New Article: Death and Dying

JohnSnow said:
I don't think PCs will be routinely plunging to negative hit points, but it could happen. And when it does, there's a 5% chance that they'll bounce back. So in other words, 1 time in 20 when a PC actually hits negative hit points, he's gonna "pull an Inigo Montoya."

Personally, I can live with probabilities like that.

I don't think only to the rolling 20, even to any other kind of healing, There was a playtest, in a fight against some goblins (I eman, Goblins!) in different moments four PCs went down and, during the fight, were brought up again with various methods, it can be fun for one fight, but even fi the average rate is one temporary death for fight it get boring pretty quick.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Just Another User said:
someone can explain this



my impressionn is that he is talking about 4e in this part (because else the sentence would make no sense), but 4e crits maiximize damage not double it, so what's happen? Are 15 level "brute" monsters rolling 10d6 or something similiar for damage? I thought they wanted to remove randomness.

but at least this time are not saying how much previous edition sucked, maybe they are learning. :)

And no "cool" word, hell just froze over. :D

Still "meh" though.

The text said "capable" of dealing 25-30 damage. I interpret that to mean the max damage is 25-30. I would guess that monster has an ability that modifies critical hits or is just a mistake.

That wasn't the point of the post, though. The point was that 0 to -10 is to small an interval for high levels.
 

med stud said:
The text said "capable" of dealing 25-30 damage.

yes, "and almost the double on a crit",so you think they've have already forgot how their new crits work? not exactly encouraging, at least for DDI articles quality.

I interpret that to mean the max damage is 25-30. I would guess that monster has an ability that modifies critical hits or is just a mistake.

That wasn't the point of the post, though. The point was that 0 to -10 is to small an interval for high levels.
Hey, one take his chunks of 4e where he can.

There was also the part about a 15 fighter get 120 hp, but someone already mentioned it.
 

Just Another User said:
I don't think only to the rolling 20, even to any other kind of healing, There was a playtest, in a fight against some goblins (I eman, Goblins!) in different moments four PCs went down and, during the fight, were brought up again with various methods, it can be fun for one fight, but even fi the average rate is one temporary death for fight it get boring pretty quick.

To be fair, the Battle of Pelennor Fields in Return of the King was mostly against "some goblins." As, for the most part, was the battle in Moria where Frodo was nearly gutted.

Goblins don't have to be pathetic foes.

And "one temporary death per fight" is pretty much par for the course in 3e. Unless you're just always taking on monsters where the odds are 4:1 in your favor. Which hardly seems all that heroic to me.

I'd rather have characters constantly being nearly taken out than have them constantly taking part in lame fights against inferior opponents in some weird "attrition-based" endurance test.
 

Just Another User said:
no, it is not. that same wound on a 1st level commoner would kill him a dozen times, as an experienced fighter you were able to take it in a less lethal point (but if it was 5cm on the left it could have hit your heart)
It's the same wound. If the 2nd level fighter was hit for 40 HP of damage, it means something different than the same number on a 20th level fighter. If the 20th level fighter loses 20% of his HP, it's an identical wound to a 2nd level fighter losing 20% of his HP. He's messed up to exactly the same degree, regardless of what HP are supposed to stand for, whether it be toughness, morale, or luck. So while the 20th level fighter gets nicked by something that would eviscerate a 2nd level fighter, by virtue of his superior ability to avoid damage and demoralization, if the 2nd level fighter is also nicked, the same spell should be capable of repairing a nick on either character.
 

Just Another User said:
someone can explain this

At 15th level, that fighter might face a tough brute capable of dishing out 25 or 30 points of damage with its best attack… or nearly twice that on a crit.


my impressionn is that he is talking about 4e in this part (because else the sentence would make no sense), but 4e crits maiximize damage not double it, so what's happen? Are 15 level "brute" monsters rolling 10d6 or something similiar for damage? I thought they wanted to remove randomness.

Well, there's a lot of ways to get an average of ~30 hp of damage. Here's one:

Damage: 4d8 + 12.

Avg: 28-32 hp
Max: 44 hp.

If there's powers that add damage on a crit, that could creep higher. Honestly, there's no way to evaluate this statement without the full system.
 


Dr. Awkward said:
It's the same wound. If the 2nd level fighter was hit for 40 HP of damage, it means something different than the same number on a 20th level fighter. If the 20th level fighter loses 20% of his HP, it's an identical wound to a 2nd level fighter losing 20% of his HP. He's messed up to exactly the same degree, regardless of what HP are supposed to stand for, whether it be toughness, morale, or luck. So while the 20th level fighter gets nicked by something that would eviscerate a 2nd level fighter, by virtue of his superior ability to avoid damage and demoralization, if the 2nd level fighter is also nicked, the same spell should be capable of repairing a nick on either character.

The tradition (and, IMO, wholly unsatisfactory) explanation is that the spell is also restoring some of the fighter's "heroic luck," or "divine protection." So, since the 20th-level fighter is more infused with that than the 2nd-level fighter, it takes a mightier spell to fully restore him.

The real (gamist) reason is that, with spell slots, allowing an inconsequential resource like a 1st-level spell to heal 40 hp wreaks havoc with game balance. So they came up with the above (ridiculous) justification.

With spell slots being gone, I think Fourth Edition will dispatch this incongruence with a "bullet in the head."
 

JohnSnow said:
To be fair, the Battle of Pelennor Fields in Return of the King was mostly against "some goblins." As, for the most part, was the battle in Moria where Frodo was nearly gutted.

Goblins don't have to be pathetic foes.

And "one temporary death per fight" is pretty much par for the course in 3e. Unless you're just always taking on monsters where the odds are 4:1 in your favor. Which hardly seems all that heroic to me.

I'd rather have characters constantly being nearly taken out than have them constantly taking part in lame fights against inferior opponents in some weird "attrition-based" endurance test.

Same here, which is why I am basing my combat mainly off, very heavy-strikes by enemies. Followed by quiet lapses, but with the chance of another fight (rolling for encounters).

With a couple run-and-gun scenarios thrown in too, mhmm... Can't wait till my PCs are being chased by Aboleth-controlled humans across rooftops during a lightning storm, such fun awaits :D
 

Just Another User said:
yes, "and almost the double on a crit",so you think they've have already forgot how their new crits work? not exactly encouraging, at least for DDI articles quality.

Hey, one take his chunks of 4e where he can.

There was also the part about a 15 fighter get 120 hp, but someone already mentioned it.
It might just be a mind slip. From the "taking chunks of 4e where he can" comment it looks like you have something personal against the new edition which doesn't seem very constructive.
 

Remove ads

Top