D&D 5E No ascending bonuses: A mathematical framework for 5e

[AbdulAlhazred]

And if there wasn't magic in the game system and monsters had all of the abilities of PCs, this math might mean something.

My proof for this is 4E.

Fights aren't fair. Ever. PCs always have a huge advantage.

If one carefully looks at most above same level 4E encounters, they'll notice something. The NPCs often get the upper hand in the first few rounds. A few PCs are bloodied. Multiple PCs have effects on them. Things look dire. But slowly, the PCs start evening the odds and eventually, they start ripping through the encounter. Why is this if the PCs are losing in round one, that they win in round six?

Action Economy.

Although one or sometimes even two PCs might be knocked unconscious in an encounter (although most encounters, no PCs are knocked unconscious), they almost always get back up. The monsters almost never get back up.

The three things that cause this to happen are:

1) Options. PCs tend to have a lot of options. Monsters have only a few. Each player can decide in each situation whether to pull out a big gun, or if a lesser gun will work. Monsters don't have this option too much. They might get one or two Encounter (read Daily cause the monster is not coming back) powers, but once their wad is shot, they're done.

2) Healing. PCs often have quite a bit of this. Parties without Leaders aren't completely screwed (they still have #1 and #3), but parties with Leaders just wipe through encounters. Not at the start of the encounter, but part way through. Monsters rarely have healing, so once a monster is down, it typically stays down forever.

3) Action Points. PCs already have a "get out of jail card" free option. They get to focus an additional attack when needed. The vast majority of monsters do not have action points.

So if the PCs get 5 attacks in round one and the NPCs get 5 attacks in round one, the PCs are still doing 5 attacks in round six whereas the monsters are done to 1 or 2 attacks at that point.

By definition, the PCs win. This is how the game is designed to work so that PCs can be heroes that get past level 3. These are the reasons that PCs can take on an encounter 4 levels higher than the group and win. But when an encounter gets to 5 levels or 6 levels higher, it starts becoming really dicey (and even 4 levels higher is often a real challenge).


So, I opine that the rationale for adding more "get out of jail free" abilities to the game system is flawed. It's not a straight up math problem. PCs have healing and PCs have many more options than monsters, hence, they win. They don't need even more ways to win. The 4E game system is already extremely easy unless the PCs have run out of Daily resources (powers and/or healing surges).

I don't see the problem with any of this. The 4e design is deliberately meant to create a sense of urgency and danger, then allow the players to solve the problem of being behind the curve by properly employing their "dig myself out of a hole" abilities. That's what makes an interesting and fun encounter. The monsters come rocking in with their encounter powers and maybe APs, throw the party back on its left foot, and then make the players think. If the players can't effectively dig up ways to respond or they are pushed too far down the curve then they can be TPKed, but the system is pretty good about that not happening, mainly because monster's at-will attacks are generally enough below the curve that it gives the party room to work with after the DM launches his initial alpha strike.

I don't think monster healing is a generally good idea. It tends to make things tedious and works against the whole model with really very little gained. The better model is again the one that 4e actually follows, which is to give the monsters some buffs or debuffs which let the DM employ some tactics without undoing encounter progress. Truthfully once the monsters rock the PCs back the best thing is for them to die reasonably quickly once the players get back on their feet.

One way to reinject some tension in the later part of an encounter is to introduce some sort of timer. Recharge powers do this to some extent, and recharge on bloodied more explicitly. There could be some more interesting possibilities with say some monsters that could recover powers after N rounds or something like that. I'd have to say though that often this kind of thing is best incorporated into encounter design rather than monster stat blocks (and is a good reason for having wave encounters or other dynamic encounter setups).

Finally, the 'negate an attack chit' idea isn't meant to be piled on top of the 4e model. It would be useful in the "much lower hit point advancement" model, and primarily because it would effectively represent 'more hit points' without number inflation. It also breaks from the to-hit/defense divergence enough to give PCs a wider level range of opponents they can take on. It would largely REPLACE some degree of existing recovery mechanics. The model would be that the monsters would have a more steady damage output. Instead of being front loaded they would do dangerous damage all encounter. The PCs would show up, take some hits, negate them, strike back, and then start to actually be HURT. This would shift the question of when the encounter is in doubt more to the later rounds, but make the danger apparent right up front. Smart players would try to use their chits optimally but at least that would imply they take some damage right off. This could be a complex decision to make since damage no longer has to be trivial to heal.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't think monster healing is a generally good idea. It tends to make things tedious and works against the whole model with really very little gained. The better model is again the one that 4e actually follows, which is to give the monsters some buffs or debuffs which let the DM employ some tactics without undoing encounter progress. Truthfully once the monsters rock the PCs back the best thing is for them to die reasonably quickly once the players get back on their feet.

Although I agree that monster healing shouldn't be as common and powerful as PC healing, there is definitely design room for it, especially in major encounters.

Take the following encounter in one of my PBP games:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-eberron/311263-adventure-rhapsody-part-2-judge-renau1g-8.html

The encounter lasted 9 rounds and the NPCs actually had a few different ways to heal themselves. The one undead creature could heal other undead creatures, the leader had a 5 square aura which allowed a fellow ally to keep fighting for one round after going negative, the non-leader humans could as a minor action gain back 5 hit points (which if used while in negative hit points, would bring them back), and the humans carried a potion which gave them 10 temp hit points, but dazed them for a round in return.

The PCs had already had a few encounters that day, so they had already used up some Daily powers and were not fresh. Some of the PCs were really low on healing surges. By round 3, 2/3rds of the PC summoned/conjured creatures were gone, one PC was unconscious, one was bloodied and two PCs were almost bloodied. Only one PC (the Defender) was hardly touched. But, they rallied back from that to win the encounter.

1 level 5 Elite Artillery
4 level 6 Soldiers
1 level 5 Controller
4 level 3 Artillery
and a low level set of pit traps that the a PC only actually fell into once.

So, 2200+ XP encounter for a party of levels 4, 6, 7, 7, 7 (effectively, a 6th level party), so just shy of an N+4 encounter, but the NPCs also had healing.

Being outnumbered 10 to 5 (10 to 7 if you count the Shaman's two creatures), the encounter was designed to last longer than the normal 6 rounds.

The encounter was a bit more interesting because dead foes stuck around for an extra round (which when it first happened, players were taken back by it) and one NPC even managed to go from negative to positive hit points, just like a PC.


I think that encounters can last for more than 6 rounds and not be grindy and NPC healing can play a part in that if the players are really into the encounter. What becomes grindy for players is when they run out of Encounter / Daily powers and they have to spam At Will powers for a lot of rounds. That's not a problem with monster healing, that's an issue with WotC introduced player entitlement in 4E.

In 1E through 3.5, the potent spells from the Cleric, Wizard, or other spell casters on the team occurred a few times per encounter. They didn't necessarily occur every single round because in a Vancian magic system, spell casters had to conserve spells, at least at lower levels. A major part of encounters were just doing damage.

In 4E, potent spell like abilities are handed out to all classes (these are called Encounter and Daily powers). When those run out, then players have been trained to no longer be content (like they were in 1E through 3.5, 30 years of gaming) to just do damage. Players were conditioned by the game system that every single attack had to not just do damage, but it had to do something else cool as well. It's not a fault of the players, it's a game design fault of 4E. Everyone in 4E is a superhero with super powers, hence when those powers run out, people do psychologically feel the grind when spamming At Will powers (even though most At Will powers do more than just damage). It's human nature.

One of the nice things about Essentials is that WotC made it a bit cool to spam the same set of Melee or Ranged Basic attack and not feel bad about it. Those classes are designed with players in mind that don't want a ton of options, they just want to be effective in combat on their turn.

And 4E grind has decreased due to Expertise and due to the vast plethora of classes, items, powers, and feats in the splat books. The PCs are more effective, hence, they wipe out monsters faster, hence, the game feels less grindy than it did when it first came out.

 

[Stalker0]

So, I opine that the rationale for adding more "get out of jail free" abilities to the game system is flawed. It's not a straight up math problem. PCs have healing and PCs have many more options than monsters, hence, they win. They don't need even more ways to win. The 4E game system is already extremely easy unless the PCs have run out of Daily resources (powers and/or healing surges).

I agree with your summary of abilities, but I actually think the focus on healing helps my argument.

As you said, healing is a central part of what makes the math work...yet the majority is wrapped up in classes that are completely optional to a party. In fact, the 3e model was to make the cleric super powerful because people weren't playing them...and therefore the party as a whole was much weaker.

While healing will always have a place, I would like to take some of the burden off its shoulders and insert it into other areas, and this is where I think a fate point type system could be of particular use. 4e already tried the model of giving healing more broadly to all classes (the second wind), and while I think it was a good idea it suffers flavor problems with some people.

But I think people are more comfortable with the idea of avoiding damage than healing it, because we have plenty of examples in real life. I have never seen a person pull a spear from their body and instantly heal it. But I have seen people fall off a roof with minimal injury, bash their head against a table and be just fine. Heck, there are real world examples of sky divers losing their parachute, crashing to earth at full speed, and surviving.

Now I do agree with you that 4e combat can be too easy, and I think its because healing is overpowered in 4e. It restores so much health, and is so easy to do, that it removes the tension. I have seen a player dropped down to a few hp and then be instantly restored to full from a mere nod of our bard (wasn't even a cleric!), and that happens several times a combat. I think 5e healing should be toned down, but an extra blanket at the bottom isn't a bad idea either.

 

[Stalker0]

I idea on healing I just had, what is the standard healing was the 3e lesser vigor model, aka regeneration instead of straight up healing.

This allows for healing that can restore a could bit of health and lets the PCs keep going on the adventure, but makes it much weaker in combat, so maintains some of the tension.

Further, you could make it so it doesn't stack (or stacks very weakly), which helps you model the math better. With standard healing it stacks so powerfully, so a PCs effective hitpoints varies widely depending on how much juice the cleric is willing to spend. But in a stack weakly regeneration model, the clerics resource expenditure has much less impact on the effective hitpoints....so it streamlines the math better.

 

[KarinsDad]

I agree with your summary of abilities, but I actually think the focus on healing helps my argument.

As you said, healing is a central part of what makes the math work...yet the majority is wrapped up in classes that are completely optional to a party. In fact, the 3e model was to make the cleric super powerful because people weren't playing them...and therefore the party as a whole was much weaker.

While healing will always have a place, I would like to take some of the burden off its shoulders and insert it into other areas, and this is where I think a fate point type system could be of particular use. 4e already tried the model of giving healing more broadly to all classes (the second wind), and while I think it was a good idea it suffers flavor problems with some people.

But I think people are more comfortable with the idea of avoiding damage than healing it, because we have plenty of examples in real life.

I am all for more ways to avoid damage than healing it as well.

Resistance. Temporary hit points (I actually prefer temp hit points for Warlords instead of real hit points). Spells which hinder or control or section off foes so that not all foes can attack the PCs every round.

But, 4E started the model of PCs can be healed without magic AND that PCs can self heal. I really hate that model and hope 5E moves away from it.

I do think that real healing in D&D should be magic BECAUSE of the real life examples you quote. The status quo should be that PCs are human-like. They shouldn't be regenerating little creatures instead. Falling should hurt them. Getting hit with a sword should hurt them and not just a tiny little bit (hence, my model of fewer hit points and less damage).

I think healing surges and Second Winds should go the way of the Dodo, that more ways to avoid damage should be introduced to the game (but not "get out of jail free, I just changed what happened" cards), and that healing should be magic again.

I don't mind that on the fly healing magic is limited to a set group of classes. That's why there are classes are in D&D. To allow each player to have abilities that other players do not have. Healing should be potent and players who want that power should be allowed to play classes that cannot just be emulated by other class abilities and non-magical solutions. Other classes can have damage mitigation, but non-Leaders shouldn't be healing (or alternatively, should have very weak healing).

Granted, this means that most groups will want a healing type class in their party (or a class that can create healing magic items), but most groups will want a striker and a defender and a controller as well. That's how the game has been for over 30 years (although the striker role wasn't quite as prevalent).

Trying to change D&D to an RPG that does not require a healer in the group is trying to change D&D into NOT D&D. The feel is drastically different. And that's what they sort of did with 4E and I hope they backpedal from that some in 5E.

 

[KarinsDad]

I idea on healing I just had, what is the standard healing was the 3e lesser vigor model, aka regeneration instead of straight up healing.

This allows for healing that can restore a could bit of health and lets the PCs keep going on the adventure, but makes it much weaker in combat, so maintains some of the tension.

Agreed. This is a preferable system for some significant portion of healing.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

Healing only needs to be magic if HPs are wounds.

I am all for more ways to avoid damage than healing it as well.

Resistance. Temporary hit points (I actually prefer temp hit points for Warlords instead of real hit points). Spells which hinder or control or section off foes so that not all foes can attack the PCs every round.

But, 4E started the model of PCs can be healed without magic AND that PCs can self heal. I really hate that model and hope 5E moves away from it.

I do think that real healing in D&D should be magic BECAUSE of the real life examples you quote. The status quo should be that PCs are human-like. They shouldn't be regenerating little creatures instead. Falling should hurt them. Getting hit with a sword should hurt them and not just a tiny little bit (hence, my model of fewer hit points and less damage).

I think healing surges and Second Winds should go the way of the Dodo, that more ways to avoid damage should be introduced to the game (but not "get out of jail free, I just changed what happened" cards), and that healing should be magic again.

I don't mind that on the fly healing magic is limited to a set group of classes. That's why there are classes are in D&D. To allow each player to have abilities that other players do not have. Healing should be potent and players who want that power should be allowed to play classes that cannot just be emulated by other class abilities and non-magical solutions. Other classes can have damage mitigation, but non-Leaders shouldn't be healing.

Granted, this means that most groups will want a healing type class in their party (or a class that can create healing magic items), but most groups will want a striker and a defender and a controller as well. That's how the game has been for over 30 years (although the striker role wasn't quite as prevalent).

Trying to change D&D to an RPG that does not require a healer in the group is trying to change D&D into NOT D&D. The feel is drastically different. And that's what they sort of did with 4E and I hope they backpedal from that some in 5E.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm just not interested in going back to the notion that every party needs to carry around the 'healing battery' character and someone has to play it. I think the concept that the capacity to be healed is distributed around the party was a good concept. Second Wind really IMHO is not an issue either. You take a few seconds out, slow the pace of your offensive efforts some, and get a chance to recover a bit. It adds a dimension to tactics at VERY little cost to any kind of 'verisimilitude'.

There's a reasonable discussion to be had around what the ratio of healing in-combat vs out of combat is, but the acceptable and interesting amount in-combat is considerably more than none or just "one character has to be basically doing nothing but tossing out heals all fight". That was too limited.

There can also be a debate about the place of the 'avoid a hit' concept as another part of the equation. I could see that as being the most usual case for most characters damage mitigation in combat, but I'd think it really should be coupled with something like Second Wind and some degree of leader supplied healing.

 

[Stalker0]

Healing only needs to be magic if HPs are wounds.

I agree with this, but if the debates I've seen on the subject are any indication, this is a sticking point for a lot of people.

Some things you can convince people on, some things you have to work around.

Dnd for all its strengths has a lot of communal baggage, there are things the community has gotten used to that are hard to change (and frankly some people believe shouldn't change).

I think as long as hitpoints are hitpoints, there will be a portion of the community that will see them as "damage points". Aka I took damage, I am hurt. Therefore healing is exactly that, healing wounds.

We could persuade till we are blue in the face to move away from that model, or take the path of least resistance and find another way around the problem that doesn't hit this particular flavor nerve.

 

[mmadsen]

I am all for more ways to avoid damage than healing it as well. [...] But, 4E started the model of PCs can be healed without magic AND that PCs can self heal. I really hate that model and hope 5E moves away from it.

D&D's hit points never made sense as simple toughness, and there was always fine print somewhere explaining that they weren't meant to be simple toughness, but, when "hits" from weapons doing "damage" reduce your hit points, and "healing" is how you get them back, yeah, they sure seem like wounds that are opening and closing as your total goes down and then back up.

If 4E had made them totally intangible, there might have been a revolt, but at least some of this confusion could have been laid to rest.

 

[Mark CMG]

My solution? Look for the underlying problem not at the symptoms caused thereby. The problem isn't ascending bonuses themselves. The problems arise from taking a d20 die for resolution in an essnetially ten level system then stretching the system to accomodate 20 levels, patching the system to obscure the problems, then stretching it to 30 levels or more and finding the need to patch and add on other ways to fix the symptoms of the stretching problem. Move things back to a ten level system and most of the problems are removed. Or, I suppose, use a d30 or higher to stretch the resolution method to keep pace with the level-stretching.

 

[KarinsDad]

D&D's hit points never made sense as simple toughness, and there was always fine print somewhere explaining that they weren't meant to be simple toughness, but, when "hits" from weapons doing "damage" reduce your hit points, and "healing" is how you get them back, yeah, they sure seem like wounds that are opening and closing as your total goes down and then back up.

I had no problem with hits points not just being toughness and being the ability to turn hard blows into glancing blows.

But, if a PC has taken 90% of their hit points (regardless of the fact that the game didn't penalize the PC for this), I always considered them to effectively be 90% wounded. I never ever ever considered it to be force of will, luck, etc. in 30+ years of gaming (at that time). That's really a 4E concept, not a D&D concept (where there was actually healing and damage in the rules, not encouragement to fight), and I really have a bit of an issue with that concept being forced down the entire D&D gaming community's throat. As an optional rule, fine. And, I'd be okay with it being an optional system for 5E.

Yes, the players now have more options to self heal and such, but that nod away from plausibility and into the realm of player convenience and ease of use doesn't make it a better system. It just makes it a different system, not D&D.

 

[Stalker0]

I am all for more ways to avoid damage than healing it as well.

Resistance. Temporary hit points (I actually prefer temp hit points for Warlords instead of real hit points). Spells which hinder or control or section off foes so that not all foes can attack the PCs every round.

But, 4E started the model of PCs can be healed without magic AND that PCs can self heal. I really hate that model and hope 5E moves away from it.

I think you and I are in agreement here, we are just pushing it from different directions.

You are in favor of reducing reliance on healing through traditional forms, at least traditional as far as Dnd goes, while I have been pushing the fate point type system.

The concept of fate points is a bit radical to the Dnd world, though its found long use in other systems. The reason I have pushed it so hard is I have found it to be such a great tool for the job. It allows you to bend the rules (just as magic does) without actually using "magic", because a good use of the system doesn't create radical new possibilities, it simply lets a PC choose from a set of probable ones, and pick one that's a bit more favorable.

But ultimately it is not the power of the mechanic that I like, its the precision. You mentioned resistance and temporary hitpoints for example. These are good tools, but they don't just affect a single moment of combat, they can affect the whole of the combat, especially if they can be reapplied with spells or magic items multiple times.

But a fate point system, probably designed, can be very specific on when they can be applied (such as "when you die" as one example). This allows you to curb very specific areas of your system, without creating more general changes. It is that specific power that I have found of such utility.

You can design your math around a specific baseline, and then add fate point like regions around those specifics areas that just don't quite work out, without ever affecting the rest of your system or your math baseline one little bit.

It took me a while to get used to them, but once I did, the immense freedom in design it offered me I have not found an equivalent substitute yet.

 

[mmadsen]

The problem isn't ascending bonuses themselves. The problems arise from taking a d20 die for resolution in an essentially ten level system then stretching the system to accomodate 20 levels, patching the system to obscure the problems, then stretching it to 30 levels or more and finding the need to patch and add on other ways to fix the symptoms of the stretching problem. Move things back to a ten level system and most of the problems are removed.

Excellent point. Also, the problem is exacerbated by starting with math that more-or-less works and then adding bonuses from feats, spells, magic items, etc., from an ever-growing list of options.

 

[KarinsDad]

But a fate point system, probably designed, can be very specific on when they can be applied (such as "when you die" as one example). This allows you to curb very specific areas of your system, without creating more general changes. It is that specific power that I have found of such utility.

Yes, I understand the concept. But, your very example here illustrates why I have a problem with it. When you die, you die. There should be no get out of jail card here (or fate point) because that takes away from the challenge of the game. It coddles players. Epic classes tend to do this already with "When you go negative or die, you actually are often healed more than you were before you got hit". WTH???

I had the same thought when Action Points came out in 3.5 and were a D6 add to a D20 roll. In that case, it is a meta-game solution instead of an in character solution. It's an "after the result is found to be unsatisfactory, we will change the result". 4E's Action Points are much better. Although a player can use an Action Point after s/he finds out what happens with a Standard Action, it isn't a direct modification of the result. It's an additional chance, but not the same action and it's totally in character, it's not a "opps, let's back that up".

Fate points are modifying what has already happened or already failed in the game. They are a "Wait, back up, let's just change that because I don't like it as a player, ok?" system.

I have a bit of an issue with Immediate Interrupts for this very reason as well. They change the result based on the fact that the player doesn't like the result. They are very player entitlement oriented and I prefer a game of "what happens, happens". Sure, bad die rolls are going to come up. That's why all PCs should have some rare "go to the well" abilities that they can unlease when it happens (in earlier versions, low number of charges items such as a few more powerful than normal potions could be used to go to the well). But, those abilities shouldn't be "Waaahhh!!!! I don't like what happened to my PC. I want to change it.".

Limiting fate points to specific aspects of the game system doesn't change the fact that they go back in time and change what actually happened in the game. It's like saving a computer game, doing the next challenge, and then when you find out how to beat it, you go back to your saved game and do it all over again, using the least amount of resources and gaining all of the benefits for you character.

Why is there such a drive in our gaming community to make D&D like computer games? I'm sitting with a group of people roleplaying because I do not want to be playing a computer game.

 

[mmadsen]

There should be no get out of jail card here (or fate point) because that takes away from the challenge of the game. It coddles players.
[...]
Fate points are modifying what has already happened or already failed in the game. They are a "Wait, back up, let's just change that because I don't like it as a player, ok?" system.

So, when the enemy rolls to hit you and overcome your armor, you shouldn't have any special points that say, "no, it was only a flesh wound!"

Am I right?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Why is there such a drive in our gaming community to make D&D like computer games? I'm sitting with a group of people roleplaying because I do not want to be playing a computer game.

I think my earlier contention about the nature of the illusion and what people tell themselves about it is relevant here. "Feels like a computer game" is subjective. Fate points are the least computer-game feeling I can imagine, because there isn't a DM in the computer game to adjudicate when you can use them or not.

To me, the most like a computer game is what you are proposing (to the extent that any of these options are--which they aren't really). The DM is going to fudge to some degree (or not) to make up for the fact that we don't have save game options. If he doesn't fudge, that is directly analogous to "hard-core" mode in something like Baldur's Gate.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, I understand the concept. But, your very example here illustrates why I have a problem with it. When you die, you die. There should be no get out of jail card here (or fate point) because that takes away from the challenge of the game. It coddles players. Epic classes tend to do this already with "When you go negative or die, you actually are often healed more than you were before you got hit". WTH???

I had the same thought when Action Points came out in 3.5 and were a D6 add to a D20 roll. In that case, it is a meta-game solution instead of an in character solution. It's an "after the result is found to be unsatisfactory, we will change the result". 4E's Action Points are much better. Although a player can use an Action Point after s/he finds out what happens with a Standard Action, it isn't a direct modification of the result. It's an additional chance, but not the same action and it's totally in character, it's not a "opps, let's back that up".

Fate points are modifying what has already happened or already failed in the game. They are a "Wait, back up, let's just change that because I don't like it as a player, ok?" system.

I have a bit of an issue with Immediate Interrupts for this very reason as well. They change the result based on the fact that the player doesn't like the result. They are very player entitlement oriented and I prefer a game of "what happens, happens". Sure, bad die rolls are going to come up. That's why all PCs should have some rare "go to the well" abilities that they can unlease when it happens (in earlier versions, low number of charges items such as a few more powerful than normal potions could be used to go to the well). But, those abilities shouldn't be "Waaahhh!!!! I don't like what happened to my PC. I want to change it.".

Limiting fate points to specific aspects of the game system doesn't change the fact that they go back in time and change what actually happened in the game. It's like saving a computer game, doing the next challenge, and then when you find out how to beat it, you go back to your saved game and do it all over again, using the least amount of resources and gaining all of the benefits for you character.

Why is there such a drive in our gaming community to make D&D like computer games? I'm sitting with a group of people roleplaying because I do not want to be playing a computer game.

Don't be ridiculous. The rules of the game tell you when you will die and when you won't. Adding some rule that lets you not die is just that, a rule that you follow that lets you not die when the rules didn't demand that you had to die.

I mean lets look at this rationally. You wouldn't call giving PCs a higher AC or more hit points "coddling the players" either, as long as it isn't taken to extremes it is exactly what you do to set the preferred difficulty of the game when you design it. Likewise with 'fate points' or whatever. So just dump that coddling baloney because it is a terrible argument and is barely worth wasting words on.

Also, I know of no computer game that has 'interrupts' or 'fate points'. The kind of save and redo you are talking about is a totally different thing because it involves meta-gaming and doing so in a completely gamist way where there is not even a fig leaf of an explanation for it in game (now and then a game has offered a fig leaf, but it is always heavily contrived). Saying "wait, I can dodge that blow" when it lands is not at all the same thing. It is silly to even compare them, so don't.

 

[KarinsDad]

So, when the enemy rolls to hit you and overcome your armor, you shouldn't have any special points that say, "no, it was only a flesh wound!"

Am I right?

Err, no.

Apples and Oranges. It's a bit bothersome when people use a straw man.

One is the player backing up the game and saying the result never happened, after the result has been determined.

The other is the result happens, it just doesn't happen to the same degree as a lower level creature from the exact same attack due to the defensive abilities of the higher level creature. It also happens to a greater degree than if it happened to a higher level creature.

It's a logical fallacy to conclude anything from one to the other.

Until immediate interrupt actions in 4E, the game didn't have many ways to go back in time and change the result what just happened. I cannot even remember a single one, even Feather Fall happened simultaneously and didn't change the result if the PC had already fallen and hit a surface. Immediate Actions in 3E typically occurred before dice were rolled, not after the fact. For example, Empty Mind gave the +2 Will bonus before the saving throw was rolled, not after one found out that they missed the saving throw by 2.

3E Immediate Actions were not Immediate Interrupts, but they morphed into those in 4E (yet another bigger, better, badder game mechanic in 4E). But at least with 4E, the PCs that gain these abilities typically give up other abilities in order to acquire them. The game will become a bit of a joke if every PC can do these and they don't give up abilities to gain them. The DM will have to make encounters even more challenging, just to challenge players.

Note: Most Immediate Actions in 3E were psionic in nature. The psionic PCs could do something at the speed of thought, but even there, they didn't back up the result that was already determined. For example, a player wasn't able to replace a normal OA attack with an Opportunity Power power, just because he rolled to hit and rolled high. When an OA could occur, the player had to state that he was using Opportunity Power as opposed to rolling a normal attack, before rolling the attack roll.

 

[KarinsDad]

Don't be ridiculous.

...

Also, I know of no computer game that has 'interrupts' or 'fate points'. The kind of save and redo you are talking about is a totally different thing because it involves meta-gaming and doing so in a completely gamist way where there is not even a fig leaf of an explanation for it in game (now and then a game has offered a fig leaf, but it is always heavily contrived). Saying "wait, I can dodge that blow" when it lands is not at all the same thing. It is silly to even compare them, so don't.

Don't be ridiculous.

Once a blow hits, having a game rule that says it didn't hit because the player has a limited number of fate points is TOTALLY gamist. It is totally meta-gaming and has nothing to do with in character. It's not the PC in character using a Shield spell at the last possible instant to stop the attack. The PC doesn't actually do anything. The player spends a resource. That's totally gamist and not in character.

Sorry, but this is totally contrived. Just because you like the concept doesn't make it less contrived and meta-gamey.


The difference between "in character" and gamist is that the PC knows that he has a Shield spell and knows that he lost the resource. The PC doesn't know that he has fate points. Only the player does.