Salvageable Innovations from 4e for Nonenthusiasts

[Lanefan]

If the dart didn't impact, the secondary effect can't occur. If the scondary effect occurs, then there was a palpable iimpact.

And whether or not any secondary effect occurs is determined right then and there via the saving throw.

It may seem nitpicking when used on a dart, but consider a poisoned long sword. If the poison strikes, there had to a palpable hit that affected the character. The player can't choose the narrative option for hp depletion until all consequence is known and that can be much later in the session and the player's narrative choice is not recognised and validated by the game engine since even if the player chooses X, secondary consequences both good and ill ignore his choice.

Almost all the time you-as-player know whether you made or failed your poison save which is (or should be) rolled as soon as the hit takes place; even if the actual consequences don't set in until later, you and-or the DM can set the table: "The sword cut my arm, barely broke the skin but something doesn't feel right; and those drops of blood do NOT look like the right colour! MEDIC!!"

Lan-"purple blood means either you've been smoking something or I have"-efan

 

[JamesonCourage]

Why must a Slaying Arrow bypass the hit point mechanic? Why can it not just do more hit points of damage?

"As always, play what you like" is an excellent tagline, btw!

Thanks

And slaying arrows can be hit point damage, it just seemed to be presented as "dragon failed his Fort save and died." And, if the slaying arrow deals "1,000,000 damage to the creature that fails it's Fort save" then I'd also say that it's effectively bypasses the hit point mechanic. If it just magnifies damage or otherwise increases it, then it's well within the limits of hit point mechanics.

Though, since we're talking about D&D, I don't believe that this version of slaying arrows have been historically used. Though I am fuzzy on this, so I could very well be wrong.

So the arrow will bounce off harmlessly unless a wound could inflict secondary effects?

Not necessarily. You could say "it grazes your arm through the armor, but it's a superficial cut" if it only deals 1 damage. Nothing wrong with either.

That leads to Scenario C: same arrow except it is carrying a longer-term threat that the PC should be unaware of, for example a disease that won't manifest for at least a day.

Okay, let's look at that!

If the arrow bounces harmlessly off the armour then the player is given a mental image of the event that doesn't require any form of follow up and the imposition of the disease at a later time can feel like a gotcha. If the arrow acts differently than other arrows of similar ilk and the player is paying attention then he receives more information than he should.

If the arrow is carrying an additional negative effect based on injury, people that subscribe to this type of description will generally have the arrow "graze" or "wound" the victim, rather than bounce harmlessly away, no matter if the arrow is carrying a disease, poison, contingent curse, or anything else similar in nature.

So, if the character is struck by the arrow, takes 1 damage, fails his Fort save against the disease, then people might generally describe it as a superficial wound for now.

In the olden days before hp inflation, it could be argued that any hit no matter how minor effectively resulted in actually hitting the target (even if luck, morale, inherent toughness, etc. reduced the resulting wound) and my point was moot.

Ultimately, this doesn't matter too much so long as the DM controls the narrative surrounding the combat and the effect of any particular blow. Where it becomes problematic is when the game systems starts to share narrative control with the players and deliberately starts to justify most damage to non-tangible results such as morale, et al. allowing hits to apparently miss.

Only if the players get to describe the hits in ways that will negate secondary effects. If they know they failed a Fort save, then they'd have to play along with that knowledge.

For my group, I wouldn't want anyone besides the GM describing the wound (or lack thereof), but just because some groups allow players some narrative authorship doesn't mean that there's necessarily problems. The players must cooperate within the shared narrative for the game to work. This does not apply solely to hit points.

For the players to effectively participate in narrative control they need the same overall information of the situation surrounding the combat as the DM has. Otherwise the narrative begins to unravel as events no longer seem to unfold in predictable patterns from previous situations.

That's true to some extent, yes. "Roll a Fort save" is very different from "Roll a save vs. poison" or even "Roll a save vs. Type X poison."

While I think that the narrative style of play might have some hiccups to me or my group, others embrace the style and their enjoyment can potentially skyrocket. To this end, sharing information may not be a bad thing to their group. Or they might have other solutions not spoken of yet in this thread.

At any rate, and as always, play what you like

 

[Raven Crowking]

So the arrow will bounce off harmlessly unless a wound could inflict secondary effects?

That leads to Scenario C: same arrow except it is carrying a longer-term threat that the PC should be unaware of, for example a disease that won't manifest for at least a day.

So long as the GM knows this, and narrates events accordingly, there is no problem. Which, I note, you have also noted.

In the olden days before hp inflation, it could be argued that any hit no matter how minor effectively resulted in actually hitting the target (even if luck, morale, inherent toughness, etc. reduced the resulting wound) and my point was moot.

I still rule thus; it is the default position in my game of choice. However, an actual hit need not be described as piercing the skin or striking flesh. A blow against armour can certainly damage one, even if the armour remains intact!

Ultimately, this doesn't matter too much so long as the DM controls the narrative surrounding the combat and the effect of any particular blow. Where it becomes problematic is when the game systems starts to share narrative control with the players and deliberately starts to justify most damage to non-tangible results such as morale, et al. allowing hits to apparently miss.

For the players to effectively participate in narrative control they need the same overall information of the situation surrounding the combat as the DM has. Otherwise the narrative begins to unravel as events no longer seem to unfold in predictable patterns from previous situations.

This I agree with.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thanks

As the Umpire said, "I call 'em as I see 'em, no matter how unpopular that may make me!"

And slaying arrows can be hit point damage, it just seemed to be presented as "dragon failed his Fort save and died." And, if the slaying arrow deals "1,000,000 damage to the creature that fails it's Fort save" then I'd also say that it's effectively bypasses the hit point mechanic. If it just magnifies damage or otherwise increases it, then it's well within the limits of hit point mechanics.

Though, since we're talking about D&D, I don't believe that this version of slaying arrows have been historically used. Though I am fuzzy on this, so I could very well be wrong.

Well, it all depends upon the parameters of the discussion, I suppose. I was defending the hit point mechanic, which includes not only how it is used in Official D&D Products.

It should be pretty easy to image an arrow that does +1d8, +2d8, +4d8, etc., damage.

In my own game, I included a mechanic that specifically allows characters to do this under some circumstances. The more skilled a character is, the more extra dice of damage he can potentially do. This makes ambushes a bit more deadly, and it makes even high-level characters think twice when surrounded by dozens of armed crossbowmen.

EDIT: As a heroic (6th level) bowman, Bard would presumably have 7 ranks of archery. Getting the drop automatically grants one extra die of damage, and he can spend ranks to gain 3 more; so +4d8 damage. This is in addition to the base 1d8 for the arrow, whatever bonus Bard gets for pull strength, and whatever bonus the Black Arrow gives him. If he manages to roll a critical hit, that's another 1d8. So, Bard does up to 6d8, with (say) a +2 bonus to damage for his pull strength, and a +2d8 for being a Bane weapon against the dragon. He strikes with +1 for remaining archery ranks, +4 for getting the drop, +1 for Dexterity, or +6 total. Assuming that the Black Arrow grants him nothing.

Bard then does a potential 8d8+2 with that arrow, ranging from 10 to 66 points of damage. All within the confines of a hit point based system!

Now, let us imagine that Smaug is not instantly slain, but the damage is sufficient (greater than 1/3 hp) to make him unable to fly. He now comes crashing down from 100 feet up onto Laketown. In RCFG terms, the 1st 10 ft. does 1d6, the second does 2d6, the 3rd does 3d6, and so on. This is a potential 55d6 damage, but RCFG limits this to 20d6 for a fall of 60 feet or more (the Beta Playtest rules limited to 10d6 for 40 ft.+). So, Smaug takes 20d6 for the fall (20 to 120 damage), some additional damage for the surface fallen onto (let's say 4d6, or 4 to 24 damage), and then is in the water.....which is so inimical to him that cutting the bridge foils him. Tolkein notes that the lake would put out his fire.....and I would say that was probably sufficient to finish him off.

There are several other ways in which you can also gain a bonus to hit, to damage, to your chance of a critical, to AC, etc., based upon how you choose to fight, and what you choose to do. All of this uses hit points, but damage dealt (like damage you can take) becomes a variable of character (and player) skill.


RC

 

[JamesonCourage]

As the Umpire said, "I call 'em as I see 'em, no matter how unpopular that may make me!"

I like that guy.

Well, it all depends upon the parameters of the discussion, I suppose. I was defending the hit point mechanic, which includes not only how it is used in Official D&D Products.

They weren't given as examples. Most examples included D&D, and even 3.X or Pathfinder. But I agree, hit points work very differently depending on the system. I run a 3.X modeled game, but I don't add in Con bonus automatically to hit points. This makes my hit points (both types) potentially very different from 3.X. So I do understand your point.

However, if certain examples are used, I'm probably going to address those examples.

It should be pretty easy to image an arrow that does +1d8, +2d8, +4d8, etc., damage.

Yep, it sure is. That is a fine example.

In my own game, I included a mechanic that specifically allows characters to do this under some circumstances. The more skilled a character is, the more extra dice of damage he can potentially do. This makes ambushes a bit more deadly, and it makes even high-level characters think twice when surrounded by dozens of armed crossbowmen.

I've done something similar. For each X amount you beat someone's AC, you deal an extra damage die. This means that exceptionally skilled people will be potentially much more damage to lesser skilled people.

Also, my AC against surprise is even harsher than 3.X, so ambushes hurt that much more (especially with higher rolls dealing extra damage dice). On top of that, for each time you're attacked in a round, you take a cumulative penalty to defense. This increases your odds of being struck, as well as the potential damage done to you (as the more they beat you by, the more damage they deal).

EDIT: As a heroic (6th level) bowman, Bard would presumably have 7 ranks of archery. Getting the drop automatically grants one extra die of damage, and he can spend ranks to gain 3 more; so +4d8 damage. This is in addition to the base 1d8 for the arrow, whatever bonus Bard gets for pull strength, and whatever bonus the Black Arrow gives him. If he manages to roll a critical hit, that's another 1d8. So, Bard does up to 6d8, with (say) a +2 bonus to damage for his pull strength, and a +2d8 for being a Bane weapon against the dragon. He strikes with +1 for remaining archery ranks, +4 for getting the drop, +1 for Dexterity, or +6 total. Assuming that the Black Arrow grants him nothing.

Out of curiosity, I'm assuming this is for your game? Although, I would say that I wouldn't give him the drop on Smaug, as he'd emptied his quiver of all but the Black Arrow up to this point. I think Smaug is well aware of him. Unless, of course, getting the drop on something means something different within the context of the game (which it might very well mean).

Bard then does a potential 8d8+2 with that arrow, ranging from 10 to 66 points of damage. All within the confines of a hit point based system!

There are several other ways in which you can also gain a bonus to hit, to damage, to your chance of a critical, to AC, etc., based upon how you choose to fight, and what you choose to do. All of this uses hit points, but damage dealt (like damage you can take) becomes a variable of character (and player) skill.


RC

I do think the system is robust, I just think attributing anomalies to certain things (critical hit charts, save or die arrows, or the like) actually hurts the argument put forth.

As always, though, play what you like

 

[pawsplay]

If you want the hit point to do more work, you could say:

poison arrow (1d6, +2d6 poison)

and poison is extra damage that only affects living things, and which things can be immune. Now we don't even know how much damage is caused by the arrow and how much by the poison, which is, IMO, potentially a good thing. Doesn't it make sense that a deep arrow wound might deliver more poison? At the same time, a grazing cut might introduce poison to a pain, or a deep puncture might put the arrow through the body without delivering much payload. Thanks to this abstracted example, we don't have to care. "Poison arrows are more dangerous to things that can be poisoned," has been accomplished.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Out of curiosity, I'm assuming this is for your game? Although, I would say that I wouldn't give him the drop on Smaug, as he'd emptied his quiver of all but the Black Arrow up to this point. I think Smaug is well aware of him. Unless, of course, getting the drop on something means something different within the context of the game (which it might very well mean).

You are also able to Get the Drop by an opposed roll, depending upon circumstances. So, when Captain Kirk draws his phaser on the Klingon Kang, he is able to (for example) gamble Intimidate vs. Kang's skill or save (probably Reflexes or Willpower in this example). If Kirk succeeds, Kang stops, and they can negotiate.

The longer Kirk holds the drop on Kang, the easier it is for Kang to escape the drop. So, after Kirk has held the drop for a bit, Kang can try to Bluff in order to break Kirk's concentration. Kirk does this all the time, actually.

In the case of Smaug, the dragon is hardly paying more attention to Bard than to the other archers -- it is clear that he simply doesn't view them as a threat. Bard is probably gambling Perception (to see the hollow patch) to Get the Drop -- not something that would normally happen, but appropriate to the circumstances. Smaug then gets a Fly check to see if he would turn before the shot can be taken, but probably has a circumstance penalty because he is so little focused on Bard.

Twang!

The Captain Kirk and Bard the Bowman examples, BTW, are two specific examples that I examined when working out the Get the Dop mechanic. If it didn't do a good job of simulating those fictional examples, I tweaked it until it did. IMHO, anyway!

Note that if Kirk was someone else -- a PC, say -- he might just shoot Kang as soon as he had the drop on him. But, I have discovered, options like this actually make players feel safer talking to villians in the game. Also, when the reverse happens, waiting until "the opportune moment" to break out of the drop is also the recommended tactic. And that usually means going along with the villian......or getting him monologuing!

 

[JamesonCourage]

In the case of Smaug, the dragon is hardly paying more attention to Bard than to the other archers -- it is clear that he simply doesn't view them as a threat. Bard is probably gambling Perception (to see the hollow patch) to Get the Drop -- not something that would normally happen, but appropriate to the circumstances. Smaug then gets a Fly check to see if he would turn before the shot can be taken, but probably has a circumstance penalty because he is so little focused on Bard.

Twang!

The Captain Kirk and Bard the Bowman examples, BTW, are two specific examples that I examined when working out the Get the Dop mechanic. If it didn't do a good job of simulating those fictional examples, I tweaked it until it did. IMHO, anyway!

Well, I'd say that if Smaug was paying any attention to the archers, he'd be more focused on Bard than the others. From The Hobbit:

Now he shot with a great yew bow, till all his arrows but one were spent. The flames were near him. His companions were leaving him.

Bard is being left by all of his fellow archers, despite him trying to rally them. He is alone when Smaug makes his final pass:

Then Bard drew his bow-string to his ear. The dragon was circling back, flying low, and as he came the moon rose above the eastern shore and silvered his great wings... The dragon swooped once more lower than ever, and as he turned and dived down his belly glittered white with sparkling fires of gems in the moon-but not in one place. The great bow twanged. [Smaug death scene]

During this time, Smaug is even lower to the ground than normal, and Bard is out in the open, alone, with a weapon. I feel Smaug would be acutely aware of Bard over the other archers.

I don't think he would consider him a viable threat, however, so if that makes him suitably unaware for your mechanic, then that makes perfect sense to me.

Anyways, it's a cool mechanic. As always, play what you like

 

[mmadsen]

Minions - cheap monsters meant to distract, make the characters look more badass and quickly add numbers to a combat.

It rubs me the wrong way that one ninja is tough, but dozens of ninjas are wimps.

If 4E had been designed so that hit points were luck points that only PCs and important villains had, then I would be totally on board with everyone else having no hit points. Instead, the game has anything and everything interact with hit points, so minions stand out as not belonging in the same game.

Monster schticks - things like kobolds shiftiness, with small special mechanics that differentiate them from each other.

I like the notion of different monsters having different schticks, but it starts seeming arbitrary when kobolds and goblins each have the same concept, but their shiftiness is implemented ever-so-slightly differently, for variety.

I'd rather have sensible rules for how swarms of shifty little guys should operate, for how giant creatures should work, etc., rather than special rules for each creature, just to be different.

 

[Starfox]

I was mostly agreeing with you that the expansion of hp into less tangible realms increases the need for the player group to track physical damage differently. This is a sensible design path for an RPG. It trades complexity for a more "simulationist" feel for the toll of combat.

The problem with such an approach is that after the fight most "psychical damage" makes you an invalid, temporarily or permanently. The human body on adrenaline is remarkably damage-resistant while in the heat of the action. But someone who is injured, even quite a minor injury, is much less prone and able to take risks and tends to place themselves in reserve. Both of these are very sensible survival mechanisms and evolved over a long time.

The trouble, from a simulationist <-> gamist standpoint, is that you don't want your players to get the kind of physical injuries that turn them into invalids. It makes them less worthy as adventurers. Besides, in a game with healing magic, its really enough to know if they are alive or not. Anything less that death can be cured.

To quote Njarl's Saga, speaking of a fallen comrade (translated out of memory)

Bergtora (mother): Was the head off?
Son: No
Bergtora: Then he can likely heal.