Rule-of-Three: 03-27-12

[Fanaelialae]

I dunno. If they're talking about maximum-level rogues doing 20d6 damage per round (not even counting weapon and static bonuses), maybe they aren't going to scale back as much as we think.

20d6 is "only" 140 points of damage per round (dpr) before accuracy is factored in (which I'd guess is most likely to be around 66%). So let's assume that accuracy, and weapons and static bonuses cancel each other out such that the rogue has 140 dpr.

4e creatures were designed to last around 4 rounds, but many people seem to consider that too long so let's assume the average (level-equivalent) DDN creature has enough hp to last 3 rounds. That maximum level creature would have around 420 hp.

However, that's assuming that the rogue doesn't have a bit of striker built in, meaning that he deals higher than average damage (at 20d6 per round, I wouldn't call that a stretch). Hence, let's say that what a non-striker can kill in 3 rounds a striker can kill in 2. As a result you'd end up with a creature with 280 hp at max level.

Admittedly not as low as 1e, but significantly lower than 3e or 4e.

Speaking for myself, however, I think it's far more important that they get a healthy ratio and progression between hp and damage, rather than aiming for some arbitrary quantity thereof. As long as the math works well, I don't especially care whether the numbers are big or small.

 

[GX.Sigma]

4e creatures were designed to last around 4 rounds, but many people seem to consider that too long

I think the argument is more that 1 round takes too long in real-life time. If each round took 4 minutes real-life time, I would be fine with combats taking 4 rounds.

 

[GreyICE]

Wow. That first answer was everything wrong with 3e design in a nutshell.

Rather than giving solos abilities that help them fight conditions (easy fix, one location - monster stat block) they want to give every spell, ability, and feat rider text that will let it not effect solos as badly (or at all) and have that text be future proof with every feat, ability, spell, and monster released for the entirety of DnD Next?

There is no sane reason to do it that way. It is not easier for the designers. It is not easier for the players. It is not easier for the DM. It is terrible, lousy, inexcusable design.

Look at the problem solution matrix

Problem: solo fights are trivialized by conditionals
S1: give solos resistance to conditions
S2: give riders to every conditional granting ability in the entire game. Do not specifically mention solos in any of these riders.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Heh, no one was really shocked when fire didn't hurt fire elementals. There was not a lot of guessing there.

And while you did have HP limits on some spells, there was a much smaller range of monster hp pre-3e. An ancient red dragon in AD&D had, what 88hp? Hmm, according to my AD&D DMG that ancient red would have 11 hd dice so 88 at max. Tiamat has 128, Asmodeus has 199.

In 3e the Ancient red has 660 hp and dr 20/+3.
In 4e the Ancient red has 1,390 hp, or better than 10 times what Tiamat had in AD&D.

That's a lot of whittleing to get down to the 60 hp cap of Power Word:Boom.

So hopefully 5e will reign those inflated hp numbers back a bit if were going to use 1e style limiting mechanics. And I would also really like to see some sort of skill check mechanic to allow experienced and knoweldgable adventurers to take a reasonable guess at whether or not a spell will affect said beastie.

while the hp cap in ADnD was 60 hp for Power word: kill, 3.0 had a 100hp limit. So 5e will have an appropriate limit too.

But I´d also like some less inflated hitpoints. The Ro3 where he says an orc at level 1 may be down with 3 solid hits, at level 6 one hit will bring him down rather tells us that hp seem still inflated... Assuming 15hp at level 1, that means 45hp at level 6. That is about 6 hp per level as in 4e.

Edit: there were monsters like the shambling mound, that were immune to some elements, where you would not have guessed it that easily. A skill check like in 4e to know something about the resistances is not bad.

 

[Psikus]

Rather than giving solos abilities that help them fight conditions (...)
There is no sane reason to do it that way. It is not easier for the designers. It is not easier for the players. It is not easier for the DM. It is terrible, lousy, inexcusable design.

Look at the problem solution matrix

Problem: solo fights are trivialized by conditionals
S1: give solos resistance to conditions
S2: give riders to every conditional granting ability in the entire game. Do not specifically mention solos in any of these riders.

From what I have seen, it's highly likely that "Solo" won't exist as a monster type. Any monster that outlevels the party by a certain margin will be usable as a solo encounter... and, as the party grows in power, the same monster will become equivalent to a 4E elite, then a standard, and eventually a minion. This makes it hard to implement your solution (unless you create a rule saying "every body is immune to X conditions imposed from enemies N levels lower). On the other hand, having monsters remain playable throughout a much wider level range is very cool feature.

I would also argue that the "giving solos resistance to conditions" route is not all that easy to implement, and it still doesn't work particularly well in 4E. In my experience, even newer solos with their fancy immunities to stuns, dazes and dominations can get royally screwed by whatever conditions that aren't covered in their immunity list - usually immobilization, blinding, or massive penalties to attack, to name a few.

 

[GreyICE]

Not even the designers they have are dumb enough to give up on the wealth of encounter knowledge we have gained to decide "solos should be elites but with every more hp and even more damage." Because that was MM1 solo design, and MM1 solo design was poo.

If next wants to be the least bit useable it's ditching that nonsense.

 

[Andor]

while the hp cap in ADnD was 60 hp for Power word: kill, 3.0 had a 100hp limit. So 5e will have an appropriate limit too.

But I´d also like some less inflated hitpoints. The Ro3 where he says an orc at level 1 may be down with 3 solid hits, at level 6 one hit will bring him down rather tells us that hp seem still inflated... Assuming 15hp at level 1, that means 45hp at level 6. That is about 6 hp per level as in 4e.

Edit: there were monsters like the shambling mound, that were immune to some elements, where you would not have guessed it that easily. A skill check like in 4e to know something about the resistances is not bad.

60 is a lot closer to 88 than 100 is to 660.

For 5e I'd really like to see it based on some percentage of of the beasties HP in a manner akin to 4es bloodied status possibly in addition to a hard coded limit. So Power Word: Kill might say save or die if bloodied or below 60 hp.

For "solo" monsters (or even better, for themantically appropriate monsters) you might have additional status slots. So a Dragon or Devil might have Hale/Weakened/Bloodied/Vulnerable at 100%/75%/50%/25% hp totals. Interactions with these states might be in the monster description or the spells description. Maybe demons are banishable, but a demon lord needs to be made vulnerable before he can be banished. Perhaps Polymorph other is -2 to save is a monster is at least weakened. That power word: kill could conceivabley effect an ancient red dragon at 1/2 hit points, but it's much more likely to work if you keep bashing until he's vulnerable and gets an additional -5 to his save.

Even better, I think, would be if this system allowed other characters to interact with it. So a fighter maneuver or rogue talant might allow them to inflict a 'guard down' status that makes the monster count as reduced by one state for a turn.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Percentage based would not have the same effect as absolute hp. Both systems could stand next to each other.

Bloodied in 4e works great. Just a misnomer. Maybe "fatigued" or something would have been better. Or it should have had more mechanical weight, like: if you had been bloodied in combat at least once, poison can take effect, and after the battle you need someone treating you wounds...

flat hp is different: Someone with max hp/current hp below a certain treshold is affected more severely by some effects:
like harm reduces you by 10d10 hp. If your hp is lower than 100, you are instead reduced to 1 hp.

Edit: i am not sure if this system will work smoothly at actual play, but I want to try it out.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

20d6 is "only" 140 points of damage per round (dpr) before accuracy is factored in.

I think you mean 70. The max you can roll on 20d6 is only 120.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think you mean 70. The max you can roll on 20d6 is only 120.

Heh, yeah, whoops! Thanks for catching that, I was tired when I wrote it.

So the actual totals for what I'd project to be maximum level creature hp totals in DDN, based upon what was indicated about rogue damage, would be between something like 140 and 210 hp. Which is much closer to 1e values than 3e or 4e.