Hand of Vecna
First Post
Nothing is perfect, but as long as everyone's having fun, and the DM is being fair, then why complain???
Rant on d20
- Thread starter vturlough
- Start date
Psion
Adventurer
Re: Clarifying continues
I don't think you were being rude; and Yuan-ti points out, if anyone was, it was me. But you did come across as someone who was going to "enlighten us."
Well, all I think he is saying there is that damage is relative to who takes the damage. And I think that is an important epiphany for someone who doesn't grok HPs... just like a "hit" is more than just "touching" your opponent in D&D.
However, I can't argue too loudly with your assessment of HPs since I am personally uncomfortable with many aspects of them. IMC, I have a rule that creates the pontential of a meaninful injury (i.e., one that has game consequences) whenever you take a blow that causes you to loose half of your remaining HP.
I am also uncomfortable with the absolute healing vs. relative scaling HP dichotomy, but pretty much just try to ignore that.
But the reason I don't ditch them completely is that for heroic campaigning, they are heads and shoulders above most other techniques. Sure, you can make some "luck point" mechanic or some tweaked out dodge and avoidance mechanic, but IME these sorts of mechanics can complicate combat or create some artifial economies. HPs are, as others have said, simple and good at what they do.
vturlough said:
I don't think you were being rude; and Yuan-ti points out, if anyone was, it was me. But you did come across as someone who was going to "enlighten us."
Well, all I think he is saying there is that damage is relative to who takes the damage. And I think that is an important epiphany for someone who doesn't grok HPs... just like a "hit" is more than just "touching" your opponent in D&D.
However, I can't argue too loudly with your assessment of HPs since I am personally uncomfortable with many aspects of them. IMC, I have a rule that creates the pontential of a meaninful injury (i.e., one that has game consequences) whenever you take a blow that causes you to loose half of your remaining HP.
I am also uncomfortable with the absolute healing vs. relative scaling HP dichotomy, but pretty much just try to ignore that.
But the reason I don't ditch them completely is that for heroic campaigning, they are heads and shoulders above most other techniques. Sure, you can make some "luck point" mechanic or some tweaked out dodge and avoidance mechanic, but IME these sorts of mechanics can complicate combat or create some artifial economies. HPs are, as others have said, simple and good at what they do.
Enlightenment
Again, good responses! Thanks!
Psion: Enlighten you? How? I mean, it sounds as if you have already made up your mind. A closed mind cannot be enlightened. (btw, this isn't necessarily bad! Please don't take this as an attack as it isn't. Enlightenment is a personal journey. I can't take you on mine and you can't take me on yours.)
Each of us has our preferences. For 90% of the people here, it is DND. And as I said, if that's what you like and that's what your DM/players like, then you are set. Go for it!
My gripe about the d20 system is its inability to grow to a more realistic system. "When I was a child, etc." Again, as I said with the 80/20 rule, 80% of the time, I am fine with DND, especially at lower levels.
When DND gets to the point where the heroes can withstand 200' falls onto the ground, 5 maximized fireballs and still fight with no penalty, it is beyond heroic. Sometimes that is fun, most of the time that isn't. For me. YMMV.
As for changes, no. DND works fine as it is. I wouldn't, and don't, change much in my own campaigns. I am considering some options from other d20 games but have done nothing yet.
Finally, if you want only a slightly less heroic system that still has its "roots" in DND but is a much better system, play Alternity more. Alternity, for me, has it all. Realism with heroism and balanced (not in the sense of game balance of DND) very well. Armor does what it is supposed to. The emphasis is on the characters, not their equipment. Complex skill checks as well as degrees of success. Again, though, as I said, Alternity is the best system *I* have read. (I know you play and know this but I mentions these for those who don't.)
The only reason I haven't compared DND 3E to Alternity more is because Alternity is not supported by a publishing company anymore. If it were, I *would* try and stop playing DND and instead play a Fantasy version of Alternity. (And yes, I did ask WotC about buying it, or at least acquiring the rights, and they said no.) The same thing that stopped me playing SpellFire has stopped me from playing Alternity. When it is no longer supported, it is tough to find players and materials. And I already said what happened when I tried to force my players to a game they didn't want to play.
Have fun! Good discussion!
turlough
Again, good responses! Thanks!
Psion: Enlighten you? How? I mean, it sounds as if you have already made up your mind. A closed mind cannot be enlightened. (btw, this isn't necessarily bad! Please don't take this as an attack as it isn't. Enlightenment is a personal journey. I can't take you on mine and you can't take me on yours.)
Each of us has our preferences. For 90% of the people here, it is DND. And as I said, if that's what you like and that's what your DM/players like, then you are set. Go for it!
My gripe about the d20 system is its inability to grow to a more realistic system. "When I was a child, etc." Again, as I said with the 80/20 rule, 80% of the time, I am fine with DND, especially at lower levels.
When DND gets to the point where the heroes can withstand 200' falls onto the ground, 5 maximized fireballs and still fight with no penalty, it is beyond heroic. Sometimes that is fun, most of the time that isn't. For me. YMMV.
As for changes, no. DND works fine as it is. I wouldn't, and don't, change much in my own campaigns. I am considering some options from other d20 games but have done nothing yet.
Finally, if you want only a slightly less heroic system that still has its "roots" in DND but is a much better system, play Alternity more. Alternity, for me, has it all. Realism with heroism and balanced (not in the sense of game balance of DND) very well. Armor does what it is supposed to. The emphasis is on the characters, not their equipment. Complex skill checks as well as degrees of success. Again, though, as I said, Alternity is the best system *I* have read. (I know you play and know this but I mentions these for those who don't.)
The only reason I haven't compared DND 3E to Alternity more is because Alternity is not supported by a publishing company anymore. If it were, I *would* try and stop playing DND and instead play a Fantasy version of Alternity. (And yes, I did ask WotC about buying it, or at least acquiring the rights, and they said no.) The same thing that stopped me playing SpellFire has stopped me from playing Alternity. When it is no longer supported, it is tough to find players and materials. And I already said what happened when I tried to force my players to a game they didn't want to play.
Have fun! Good discussion!
turlough
Psion
Adventurer
Re: Enlightenment
Closed minded am I? If you show me a system that handles cinematic combat as well and as easily as HPs, then I will gladly convert. But I have been gaming for 20 years, and while I have seen many damage systems that claim to be able to handle cinematic combat as well, when it actually comes time to play, I always find them lacking in some ways.
WRT D&D, the primary point of D&D is cinematic/heroic fantasy. I would argue that making it more realistic (other than some specific ways) would be contradictory to its basic tenets.
Now for d20 in general, I must that that just isn't true. Combat and damage are not on the "do not touch" list for the d20 STL. Before I discovered that a d20 version of Traveller was being worked on, I was making my own d20 conversion. You want to know how I was handling damage in that conversion? All damage was ability damage!
So in no wise is the d20 system unable to grow into a more realistic system. It's just that for many of the games it has been developed for, it just isn't appropriate to dispense with HP.
"Beyond heroic"? No such thing.
Seriously, look at some heroic fantasy. Heroes typically defy the most desperate of odds. (In a slightly different vein, I seem to recall a space opera story in which the hero of the story survives a hit from a weapon that fires miniature suns...)
Now again, that may not be quite what you want, and to be honest, to a certain extent I don't either, so I throw in a few tweaks here and there.
vturlough said:
Closed minded am I? If you show me a system that handles cinematic combat as well and as easily as HPs, then I will gladly convert. But I have been gaming for 20 years, and while I have seen many damage systems that claim to be able to handle cinematic combat as well, when it actually comes time to play, I always find them lacking in some ways.
WRT D&D, the primary point of D&D is cinematic/heroic fantasy. I would argue that making it more realistic (other than some specific ways) would be contradictory to its basic tenets.
Now for d20 in general, I must that that just isn't true. Combat and damage are not on the "do not touch" list for the d20 STL. Before I discovered that a d20 version of Traveller was being worked on, I was making my own d20 conversion. You want to know how I was handling damage in that conversion? All damage was ability damage!
So in no wise is the d20 system unable to grow into a more realistic system. It's just that for many of the games it has been developed for, it just isn't appropriate to dispense with HP.
"Beyond heroic"? No such thing.
Seriously, look at some heroic fantasy. Heroes typically defy the most desperate of odds. (In a slightly different vein, I seem to recall a space opera story in which the hero of the story survives a hit from a weapon that fires miniature suns...)
Now again, that may not be quite what you want, and to be honest, to a certain extent I don't either, so I throw in a few tweaks here and there.
For further discussion
Psion: Again, I meant no offense. (You also misquoted me by leaving out the rest.) If I so offended, I apologize.
*finds the soap box and stand on it*
Cinematic combat? Since when is calling out numbers cinematic? Cinematic is being able to describe the combat and translate that into damage. As you seemed to agree with me that HPs have no meaning, how can you translate anything into game terms?
For example, translate, "The orc barbarian swings with his axe and manages to hit you in the side. You feel the breath slammed out of you and the beginnings of nasty bruise but fortunately your armor stops it from breaking ribs or slicing through you." into HP damage. Into d20 damage, for that matter.
Since I started this already, in Alternity, you could do it. He hit for some wound damage and stun but no mortal. Probably only one or two points wound (after armor reduction) damage with double that for stun (secondary) damage. Done. Alternity handled that statement and turned it into game terms. DND, and d20, cannot.
I do want a heroic game. I am not advocating that it should be easy for characters to die. I am just arguing for realistic heroism, which does exist. Babylon 5 was realistic heroism. The heroes went through a lot and lost people but were triumphant in the end. Buffy is another good example of that. X-Files. STar Wars. Dragon Heart. Dragon Slayer. All of these are great examples of that. Yet these movies, and the novels, never translate well to DND (d20?) because of the level of heroism that the DND system has.
In fact, consider the novels. How often have we had updates to the game system because of the novels? How often have the authors had to go outside the rules of DND because what they wanted to do in a novel JUST WASN'T there? ALL THE TIME! The authors realize that if a person gets hit by a big freaking sword, it is going to hurt, armor or not. Only outer planar creatures (or DR in general) has been described as not affecting the creature. The DND rules don't support this. Again, I have seen character write up for the 15th level characters and they have ACs of 35+! Again, a roll of 34 is huge! It is a great result. It is certainly great for a skill check! Yet, not a hit, not a scratch.
I am NOT arguing against heroic role playing. What I am saying is that DND doesn't do it as well as it could have. Alternity does do it much better.
If there is no chance of a person dying, what is the point? Why does a system allow a naked 20th level (experienced) character to charge 5th level characters armed with chain and crossbows and defeat them? (In fact, by the CR system, it wouldn't even be an issue up until 10th level or more. Again, though, how much weight does the system put on items, which it does do.)
What I am simply saying is that all of these things are not dependant on the SYSTEM. They are dependent on the DM and the players and what they want to do. If the SYSTEM doesn't allow more realism, it can never be there. Things can always be dropped or minimized if they already exist.
That's the difference. d20, from what I have seen, does not have as many tools or choices as I would like to see.
That's all I am trying to say.
Sorry so quick. Gotta get back to work.
turlough
Psion: Again, I meant no offense. (You also misquoted me by leaving out the rest.) If I so offended, I apologize.
*finds the soap box and stand on it*
Cinematic combat? Since when is calling out numbers cinematic? Cinematic is being able to describe the combat and translate that into damage. As you seemed to agree with me that HPs have no meaning, how can you translate anything into game terms?
For example, translate, "The orc barbarian swings with his axe and manages to hit you in the side. You feel the breath slammed out of you and the beginnings of nasty bruise but fortunately your armor stops it from breaking ribs or slicing through you." into HP damage. Into d20 damage, for that matter.
Since I started this already, in Alternity, you could do it. He hit for some wound damage and stun but no mortal. Probably only one or two points wound (after armor reduction) damage with double that for stun (secondary) damage. Done. Alternity handled that statement and turned it into game terms. DND, and d20, cannot.
I do want a heroic game. I am not advocating that it should be easy for characters to die. I am just arguing for realistic heroism, which does exist. Babylon 5 was realistic heroism. The heroes went through a lot and lost people but were triumphant in the end. Buffy is another good example of that. X-Files. STar Wars. Dragon Heart. Dragon Slayer. All of these are great examples of that. Yet these movies, and the novels, never translate well to DND (d20?) because of the level of heroism that the DND system has.
In fact, consider the novels. How often have we had updates to the game system because of the novels? How often have the authors had to go outside the rules of DND because what they wanted to do in a novel JUST WASN'T there? ALL THE TIME! The authors realize that if a person gets hit by a big freaking sword, it is going to hurt, armor or not. Only outer planar creatures (or DR in general) has been described as not affecting the creature. The DND rules don't support this. Again, I have seen character write up for the 15th level characters and they have ACs of 35+! Again, a roll of 34 is huge! It is a great result. It is certainly great for a skill check! Yet, not a hit, not a scratch.
I am NOT arguing against heroic role playing. What I am saying is that DND doesn't do it as well as it could have. Alternity does do it much better.
If there is no chance of a person dying, what is the point? Why does a system allow a naked 20th level (experienced) character to charge 5th level characters armed with chain and crossbows and defeat them? (In fact, by the CR system, it wouldn't even be an issue up until 10th level or more. Again, though, how much weight does the system put on items, which it does do.)
What I am simply saying is that all of these things are not dependant on the SYSTEM. They are dependent on the DM and the players and what they want to do. If the SYSTEM doesn't allow more realism, it can never be there. Things can always be dropped or minimized if they already exist.
That's the difference. d20, from what I have seen, does not have as many tools or choices as I would like to see.
That's all I am trying to say.
Sorry so quick. Gotta get back to work.
turlough
Jackcarter
First Post
HPs = toughness. The end
I wonder how many are comfortable with equating hps with toughness/damage resistance/whatnot? I know I am. I'm very comfortable with the notion that higher leveled people get physically tougher, i.e., bones strengthen, skin becomes armorlike, et al. While 3e's called a fantasy gaming, it's more apt to call it a super-hero gaming in fantasy setting. Seen in that light, it shouldn't be too much of a cognitive leap.
I used to routinely describe people with arrows sticking out, sword cuts, and other impossible physicalities. There even was one humorous instance when a high-leveled fighter had to be guillotined three times before his neck rolled off (he survived coup de gracex3); I told the party that his neck was so thick and trunk-like, even the guillotine couldn't cut it off with one blow.
When hps = toughness, it solves many problems that otherwise get sticky. As in when someone covers a bomb with his body to protect others. If that bomb (let's say a primitive trap doing 6d10 damage) only scratches a 300 hp 20th level barb, how are you really going to explain that away? That the barb knew the *correct* way to cradle a bomb? I think not.
Anyway, my advice is--go with the simple. It'll save a lot of rationalizations and headaches.
I wonder how many are comfortable with equating hps with toughness/damage resistance/whatnot? I know I am. I'm very comfortable with the notion that higher leveled people get physically tougher, i.e., bones strengthen, skin becomes armorlike, et al. While 3e's called a fantasy gaming, it's more apt to call it a super-hero gaming in fantasy setting. Seen in that light, it shouldn't be too much of a cognitive leap.
I used to routinely describe people with arrows sticking out, sword cuts, and other impossible physicalities. There even was one humorous instance when a high-leveled fighter had to be guillotined three times before his neck rolled off (he survived coup de gracex3); I told the party that his neck was so thick and trunk-like, even the guillotine couldn't cut it off with one blow.
When hps = toughness, it solves many problems that otherwise get sticky. As in when someone covers a bomb with his body to protect others. If that bomb (let's say a primitive trap doing 6d10 damage) only scratches a 300 hp 20th level barb, how are you really going to explain that away? That the barb knew the *correct* way to cradle a bomb? I think not.
Anyway, my advice is--go with the simple. It'll save a lot of rationalizations and headaches.
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
Re: For further discussion
Because a 20th level character (or really, any character above 1st level) represents someone a cut above the rest of the population. Heroes, for lack of a better word. I realize it was just an example, but a 20th level fighter (or any character) represents someone at the pinnacle of greatness (until the Epic level book comes out). He should be able to charge naked at a bunch of low-to-mid level fighters and mop the floor with them - he's the stuff of legends!
Simply slow down advancement to keep hit points low. Or put a cap on hit points - have characters get 1 hit point per level when they advance, with or without their Con bonus (whatever you wish).
Think about it in movie or TV terms. The hero has to survive for a while, or there's no show. The same is true of RPGs. Hit points generally represent, to me at least, that incredible luck/sixth sense that heroes seem to possess in stories.
So, you might say, why can a mid-to-high level fighter (for example) survive a 100 ft. swan dive into cement? Well, this is where optional massive damage rules from the DMG come in handy. They make it a lot less likely that the barbarian with more hit points than a small planet can walk away alive after such a stunt. There's a chance, sure, but there are documented cases of people surviving great falls that we normally would assume would have to be fatal. Not many, but enough to at least illustrate the point.
vturlough said:
Because a 20th level character (or really, any character above 1st level) represents someone a cut above the rest of the population. Heroes, for lack of a better word. I realize it was just an example, but a 20th level fighter (or any character) represents someone at the pinnacle of greatness (until the Epic level book comes out). He should be able to charge naked at a bunch of low-to-mid level fighters and mop the floor with them - he's the stuff of legends!
Simply slow down advancement to keep hit points low. Or put a cap on hit points - have characters get 1 hit point per level when they advance, with or without their Con bonus (whatever you wish).
Think about it in movie or TV terms. The hero has to survive for a while, or there's no show. The same is true of RPGs. Hit points generally represent, to me at least, that incredible luck/sixth sense that heroes seem to possess in stories.
So, you might say, why can a mid-to-high level fighter (for example) survive a 100 ft. swan dive into cement? Well, this is where optional massive damage rules from the DMG come in handy. They make it a lot less likely that the barbarian with more hit points than a small planet can walk away alive after such a stunt. There's a chance, sure, but there are documented cases of people surviving great falls that we normally would assume would have to be fatal. Not many, but enough to at least illustrate the point.
Vaxalon
First Post
Re: HPs = toughness. The end
The way I see it, if you jump on top of the bomb, you shouldn't just stand up and brush yourself off afterwards. If you intentionally bear the whole brunt of the attack, then you bear the whole brunt, and you get killed.
At the very least, I would say that the bomb would in effect be executing a coup de grace.
Jackcarter said:
The way I see it, if you jump on top of the bomb, you shouldn't just stand up and brush yourself off afterwards. If you intentionally bear the whole brunt of the attack, then you bear the whole brunt, and you get killed.
At the very least, I would say that the bomb would in effect be executing a coup de grace.
Khorod
First Post
I realize this is a small piece of the whole debate, but...
In d20, success in anything is a matter of positioning on the continuum of chance. Success is not black and white- a 34 instead of a 35 means you rolled just high enough that you reached a 'price-break', where before you had an irrelevant glancing blow you now manage a weak stab at a guy that might hit somewhere important-ish.
Also, if you are not playing a magical land of magical characters, hit points are your ability to avoid being hit, to act despite pain, to be lucky, use tactics, etc. I think something other systems utilize, and which is inherent in hit points, is SHOCK. Shock is the reaction of the character's system to the shock of injuries. In 2e, there were system shock rolls for certain things- I view reaching -10 as finally failing that roll.
In d20, success in anything is a matter of positioning on the continuum of chance. Success is not black and white- a 34 instead of a 35 means you rolled just high enough that you reached a 'price-break', where before you had an irrelevant glancing blow you now manage a weak stab at a guy that might hit somewhere important-ish.
Also, if you are not playing a magical land of magical characters, hit points are your ability to avoid being hit, to act despite pain, to be lucky, use tactics, etc. I think something other systems utilize, and which is inherent in hit points, is SHOCK. Shock is the reaction of the character's system to the shock of injuries. In 2e, there were system shock rolls for certain things- I view reaching -10 as finally failing that roll.
Last edited:
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
Re: For further discussion
OK, I really have a lot to do, so I'll make this my last post for a while.
So why can't you use that description for a d20 combat? That's pretty much how I would (and have, since 1979) describe combats - as a DM, you keep an eye on things like hit points, and can gauge when such descriptions are appropriate. Your example is one to use when the character is low on hit points. Why is that so difficult to translate? I mean, do we have to have hit charts that describe in detail what each hit does? Isn't it easier just to let the DM decide how he describes the combat? The system seems to be able to support two kinds of play - the DM can easily lavish as much detail as he wishes on combat descriptions, or simply call out numbers, depending on how everyone wants to play. I think the hit points system supports the kind of play you describe easily. So it isn't codified; personal initiative has to be part of the game at some point. Really, there has to be some room for individualization of the game or you're really just playing a war game.
vturlough said:
OK, I really have a lot to do, so I'll make this my last post for a while.
So why can't you use that description for a d20 combat? That's pretty much how I would (and have, since 1979) describe combats - as a DM, you keep an eye on things like hit points, and can gauge when such descriptions are appropriate. Your example is one to use when the character is low on hit points. Why is that so difficult to translate? I mean, do we have to have hit charts that describe in detail what each hit does? Isn't it easier just to let the DM decide how he describes the combat? The system seems to be able to support two kinds of play - the DM can easily lavish as much detail as he wishes on combat descriptions, or simply call out numbers, depending on how everyone wants to play. I think the hit points system supports the kind of play you describe easily. So it isn't codified; personal initiative has to be part of the game at some point. Really, there has to be some room for individualization of the game or you're really just playing a war game.
