...

...let me just say that I figure all the "one edition to unite them all" line is just marketing fluff and they are actually trying to improve the game rather then just scratch a bunch of nostalgia itches.

Why are these mutually exclusive goals?:erm:

I also have 0 respect for sacred cows and I dont think a huge percentage care that much about them either, and new players dont even know what they are much less care about them. So they arent part of my consideration.

I respect your preference towards sacred cows, it's as valid a preference as anybody elses. However, you do make some statements here that are not accurate.

First of all, the majority of potential customers do not play the current edition. Not only is that a significant percentage that does like sacred cows, it's a larger percentage than those who play the current edition.

Secondly, designing a game with the sole goal of appealing to new gamers is one that has already proven a failure. That was one of the primary goals of the current edition. One that was so successful it will be the edition with the shortest period of publication and support of all D&D editions ever.

:erm:
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top