Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fenriswolf456" data-source="post: 5882781" data-attributes="member: 6687664">I still fail to see how something that even 0 level peasants wouldn't consider to be a threat equate to a group of armed and practiced people. There's nothing to suggest that an unarmed child is a threat in any way (except maybe to get your ankle bitten). Weapons in the hands of skilled enemies is a credible threat.  I'm not dismissing your example. But I can still think it's ridiculous. I accept it because I know that in order for a game to be fun, there has to be some balance and consistency, but that doesn't always work with expectations. Really, there should be no clamping bite attacks or swallowing effects. They should be saved for when characters go down. I would be very hard pressed to come up with any concievable reason for why an unarmoured, unresilient otherwise normal mortal being could survive being crunched in a ancient dragon's jaws. But I accept it because that's how the rules have written the creature, and they wanted it to do something different than just claw/claw/bite/breath. I can still think the ability is poorly implemented. But I'm still not seeing how facing a monstrous threat in any way means that any mundane threat is now a cakewalk. By the mechanics and numbers, I can see, but from a character's POV, I'm just not seeing it.  Who's to say that all those bandits aren't of equal level to the PCs? Unless the PCs have seen these exact people in action and know that their aim is crap and their tactics very basic, there's nothing to say that they wouldn't be pincushioned.   Hoping this is hyperbole, but if not, I can see why our experiences and expectations are different. I would never have a mook die because of an arrow to the arm. A killing blow is a killing blow, so such hits would strike vital areas; arrow through the neck, driven deep into the chest or gut, throw the eye, etc. If your PCs are taking shots to the head with any regularity, then things are on a very different perception scale. If I have a PC take a solid arrow hit to the head, they're going down and bleeding, if not dying outright. Grazes and near misses are entirely different. Which is why my characters can believe that a bow in the hands of a trained marksmen is dangerous, because they've seen the death and injury arrows can do.   PCs are incredibly lucky, and skilled. I'm not saying that a PC shouldn't be dodging arrows, or only being nicked by them, or having them bounce off shields and armour. But at the same time, every arrow shot isn't going directly into the heart either. And that's the crux for me. HP are not a giant sack of meat points. If your PCs are pincushions of dozens of arrow shots, then I can see that mindset. The only time I have PCs take an actual solid hit from an attack is on crits, or very high damage. I can in no way suspend my belief to have a hero wandering around with 20 arrows sticking out of them. It may work in your game mindset, it doesn't in mine. Thankfully HP are abstract enough to support both views.  I have no idea where you're getting this idea. Every single danger should be approached with caution. It's not like we go sticking our hands into boiling pots of water for lols. We know the water's not going to kill us, but it's going to hurt worth a damn. We don't go disturbing hornet's nests just cause. Individually they can't even be considered a serious threat, but I would bet there would hardly be anyone who wouldn't be trying to get away from a swarm of even a dozen of them. But it's not like you're concerned with dying (unless you're allergic, of course), but because it hurts, and most everyone has an aversion to being hurt. Likewise it should be for the PCs. It's not that they'll die, it's not that the 12 bandits are a serious threat if push came to shove, it's that arrows are going to hurt and why take pain when you don't have to?  But it seems your PCs act just like this, and wade through lava, take arrows to the face, and fall 200 feet and brush themselves off. In such a world, then yes, I happily concede that 12 bowmen mean nothing to the PCs. It's great that you enjoy this viewpoint of play. It's never been mine in all my years of playing D&D.   So the town has 24/7 protection by adventurers for time imperpetual? Why is it not logical to assume that if a town cannot protect itself from the threats around it on it's own, that the town should no longer be there? If the guard is so ineffectual against manticore, say, they why aren't the manticores just roosting in a tower and having easy pickings? The manticores must perceive at least some danger in the townsfolk that keeps them from more than just raiding them for food. And now we have the plot, that the local town is suffering predations by the manticore, often where the militia aren't (say local farms, or a raided caravan taking by suprise, or whatever). And so the PCs are brought forth to deal with the problem for the local lord.   As the PCs themselves show, size and mass have absolutely nothing to do with the difficulty level of a creature. After all, that 20th level halfling rogue isn't invulnerable, may have some magic items, can't fly on his own, certainly isn't as strong or resilient as a giant. So by this logic, the rogue should be pretty easy to defeat. Which of course isn't the case.   Sure, for Frodo, and Sam, and Merry and Pippin. All of whom I happily consider 1st level. They've never adventured before, never faced dangers beyond Farmer Maggot. Why would they be anything but? But for Aragorn, his adventure started 50 years ago. He's just ported into the new campaign with this group of first level hobbits. I have to ask why your 100 year adventuring elf didn't learn anything in all his adventures?  No, as I've stated many times, what I find unbelievable is a character totally scoffing at 12 bows aimed at them. I don't expect the characters to be defeated, certainly not killed, because I too know and understand the underlying mechanics of the game, and because they are heroes who in the end should win through. But it's clear we have differing views on how PCs should perceive their worlds. Totally fine, of course, I do see how your interpretation of the levels in D&D can give a different impression on how characters view the world.  Yes, which is why I argue that HP represent much more than pure physical health. Which is why I believe characters should be concerned about arrows pointed at them. Which is why I argue that PCs shouldn't just meta-game that because they have 300 hps, that a dozen bowshots shouldn't matter. The _players_ certainly can, and it's virutally impossible not to. But I would like the _characters_ to feel that it's at least a risky proposition, that the arrows are going to hurt, and they might even be unlucky and take a fatal shot.  One or two, maybe, but I don't think I've ever seen a party of all shield users, and fewer still that would offer complete cover, from all angles of attack.   But then we're getting back to the metagaming. Why are these ranger/rogue goblins perceived as such a threat, when bandits weren't? To the characters, they're just goblins with bows, and aren't goblins not worth worrying about if you're challenging manticores and beholders? Reading the threads here on the forums, and my own preparations, I'm happy to see the 4E can at least better model some of what I'm looking for, in that's it's easier to scale threats to the PCs, even if the bandits are just minions.</blockquote>

Verification