• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Hit Point style preference

That's with a 5-percent chance of landing a telling blow, versus the master's 100-percent chance.
Running the numbers on rocket tag is eye-opening. As I noted earlier, a master swordsman -- who has a 100-percent chance of hitting and killing one lowly guard per turn -- is easily overwhelmed by 10 guards -- who each have just a 5-percent chance of hitting and killing the master. The master has only a 6-percent chance of coming out alive (assuming all attacks are simultaneous, for easy math).

Here's the master's chance of surviving against n guards:

9: 10%
8: 16%
7: 24%
6: 34%
5: 46%
4: 60%
3: 74%
2: 86%
1: 95%​

So, against five guards, his odds have already dropped below 50-50, even though he's guaranteed a kill each round, and they only have a 1-in-20 chance of killing him.

If we drop the guards' kill percentage down to 1 percent, the master can survive against 10 of them 58 percent of the time:

9: 64%
8: 70%
7: 75%
6: 81%
5: 86%
4: 90%
3: 94%
2: 97%
1: 99%​

Lanchester's Square Law works wonders.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Plot Immunity all the way for me.

We play D&D to live heroic/legendary fiction: Cú Chulainn, Drizzt, Conan, Elric, et al.

We understand that not everyone has the same tastes, of course. But that's our preferred style (and it will be in 5th, regardless of what the mega-committee comes up with)
 


I want to bring back the -10 to 10 (AC 10 to AC 30) with a attack bonus of +1 to +20, and make AC based on dex + armour again.

I hate spinning my wheels in place as AC scales up with attacks. I hate not being able to enjoy being powerful and sending lesser adventurers and creatures fleeing with their pants on fire.

I especially hated this in Dragon Age 2, where I was the hero of Kirkwall who had fought powerful monsters and had powerful spells and magical items, but street thugs still beat the crap out of me. What the hell is the point of the grinding?

I always make a point of doing lower level adventures and encounters for my PC's so that they feel like big shots once and awhile. When they were conquering the Stonelands of Cormyr, they were allowed to liquidate an orcish stronghold (a 4th level adventure) even though they were 10 levels higher than that. It made them feel like big shots.

However, with level appropriate treasure, level appropriate experience, and level appropriate everything else, you can't divert from the grind for long. In 2e and earlier however, by hitting all of your opponents more often than you did at low levels you still got to feel more powerful without having to take on weaklings. The assumption of random encounter tables helped by allowing PC's to encounter enemies that they could easily defeat or flee from.

But when I play 4e, I don't feel much like I'm gaining levels at all.
 

I've played a lot of Rolemaster, which is rocket tage game.

I've played a lot of D&D which, except at low levels in classic D&D, is a plot immunity game.

Both have their issues. I think rocket tag needs back-up fate points or something similar. Otherwise PC attrition becomes too great.

And because plot immunity tends to produce gonzo outcomes - especially when applied to falls over cliffs, being caught in explosions/cave-ins etc - it needs the rest of the game and the gameworld to support that gonzo fiction. I personally don't like the way 3E handles this, with gonzo plot immunity in combat, but non-gonzo grittiness in other areas of the game, like swimming, climbing and crafting.
 

Left to myself, I prefer rocket tag or some derivative thereof. However, I am willing to play with plot immunity if that's what everyone else wants.
 

Neither.

I don't think that Rocket Tag or Plot Immunity represent some kind of ends on a line and all RPGs have to fall somewhere in between. They're just random points in a space with at least three dimensions.

First of all, I don't like high-lethality games. I played in a group where the GM was proud to kill half the party each week, and for him, this was "true" D&D. There was no plot, no sense of achievement (except for him), and all PCs were either bland, or joke characters. "Biervernichter" (beer gulper?) is not a name for a dwarf. Not my cup of tea.

PC's can die, but it should be a major story event with some meaning. However, this doesn't mean "no challenge". PCs can still fail, and they can still be defeated. The game needs regular "boss battles" where the PCs are evenly matched, disadvantaged or outgunned and need their wits to pull through.

Since gaming sessions are rather short, there should be only 1-3 warm-ups between boss battles. I don't really care what creates the advantage in warm-ups (could be higher to hit, more damage, more hp, buffs, healing resources, or a combination), but the math has to work on the boss battles.
 

I prefer "rocket tag." I don't necessarily mind HP/damage increasing, I just don't like them increasing exponentially (i.e. a character starting with 5-10 HP at 1st level, and having hundreds of HP at 20th level).

If you started with a fair numbner of HP like in 4e, and then maybe only gained one or two HP per level, that would be ok with me. Gaining 4 or 5 per level is too much. I like how 4e played at 1st level. Characters could survive 2, 3 maybe even 4 hits before dropping.

At most, I woudln't want a high level character to have more than 2 or 3 times as many HP, or do more than 2-3x as much damage as a beginning character. Any more than that just stretches things beyond believability and IMO ruins the fun.

It also makes less options for players when HP/damage scales too much. Why shouldn't alchemist's fire be effective throughout all levels of play? I can't imagine any character, despite how experienced they are, laughing at the "pitiful damage" of a molotov cocktail being thrown at them. But in dnd, alchemists fire is really only effective for the first few levels of play, and beyond that, the pitiful damage is just not worth wasting your turn.
 

Plot-immunized rocket tag is my general preference. I really like the thematic separation of damage that matters (i.e. it directly contributes to death or disablement) from everything else. When they get mixed together I find it hard to interpret what is actually happening in anything but a post hoc fashion. I'd rather know what happens at the same time the character does. Hit points as a jumble of minor physical damage, proficiency, providence, positioning, preparedness, poise, and luck without other effects are extremely flexible and utilitarian. They can mean almost everything, and so they also mean almost nothing. Thus I find real wounds like "losing an arm" rather jarring if they comes from the same mechanical pool. This separation also makes it easy to adjust the balance of plot protection and rocket tag to achieve the level of grittiness and survivability desired in a given setting.

In the homebrew system I play, one difference from either the basic rocket tag or plot protection systems described in the OP is that neither HP nor defenses go up as characters gain experience, even though attacks do. (This is a success-based system, so there are no separate damage rolls.) Instead, we use a system which gives more "momentum" to characters based on how well they succeed. Momentum can be spent on attacks or defenses, so players tailor their spending to the situation. Momentum also grants access to more powerful weapon maneuvers, and can help spellcasters defray the spell point costs of their spells.

As the PCs gain experience they can mop-up lower power creatures fairly quickly, but these remain dangerous in number and especially in ambushes, because without momentum the PCs aren't much more sturdy than they were at the start of their careers. Against bad guys of similar ability scores and skill most fights are about choosing the right moments to use momentum for defense or attack, and the flow of momentum really gives a sense of the changing tides of the battle. When fighting opponents with very powerful attacks but some notably weak defenses very large swings in momentum are possible for either side, and this is probably the closest the game comes to true rocket tag. Finally, against opponents that have both better attacks and defenses the PCs tend to be momentum starved, which leads to starkly different and desperate combat. In combat with multiple creatures all this combines to create an unusually strong tension (in my RPG experience at least) between the need to focus fire and the need to engage all the baddies so they are not incentivized to pour momentum into devastating attacks. I have found it a very enjoyable dynamic.
 

Running the numbers on rocket tag is eye-opening. As I noted earlier, a master swordsman -- who has a 100-percent chance of hitting and killing one lowly guard per turn -- is easily overwhelmed by 10 guards -- who each have just a 5-percent chance of hitting and killing the master. The master has only a 6-percent chance of coming out alive (assuming all attacks are simultaneous, for easy math).
[...]
So, against five guards, his odds have already dropped below 50-50, even though he's guaranteed a kill each round, and they only have a 1-in-20 chance of killing him.

If we drop the guards' kill percentage down to 1 percent, the master can survive against 10 of them 58 percent of the time:

Now consider how "plot immunity" affects the situation. Lets make the master survive two hits at first (still 100% vs. 5% hit chance):
[sblock]10: 23%
9: 33%
8: 46%
7: 59%
6: 72%
5: 83%
4: 91%
3: 97%
2: 99%
1: 100%[/sblock]Now three:
[sblock]10: 48%
9: 61%
8: 73%
7: 84%
6: 92%
5: 96%
4: 99%
3: 100%
2: 100%
1: 100%[/sblock]How about five:
[sblock]10: 86%
9: 93%
8: 97%
7: 99%
6: 100%
5: 100%
4: 100%
3: 100%
2: 100%
1: 100%[/sblock]For ten, we see 100% through the chart.

Lets try ten hits but give the guards a better chance to hit. 20% is probably around right for 3e or 4e, when the master can survive ten hits. (Any better guesses?)
[sblock]10: 32%
9: 59%
8: 83%
7: 96%
6: 100%
5: 100%
4: 100%
3: 100%
2: 100%
1: 100%[/sblock]Personally, I like the three hit chart best. The master easily handles 1-3, and has a smoothly increasing chance to die thereafter. There are of course many more possibilities for the degree of plot protection and hit%-ages. This also didn't take into account the master's 5% miss chance or extra attacks.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top