Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KDLadage" data-source="post: 1066155" data-attributes="member: 88">Agreed. But the term "system" implies a level of internal consistancy that, from genre to genre, is not there (in my opinion).Sure.And I have no trouble -- and in fact, invite, such massaging to meet the needs of a given genre. Please! If a rule simply does not work for a given genre's conventions, change it. But in this one case -- the case of how you make a check for stabalization -- seems an odd place to start making changes.Let us assume that the people above are correct, and that the need to encourage the survival of established characters mandated the change from a flat percent to a fort save. If this mechanic works, and works well, why maintain the percentage chance of stabalization once the update for the original rules was made? Would not a simple DC20 Fort Save have been just as effective there? If you feel it is too high a chance (hardly, since this baselines at 5%), then make it a DC25. If this is too low a chance, drop it to DC 15, or even 10 (a la Star Wars). But this mechanic seems straight-forward enough that it would work, and work well, in all of the genres involved... thus eliminating one very odd, and (in my opinion) needless variation.Besides... doesn;t Stabalization seem like ti should be a saving throw of some sort?But D&D does have a massive damage rule. 50 points is a massive damage save-or-die. So... my question there becomes, why could the massive damage rule not have been made consistant from genre to genre (even as an optional rule, as it is in D&D)? For example, in d20 Modern, the Massive Damage Threshold is equal to CON. In D&D it is equal to 50. In d20 Modern, it is save or be disabled. In D&D it is save or die.I would say that the best of both worlds would be to set the Massive Damage Threshold as a multiple of CON. In d20 Modern, the default assumption would be a multiple of x1. In D&D the default assumption would be in the range of x4 or x5. Thus, if I am playing in a relatively gritty game, I can set the threshold to x2 or x3 in a D&D game. But in both cases, I would say that Save of be disabled (i.e.: -1 HP) makes the most sense.In my opinion.But of course, a simple sidebar saying that for more deadly games, the save could easilly be set to a Save or Die idea as well.Now where is the downfall of having the rule consistant to this degree? Am I missing something here?Agreed whole-heartedly. I believe that in a setting book (i.e.: Call of Cthulhu) that having less flexible sets of rules is fine. In Genre-books, however, the rules should be a toolkit of options for establishing how you want to play this. Take Mutants and Masterminds, for example. Look at the Hit-Points/Damage system they use. Wonderful. Yet, the rules for how to use a standard HP system are there, in case you like that better. This is one of the best Genre books I have ever seen (despite the increadible amount of errata due to poor editing...)I am sure that someone had a reason for the changes, and I am sorry if saying "for no good reason" causes problem with you. But I simply have yet to be able to wrap my head around why there needs to be two seperate mechanics for this one very simple thing. One mechanic with variable DCs or Percentages would be fine. Changing mechanics here seems like an un-needed complication. <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Want to use a Fort Save? Fine, set the DC as appropriate for the Genre+Setting combo and go on.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Want to use a percentage chance? Fine, set the percent appropriate for the Genre+Setting combo and go on. Hell, have the Percentage chance of stabalization equal to character level times 5 for all I care...</li> </ul>But it seems like they could have picked and stuck with one mechanic.Agreed.Most of them, yes.Great attitude. :rollseyes: <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I have no trouble having to look things up. What I do not like it having to look things up that have no good reason to change from genre to genre, but have changed non-the-less. You might disagree that they had or hadn't a good reason... but I never claimed that I wanted a game where nothing had to be looked up.OK.It can be. But as I stated earlier, if I switch from D&D to GURPS, I have no expectation that anything works the same way. When I switch from D&D to d20 Modern, I _do_ have that assumption. And when things fail to meet that assumption...Sheesh.... niether am I. d20 Fantasy has an extensive and powerful magic system. d20 Modern has a smaller and less potent magic system. d20 Fantasy expects huge amounts of hit points to be a near infallable shield against instant death. d20 Modern assumes that even the toughest guys can go down with a well-placed gunshot. All of these things are fine. But I happen to believe that the rules for handling both of these can be made much more consistant than they are now. Continuity is not what I am asking for here. Not even "more continuity." I am asking for "more consistancy" in the mechaincs involved.I want such changes as well... but only if they enhance the game in some way. Having two seperate mechanics for this one very simple concept does not enhance the game in any way, tailor it for that genre in any way, or make things work better for that genre's assumptions in any way.... in my opinion.</blockquote>

Verification