Save My Game - Wilderlands & Dragons

[AbdulAlhazred]

The right amount to lose is: half your bloodied value...

Yeah, but I think people missed the point. There is NO hitpoint damage specified, ONLY loss of HS.

 

[Aegeri]

I didn't see anywhere where he said 'surge value damage', he talked about taking damage of 1 surge or 2d6 surges for the whole party. Maybe I missed something hidden somewhere but the concept looked to me like it was all pure surges, not hit points.

Um...

Each character whose individual skill check failed loses one healing surge or takes damage equal to his or her healing surge value.

I have to admit, it was very well hidden right in the same sentence as losing a surge for failing a check.



Edit: I do hope you took that in a friendly manner and not a snarky one!

 

[S'mon]

I'd rule that healing surge value as a penalty always equals 1/4 your max hp, so you don't die quicker from having a bonus to your surge value.

 

[Incenjucar]

Aside from the specifics of the surge issue, I enjoyed the article. I found it amusing that the writer is with Paizo.

 

[S'mon]

I've now read the article - the number of Surges lost seems a bit harsh, unless you're running a Dark Sun survivalist campaign, the PCs are exploring rugged mountains or searing desert, etc. For more temperate climes I'd typically just make it 1 lost surge per failed hazard check, depending on the situation. I guess 1d6-CON surges per day without provisions might be ok; but I would want to consider whether the PCs are eg dying of thirst while trekking the searing desert (big loss per day) or merely starving while seated in place (1 surge per several days).

For encounters, I think "1 EL +2 to +4 per day" seems tedious and grindy. I would (a) include lower-level encounters and (b) increase uncertainty by having several checks per day, most of which don't produce an encounter, but always having a check per extended rest. A good probability would be 1 in 6 or 1 in 10. It would probably be a good idea to have an extra check after each encounter, so the PCs can never really relax. This uncertainty is what allows for lower level encounters to feel threatening.

Example: The PCs are trekking through the wilderness, they have an EL+1 encounter, take some damage, and rest soon after. During the rest the DM rolls a '6' on d6 encounter check and generates an EL+0 encounter, which ambushes the party in camp. This makes it tougher than usual, but the PCs win, they resume their rest. The DM rolls for the follow-on check - '6' again, and a third encounter attacks the PCs a couple hours later....

In this example, with a bit of bad luck the PCs are attacked 3 times in 1 day, with the latter 2 fights being attacks on their camp on unfavourable terms for the PCs. By the time of the third battle even an EL+0 may be very challenging, certainly at Heroic tier.

This doesn't have to happen often to keep the PCs on their toes.

 

[delericho]

I feel like a simpler solution to all this would have been to say, "You don't regain healing surges from an extended rest unless you're in a secure location and have sufficient supplies. Making your camp in the wilderness into a secure location (and foraging for supplies, if you don't have any) is a hard Nature check each day. If no PC succeeds, each PC loses a healing surge from the fatigue of traveling a day."

Agreed. Although I suspect that may cause problems with PCs who desperately need to rest while in the dungeon...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

EL +2 as the only encounter in a day should not be grindy at all. You can make the encounter harder by adding enemies instead of increasing their level.

An action point daily combo and all excessive enemies are dropped, so that you can have a balanced encounter afterwards.

Maybe it is a good idea to have an encounter in 2 waves... ECL + 4 = 2*ECL + 0! You have about as many dailies as encounter powers, so if you wasted all encounter powers in the first part, you can blow action points and dailies to tip the battle into your favour.

Also, a level +4 encounter could be 4 level -4 encounters in rapid succession. This could mean stumbling into a horde of goblins.

So even, if the individual monsters are not that hard, and maybe it is a bit more stressfull for the DM than just using Goblin minions, but sometimes it is just nice for the player to recognize how much more powerful they are compared to 4 levels below...

*ok, article printed... the first one for a while!

 

[LostSoul]

I really liked the article.

I think it would have been better if he explained the why of all those rules.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It was a nice article, but I'm not really convinced at all about his encounters. An level+4 encounter, or level+2 encounter, is going to be long. Unless it is carefully designed it could easily take up most of the evening by the time the players get moving, run into something, try to negotiate/evade/whatever, fight it out, decide to camp again.

I think a better way is to have all encounters triggered. That way the DM knows he's going to use most of them and he can put some more effort into them. Make some of them mini-adventures with say a couple encounters worth of monsters that could combine or not, etc. Then they can each have something unique and possibly plot significant, but they can be skippable. Arrange things so there simply are no 1 encounter days, or the players have to work for them by passing an SC or being extra clever.

Anyway, I think he's got the general idea pretty much down, but my experience running these things is they need to be tweaked just right to be really awesome.

 

[Klaus]

I'd love to see this article expanded.

Re: Vampire: so he loses a surge after each failed hazard check, and once out of surges, he takes damage equal to his surge value. But even if he starts taking damage equal to surge value, as soon as he is bloodied he starts regenerating, so he has more overall endurance than a living creature.

I think the 1d6-Con modifier surges per day without provisions is a killer, but it's a true incentive to bring supplies/forage.