D&D General Should ENworld Posters Design a D&D?

Zardnaar

Legend
Even in 3.0 I thought h.p. levels were getting a bit much, particularly on the monsters' side, once character levels got to double digits.

A soft cap, though, so someone could get to 19 or even 20 but it'd be a rare thing.

We took the Cavalier's percentile increment system for stats (check the 1e UA if you're not sure what I mean) and applied it to everyone. That way, your prime stats slowly advance but there's no set rate or predictable level at which they might tick over, and it's slower than 5e's ASIs in any case. Edit: And percentile increments can let you slowly grind past the usual species-based or whatever caps on stats.

I use staggered advancement but over the years I've flattened it a bit from what original 1e has. Here you list a range of 1250 to 2500 to reach second depending on class, my range is 1400-2200.

Hmm I could lop a 0 off easy enough on xp.

I'm familiar with UA I own it. Averages out +1 ASI evey 2 levels (same as 5E really +2 every 4).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
If the designers are concerned that counting down, subtracting, or in some cases taking a lower number to be better can't be included in the game because they're too difficult for typical players to deal with, that says a great many very bad things about the education system those players grew up with.
Not at all. It says that game design which follows consistent patterns is (far, far, FAR) more likely to actually get played and used.

Bigger is better for some numbers and smaller is better for others just leaves folks confused and creates totally unnecessary quit moments when someone rolls a nat 1 on an attack, or a nat 20 on any roll-under check, and gets super excited only to be told "oh...sorry... that's the worst possible result..."

Being condescending or condemnatory is the antithesis of good game design, same as with good teaching (since, I mean, you literally need to teach the game.) It is not that things are impossible. It's that consistency and reinforcement are extremely useful for retention, both "player retaining the information" and "game retaining the player(s)."

I have a player who is one of the smartest people I know, well-educated, articulate, curious, eager to engage with complex subjects. It took them more than three years to remember without asking what the proper process for rolling actions was in Dungeon World, even though there are only two kinds of rolls the players ever have to make, 2d6+MOD and a class-based damage roll (meaning, for Fighter say, it's just 1d10 always, regardless of your equipment). It would be rude in the extreme to condemn them for this; it has genuinely nothing to do with this player's intelligence, education, or participation, all of which are quite high. Instead, the information simply doesn't stick the way they would like. It annoys them that they need to ask so often, but they literally couldn't remember, even though they had been doing this thing for literally three years of almost continuous weekly sessions.

Consistency is incredibly important for effective game design. Putting down those who struggle with inconsistency is unhelpful at best. I'd rather not discuss what it is at worst.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
If the designers are concerned that counting down, subtracting, or in some cases taking a lower number to be better can't be included in the game because they're too difficult for typical players to deal with, that says a great many very bad things about the education system those players grew up with.
Maybe or maybe it says more about the culture of the parents.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I’d say if we are going to design d&d as a community we’d first have to elect our lead designer. Someone has to have final say to keep the project moving along.
 



I've always liked the idea of capping hit points dependent on one's size and one's constitution score.
And it would predominantly be unchanging as one progressed unless their con score increased.

Then as one would gains levels, one would get skill/stamina to use for parrying, deflecting and doing manuevers or special class features.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
I've always liked the idea of capping hit points dependent on one's size and one's constitution score.
And it would predominantly be unchanging as one progressed unless their con score increased.

Then as one would gains levels, one would get skill/stamina to use for parrying, deflecting and doing manuevers or special class features.
Isn't this effectively how 4e surges work?

You get a base set of surges from class (defenders get more, squishy classes get less), and extra from your Con mod. Base HP is a static number plus your Con score (not modifier), you gain a fixed amount each level based on class (again, defenders and "beefy" classes, e.g. Barbarian, get more.) Surges can only increase by taking a once-only feat, or raising your Con mod.

In effect, HP become your "vitality" points, while Surges become your "wound" points. It is exceedingly dangerous to keep fighting in 4e once you run out of surges; the vast majority of healing depends on them, and your number of surges goes up very, very slowly. (As in, most characters will get at most exactly 1 more surge in their whole career, usually at the start of Epic tier when you get a second +1 to all stats, like what you get for starting Paragon tier.)

This split between HP and surges allows 4e to have very high combat volatility, where each character's status varies a ton from one round to the next, while actually having fairly low lethality unless the DM and players specifically wish it to be so (e.g. by attacking dying PCs so they fail more death saves.)

You would even use surges to power some rituals, items, or effects, though generally speaking only ones with pretty significant impact since costing a surge is a big deal (as noted, fighting when you are out of surges is dangerous, you're pushing past what your body can handle and death is a very real possibility.)
 

Isn't this effectively how 4e surges work?

You get a base set of surges from class (defenders get more, squishy classes get less), and extra from your Con mod. Base HP is a static number plus your Con score (not modifier), you gain a fixed amount each level based on class (again, defenders and "beefy" classes, e.g. Barbarian, get more.) Surges can only increase by taking a once-only feat, or raising your Con mod.

In effect, HP become your "vitality" points, while Surges become your "wound" points. It is exceedingly dangerous to keep fighting in 4e once you run out of surges; the vast majority of healing depends on them, and your number of surges goes up very, very slowly. (As in, most characters will get at most exactly 1 more surge in their whole career, usually at the start of Epic tier when you get a second +1 to all stats, like what you get for starting Paragon tier.)

This split between HP and surges allows 4e to have very high combat volatility, where each character's status varies a ton from one round to the next, while actually having fairly low lethality unless the DM and players specifically wish it to be so (e.g. by attacking dying PCs so they fail more death saves.)

You would even use surges to power some rituals, items, or effects, though generally speaking only ones with pretty significant impact since costing a surge is a big deal (as noted, fighting when you are out of surges is dangerous, you're pushing past what your body can handle and death is a very real possibility.)

Interestingly our 5e's homebrew rules use HD to fuel class abilities/features beyond the norm and you can go beyond that but that drops one into levels of exhaustion. I still find though that 4e and 5e have way too many hit points.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Interestingly our 5e's homebrew rules use HD to fuel class abilities/features beyond the norm and you can go beyond that but that drops one into levels of exhaustion. I still find though that 4e and 5e have way too many hit points.
5e HP grow much, much faster than 4e due to Con mod. 4e starts high (static amount + Con score), but grows more slowly (fixed HP by class.) Even though 4e has more levels, 5e characters actually overtake 4e ones as long as they have positive Con mod.

But at this point, what numerical advancement are you allowing? AC can't grow because so-called "bounded accuracy," which was (explicitly) why they made HP grow instead. That was openly discussed during the Next playtest. If you're capping HP at an extremely low value reached extremely quickly, how do characters grow?
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top