Falling from Great Heights

[JamesonCourage]

There are different kinds of fiction, that's for sure. In reallistic fiction, you shouldn't be able to kill 12 guys with crossbows. However, in realistic fiction, you shouldnt be able to kill a dragon either. Becouse, otherwise, that implies that 12 guys with crossobows can kill a dragon.

No, it doesn't. I addressed this earlier, too:

More attacks to defend against. Going up against a tank is bad, but I don't feel too good when twelve guys in a semicircle confront me with guns drawn. If I'm very skilled and well equipped, I have a better chance against the tank.

Not if their weapons aren't effective against the dragon.

No matter what your feelings on the film are, take the movie DragonHeart (personally, I love me some Sean Connery dragon): in that, the dragon and the dragon-slayer fake out towns by having the dragon attack and the dragon-slayer "kill" it. This works a few times, but then the dragon falls into a lake and can't sink, and flies away before the villagers can eat him. They then turn as a mob to chase the dragon-slayer, who runs, because a mob will kill him (just like they killed the previous king).

A mob of humans is dangerous to humans. A storm of arrows may not even pierce the dragon's hide (via damage reduction, for example). This means that strong warriors (like a mounted knight with a lance) could pierce the hide of the dragon, but a town couldn't (thus the need for adventurers, courageous knights, etc.).

Even in the last LotR movie, Gandolf seems to think he's about to die while fighting troops, and that's after he's defeated the Balrog and came back even more powerful than before.

When Strider is tracking the hobbits down with Gimli and Legolas, they get surrounded by mounted riders. Sure, Legolas could have gotten a shot off first, but they were obviously in a terrible situation.

Jamie Lannister, basically the best swordsman around, is overwhelmed by troops and captured.

When Rand al'Thor is training against four men, he gets on hit on each, but the last one hits him in the head. He routinely takes on the Forsaken.

This is not uncommon by any means in fantasy.

In Wheel of Time, Lan -arguably the best warrior in the series- can take on like eight guys at once, and win, but he's hurt at the end. Earlier, Galad is able to cut his way through an angry mob without spilling blood on his clothes.

Strider is able to take the entire group of ring-wraiths at the same time, but has to get hauled up from the bridge with Gimli before he gets overrun, even though only a limited number of enemies can reach him at once.

And, as I've pointed out, the Song of Ice and Fire series is even more brutal when treating how dangerous "mook" characters are. You get surrounded by them, you basically lose.

Conan is knocked out by tripping a couple of times. Yet, he can kill a gorilla-monster in one hit that would tear his limbs off if it reached him.

I think that characters can most certainly take on big bad monsters and still feel intimidated and threatened by twelve guys with crossbows. I designed my system with that in mind, in fact.

D&D is a game with a fiction that states that people can kill dragons, fighters can grapple bears, and clerics can pray for miracles. You are asking for something that goes against the very foundation of the game: the leveling system. You start fighting kobolds, and finish killing Balors.

I want you to be able to do that in D&D, too.

Yup, it is possible to make characters that fear a patrol of random militia with crossbows. But the cost of that, is being unable to beat dragons, demons and hydras. I doubt it is the path that WotC is going to take.

I disagree. See my quotes above for my reasoning on why that is. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Jameson Courage - your idea would only work in D&D if we ejected scaling hit points in favor of something like Savage World's wound system. As it stands, a dragon has 100+ HP and an AC in the stratosphere and damage potential to match.

It's not that the PC's can kill the dragon. That's not really the issue. It's that the PC's can stand in front of the dragon, trading blows for several rounds. That's the issue. In order for the mooks to be able to threaten the PC's, they have to have a chance of hitting and a damage output comparable to the dragon (or whatever big arsed monster you want to name).

If the mooks have an attack bonus that cannot reasonably hit the PC's, deal out individual damage that is more or less ignorable by the PC's, then they are never, ever going to be a credible threat to those PC's.

Housecats, while capable of harming 1st level wizards and peasants, really can't hurt a 10th level character. Even a dozen cats can't. The scale is the same for mooks and high level PC's. The mooks just can't hurt the high level PC's.

Now, you have a couple of choices here. You can simply roll with it and go on. Or you can change the mooks into credible threats. What you can't do is play the game by the book and expect a bunch of 3rd level warriors to present a credible threat to a 15th level party.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Jameson Courage - your idea would only work in D&D if we ejected scaling hit points in favor of something like Savage World's wound system.

Not familiar with the wound system, but I think D&D could handle this via damage reduction alone, especially if the PCs had a particular way to bypass it (higher damage, magic weapons, whatever).

If the mooks have an attack bonus that cannot reasonably hit the PC's, deal out individual damage that is more or less ignorable by the PC's, then they are never, ever going to be a credible threat to those PC's.

Agreed. I'm hoping the focus on "flatter math" helps here.

Housecats, while capable of harming 1st level wizards and peasants, really can't hurt a 10th level character. Even a dozen cats can't. The scale is the same for mooks and high level PC's. The mooks just can't hurt the high level PC's.

As I've said, I understand how it works currently. I'd prefer an alternative, even if it's not the base assumption.

Now, you have a couple of choices here. You can simply roll with it and go on. Or you can change the mooks into credible threats. What you can't do is play the game by the book and expect a bunch of 3rd level warriors to present a credible threat to a 15th level party.

... you can if the books provide for that via alternate rules, which is what I'm asking for. As always, play what you like

 

[triqui]

No, it doesn't. I addressed this earlier, too:

But it didn't make that much sense, imho.

Originally Posted by JamesonCourage
More attacks to defend against. Going up against a tank is bad, but I don't feel too good when twelve guys in a semicircle confront me with guns drawn. If I'm very skilled and well equipped, I have a better chance against the tank.

So fighting a 12 headed hydra is fair game, but fighting 12 bamdits with short swords is not. Same goes with fighting two manticores (who shoot 6 spikes each). Your hero can, at proper level, face and defeat 2 giant monsters with lion bodies and old man heads that shoot 12 spikes per turn, but he should die to 12 commoners who bought a crossbow.

I guess you can build a game like that. But it really does not hold any sense.

Not if their weapons aren't effective against the dragon.

No matter what your feelings on the film are, take the movie DragonHeart (personally, I love me some Sean Connery dragon): in that, the dragon and the dragon-slayer fake out towns by having the dragon attack and the dragon-slayer "kill" it. This works a few times, but then the dragon falls into a lake and can't sink, and flies away before the villagers can eat him. They then turn as a mob to chase the dragon-slayer, who runs, because a mob will kill him (just like they killed the previous king).

A mob of humans is dangerous to humans. A storm of arrows may not even pierce the dragon's hide (via damage reduction, for example). This means that strong warriors (like a mounted knight with a lance) could pierce the hide of the dragon, but a town couldn't (thus the need for adventurers, courageous knights, etc.).

That might be valid for a dragon's corner case. What about giants? Manticores? evil wizards?

In Wheel of Time, Lan -arguably the best warrior in the series- can take on like eight guys at once, and win, but he's hurt at the end. Earlier, Galad is able to cut his way through an angry mob without spilling blood on his clothes.

Strider is able to take the entire group of ring-wraiths at the same time, but has to get hauled up from the bridge with Gimli before he gets overrun, even though only a limited number of enemies can reach him at once.

And, as I've pointed out, the Song of Ice and Fire series is even more brutal when treating how dangerous "mook" characters are. You get surrounded by them, you basically lose.

Conan is knocked out by tripping a couple of times. Yet, he can kill a gorilla-monster in one hit that would tear his limbs off if it reached him

The problem, then, is that you are looking into level 6 or less characters. Strider is level 6, not more. He could NOT defeat a Balor (balrog). Not even close. He could not even defeat a BABY troll on his own. He needed a party, and they got beated in the process. He was able to scare a few nazguls, becouse he had a Plot Device to do so. If you want to see a high level warrior in Tolkien's books, what about Fëanor, who could defeat a platoon of Balrogs. Do you thing 20 orcs with crossbows could defeat Fëanor? Do you think 20 orcs with bows could have killed Glorfindel as they killed Boromir?

The Song of Ice and Fire is even lower level. A single frozen zombie almost kill an entire garrison. A dragon would kill all the heroes in the novel, together. Sure they can't beat a group of guards. They couldn't beat a Manticore either.

Conan defeat giant apes all the time. But dire apes are like CR 6 or so. Conan could not defeat an ancient Red Dragon, by any means.

If you want to see high level fighters, those who can defeat dragons, hydras and demons, you should take a look to Cuchulain, Beowulf, Sigfrid, Hercules or Achilles. Those beat dragons, hydras and demons. But they can defeat a patrol of guards too. Cuchulain defeated an entire army once. Achiles did too (and he wasn't invulnerable by then). Hercules breached the walls of Troy and sieged the city alone, before they managed to calm his anger.

THOSE are the equivalent of your 14th level D&D fighter. If you want to reproduce the feeling of Lord of the Rings or Conan, I suggest you to use E6 rules, where the level advancement is limited to level 6. Because it really does not make any sense that a regular fighter can survive/dodge 12 spike shots from two manticores, but can't survive/dodge 12 goblins with shortbows. It does not make any sense that a fighter can survive a Wyvern's poisoned sting, but he can't survive a regular run-o-mill cup of poison.

 

[Balesir]

Not familiar with the wound system, but I think D&D could handle this via damage reduction alone, especially if the PCs had a particular way to bypass it (higher damage, magic weapons, whatever).

I don't think the core problem with this particular scenario is the degree of damage, per se - it's more the area effects. If a fireball won't wipe out city guards, what's it for? Clearing rats from basements?

As I've said, I understand how it works currently. I'd prefer an alternative, even if it's not the base assumption.

If an alternative is intended to change the nature of the game, why would it be best placed as a "module" within the same game? This is what I don't understand - if folks want two (or more) different games, why in tarnation try to shoehorn them all into one, overarching system? Didn't Sauron try that trick? I seem to recall it didn't work out too well...

Added: It's not even like GURPS - GURPS is set up to play fundamentally the same game with different backdrops and conceits. The core of GURPS is (intentionally, as far as I can see) essentially the same regardless what setting you use. Is this another example of using the same words for different concepts, maybe? When we say "different game styles", I see GURPS as generally supporting one game style, not several.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But it didn't make that much sense, imho.

That may be so. I'm not trying to change your mind, just tell you what I want and how I see things.

So fighting a 12 headed hydra is fair game, but fighting 12 bamdits with short swords is not. Same goes with fighting two manticores (who shoot 6 spikes each).

If they have just as many attacks from different angles as 12 crossbowmen, then it should probably be just as hard to defend against.

Your hero can, at proper level, face and defeat 2 giant monsters with lion bodies and old man heads that shoot 12 spikes per turn, but he should die to 12 commoners who bought a crossbow.

I guess you can build a game like that. But it really does not hold any sense.

I wouldn't want it to work that way. If the monster is making just as many attacks as 12 crossbowmen, then, again, make it just as hard to defend against.

That might be valid for a dragon's corner case. What about giants? Manticores? evil wizards?

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I think 12 crossbowmen should be dangerous to an evil wizard, as well as things that don't have the necessary natural defenses. That could apply to giants, manticores, etc. If you want giants to be immune to crossbow bolts, put them in heavy armor and give them a very thick hide. Give manticores a very thick, plated skin. If they don't have that type of skin, then yes, make them vulnerable to crossbow bolts.

The problem, then, is that you are looking into level 6 or less characters. Strider is level 6, not more. He could NOT defeat a Balor (balrog). Not even close. He could not even defeat a BABY troll on his own. He needed a party, and they got beated in the process. He was able to scare a few nazguls, becouse he had a Plot Device to do so. If you want to see a high level warrior in Tolkien's books, what about Fëanor, who could defeat a platoon of Balrogs. Do you thing 20 orcs with crossbows could defeat Fëanor? Do you think 20 orcs with bows could have killed Glorfindel as they killed Boromir?

If you want to reproduce the feeling of Lord of the Rings or Conan, I suggest you to use E6 rules, where the level advancement is limited to level 6.

Once again, I'm not trying to say "the game doesn't function this way past a certain level." I'm saying "while I know the game functions this way past a certain level, I'd like an option to avoid that, if possible." That's all. You don't need to prove to me that more powerful warriors exist. I know that. My point is that fantasy is filled with examples where badass people can be defeated by mundane threats, and that I'd like that type of game to be able to be modeled at all levels. And with the stated goals of 5e, I think that's a fair request. As always, play what you like

I don't think the core problem with this particular scenario is the degree of damage, per se - it's more the area effects. If a fireball won't wipe out city guards, what's it for? Clearing rats from basements?

Here's the thing, though: just because 12 crossbowmen are a threat to the wizard, it doesn't mean the wizard needs to be impotent against them. Sure, maybe he can kill all of them with one spell. But, if they get the drop on him, ready an action to shoot if he's hostile, and order him to surrender, I want to be able to play the game in such a way where that threat carries some weight mechanically.

If an alternative is intended to change the nature of the game, why would it be best placed as a "module" within the same game? This is what I don't understand - if folks want two (or more) different games, why in tarnation try to shoehorn them all into one, overarching system?

This is, effectively, the stated goal of 5e. "Want to play your game this way? We've got support for this style of play. Want to play your game that way? We've got support for that style of play." The hour-long Q&A video touches on it, where they talk about modules for indie-style play where players have a lot of narrative power, etc. They're talking about modules for changing the nature of the game, and, with that in mind, I'm saying what I'd like to see.

Added: It's not even like GURPS - GURPS is set up to play fundamentally the same game with different backdrops and conceits. The core of GURPS is (intentionally, as far as I can see) essentially the same regardless what setting you use. Is this another example of using the same words for different concepts, maybe? When we say "different game styles", I see GURPS as generally supporting one game style, not several.

I don't think that's 5e's goal. Like I said, if they plan on being able to institute a "indie-style" game module, I think they're planning on supporting massive shifts in the "nature of game" via modules. I think, as of this point, it's fair to bring up one of my preferences.

I don't even want to play this all the time, mind you, but I like this sort of game quite a bit (just as I also like low-magic settings quite a bit). But, from time to time, I do like being able to be the guy that laughs and beats the 10 evil guards who try to imprison him. And, as far as D&D goes, I expect that to be the norm. But, since they're trying to be so diverse via modules, I feel absolutely in line by stating what I'd like to see. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

My point was that he didn't cross the broken glass lightly. He saw the only way out, and then saw the glass, and you could almost hear the "Oh s@*&". In the end, he gritted his teeth and made his escape. I have absolutely no problem with this, and even expect it in heroic portrayal. It's almost a definition of hero, to appraise a situation as dangerous, but to forge ahead anyway, even at great self-cost, because it has to be done.

What I would like out of my gaming sessions, whether D&D or not, is for that kind of 'realistic thought' to transfer into the characters as they're portrayed.

By framing it this way I think you make the design challenge clear - if the players know that they have the mechanical resources (be they hp, fate points, whatever) to permit their PCs to sruvive crossing the glass, then why are they going to say "Oh s@*&"?

I can think of two possible answers.

(1) The players add colour to their roleplay that the mechanics don't support, and that is to some extent at odds with the mechanics. I personally have zero interest in that sort of RPGing - I want the mechanics to matter, otherwise why have them? - but I think some people expect and want players to play like this.

(2) The mechanics give the players a reason to say "Oh s@*&". Now, given that we know the PCs are going to survive the glass, the reason can't be that crossing the glass will hurt the PCs. So it has to be some other reason - for example, every time the players play a fate point, the GM gets to amp up some other threat further ahead in the game. Or even Dread's Jenga-style approach - you can cross the glass, but you have to pull, and if the tower crashes then something bad happens to your PC. Or maybe crossing the glass uses up a valuable encounter power (I'm thinking of something analogous to the 10th level utility Fighter's Grit), making you worried about how you might handle what is coming down the line.

[MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s story above is a good one for this: the ranger PC jumps over the cliff to fight the demons, but lands with only 25 hit points. That's taking a risk, that might make you go "Oh s@*&", even though you know your PC will survive the fall.

Anyway, these are the sorts of mechanics that I prefer - mechanics that get the players saying "Oh s@*&" because they set clear and meaningful stakes that the players actually care about (rather than requiring the players to pretend to care about something that the mechanics in fact make irrelevant).

I don't get the just play a different game attitude. DnD is a fantasy RPG it should if well written allow more than one play style.

Why? I don't know of any other game that handles multiple play styles well. Try playing space opera with Traveller. Try playing heroic fantasy with Runequest (or Basic D&D, for that matter!).

I mean, any system has a bit of wriggle room, and with some clever/subtle houseruling plus a bit of squinting mixed in with a bit of social contract can do different things. I discovered, for example, that it is not that hard to push Rolemaster to support a less gritty and more character-focused vanilla narrativist playstyle, if everyone at the table is prepared to let some subsystems go, and to treat other aspects of the system in a certain light.

But I think it is pretty optimistic to expect one system to do (for example) both Runequest and Epic tier 4e. (HeroWars/Quest can probably get some of the colour of both, but won't deliver either the grit of Runequest or the gonzo of 4e.)

This is classic disconnect between "immersion is priority one" verus "narrative is priority one". We all talk about it in terms of characterization, and thus seem to be communicating, but the characterization means something very different in each case.

<snip>

And for ever comment along the lines of, "hate to think what you are missing with that attitude," here is a big, "back at ya, big guy!"

Yes. The repeated notion that, in playing in a style where the mechanics matter, I'm missing out on some nirvanic play experience, becomes a bit annoying.

Some of my initial actual play posts were to try to respond to some misconceptions about what my sort of game must be like (eg, to paraphrase an annoying blogger, "tactical skirmish battles linked by free narration").

 

[Minigiant]

I think the biggest thing people are missing is that D&D is a game. A level based game filled with all kinds of weird math.

All threats have a value. They have numbers. D&D uses damage and hit points.

The key is how do you make:
25 level 3 NPCs a threat to 4 level 15 PCs
4 level 15 PCs a threat to a adult red dragon
but not have
24 level 3 NPCs a threat to a adult red dragon?

The answer is.. you can't with just damage, hit points, and numbers of attacks. You have to make an exception rule.

The total crossbowmen's damage has to be less than dragon's health but higher than the PC's. And the dragon's damage has to be less than the heroes' health but more than the combined crossbowmen. The heroes's damage has to be higher than the dragon's health but not the combined crossbowmen's. That requires numbers to go up and down at the same time. If you slow down HP gain or raise the damage to have the crossbowmen's damage scare the heroes, you also made the dragon vulnerable. Therefore the only way the math will work is to add other aspects to the math such as DR and resistances. And the game ceases to be simple.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Yes. The repeated notion that, in playing in a style where the mechanics matter, I'm missing out on some nirvanic play experience, becomes a bit annoying.

I think that people want the mechanics to matter. Thus, the discussion on falling making a player go "Oh s@*&". If the fall is, in fact, very dangerous, by immersing in the character by being afraid of the fall, you'd be "playing in a style where the mechanics matter." But, while it makes the mechanics matter (what you want), it also circumvents other things you want.

Some of my initial actual play posts were to try to respond to some misconceptions about what my sort of game must be like (eg, to paraphrase an annoying blogger, "tactical skirmish battles linked by free narration").

I assume you mean Justin Alexander (the first person that came to mind for me was Ron Edwards). Both are way too arrogant. Both are needlessly dismissive. Both use way too much hyperbole. These make both styles pretty annoying to me, personally, even if I can identify with one over the other. Ron Edwards just bugs me more for general pretentiousness. Again, though, very subjective. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I think that people want the mechanics to matter. Thus, the discussion on falling making a player go "Oh s@*&". If the fall is, in fact, very dangerous, by immersing in the character by being afraid of the fall, you'd be "playing in a style where the mechanics matter." But, while it makes the mechanics matter (what you want), it also circumvents other things you want.

I've got not objection, in principle, to a game in which falling is dangerous. But I'm not the one getting bent out of shape trying to reconcile that desire with a desire to play a game with hp-based rather than wound-based damage.