Falling from Great Heights

[Aaron]

With a few tweaks you could still play high level characters that fight dragons and manticores but still have certain things be a threat.

That sounds interesting.

May I ask you to share these few tweaks with us?

 

[fenriswolf456]

When you are Neo, you face 12 guys with guns without sweating, becouse you know you move to fast for them. They'll miss, you will win. You will flee from a single Agent, though.

You have a character that can face and kill an ancient demon. Ten bandits aren't a threat for him

Sure, if your character can bend the very fabric of space in the world they're in (for all intents and purposes, a god), I can totally go with them not being concerned by a bunch of physics-bound bowmen.

Though I'm not looking for high level PCs to be easily defeated by a bunch of guards with crossbows or swords or whatever. I would like for there to be a feeling that 'hey, those arrows could do some real damage' and for the characters to feel that there is some danger to what they're facing. I'm totally not wanting the players to balk at the situation (unless I'm looking to capture them for plot reasons). Sure, if combat erupts, I wholely expect the PCs to end up victorious. I'm all for the badass hero who doesn't take s*&^ from mooks. It just breaks the immersion for me when players start metagaming the system. "Oh, they're only 3rd level, they can't possibly hit my AC", "They're all minions, I can totally take 12 hits even if they all crit". It can be fun from a game-playing pov, not so fun from a role-playing pov.

Maybe I need to add weapon dice to attacks made against being flat-footed.

One of the most awesome scenes I can remember from our 1e days was my level 11 insane ranger jumping off a 200' cliff into the middle of a vast array of demons because hey, he was pretty much insane and hated demons and had all sorts of vampiric regeneration! Sure, he was down to like 25 hit points when he landed, and he was at like 3x normal hit points a couple rounds later. Of course he also stopped being a ranger anymore somewhere around that point... (I think it might have been the armor that sucked the life out of the forest to give him more hit points, lol).

Totally awesome and great. I totally buy into this. The character wasn't going "Hey, I've got XX hp, I can totally survive this.", he knew he had humungous regeneration and healing abilities, so sure he knew the fall would hurt, but he would likely survive it. And even if he didn't, it still falls into the 'insane with a rabid hatred of demons' mindset of the character.

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.

Why not? With proper planning and preparation and an understanding of what they're facing, why can't a 'realistic' group of heros take down a dragon (i.e. Reign of Fire)? Even ordinary real 'mooks' took out tanks with bottles of alcohol and gas, because they found the weak points to exploit.

Becouse, otherwise, that implies that 12 guys with crossobows can kill a dragon.

Again, no it doesn't. Classic story dragons are normally impervious to mundane weapons. A group of PCs, even in magical armour, usually aren't.
Water puts out fire. Sponges absorb water. Therefore sponges totally defeat fire?

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?

I personally don't buy into Strider being 5th or 6th level, and place the skilled members of the Fellowship in the Paragon tier. But that's my own interpretation, and is entirely subjective to the level and style of play.

There is also the issue that the LotR world doesn't really match the D&D game stats. Some parallels can be drawn, certainly: orks being orcs or goblins, the Balrog being a Balor. But then trolls in LotR are not the trolls of D&D. The world is very low magic. In 4E, a Balor is a level 27 Elite, meaning even a level 27 epic PC would have issues defeating one on their own. By strict plugging in of D&D equivalents, that makes Gandalf at least level 27, if not higher, and he comes back even stronger than before.

And yes, I totally do think that if Glorfindel took 3+ arrows to the chest from being caught unawares/flat-footed, he would at least certainly be hurting, if not outright dying, just like Boromir.

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.

You're exaggerating what's being said. No one is saying that a group of PCs should die to a group of 12 bowmen. We're saying if 12 mundane spikes tossed from the tail of a manticore is a credible threat, why aren't 12 mundane crossbow bolts fired from trained marksmen? Currently it's because players can meta-game, and know that the rules have written that the Level 10 manticore has a decent chance to hit, while the level 3 guards don't.

It was suggested earlier about scaling threats to match the characters, rather than being static, which I'm liking more and more, and can certainly see this as a potential starting point for dialing the scale of adventure. Guards as Lvl-2 minions could work. Likely to kill the heroes? No. But certainly not a 'lol' cakewalk either.

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.

I don't see how this conflicts against mechanics. Characters roleplaying concern of crossing damage-inflicting terrain? All the mechanics say is something like "take 2d6 damage, slowed [save end]". But to high level D&D PCs, the mechanics of this totally don't matter, because it's such a low amount of damage that it barely registers.

(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.

Perhaps it should be in the way the encounter is set up. It's clear that there's a choice to be made in the Die Hard example. Continue to shoot it out with the baddies, and chance getting shot up. Or charge across broken glass with bare feet and endure the pain and bloodloss. It's obviously a 'realistic' gritty kind of choice, and something that seems to be difflcult to model in say epic level D&D.

I think at heart we're wanting similar things. We both want the mechanics to matter in playing the game. If the glass on the floor isn't a concern, why bother having it in the first place? If it is, then it has to be of some concern to the players in some way. Currently, there are some mechanics that don't matter at certain points in the game, which is why some of us would like for ways to make it matter again.

If jumping off a cliff doesn't matter to you or your PCs, then that's fine, mark off some HPs or healing surges or whatever and move on. But it would be nice for those of us who see our epic level heroes more like Lancelot (i.e. the best of the best, but still mortal) than Hercules (demigods verging on godhood) to be able to have consistent rules to help us play in that mode.

 

[Elf Witch]

That sounds interesting.

May I ask you to share these few tweaks with us?

I don't have an answer for poison.

For falling damage over a certain height you have to make a save against dying and for every ten feet the save goes up. If you fail it you die.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, if your character can bend the very fabric of space in the world they're in (for all intents and purposes, a god), I can totally go with them not being concerned by a bunch of physics-bound bowmen.

Though I'm not looking for high level PCs to be easily defeated by a bunch of guards with crossbows or swords or whatever. I would like for there to be a feeling that 'hey, those arrows could do some real damage' and for the characters to feel that there is some danger to what they're facing. I'm totally not wanting the players to balk at the situation (unless I'm looking to capture them for plot reasons). Sure, if combat erupts, I wholely expect the PCs to end up victorious. I'm all for the badass hero who doesn't take s*&^ from mooks. It just breaks the immersion for me when players start metagaming the system. "Oh, they're only 3rd level, they can't possibly hit my AC", "They're all minions, I can totally take 12 hits even if they all crit". It can be fun from a game-playing pov, not so fun from a role-playing pov.

Maybe I need to add weapon dice to attacks made against being flat-footed.



Totally awesome and great. I totally buy into this. The character wasn't going "Hey, I've got XX hp, I can totally survive this.", he knew he had humungous regeneration and healing abilities, so sure he knew the fall would hurt, but he would likely survive it. And even if he didn't, it still falls into the 'insane with a rabid hatred of demons' mindset of the character.



Why not? With proper planning and preparation and an understanding of what they're facing, why can't a 'realistic' group of heros take down a dragon (i.e. Reign of Fire)? Even ordinary real 'mooks' took out tanks with bottles of alcohol and gas, because they found the weak points to exploit.



Again, no it doesn't. Classic story dragons are normally impervious to mundane weapons. A group of PCs, even in magical armour, usually aren't.
Water puts out fire. Sponges absorb water. Therefore sponges totally defeat fire?



I personally don't buy into Strider being 5th or 6th level, and place the skilled members of the Fellowship in the Paragon tier. But that's my own interpretation, and is entirely subjective to the level and style of play.

There is also the issue that the LotR world doesn't really match the D&D game stats. Some parallels can be drawn, certainly: orks being orcs or goblins, the Balrog being a Balor. But then trolls in LotR are not the trolls of D&D. The world is very low magic. In 4E, a Balor is a level 27 Elite, meaning even a level 27 epic PC would have issues defeating one on their own. By strict plugging in of D&D equivalents, that makes Gandalf at least level 27, if not higher, and he comes back even stronger than before.

And yes, I totally do think that if Glorfindel took 3+ arrows to the chest from being caught unawares/flat-footed, he would at least certainly be hurting, if not outright dying, just like Boromir.



You're exaggerating what's being said. No one is saying that a group of PCs should die to a group of 12 bowmen. We're saying if 12 mundane spikes tossed from the tail of a manticore is a credible threat, why aren't 12 mundane crossbow bolts fired from trained marksmen? Currently it's because players can meta-game, and know that the rules have written that the Level 10 manticore has a decent chance to hit, while the level 3 guards don't.

It was suggested earlier about scaling threats to match the characters, rather than being static, which I'm liking more and more, and can certainly see this as a potential starting point for dialing the scale of adventure. Guards as Lvl-2 minions could work. Likely to kill the heroes? No. But certainly not a 'lol' cakewalk either.



I don't see how this conflicts against mechanics. Characters roleplaying concern of crossing damage-inflicting terrain? All the mechanics say is something like "take 2d6 damage, slowed [save end]". But to high level D&D PCs, the mechanics of this totally don't matter, because it's such a low amount of damage that it barely registers.



Perhaps it should be in the way the encounter is set up. It's clear that there's a choice to be made in the Die Hard example. Continue to shoot it out with the baddies, and chance getting shot up. Or charge across broken glass with bare feet and endure the pain and bloodloss. It's obviously a 'realistic' gritty kind of choice, and something that seems to be difflcult to model in say epic level D&D.

I think at heart we're wanting similar things. We both want the mechanics to matter in playing the game. If the glass on the floor isn't a concern, why bother having it in the first place? If it is, then it has to be of some concern to the players in some way. Currently, there are some mechanics that don't matter at certain points in the game, which is why some of us would like for ways to make it matter again.

If jumping off a cliff doesn't matter to you or your PCs, then that's fine, mark off some HPs or healing surges or whatever and move on. But it would be nice for those of us who see our epic level heroes more like Lancelot (i.e. the best of the best, but still mortal) than Hercules (demigods verging on godhood) to be able to have consistent rules to help us play in that mode.

Right. I think the difference is IMHO, looking at 4e as sort of a model even for classic D&D, is you have a sort of 'heroic tier' where broken glass and low level town watchmen are things that DO hurt. Then you have 'paragon tier' where stuff like that isn't doing much to you, but there are still 'mundane' things that are pretty hazardous, but you face bigger threats all the time. You don't have to tangle with the town watch, you have to tangle with the watch in the City of Brass.

At 'epic tier' things like broken glass are just irrelevant. You can kill 100's of normal people without breaking a sweat, leap off cliffs, etc, but your threats now are falling into the Abyss, walking on lava, or fighting 100's of infinitely respawning 25th level minions, while piloting your spell jammer through the Abyss...

And, yeah, that ranger was crazy. Those were fun times. Still, it would be hard to say truthfully I'd have had him jump off a 200' drop if he was SURE to die from it. Not so much meta-gaming either as just 'character knowledge of his capabilities' IMHO.

 

[JamesonCourage]

That makes some monsters, like manticores or hydras, incredibly more powerful than others, like Gorgons or Dragons or Balors, based stricktly on the number of attacks. It's a strage assumption, imho. You can easily defeat a high level titan, becouse it only strikes once, but you are defeated by a low level octopus, becouse it has 8 tentacles.

Well, that depends on how dangerous each strike is. Also, it depends on how resistant it is to damage. Additionally, it depends on whether the attacks are made separately, or as a group as part of the abstraction. That is, it could say "Hydra bite +8, 1d10+4(+1/extra head)" or the like. There are different balancing factors that can be brought in.

I'm trying to point that "thick armor" works for a strict narrow type of monsters. Dragons fill the niche. Other type of monsters, even if they are high level, and supposed to be very powerful, aren't inmune to crossbow fire, so they'll die like flies. In your world, Galadriel is easy as pie to kill by a bunch of goblins with shortbows, but a baby rock troll is not. That makes baby rock trolls threat greater than Galadriel. It does not make sense, in the way the game is developed.

For that style of game, you're correct. I'm not saying I want this as a base assumption. But, I'd like the option. You don't have to play it ever. You don't even need to acknowledge the module. I'm just not sure why you're arguing against it, when I'm saying I'm fine with it being completely optional (and even expect it to be).

My point is that what you call "badass warriors" are, actually, low level warriors fighting in low level adventures, which happen to be very nicely writen. Aragon fights a bunch of orcs, some goblins, a warg or two, and defeat (hardly) a *baby* troll. He scares of the Nazgul using a plot device, which is actually not one of his character abilities, but something the DM gave him to be used there. That's a 5th level adventure in D&D. D&D can, and does, make a wonderful job representing Aragorn. He is a 5th level Fighter/ranger. He dies if he is not careful against a bunch of orc archers. He can defeat, narrowly, a troll. And he will be toasted if he tries to fight a Balrog like Moria's or Dragon like Smaug (unless he is given a Plot device, like a black arrow).

D&D *does* work for this kind of characters. It's just that this kind of characters are not 17th+ level epic heroes. Glorfindel *IS* a 17th+ fighter. He can go toe to toe with a Balrog, and he can defeat a nazgul. He is *not* concerned about a bunch of goblins with bows. 12, or 24. He will kill them all. Probably he won't even need to. Intimidate +20 can do wonders in low level scum. If he choose to kill them, he is probably so fast that he can cover the distance among them faster than the goblins can fire. He can dodge and parry arrows, and he slices through their ranks as a hot knife in butter. There's no chance he loses against 12 goblins. Ever.

I'm really not sure why you keep trying to explain the difference between how high level characters and low level characters work in D&D currently. I know that. I've run those games. I know what you're telling me, as I've said before. I just want the option to change that dynamic, if I feel like running that sort of game, while getting the character growth that 20-30 levels can give.

That possibility is there in D&D. A 5th level wizard can kill 12 crossbowmen with a 5d6 fireball if he acts first, but he dies if he doesnt. A 20th level wizard is another matter. 12 goblins can't defeat Gandalf. Ever.

However, I think I'll stop the argue here. I don't want to look argumentative. Play as you like, as you say. However, I still think you are mixing things. Playstyle, and level, are different things. D&D can be gritty. It can't be gritty at high levels, because it works with the central idea of characters that grow from killing goblins, to slaying demon lords. Some one who has the chance to survive a demon lord, isn't concerned by a local town guard in a tavern brawl. If you don't like high level adventures, then don't level up. E6 is a great take on this.

Like I've tried to express, I know how it works currently. I appreciate you trying to help (I think?), but you're missing my point, I believe. I like how D&D works currently. I do. I just like the gritty style of game more, and would probably play that more often (but not all the time). To that end, I'm asking for D&D to support that gritty feel it's done before (at lower levels), just extended to all levels. It can do it, and I'd like it if it had the option. As always, play what you like

 

[Aaron]

I don't have an answer for poison.

For falling damage over a certain height you have to make a save against dying and for every ten feet the save goes up. If you fail it you die.

Hmm...ok, but, aside the fact that in your game you should scale up the CR of flying creatures, I was thinking about the country bandits with crossbows.

It just breaks the immersion for me when players start metagaming the system. "Oh, they're only 3rd level, they can't possibly hit my AC", "They're all minions, I can totally take 12 hits even if they all crit". It can be fun from a game-playing pov, not so fun from a role-playing pov.

Let me quote myself: why do you call it "metagaming"?

If Mike Tyson thinks that he can easily defeat a dozen of 4 years old kids in a boxe fight, is he applying "metagame rules", or does he simply know what he can achieve?

The Snatch feat in 3.5 states:
A snatched opponent held in the creature’s mouth is not allowed a Reflex save against the creature’s breath weapon, if it has one.

This means that a frigging colossal dragon could hold a high level monk, with no armor whatsover, in his/her mouth, and breath acid/fire/youchoosewhat right on his face, with no saving throw allowed, and most high level PC would survive this attack.

Now, in this link I read that the maximum potential bite force of T. rex is between about 183,000 and 235,000 N for a bilateral bite (!), which is less than an ancient colossal wyrm, since the Trex bite is listed a 3d6, while the latter is listed as 4d8.

Now, I'm no physician, but I do remember being bitten by a medium sized dog, and it was painful. I don't want to imagine what such a bite could do to me.

But our high level PC could reasonably face the bite/grapple damage of the colossal dragon (of course including his Str modifier to damage), looking at the damage sustained after being bitten several times, no matter being held in his mouth.

Now, this high level PC should also have suffered several crossbow bolts / bow arrows hit in his career, even direct hits while he was helpless, and would know what damage he could reasonably expect from them, and he could compare them to the cited dragon.

Now, I really can't see why his experience with the dragon and the bolts/arrows should be seen as metagaming.

 

[El Mahdi]

Heh, Elf Witch, I believe the paraphrase, "Every time you try to apply real world logic to an RPG, God kills a cat girl" applies to precisely what you're saying.

Yes, you're absolutely, 100% right. As soon as you start breaking things down this way, you realize how utterly nonsensical D&D is. And it really is nonsensical. But, that's because you're trying to apply real world logic to a fictional construct where we are playing heroic fantasy.

You are ignoring the power of narrativium.

You are ignoring the ability to play D&D as more than just Heroic Fantasy. Perhaps your narrativium has exceeded it's use by date. I've heard that spoiled narrativium can cause halucinations and cognitive issues.


Seriously though, I don't see D&D as nonsensical when broken down...or at least not entirely. Sure, I see abstract constructs designed for playability rather than straight realism, as breaking down real world actions in to it's component parts for a game, would make a game so overly complicated as to be unplayable. So we draw the line at a point that maintains ease of play...such as Hit Points.

As much as I like realistic mechanics, and can think of a hundred different ways to model the things that Hit Points do, I can't think of a way that keeps the game satisfactorily playable for me (and likely most people feel the same way). I do like the addition of a Wound Track type mechanic, but that's my own personal preference, and doesn't eliminate the Hit Point mechanic (and I sincerely hope an add-on module for something of that sort is part of D&D Next).

But changing the Falling Damage mechanic to have a more realistic expression of Damage does not change anything else in the game. It doesn't affect the core assumptions of the system that changing a mechanic like Hit Points would. Except of course the assumption that a character can survive jumping off a 200' cliff as a matter of course...

I think that whether we disagree about which one should be in the core system, I hope we both agree that both expressions need to be included in D&D Next. One of them as core, and one of them as a module.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think I know how [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] want D&D to play.

I'm not her, but I don't think you do know what she's asking for.

The problem is the numbers.

Hit Points, attack rolls, Armor Class, and damage can't do what Elf Witch wants. You need

A HP cap so falling damage is always higher than max HP.

Or higher falling damage, via a module. A lower HP cap via a module works, too (with side effects that may or may not be wanted).

Auto kill poison and change poison saves to Reflex/Dexterity to spit out poison fast enough.

Or higher DCs, since it looks like it'll be Con-based anyways (5e and its six saves).

All hits are Save or Die when unarmored so a normal man can skewer an unarmored high level hero with an arrow.

Or just more likely to hit and deal more damage with no armor on. Give people a penalty to AC per attack after the first. By the time that twelfth bolt fires, the target is taking a -11 penalty to AC.

Anti dragon armor so a dragon could deals minor damage to a high level hero but massive damage to a militia man.

Damage reduction from armor could accomplish something like this against dragons and other creatures, yes.

Range attacks ignore regular armor but not natural armor to make crossbowmen a threat.

I think it'd be okay to make them dangerous similar armors. Light armor and naturally light armor is only slightly effective against bolts, while heavy armor and naturally heavy armor is very effective.

None of those have ever been part of D&D.. sorta...

Right. Thus this discussion on an optional ruleset that includes these changes. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

High level PCs are not gods are half gods are divine creatures. They are highly trained at what they do but I have never read anything that supports that these PCs are now some kind of gods .

In 4e a good chunk of level 21+ PCs are overtly demigods.

Earlier editions of D&D (2nd ed AD&D, I think, and maybe also Moldvay Basic(?)) explicitly flagged Hercules as an example of a fighter.

If the glass on the floor isn't a concern, why bother having it in the first place? If it is, then it has to be of some concern to the players in some way. Currently, there are some mechanics that don't matter at certain points in the game, which is why some of us would like for ways to make it matter again.

There is at least one edition of D&D that can handle this, and make these things matter, namely, 4e, with its scaling damage, scaling DCs and minion rules (for scaling up mooks).

Unfortunately it seems that it is soon to go out of print!

Where I think the "same words for different concepts" part comes in here is that for a dedicated but narrow immersionists, those are different playstyles.

<snip>

This is totally different than what you, pemerton, lost soul, or several of us mean by "playstyle"--even though we also have our different preferences and distinctions within our broad agreement of what a "playstyle" constitutes.

All that said, it would be theoretically possible to build a game that will support multiple playstyles, as we mean them--especially within a somewhat less than universal genre, such as "D&D fantasy". What such a theoretical system cannot do, however, is afford useless and nonsensical mechanics that exist almost entirely for simulated illusionism. This restriction is going to necessarily exclude a certain subset of extremely dedicated immersionists

Sorry I couldn't XP this awesome post.

 

[Balesir]

As Jameson pointed out several post ago the design team is saying they want the game to support a wide variety of play styles. There are a lot of groups who want a more realistic and gritty game so why not give them some tools to play it instead of forcing them to either use a different system or try and work around the RAW.

(My emphasis) You say that as if it were a bad thing. Step back and take a look again. I like icecream. But if I want to taste beefburger, I don't ask that someone make beefburger-flavoured icecream - I get a beefburger. There are other systems out there that are very reasonably priced - and several that are free. Not wanting to budge from where you are because that's where you are seems to me like you are making your own problems, TBH.