Falling from Great Heights

[pemerton]

There is nothing implicit that suggest severe harm is automatic when you say "teleport", "be in a sword fight", "battle a t-rex".

<snip>

In RPGs fighting T-rex is just a glorified sword fight.

But this is exactly [MENTION=57948]triqui[/MENTION] and [MENTION=52548]Aaron[/MENTION]'s point (as I read them): that in D&D 3E (at least - maybe other versions as well) fighting a T-rex or a dragon can involve being picked up by it in its jaws, being crushed by its jaws or its body, etc. Which entail "automatic severe harm" just as much as does falling 100 feet.

And hence that, whatever story you tell about your mojo that let's you survive those things ("I wedge it's jaw open with my sword"; "I use my shield to create a little pocket where I survive under the crushing bulk of the dragon") you also tell to explain how you survive the fall ("At the last minute, I use my cloak (which is probably as magical as my sword and shield) like a parachute, Batman-style").

Also, when you say "in RPGs fighting T-rex is just a glorified sword fight", you presumably mean "in D&D". There are plenty of fantasy RPGs in which fighting a T-rex is not a glorified sword fight - in which a T-rex is modelled so as to do damage that a PC can't take, or to pierce armour/DR in a way that a sword can't match, etc. In which, in effect, if the T-rex actually gets to bite you, let alone grab you, then you're dead.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Surprise, or numbers. (Sorry for the delay, I was running a game for most of yesterday.)

When attacks are made against your ACvS (Armor Class vs. Surprise), you basically lose most of your AC. A lucky hit can cause ongoing blood loss, punctured lungs, or other effects (again, it needs to be a lucky hit). Also, you have two different HP pools in my RPG (HP and THP [temporary hit points]). If an attack deals only THP (which recovers some every round), you avoid any attached negative effects (such as the lucky shots mentioned above). However, you do not get any THP when you're surprised.

When you're attacked multiple times in a round, you take a cumulative penalty to your AC (excluding ACvS). This means that 20 guys with crossbows give you a -19 penalty as of the last attack (AC tops out around 30 by level 20 in my RPG). Any of the attacks (that finally hit your HP after you lose your THP) that do connect might be a lucky shot, inflicting ongoing blood loss, skull fractures, etc.

So, you can fight a Balor, and if you're not surprised, you're getting your full AC and THP, and he's not making 20 attacks at you. You can have this epic drag-out fight with him, but later on feel threatened when 40 archers appear on the walls when the city guard yells for you to halt.

It's just how my system handles it. Again, I don't think it's the only way, and I don't expect this to be anywhere near base for D&D 5e. But, I am positive that you can have deadly 1st level archers in a world where level 20 Fighters can fight Balors.

Now, players can certainly obtain ways to negate level 1 archers, too. Get enough damage reduction (achievable by level 20, for sure), making you monstrously tough. Get abilities or combat maneuvers that reduce penalties for being attacked multiple times. Etc. But, these are probably only going to apply to a couple PCs in a party of 5-6, meaning most are vulnerable to common arrows while challenging Balors, dragons, liches, and Pit Fiends. As always, play what you like

Certainly sounds rather complex and rules-heavy to me, but I wouldn't really presume to critique a game I know practically nothing about. Still, I'd think that the mere fact it requires so many 'moving parts' to get where you are tells you something about the likelihood that WotC is going to establish rules for this one subtype of game in the core rules. I wouldn't count on it. I'd think it is VASTLY more likely to be some sort of 3PP thing, assuming licensing and whatnot is amenable to that.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

But this is exactly @triqui and @Aaron 's point (as I read them): that in D&D 3E (at least - maybe other versions as well) fighting a T-rex or a dragon can involve being picked up by it in its jaws, being crushed by its jaws or its body, etc. Which entail "automatic severe harm" just as much as does falling 100 feet.

I think the problem is that what people demand for suspension of disbelief is so all over the place, that it is now practically impossible to have the discussion from that standpoint. In the "old days" of D&D, you had three basic groups:

• "Engineers", who applied all kinds of real-world physics to the game, and did funky things with lightning bolt angles and fireball spreads, but were a pain to DM for if you weren't one yourself. They read a lot of hard science fiction.
• "Artists", who really didn't care, as long as it was dramatic and something that was remotely plausible if you didn't look at it too hard. These were the types that were fine with all the craziest James Bond stunts in the later Roger Moore years.
• Everyone else, who might dabble a bit in both camps, generally being slightly more educated/bright than the average populace--or in some cases, more of the "stoner" type, who just went along with what everyone else was doing. Crucially, a lot of these people had done something with their hands or on a farm or worked on an engine. This acted a check to some of the more nonsensical readings of game rules.

For any one of these groups, it is fairly easy to draw lines that will lead to easy suspension of disbelief. Now, we have people all over the place. Some of those places I won't list here, but suffice to say that they are not very impressive compared to any of the above. Add to that lack of understanding of the "real world" in its various aspects a much wider view of desirable verisimilitude, due to wider range of fantasy literature, film, etc. Last but not least, we have the generational aspect, of having 40+ years of heavy gaming going on. A lot of views are thus formed from the game, rather than the thing the game purports to model.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Certainly sounds rather complex and rules-heavy to me, but I wouldn't really presume to critique a game I know practically nothing about. Still, I'd think that the mere fact it requires so many 'moving parts' to get where you are tells you something about the likelihood that WotC is going to establish rules for this one subtype of game in the core rules. I wouldn't count on it. I'd think it is VASTLY more likely to be some sort of 3PP thing, assuming licensing and whatnot is amenable to that.

It's definitely more rules-heavy than without the moving parts. More flexible, too. Ups and downs to rules, and all that.

The argument at the moment, however, seems to be whether or not it's possible to have a game where 12 guys with crossbows can be a threat when fighting something like a dragon. I think that's achievable without porting all of my methods over.

For example, if you have a game with even flatter math, that -1 penalty per attack means you don't need the "lucky shots" (bleeding effects, etc.), which gets rid of a lot of the fiddly bits. HP and THP is easily made less complicated (instead of getting back THP each round, get it all back after a couple minutes of rest). Make ACvS = flat=footed (no Dex or defense bonus), and no THP. Done.

It won't be nearly as flexible as my game is when it comes to things like wounds, etc., but you can pretty much add a couple steps to get a feel people like. HP/THP is basically a hit point "wounds/vitality" system. Penalties to AC are pretty easy to track, and meaningful in a game with much flatter math. ACvS is pretty easily written down as "flat-footed" and it's easy to note that you don't get your "vitalty" or "THP" on such a hit.

Just make THP scale higher than HP ("the module says all hit points past level 1 are actually THP"), and have certain effects bypass THP completely (falling, lava, being on fire, surprise attacks, etc.). Done. More complicated than HP? Oh, for sure. But, I think it's certainly something that people that want a more complicated game (those calling for more "realism" or "verisimilitude" within the flavor of this thread) can accept. Just my opinion. As always, play what you like

 

[Grabuto138]

This is a very long thread and I have done my honest best to read through it but I appologize if I am repeating what someone else has said.

I would like to see DM fiat play a larger role. There should be an easy mechanism (d6 or d10 per 10'). In an encounter, a DM should avoid a realistically instant death environment. If he does not, he should have a mechanism to avoid it (e.g. saving throw) or environmental conditions to explain why a character survived, like a clumb of soft bushes at the bottom of the cliff.

Otherwise, a Dm should feel empowered to just tell the player, "If you do that you will die." And then kill him if he does it anyway.

I prefer the "superhero" play style. If the story takes you to a place that you didn't expect and a hero jumps off a high cliff or into a vat of acid for heroic or roleplaying reasons (rather than "I know it can't kill me") give him a fighting chance by rolling the dice. Occasionally it might be worth it to fudge the dice.

I would never let a player jump into a 100' pit because he knows he has enough HP and its the end of the day and we have plenty of healing anyway and scaling down is a pain in the arse. That dude is dead. But if he does it as a last ditch effort to prevent his capture and save his honor, or to drag the evil goat possesses by Asmodeus before he can get at anyone else, he gets a chance at least.

 

[pemerton]

The argument at the moment, however, seems to be whether or not it's possible to have a game where 12 guys with crossbows can be a threat when fighting something like a dragon. I think that's achievable without porting all of my methods over.

For example, if you have a game with even flatter math, that -1 penalty per attack means you don't need the "lucky shots" (bleeding effects, etc.), which gets rid of a lot of the fiddly bits. HP and THP is easily made less complicated (instead of getting back THP each round, get it all back after a couple minutes of rest). Make ACvS = flat=footed (no Dex or defense bonus), and no THP. Done.

<snip>

HP/THP is basically a hit point "wounds/vitality" system. Penalties to AC are pretty easy to track, and meaningful in a game with much flatter math. ACvS is pretty easily written down as "flat-footed" and it's easy to note that you don't get your "vitalty" or "THP" on such a hit.

In the late 70s (I think - maybe early 80s) Roger Musson had an article in White Dwarf called "How to lose hit points and survive". I think it was the first proposal for a wound/vitality system for D&D. His version uses CON as wound points, regular hit points as vitality points, and uses a "make your to-hit by more than X" as the criterion for wounding. He also adds a few bells and whistles: every step up on the attack matrix (2 levels for AD&D fighters, 3 levels for AD&D clerics, etc) increases the value of X by 1; when you are at 75%, 50% or 25% CON your hit points can't be higher than that percentage; and at each of those percentages you also have a chance of a mortal wound (with a 100% chance when you drop to 0 CON).

I can't remember whether he discusses falling, but he suggests that, for dragon breath and fireballs, on a save you take half damage to hp (for the effort of ducking etc) and on a failed save you take full damage to hp and half damage to CON. I think that when you're helpless you take full damage to CON, but not simply when you're surprised.

If you use a system like this, and change it so that:

(i) X does not increase with level;

(ii) X decreases for each subsequent attack in the round;

(iii) when surprised, all hits go straight to CON;

(iv) falling damage is doubled (or more), but falling gives a save comparable to dragon breath or fireball;​

then you could get a system in which a PC can have a better chance against a dragon who doesn't surprise him/her than against 12 archers who do surprise him/her.

To make it consistent, though, you'd probably have to rule that surprised PCs automatically fail their saves vs breath, fireball etc, which would make scry-buff-teleport even more deadly.

But offering this as a module isn't just tweaking a dial or toggling a switch on or off. It's jacking on a wholly different subsystem that may well not work with signficant other parts of the system (eg the encounter building guidelines, the healing rules, etc).

 

[JamesonCourage]

you could get a system in which a PC can have a better chance against a dragon who doesn't surprise him/her than against 12 archers who do surprise him/her.

I'm glad that you think such a system is possible. I think it is, as well.

But offering this as a module isn't just tweaking a dial or toggling a switch on or off. It's jacking on a wholly different subsystem that may well not work with signficant other parts of the system (eg the encounter building guidelines, the healing rules, etc).

Well, to be fair, that's not the model I suggested. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I'm glad that you think such a system is possible. I think it is, as well.

I've played a lot of a game in which active defence is penalised by number of attacks - namely, Rolemaster.

It's never been part of D&D, though, and I'd be a little surprised if D&Dnext puts it forward.

Well, to be fair, that's not the model I suggested.

But your model would have the same implications. If anything, your model has them even more strongly, because in your model (unlike my variation of Roger Musson's), surprise produces both all hits straight to wounds, and a reduction in AC (or, to flip it around, a significant bonus to hit against many builds of PC).

Scry-buff-teleport - to get advantage of the surprise benefits, and also to exercise control over the ratio of attackers to defenders (so as to avoid the penalties for being swarmed) - becomes even more tactically superior!

One thing I personally like about 4e is that it removes most of the incentives for scry-buff-teleport: teleporting is hard, scrying is hard, there is next-to-no buffing, and the mechanical benefits of ambushing are at best minor.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I've played a lot of a game in which active defence is penalised by number of attacks - namely, Rolemaster.

It's never been part of D&D, though, and I'd be a little surprised if D&Dnext puts it forward.

I would too, as a base. I could see it in a module where people want 12 crossbowmen to be dangerous. Personally, I wouldn't want it in the base assumption of the rules.

But your model would have the same implications. If anything, your model has them even more strongly, because in your model (unlike my variation of Roger Musson's), surprise produces both all hits straight to wounds, and a reduction in AC (or, to flip it around, a significant bonus to hit against many builds of PC).

Scry-buff-teleport - to get advantage of the surprise benefits, and also to exercise control over the ratio of attackers to defenders (so as to avoid the penalties for being swarmed) - becomes even more tactically superior!

If you're trying to say that by making changes to how the game is played, the game will be different, I agree. I think that's kind of the point, though, so I don't think it's a bad thing.

One thing I personally like about 4e is that it removes most of the incentives for scry-buff-teleport: teleporting is hard, scrying is hard, there is next-to-no buffing, and the mechanical benefits of ambushing are at best minor.

I like most of those things as well (I made teleporting hard, scrying hard, buffing not stackable and with limits on how much you can maintain). You can easily go for both in the same system. That is, you can make being surprised, large numbers of low level warriors, falling, and lava all dangerous, while also basically trying to get rid of scry-buff-teleport. I prefer a system where that's the case for most of my games, in fact. To me, those two facets are near independent of one another. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I like most of those things as well (I made teleporting hard, scrying hard, buffing not stackable and with limits on how much you can maintain). You can easily go for both in the same system.

Yes, Burning Wheel doesn't have a lot of scrying or teleporting (it does emphasis preparation, but in the form of linked skill checks and gathering information that can be used to generate advantage dice, rather than buffs). And it does involve multiple foes penalising active defence. But my own view is that the more you take the game in this direction, the less it becomes like D&D.

I'm not therefore saying it's a bad game. I'm just doubting that it would be something that the designers of D&Dnext would make it a priority to support.