Falling from Great Heights

[Hussar]

Can't 20 archers and a wyrm be credible threats? Sure, the wyrm is more of a threat but that doesn't mean 20 face arrows aren't threatening to a hero. facing 20 enemies always increases the risk. Leonidas could have bested almost anyone in single combat (even a demi-deity) but a hail of arrows still cuts him down.

Just as a point, Leonidas stands up to thousands of archers, and comes through without a scratch.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdDdHMwhU2s]300 - We will Blot out the Sun. - YouTube[/ame]

THIS is what a high level fighters in D&D look like.

20 archers on the walls? Not even a speed bump.

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

The wiring system in your home, apartment, office, or school is quite complex--it works on basic principles, but there is a lot of stuff there, built within some rather severe constraints (both physical and safety). In contrast, the outlet where you plug things in and the switch were you turn them on or off is much simpler. It isn't completely foolproof, but compared to the system as a whole, it is very close.

Designed properly, modules are a lot like things you can plug into an electrical outlet. Does the existence of hundreds or even thousands of possibilities complicate your life when you plug in a radio?

Not at all, because the radio has an internal processing system that functions whether I understand its working or not. My concern is that let's say we have 100 modules, you decide for a game to pick modules: 1, 3, 4, 13, 20, 55, 77, 132, and 147; now you have to "plug" those all in to both PCs and NPCs, on top of powers and abilities these already have. My radio can be wi-fi capable, get AM/FM, be an alarm clock, and make my coffee, but all I have to do is flip a switch, not bust out my calculator and slide-rule for that fight with 30 orcs, 2 sorcerers, and 6 assassins.

My point is that I don't think a system can realistically tolerate a large number of alternate "rule packets", not because the PCs have to keep track of them, but because the DM has to apply these to each NPC. Too much work, on top of conditions, effects, and actions.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Not at all, because the radio has an internal processing system that functions whether I understand its working or not. My concern is that let's say we have 100 modules, you decide for a game to pick modules: 1, 3, 4, 13, 20, 55, 77, 132, and 147; now you have to "plug" those all in to both PCs and NPCs, on top of powers and abilities these already have. My radio can be wi-fi capable, get AM/FM, be an alarm clock, and make my coffee, but all I have to do is flip a switch, not bust out my calculator and slide-rule for that fight with 30 orcs, 2 sorcerers, and 6 assassins.

My point is that I don't think a system can realistically tolerate a large number of alternate "rule packets", not because the PCs have to keep track of them, but because the DM has to apply these to each NPC. Too much work, on top of conditions, effects, and actions.

Certainly there are limits, both in what the system can provide as options and what a given group will want to adopt for a given campaign. If you turn a whole bunch of options all the way up to 11, and have a fight with those 30 orcs, 2 sorcerers, and 6 assassins, you'll feel the pinch. Plug enough stuff into the same circuit without knowing what you are doing, and you'll feel a pinch. Plug even more stuff, and it doesn't matter if you theoretically know what you are doing or not--as really knowing was not plugging that much into the system in the first place.

You seem to be under the impression that the only workable numbers for options are either zero, 1, 2, or inifinity. 5, 8, 10 or some other such discrete number are all manageable possibilities--depending on the nature of the option, of course. Sometimes zero, 1, or 2 is the correct number. Thus, I sense that the elaborate system in your head, to which you are addressing your arguments, does not resemble what I have in mind at all, or is otherwise missing key components. I'd write out a complete subsystem to address this communication issue, by way of example, but I lack the time to do so, and the inclination to do for free what the design team does for a living.

 

[El Mahdi]

Because, in order for your module to work, requires an entire reworking of how D&D works from the ground up. In order for a PC to still be credibly threatened by mundane threats (20 archers) while at the same time be able to deal with high level threats such as demons or dragons, you have to scale SOMETHING.

You're right, it does require an entire reworking. However, it does look like that's exactly what they are doing with the flatter progression. There's been quite a bit of talk from the designers about what people want as the game progresses into higher levels. The flatter progression seems to be their answer for it. The idea being that it can make common monsters viable threats even to high level characters, but still make high level characters capable of dealing with high level threats. It looks like the idea is that in order to support the standard type of D&D, modules for the addition of extra Feats, or High Level/Epic/etc. Feats and Abilities, is what will differentiate between Ordinary Hero and more Standard D&D.

If that's built into the game, then it makes things that much harder to run my game.

I don't agree, but I certainly see why you might think that.

Now, if it's an entirely optional module, then fine, who cares? But, I don't think you can actually make it an entirely optional module. The changes you want to make affect every single aspect of the game - power level, advancement rates, power ratios between NPC's and PC's, the level system, the magic system (since with a much flatter scale, you cannot have high powered casters, that breaks the system).

What you're asking for is not possible to do in a module. You're asking to rework the entire game system from the ground up. If the game is based on what you want, then it makes what I want impossible to do with the game system.

Since D&D has never actually been based on the idea of "normal people doing extraordinary things", why would I want a new edition of the game to be based on this?

I can't answer that for you. But it seems as if that may be the direction the game is going. Likely not as far as I would like it to go, but probably much farther than you want it to go.

There, I've nicely repeated everything I've been saying for the past several pages in one nice neat package.

So, could you return the favour? Can you explain how a 15th level character in any edition is an "average guy"?

I don't think a 15th level character in any edition is an average guy. The way this has been addressed by me and other gamers is to simply not advance beyond a certain point, or to use something like the E6 houserules. Unfortunately, neither of those are perfect fixes either. I think what they are doing with the game is probably going to be much better for what I'm looking for than in past editions. Though I obviously can't be sure until I actually see it. Also, before you say "why don't you just play something else?", I have not found any other game that's any closer to what I want. And since I started with D&D, D&D is what I know best. You may see that as something that impinges on your playstyle. WotC would likely see that as a feature of their game, one that causes it to continue to have the widest appeal and commonality among RPG'ers.

But if that is the way the core game is pointing, then that, with the addition of modules for more realistic falling damage, etc., will be just about perfect for me.

If you're worried that the game you like to play won't be possible with the D&D Next Core+Modules, then I'd recommend being a part of the open playtest when it starts, to have that perspective represented and influencing the game. I'd suggest though that constructive ideas and criticisms would likely be more apt to be listened to and adopted, as opposed to "don't include this because it will gum up my game".

 

[El Mahdi]

A massive damage save option, that I can just ignore, won't gum up my game.

But if the module is more complex than that, or attempts to operate over a greater range of the game than just falling (eg point blank dragon breath), and if the part of the game that I'm using has to be built a certain way so as to support the integration of that module into the game, then it can gum things up.

On the list mentioned in Rule of Three, the potential game-gummer that stood out for me was hit locations. Because once a system is going to support hit locations, it is probably going to have to support piecemeal armour. And piecemeal armour brings with it all sort of issues in turn. For example, it doesn't work that well with an AC system, because you get the oddity that your heavy breastplate makes you overall harder to hit, but doesn't reduce the likelihood of your taking damage to your torso as opposed to your arms or legs. (HARP has this issue, and Rolemaster to a lesser extent.) It can work better with a damage reduction system, but then the game probably needs called shot rules too, so that combatants can aim their attacks at the less-protected part of the body. (This is an issue in Runequest.) And workable called shot rules then put constraints on the design of the attack rules more generally.

Lingering wounds are a different sort of case here. Because they complicate the encounter design guidelines (by changing the expected numbers of the PCs, due to wound penalties), they may lead to the encounter design guidelines being written in a particular sort of way, which might reduce the utiity of those rules for me compared to what they otherwise might have been.

I'm not saying that making hit locations work mechanically, or integrating lingering wounds into a worthwhile set of encounter-buidling guidelines, is impossible. I just use these as illustrations of the conceivability of one person's module gumming up another person's rules.

Fair enough. Though I'd bet that those things you're talking about are going to be purely in the realm of modules. Honestly, I'm expecting a presentation that's likely similar to UA. Optional rules that explain what kind of feel it will support, what implications it may have, and what other adjustments need to be made to incoporate it. I think the core is going to be exactly what they are shooting for, a simple, basic, easy to start and run, universally D&D base system. I also think the the core system is not going to be, whole cloth, the same as any edition that came before (though likely closest to OD&D/BD&D with some of the more modern expressions - like Feats, Powers, etc., but in a simple OD&D presentation).

 

[El Mahdi]

OK, but I didn't get the overall impression that it was the "gonzo abilities" that were really the issue - more the escalating hit points and defences. The suggestion is that this edition will have a much shallower defence escalation, but hit points seem still to be expected to increase with level - isn't that the core of the "falling damage" and "mundane archer" problems?

I understand what you're saying. HP's being at the levels they are, or climbing to the levels they do, does seem to be a problem to some. It's not a problem to me, because I don't see Hit Points as purely physical, I see them as an abstract quantification of luck, stamina, ability to avoid or turn damage, fatigue, and yes, a bit of phyisical damage. I'm fine with other people thinking differently. But I don't think Hit Point levels are the core of the problem. I think that, mechanically, fixing the problem with realism (like falling) by reducing Hit Points is a mechanically poor way to do it. I'd much rather want the damage expression of a fall to be changed. Like what Elf Witch was saying. Higher Hip Point loss for falls (more than just 1d10 per 10 foot), and a save vs. death after a certain height (for me, anything above 20").

As for Archers, I'd fix it by not allowing Dex or Defense bonuses to be part of avoiding an arrow, only armor and shields. In real life, nobody has the ability to "dodge" arrows in real combat. People do put on exhibitions of this, but it's from a specific distance, and constistently practiced at that distance, with the same bow, same arrows, same everything, so that it's just a matter of timing. In real combat, those are variables one can only guess at, and though someone might occasionally get lucky and dodge or bat away an arrow, they are still going to be hit more times than they succeed.

I don't feel though that the amount of damage an archery hit inflicts needs to be increased. People live through arrow wounds all the time. But it should be more realistic in "defending" against them.

And, if level does not increase hit points, or defences, or 'to hit' bonuses or "gonzo abilities" - what is the purpose of retaining the idea of "levels"?

While I don't want to cease increasing Hit Points as one levels, I can see that those that do would still have an use for levels. They are still a representation of "aquired experience" and would still determing when one learns new Feats, Skills, or Abilities. Even in the real world, we continue to grow and learn new things.

I would point out that, in OD&D, an 8th level fighting man was labelled "superhero"...

True. But I'd also point out that all levels had titles which had very little to do with actual experience level or abilities...

To me, this is a nonsensical set of assertions. I can only assume that we are talking about radically different things. Not every style I play is D&D. Especially if I am playing HârnMaster, Ars Magica, Runequest, Traveller, Shadowrun or Universalis.

To me, "D&D" is not a style of play at all - it's a set of (published) roleplaying game rules. As such, it is not capable of being "inclusive", "accepting" or anything else you call out for in the following section of your post.

It's ability to support different play styles can be inclusive of other play styles (by supporting them), or exclusive of other play styles (by not supporting them or supporting one exclusively).

As to the rest, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[triqui]

Or with the idea they're looking at right now, flatter progression as you level up (slower and flatter BAB, Defense, etc. progression).

That I'm totally supporting them. However... notice that they did *not* say there won't be differences by level. They have stated there are other things (like Hit points, damage, and "powers") that make 10th level characters much better than those low level.

So the 12 crossbow wielder militia will lose anyways, I think. They won't be untouchable by AC as in 4e (in 3e that was not as much, as the AC did not increase by level, and often some high level characters did not have much more AC than low level ones.). But they'll have hit points, access to powers, etc, that probably will allow them to kill the 12 militia.

Cool!

 

[triqui]

I showed my players this quote, and they basically shrugged it off. Nobody in my group (using my RPG) thinks this is true (and that's from experience). And, my method is certainly not the only way to accomplish this goal. As always, play what you like

Will like to see a little bit of your RPG. How can a level 20th fighter defeat Dragons, Balors, Liches and Pitfiends, and die to level 1 fighters with common arrows?

 

[pemerton]

I'd bet that those things you're talking about are going to be purely in the realm of modules.

I agree with you about this. My point was that making the rest of the game suitable to accomodate these modules can, conceivably, have implications for the rest of the game.

 

[fenriswolf456]

Just as a point, Leonidas stands up to thousands of archers, and comes through without a scratch.

300 - We will Blot out the Sun. - YouTube

THIS is what a high level fighters in D&D look like.

20 archers on the walls? Not even a speed bump.

By hiding behind cover, since they know that the arrows are going to do damage to them, if not outright kill them, without it. Sure, they act all cool and badass about it, but they're also not metagaming the fact that the arrows were shot by low-level mooks, or that they have a ton of HP so can take a few arrow hits.

Now have a look at the end battle. Without the cover of shields, the spartans end up going down by 2 or 3 arrows each, fired by mooks.

The thing is, D&D is great for simulating a pitched battle between two sides. Levels give interesting powers and the basic battle modifiers, and the HP to go up against tougher opponents. But then HP break down when presented outside of regular battles. Stuff like falling damage, or when helpless, or wading across a river of lava.

I understand what you're saying. HP's being at the levels they are, or climbing to the levels they do, does seem to be a problem to some. It's not a problem to me, because I don't see Hit Points as purely physical, I see them as an abstract quantification of luck, stamina, ability to avoid or turn damage, fatigue, and yes, a bit of phyisical damage. I'm fine with other people thinking differently. But I don't think Hit Point levels are the core of the problem. I think that, mechanically, fixing the problem with realism (like falling) by reducing Hit Points is a mechanically poor way to do it. I'd much rather want the damage expression of a fall to be changed. Like what Elf Witch was saying. Higher Hip Point loss for falls (more than just 1d10 per 10 foot), and a save vs. death after a certain height (for me, anything above 20").

The issue with HP are that they are applied all the time, despite there being situations where certain aspects of it don't apply. But since a lot of what makes up HP are intangible, and in undefined amounts, it's not really practical to try and pick out which 'bits' of HP apply to each unique circumstance. Nor could a set of rules really implement it in such a way that it satisfies every possible situation. So it might be too much to ask of D&D 5E to codify detailed rules for things like a 'realistic' amount for falling damage, while keeping things in check so that fights with potential falls can still be fun without characters being all but auto-killed if they're pushed off.

As for Archers, I'd fix it by not allowing Dex or Defense bonuses to be part of avoiding an arrow, only armor and shields. In real life, nobody has the ability to "dodge" arrows in real combat. People do put on exhibitions of this, but it's from a specific distance, and constistently practiced at that distance, with the same bow, same arrows, same everything, so that it's just a matter of timing. In real combat, those are variables one can only guess at, and though someone might occasionally get lucky and dodge or bat away an arrow, they are still going to be hit more times than they succeed.

Deflecting arrows may not be something that is possible in real life, I still don't feel it's out of bounds for it to be a possibility in heroic fantasy. I wouldn't want D&D to be distilled down into a real world combat game. One thing I will agree on is that D&D has always been about grand heroics. We're not playing Storm Trooper #5, we're playing characters akin to Luke and Han and Leia, those who have it in them to go beyond the bounds of normal life. The characters who have the will and fortitude to push through nigh-impossible odds to win the day.

There are limits, of course, that are usually defined by the world in which the characters exist. Even in the same world, as this very thread has shown, there are differing POVs and levels of believability that people are willing to accept. Even with a goal of unifying, I doubt that the rules will be so comprehensive as to satisfy everyone, nor do I think they really need to be. 99% of the time, D&D is a fun and enjoyable experience and a great vehicle in which to tell the fantasy stories I enjoy. When 5th comes out, I'm sure I'll end up playing it at some point, and enjoying things, as I've done with all the previous editions, even if the falling damage expression doesn't suit every fall, or it takes 20 arrow shots to finish off a helpless fighter.

At the same time, it would make me happier if there were rules, even optional ones, to cover such situations more to my satisfaction, without having to resort to house rules or DM fiat.