New tidbit about spells and hit points.

[FireLance]

I don't mind a little randomness in my games, even if it means that I get a bad roll every once in a while. However, I want to be able to react and respond to the bad luck, and to overcome it with good thinking and tactics. Dropping dead on a single bad roll robs me of that opportunity.

Consider the following variants of chess (normally a game of pure skill and tactics):

1. Whenever one player captures a piece, roll 1d20. On a roll of 1, his opponent automatically loses the game.

2. Whenever one player captures a piece, roll 1d6. On a roll of 1, his opponent loses another piece (his opponent gets to choose which piece).

I would much rather play variant #2 than variant #1. In variant #2, losing an extra piece is a setback, but it is something that I can overcome if I am skilled enough, or if I get a lucky break myself. In variant #1, there is no chance of recovery once the 1 is rolled, even if it happens on the first P x P exchange. Regardless of whether I won or lost that game, I wouldn't find it very satisfying.

 

[Visceris]

Was she charmed, did she fail a will save or something ? Do your PLAYERS not like one another or value the time and mental effort put in to crafting a persona you plan to spend 10-20 levels with ? No really I am trying to understand I've run up against this attitude here before and it always vexes me.

The character wasn't charmed and the players get along just nicely. He was was playing his character's alignment, being Neutral Evil. She was always an opportunist and an opportunity she couldn't refused arose. The player played his character's personality to a "T."

I create characters I PLAN on keeping until their story is told, something from the past is resolved and well they get an ending, happy, noble, or otherwise. I don't understand the concept of "it's just numbers on paper" of course I am not so far gone as to think I am the character I just think like them while playing, and I have yet to try to do anything in RL because my character could.

I do make characters that I plan on keeping but sometimes there is a need to have a change in plans. You can plan on keeping your character around til level 20 but if he dies with so much of his or her past unresolved its even moreso the tragedy.

So please explain it and use small words I don't seem to be able to pick it up quickly.

Its about the role playing, and the consequences of adventuring. Adventuring is a dangerous job and it can be rewarding but it is also deadly for it is rife with danger and possible betrayels. I try to keep my world dynamic, for both the PCs and NPCs.

 

[Zimri]

The character wasn't charmed and the players get along just nicely. He was was playing his character's alignment, being Neutral Evil. She was always an opportunist and an opportunity she couldn't refused arose. The player played his character's personality to a "T."

I do make characters that I plan on keeping but sometimes there is a need to have a change in plans. You can plan on keeping your character around til level 20 but if he dies with so much of his or her past unresolved its even moreso the tragedy.

Its about the role playing, and the consequences of adventuring. Adventuring is a dangerous job and it can be rewarding but it is also deadly for it is rife with danger and possible betrayels. I try to keep my world dynamic, for both the PCs and NPCs.

Ahh see we don't play evils. I don't even think we've had a CN ever though LN is fairly common.

It's not always a "plan to 20" it's a here is my history with a bunch of plot hooks for the dm to use. Here is the thing about my past that motivates me, lets work together you provide situations relevant for her to explore them, and I'll provide hooks for you to tell an awesome tale and at the end of the day we all get what we want.

See although *I* the player am relatively secure that the DM won't kill my character without cause, my CHARACTER knows no such thing. She does get afraid, she does keep her guard up. Yes we handwave joining the party because it makes things simpler. The philosophy being .... look we are friends I *AM* going to be playing with you lets say a few things make some assurances and move on like she was the last character. We also won't betray one another it's just not something we find fun. We have had player player conflict a couple times but it was a "No you really can't beat on the DMNPC/plot device and if you do we'll kill you" thing.

I guess we get enough "reality" in "reality" in fantasy we want to be mangled hurting heroes but heroes none the less. We are fine with that and it doesn't feel empty to us.

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

I do make characters that I plan on keeping but sometimes there is a need to have a change in plans. You can plan on keeping your character around til level 20 but if he dies with so much of his or her past unresolved its even moreso the tragedy.

I suppose you've got rid of resurrection spells as well then, otherwise, where's the danger?

 

[Baby Samurai]

Killing NPCs with one spell is kewl

…Not for the DM.

'Oh great, the NPC I spent 3 hours tweaking out last night just went down because he lost initiative to the players and the wizard cast that spell.'

Bo-Ring!

 

[Baby Samurai]

I agree with some of the others that the -10 dying rule is clunky and antiquated, I'm really hoping they go with something similar to Saga when reaching 0 hp. I also hope they drop saves and make them static Defence scores that you must roll against.

That being said, I don't think the Threshold rule would work, as other have pointed out, at one point in the game (past a certain level) every round you would be taking damage equal to your threshold.

I'm also glad they are changing the Massive Damage rule, as it had the same problem as the above – at a certain point in the game 50 + point of damage is being flung around every round and the game devolves into "Don't roll a 1 on your Fort save!"

I like the sound of this Bloodied rule to replace Massive Damage and/or Threshold.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

It's funny, but i'm a bit ambivalent about death effects, insta-kills, save or die effects, etc. On the one hand, I think they should be in the game for the simple adrenaline-raising shock effect. Nothing gets my blood pumping like a danger that cannot be shrugged off by enough hit points, or by throwing enough damage at it. It reminds you that sometimes, a little luck is all that separates the heroes from the commoners. At least if you care for your character, and would like him to stay alive a little longer. Risk of instant death is something that makes me sweat for my character, moreso than level drain. Having to balance over a pool of fuming acid on a pole a handspan wide, knowing that the only thing that keeps my PC from dissolving is a successful Reflex save in case I don't manage the Balance check is exciting for sure. Seeing an ally hanging from the spikes of a death trap can drive the fear of death home as well. And for adventurers, a little adrenaline should be part of the job.

On the other hand, it heavily depends on the flavour of the campaign...and in some, it shouldn't ever happen. Nothing destroys a heroic character worse than a pretty meaningless death. Examples: Trinity in Matrix 3, Wash in Serenity. These were, in my opinion, completely senseless and useless deaths that shouldn't have happened to the characters like that. In a heroic D&D campaign, it can severely dampen the enjoyment of play for some players. It'd be as if the Fellowship of the Ring had just escaped the orcs of Moria, running out of the mines, only to have Aragorn fall in an old dwarven pit trap and break his neck.

So what I'd like to see would be the possibility of those threats that directly affect the character and sidestep hit points (which after all mainly represent how hard the character is to kill with weapons or physical damage spells), but also an extensive piece of advice in the new DMG about how to adjudicate and use these effects in context of campaign flavour. After all, if one doesn't want his BBEG to fall from a simple Disintegration, there's always the possibility to give him a defense against it in the form of a new spell, a magical ability, or a magical item. In the last case, it even means the adventurers have some interesting new item afterwards, or a new spell.

I simply believe that it's better, in the long run, to teach folks, especially the newcomers, how to be more flexible with more options in a game, instead of having people wonder why the heck something as deadly as Curare is simply not able to kill a character, even if the guy is riddled with blowpipe darts, because deadly poisons were removed...or why a spell is called Disintegration if all it does is hit point damage like the Fireball.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

…Not for the DM.

'Oh great, the NPC I spent 3 hours tweaking out last night just went down because he lost initiative to the players and the wizard cast that spell.'

Bo-Ring!

Dunno, I guess values differ. Last time that happened to me, I had a troll ramped up to 16th level with the Half-Fiendish template and Fighter levels to challenge one of the characters, a ranger with trolls as favored enemy. It was summoned into an elven forest to create chaos, and the characters confronted it...the ranger, and a wizard. The ranger went into personal combat, enjoying two rounds of that before the wizard player asked "Hey, isn't that beast summoned from some other plane?" "Uhm, yeah...you found the summoning circle earlier." "Great...Banishment!".

Which made me look and feel like an idiot for 5 seconds...and then I thought "Hey, COOL, the wizard is finally using something else than blasting spells, and paying ATTENTION to his versatile spell list!" I still grin about that for some weird reason.

 

[Visceris]

3 hours to make a NPC? The most I spend on a big bad NPC is about 30 minutes at the most.

 

[Baby Samurai]

It'd be as if the Fellowship of the Ring had just escaped the orcs of Moria, running out of the mines, only to have Aragorn fall in an old dwarven pit trap and break his neck.

Exactly, or how about Boba's death?

One of the worst all time ever. When I was 10 years old and I heard him squeal as he went down the Sarlac Pit; that was a very disappointing day for that boy.