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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5700624" data-attributes="member: 6668292">As far as I can tell, HP is very abstract with the 3.5 interpretation, in that all you know is that you got hit, and that you tried to make it not as bad as it could have been. It's always hitting meat in 3.5, but maybe not very badly.I agree, which is why I have put forth the proposal of two HP pools: physical and "other" (where "other can be tailor made from group to group).Well, this isn't a problem of 3.5's, actually (though it does have problems). How can that happen? Well, the 15th level Fighter is legendary at turning blows into less serious blows. That gash that takes does the level 1 Commoner? The 15th level Fighter is fast enough to make it a mere graze on his forehead; it broke his skin, but didn't slow him down.Navy SEAL = nowhere near level 15 Fighter. Also, a coup de grace is a coup de grace... with bullet damage, you're likely both dead. It's more like, put both you and a Navy SEAL in a combat situation, and see who lasts longer under the same conditions. He wins most of the time.Oh yeah, I'm sure they servers would be pretty empty, with those few players  who made it to higher level just ganking all the little guys for laughs. It'd be terrible. I'm not saying it's good for the public at large, I'm just commenting on my play style in general.I like lower level D&D play just because it seems to fit the stories I like better. You can get taken out by being overwhelmed by mundane forces, but you can still be a badass at times. If I ever run 3.5 again (outside of going back to one particular campaign), it'll be E6. I might play in one at some point, but I probably won't.It really depends on the party that my players are playing as. In the past, they've been all about combat, killing demons left and right. This time, they're taking their time, being cautious, and trying to expand their territory as warlords.Yeah, that'd strike me as really wrong or immersion breaking. If someone is out of healing surges, why can't you magically heal them? If they're currently bloodied, why can they use a standard to heal wounds permanently? I can see the "Diehard" thing, maybe, with the bloodied incident, but it's still turning a potentially serious wound into a less serious wound via retconning, to many groups (you'd have to have a GM that's careful not to make any bloodied wound too serious to avoid it). And that would hurt my immersion.However, if healing simply doesn't work anymore for some reason, that'd strike me as wrong. No matter how many healers we bring it, we can only heal him if we have the correct encounter power that heals "X" without using a surge? What do the other healing spells represent, then?It was very informative, thank you. Please don't think I'm challenging you. The questions above were rhetorical, to inform you of my objections based on the very useful information you provided me. Thanks for taking the time to help me understand this issue a little more clearly. Yeah, not as bad as you might have thought!Yes, D&D has always had the characters been a cut above most people. Most people are level 0's, or level 1 Commoners, or the like. So, I'm not saying that my game would work for D&D, and I don't want D&D to look like my game. However, I want D&D to support the amount of narrative range my game has available. Anything less, and I'll just play my game, where more stories can be told.Oh, me too. I took three things into account when making my game: realism (which is mainly where grittiness kicked in), fantasy (which really offsets realism), and balance (nothing underpowered or overpowered). These were the big three. And, I think I achieved that. But, that dash of grittiness is ever-present, but people are very balanced at the same hit die, in my opinion. I've had playtesting occur for about two years as the system's been refined, and the system settled a couple months ago, when we ran out of problems to fix.Well, my game excels at combat if everyone invests in combat. My game excels at a diplomatic, court-focused game, if people invest in diplomatic, court-focused skills. My game excels at craftsmanship if people invest in craftsmanship. The only real thing you need total acceptance on if you want a very focused game is for player buy-in. If you want a combat-focused game, make sure everyone heavily invests in combat. Otherwise, you get a battlemage, a pyromancer, a sword and board two-weapon fighter, a dirty-fighting and backstabbing thief, a hulking barbarian with a massive axe, and a scholar. And in your game, since it's combat focused, the scholar will die. Mind you, he'll be really good at his duties, but he'll die in a combat-focused game.Now, I know I say "my game excels at" but that's just taste. It doesn't support minis as well (though you could easily use them), nor does it support forced movement as well (though you could build a character that does so). So, 4e probably is better at what you want than my game would be.However, my game was built for player options and a wide narrative range. Teleporting long distances permanently drains resources. Don't want it? Houserule: now it doesn't. It's quick, it's simple, it eliminates the problem. Your world just opened up to fit your narrative. I'd rather have built-in restrictions that are easy to lift off than no restrictions but a smaller narrative range.Now, if there's restrictions, how can it support more narratives? Well, when teleporting long distances becomes commonplace for a party, then you wind up losing any sort of story where overt build-up is possible. You can't hear of the orcs to the far north building up an army without the PCs teleporting in and stopping it early. And, if the PCs aren't high enough levels, why not the NPCs? However, if you remove that option, then the game supports more narratives, in my opinion. And, you can choose to always strip away the restriction if on teleporting if you want to, or plane-hopping, or permanently enchanting people or items, or whatever.Just my philosophy on it. I'd rather have to learn one system that supports a wide narrative range than learn a bunch of systems that allow different stories. But, that's preference, and I understand when people disagree. And I'm cool with that. I hope 5e focuses on narrative range, and if they follow the "dials" approach, maybe they will. I don't know if I like the idea of dials, but I don't know the implementation yet, so I can't say. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.Definitely the journey for us. Although you can definitely get a cinematic feel, if you want it. You can have a player take out 10 guys in 10 seconds in my game. You just need a big enough level gap, and a character pretty focused on fighting. Same thing with taking wounds and still going, or casting spells when you shouldn't be able to. Or getting mortally wounded and giving advice to the party on where to go to save the life of the character with a skull fracture, even though you're bleeding out and most people would be unconscious (happened in my game).Hopefully. I'd like to see the wheels turn from week to week, similar to what we got with Mearls. It's very interesting, even if I don't like the end goal (not that I mind this one). I once watched a bunch of videos on youtube by a guy named John Wick. Really grates on my style of game, but his thought process was interesting.We did have fun, thanks. Same goes to you! As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification