Lethality: I don't know what I want

[Crazy Jerome]

I like for lethalness to vary even within those different kinds of fights in a given campaign, which is really my one unfulfilled dream for D&D combat. That is, I can pretty much make any version of D&D work out the way I want with house rules, but it gets too complicated to vary it quickly.

That said, I think I'd like "still fighting/out of the fight" part primarely left in the hit point mechanic, but then be able to bypass it with a separate, very simple scale. This sounds a lot like the various Wounds/Vitality systems, but that isn't what I want. Those are merely two different kinds of hit points.

No, using 4E terms, what I'd like is for "minion" or "boss" or whatever to be a variable that changes, and this is the thing that interacts with any kind of action/fate points. Whereas hit points and healing are kept down to a low roar, and when something makes you lose them, you just lose them. A fully rested PC is never in a "minion" state. But throw enough "save and die" stuff, or fail enough death saves, or any number of such things on them, and their state drops through a handful of discrete options. Keep going, and they eventually turn into a Star Trek red shirt. At that point, if they catch a finger of death and fail their save, bye-bye.

I also suspect, though I'm really unsure, that in such a system, criticals would do no extra damage, but would move your state. So that means the first critical from an orc great axe or a bandit crossbow hurts, but doesn't really affect you that much in that fight. Get to "minion" state, though, and a crit can kill.

Less lethal games would give you more resources (magic, narrative plot protection, whatever is appropriate for the style of the game) to keep you out of minion status. More lethal games would let you get there quick if you aren't careful. In all of them, the hit points and damage would work more or less the same for everyone.

 

[Jack99]

I can loose chess I can't loose a character in 4e. I do not have to consider tactics in 4e, we all win with out even knowing what's going on. How is that more tactical than having a chance to loose?

Nobody has permanently died in the 3-1/2 campaigns I've played in 4e.

We've been threatened, knocked out, and dragged from the very brink of death, but the systems allows many opportunities to save our beloved characters without lulling us into believing we have 'plot immunity'.

Sweet spot, AFAIAC.

Over 700 hours DMing in 4e, and on average, a character is down every single fight rolling death saves, and on average, a character dies every 3rd or 4th level. More than 7 or 8 TPK's. And my monsters all have -15% hit points and since MM3 damage guidelines, I rarely go above n+2 fiights, and that's only for the big bad boss end of adventure fights. It is quite possible to challenge and kill players in 4e, although I will admit that a specialized healer cleric makes it more difficult, especially at paragon and epic levels.

maybe its just my players who suck.

 

[mmadsen]

No, using 4E terms, what I'd like is for "minion" or "boss" or whatever to be a variable that changes, and this is the thing that interacts with any kind of action/fate points. Whereas hit points and healing are kept down to a low roar, and when something makes you lose them, you just lose them. A fully rested PC is never in a "minion" state. But throw enough "save and die" stuff, or fail enough death saves, or any number of such things on them, and their state drops through a handful of discrete options. Keep going, and they eventually turn into a Star Trek red shirt. At that point, if they catch a finger of death and fail their save, bye-bye.

So you use your fate points to avoid dangerous spells, poisons, arrows, etc., and when you're out of fate points, then you have to make your saves (or defense rolls) or suffer the consequences.

 

[Wormwood]

maybe its just my players who suck.

If they're having fun, then no worries.

My players simply love their characters so much that the social compact compels me to play the game differently than I did in the 70's

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So you use your fate points to avoid dangerous spells, poisons, arrows, etc., and when you're out of fate points, then you have to make your saves (or defense rolls) or suffer the consequences.

That would be one option. Or you can try your saves on each such dangerous attack (if relevant), only using the fate points when you fail. Or you could use the fate points to augment the saves, putting a gambling element into it. Or you can play a 1st ed. style operational game where you need limited magical resources to avoid/manage the consequences.

Really, that's half the main object of such a system. The thinking is that all of us quibble so much over hit points around the edges because hit points try to do too much. So keep the hit points relatively simple and consistent, but pull the lethalness out where we can all manipulate it the way we want, without messing up the main hit point dynamic. I don't think many of us ever really minded, "Orc hits you with his axe. Take 7 points of damage. Ok, next ..." It's crits and save and die and plot protection and all that stuff that we disagree on.

Also, I admit that I really like the 4E minion concept, but the one thing that rubs me a bit wrong about it is the gap between minions and everything else. If we had a system such as I described, I'd want a notch between "minion" and "normal" where I'd put all the 4E minions by default. Which basically means even a minion gets one chance to escape before getting turned into a red shirt. (I mean how I'd use the system. The base game might set it elsewhere.)

 

[Ahnehnois]

I want characters to die regularly. Even if they don't make bad decisions or roll terribly, but especially often if they do.

In most any fantasy fiction (and most genre or adventure-oriented fiction in general) character death is frequent and essential. It's important to maintain a sense that enemies pose a threat, especially if you're going to be fighting regular battles. If combat has only one possible outcome, it gets boring real fast, and it becomes very difficult to get into the game. The campaign as a whole can also benefit from character turnover. Just like a TV show changing its cast, changing the cast of PCs introduces new dynamics into all the relationships; it freshens things up. And some characters just don't work and drag the game down and need to be gotten rid of. Conversely killing PCs that don't "deserve" to die is a great way to up the level of drama in a campaign and if played right, can be one of the most emotionally powerful and memorable experiences for all involved.

That said, the last campaign I essentially required the PCs to survive to fulfill various prophecies, and I basically wouldn't let them die, even though they came close a couple of times. Sometimes that's the style.

So I think the default danger level should be a much higher level of lethality than is currently assumed in 3e or especially 4e (more like earlier editions and many if not most other rpgs), but that being able to change that on occasion is important.

 

[nightwyrm]

I think something missing from this lethality conversation is the ease to make a new character. Lethality should be inversely proportional to the time it takes to make a new character. If your character dies in less time than it took to create him, then there's a problem.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Hit points in D&D are also a combat pacing mechanic, and were deliberately conceived as such from the get go. This doesn't have any inherent connection with lethalness or lack thereof, though of course in practice there is a lot of overlap.

It is asking a lot of such a system that it handle set level of pacing and lethalness, but you can make it work if you make a lot of other assumptions fixed around it (e.g. relative grit, resources, etc.) So each D&D version has worked. But if you want to vary the lethalness--and for that matter, if you want to vary the pacing--then something has to give.

 

[mmadsen]

That would be one option. Or you can try your saves on each such dangerous attack (if relevant), only using the fate points when you fail. Or you could use the fate points to augment the saves, putting a gambling element into it. Or you can play a 1st ed. style operational game where you need limited magical resources to avoid/manage the consequences.

My thought was that everything would become a 3E-style save (or 4E-style defense), with, say, a failed Ref save meaning you got hit, and a failed Fort save meaning you got hurt, and you could use your fate points after the fact to boost your roll.

Against a lucky hit from the clumsy giant, you'd use a couple fate points to dodge his tree-club. Against a hit from the goblin skirmisher, you'd use a couple fate points to shrug off his dart. Bull-rushes, disarms, and death-rays would all follow the same basic mechanics.

 

[keterys]

I will say - 4E Lethality now is a lot different from 4E lethality at launch. They learned a lot about monster design, and it's a lot easier to burst PCs now than it was before. Or for PCs to burst other PCs for that matter

I didn't see a death in the first couple years of 4E, though I ran 3 almost TPKs (all 3 blocked by someone popping back up from a death save)... but I've seen several deaths in the last few months, including one TPK and one retreat and fail the encounter.