How do we really want combat to be?

[Gellion]

"But "Evil" spelled backwards is "Live"...and we all want to live, don't we?"

Are you dyslexic?

 

[Iscariot]

"But "Evil" spelled backwards is "Live"...and we all want to live, don't we?"

Are you dyslexic?

Nah, it's from an animated movie called "Rock and Rule". The evil rockstar-wizard used the line when he was called "Evil" and explaining why he was that way...

 

[Norfleet]

Because, as we all know, death is character building.

I concur wholeheartedly.

Because, as we all know, death is character building.

More 'cause deaths let the players feel exactly how dangerous the life of a hero and adventurer is. If they never die 'cause they only kill goblins all the time and laugh while the gnolls try to pierce their +5 full plates of heavy fortification they aren't really heroes. Any guy could do that. What makes them heroes is facing these life-or-death situations, wondrously surviving the lich's finger of death or something similarly dangerous. But if those life-threatening situations become so easy to resist, however, that the players won't mind another, they can't really be considered heroic either.

You're not getting it.

 

[niteshade6]

I don't know, I find that characters at high levels may have alot of hit points, but they often can dish out a major amount of damage as well. Rather then having my fighter who is cleaving his way towards the lich suddenly killed by a death spell, I'd find it far more dramatic to have him hit with say a maximized fireball and a quickened normal fireball for about 95 damage total. That might kill me outright there if I'm already hurt, if not, it gives me time to realize I'd better do something fast because I can't survive another of those. Sounds far more exciting then missing a failed roll and then dying.

In living campaigns, even without harm it's not uncommon for the 300+ hit point bad guy at lvl 10 not to live more then one round or two because of the sheer quantity of damage people can dish out at higher levels. Similarly I've seen characters with close to 200 hit points ripped to shreds in a single round.

Either way though I'm not sure what the point of debating death spells really is, because they really weren't nerfed in 3.5, with the exception of disintigrate.

 

[Cyraneth]

I don't know, I find that characters at high levels may have alot of hit points, but they often can dish out a major amount of damage as well. Rather then having my fighter who is cleaving his way towards the lich suddenly killed by a death spell, I'd find it far more dramatic to have him hit with say a maximized fireball and a quickened normal fireball for about 95 damage total. That might kill me outright there if I'm already hurt, if not, it gives me time to realize I'd better do something fast because I can't survive another of those. Sounds far more exciting then missing a failed roll and then dying.

In living campaigns, even without harm it's not uncommon for the 300+ hit point bad guy at lvl 10 not to live more then one round or two because of the sheer quantity of damage people can dish out at higher levels. Similarly I've seen characters with close to 200 hit points ripped to shreds in a single round.

Either way though I'm not sure what the point of debating death spells really is, because they really weren't nerfed in 3.5, with the exception of disintigrate.

So, a lich should warn the onrushing warrior by only dealing some 60 points of damage to him instead of killing him? With the exception of it the spell being more likely to affect the fighter, what would the point be? Wouldn't the lich want to kill them instead of just "warn" them?

A banshee is dangerous 'cause it can kill with a scream, just like that. A lich is equally dangerous. Players should fear them, just like they fear a monster able to dish out 120+ points of damage per round. If the banshee or lich doesn't "feel" like using their ability to kill like that, but just "warn" players ("because death would be really boring") instead, they're not really fearsome anymore. That's just like equipping all orcs with daggers instead, 'cause greataxes might be too powerful against the players. "Unlucky" deaths in random encounters are bad for play. I agree with that. Deaths 'cause of the players' bad strategies are well deserved. Deaths 'cause of bad dice are just bad luck. And finally, deaths against mighty opponents let the players feel how mighty these opponents truly are. If the players survive every fight just 'cause the DM doesn't feel like killing his players, they'll stop fearing the monsters. That should never happen. The players should fear certain monster from round 1, not just when they go below 20% of their hit points. I know players fear dragons, but that's 'cause they don't know if they'll ultimately win the fight, but if they've got enough hit points they don't really fear dying in the first round. They should.

I don't want to sound like I want players to be fearful of dying every second of gaming. I don't want them to go all cautious and undaring. But I still want players to be able to drop where they stand. The same goes for monsters, of course. Death spells are a perfect tool for drama, and if it is removes from play, the gaming world will, most likely, turn less dramatic. If players perform heroic deeds 'cause they know the consequences of failing are small, then those deeds aren't really heroic. Example: If your fighter throws himself in front of the wizard to take an arrow, knowing the arrow won't deal more than 6 points of damage, and both he and the wizard each have over 40 hit points, the wizard might be thankful, but the deed was hardly heroic. Likewise, fighting a lich 'cause they know the lich will only hurl fireballs against them isn't going to be very heroic. They're 12th-level characters (or whatever). Challenge them. The occassional save-or-die lets players feel how much danger you've put them in. Just knowing that lich could kill you in an instant makes the fight much more dramatic. They won't know, however, if the lich never tries that.

- Cyraneth

 

[hong]

So, a lich should warn the onrushing warrior by only dealing some 60 points of damage to him instead of killing him?

Dear Cyraneth,

Your misconceptions are making the baby Jack Chick cry. Please to stop.

(10,000 lines deleted)

 

[Cyraneth]

Dear Cyraneth,

Your misconceptions are making the baby Jack Chick cry. Please to stop.

If I'm that terribly wrong, then please point out where I am wrong.

DMs seem to be growing afraid of killing the characters, and players seem to think the game isn't fun anymore if their characters can die. If this affects the game system, causing all death effects to be removed it is clearly proof to the point that heroes don't have to be heroic anymore. Isn't the greatest danger instantaneous and irrevocable death? The "irrevocable" part has already been removed, and I really don't mind that, but if they remove the "instantaneous" part too, it won't be long before they remove the "death" part as well.

- Cyraneth

 

[Plane Sailing]

How do we really want combat to be?

Like Runequest version 2! Best combat system ever IMLE. Now if I could work out how to incorporate it into D&D without losing some of the D&D-ism...

Cheers!

 

[AuraSeer]

DMs seem to be growing afraid of killing the characters, and players seem to think the game isn't fun anymore if their characters can die.

I haven't noticed any such thing. Though you seem to be implying it's a common trend among all D&D gamers, that's clearly not the case.

If your DM and your players think this way, and it's affecting your enjoyment of the game, you probably want to find a different gaming group.

 

[Cyraneth]

I haven't noticed any such thing. Though you seem to be implying it's a common trend among all D&D gamers, that's clearly not the case.

If your DM and your players think this way, and it's affecting your enjoyment of the game, you probably want to find a different gaming group.

I'm basing this assumption on the way the disintegrate and harm spells have been affected and on various posts (such as Black Omega's). I've also noticed a trend in house rules that remove death spells, and even a trend about softening energy draining. Even some posts about not using sundering attacks. All this hints at players and DMs being addicted to safety. Players don't want to give up weapons, characters, levels, etc. They don't even want to risk that. And since DMs just want their players to be happy, they don't use sundering attacks, energy draining monsters, death spells, etc. Is loss that hard to handle?

Sudden death, losing a favorite weapon, being drained of a level or two, etc. is bad, of course, but only a setback. Losing a few hit points is still okay among safety-addict players and DMs, as it is easily cured with a few spells, and there needs to be some dangers, right?

- Cyraneth