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: 5928234" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I think there will be some scaling, too. I really, really hope high level doesn't look like "1d8+15 damage vs 2,000 hit points" as the balancing measure, even with four attacks per round plus maneuvers. But, that's personal preference.Yep, totally agreed. I was just saying I like some progression because of what it represents within the fiction, and that I'm not sure how much I like the idea of hit points doing all the fictional heavy lifting that AC/attacks used to fulfill as well (when you have issues like poisoned attacks and falling damage). But, yes, let's see how it plays out for the next few months before rushing to any conclusion. 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=":)" />Right. I just hope that the attack bonus progressions are meaningful enough in play, feel-wise. It's a hard target to peg, in all honesty. I just don't like the idea of "I hit 20% more often, because I'm maximum level" as a solution. That 20% will add up, for sure, especially with the higher damage at high level doing the heavy fictional lifting for what a "hit" is. However, I do have some reservations about hit points filling this role within the game.I'm guessing that it will be the case for poison. For falling damage? I'm not as sure. Being set on fire? Not as sure. Falling onto lava? Not as sure. Being immersed in acid? Not as sure. Hit points have always had a hiccup in this area in D&D, and moving the heavy fictional position of dodge/deflection to hit points means that you're going to get heavy hiccups in situations where HP damage is dealt, but dodging/deflecting isn't much of an option (like the above scenarios).But, again, I'm interested to see how it works out. If it ends up working well, and they end up having patch mechanics that seem clean in-play (like HP thresholds), then I guess it's fine, and I'll be happy.Though, to be honest, I still have reservations with HP mechanics. Take the Sleep spell, with its 10 HP-threshold. It can only affect creatures with 10 HP or lower. Okay. The Wizard, I assume, knows this before he casts it. The creature needs to be weak or it needs to be beaten down some first. Do creatures actually need to be beaten down first, since any creature that has 1 HP or more automatically heals overnight (because that wasn't "real wounds" yet)? Does that rule only apply to PCs, and, if so, is there a way for him to judge just how beaten down someone needs to be? Can he assess a creature's hit points in the game to know that it's safe to use his spell? Is this a purely metagame mechanic ("if they're at or above 10 HP, just pretend they made the save in-game, but let a player know when the creature falls lower than a certain HP threshold")? If so, will the large majority of players in the playtest be okay with that?I just have questions about the implementation. But, that doesn't mean I think there will be tons of problems with it in play. We'll wait and see what people think, and how they like it in the long run. For now, it's probably best to observe, report, and just think about how you feel about things that Wizards presents to you. And, for now, I intend to wait and observe. 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