Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="3catcircus" data-source="post: 6296459" data-attributes="member: 16077">How simulationist do you want to get?Are we talking Exalted or Vampire levels of abstraction or going so far in the opposite direction that you hit Phoenix Command or Millenium's End levels simulationism?For me, not having hit locations and having abstract &quot;100% capable until you hit 0 hp&quot; is ridiculous.&nbsp; A sliding scale of &quot;light, moderate, serious, critical&quot; wounds by location with various penalties and chances of bleeding out or going in to shock makes sense.&nbsp; We have Cure spells with the same sliding scale.&nbsp; We have combat effects like bleed.&nbsp; We have in Ultimate Combat the called shot system (and many different systems throughout the ages going back to the earliest editions of D&amp;D).&nbsp; It would be very very simple to do this.&nbsp; I favor having hp solely based upon physical attributes and not increasing with level or HD and then having multiples of that be the trip point for wound levels.&nbsp; Of course, you could just take standard hp and divide.&nbsp; 1 hp of damage = slight wounds, 25% = moderate, etc. and have those be trip point for wound levels.Having every PC or NPC have the same &quot;roll a d20&quot; when those who have more experience ought to not just be more successful by having higher bonuses, but ought to have a greater amount of chances at being successful by rolling a pool of d20s makes sense.&nbsp; In the real world, most people who are very experienced are less likely to totally screw up an action - so even if they aren't successful the first time, they'll quickly adjust and be successful.&nbsp; Why shouldn't this also work in D&amp;D?&nbsp; You want to schmooze your way past the guard?&nbsp; Why should your success hinge on a single d20 roll on Bluff or Diplomacy if you happen to have put 10 ranks into the skill vs. someone who has no ranks and is solely relying upon a high Charisma?&nbsp; Shouldn't someone who has devoted more ranks in a skill get more chances to be successful at any single task than someone who hasn't?Now - do I want to flip through 15 look up tables to figure out if my sword swing sliced through the ACL instead of the MCL?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Do I want to turn the Alchemy skill into a semester-long ORganic Chemistry class?&nbsp; Nope.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="3catcircus, post: 6296459, member: 16077"] How simulationist do you want to get? Are we talking Exalted or Vampire levels of abstraction or going so far in the opposite direction that you hit Phoenix Command or Millenium's End levels simulationism? For me, not having hit locations and having abstract "100% capable until you hit 0 hp" is ridiculous. A sliding scale of "light, moderate, serious, critical" wounds by location with various penalties and chances of bleeding out or going in to shock makes sense. We have Cure spells with the same sliding scale. We have combat effects like bleed. We have in Ultimate Combat the called shot system (and many different systems throughout the ages going back to the earliest editions of D&D). It would be very very simple to do this. I favor having hp solely based upon physical attributes and not increasing with level or HD and then having multiples of that be the trip point for wound levels. Of course, you could just take standard hp and divide. 1 hp of damage = slight wounds, 25% = moderate, etc. and have those be trip point for wound levels. Having every PC or NPC have the same "roll a d20" when those who have more experience ought to not just be more successful by having higher bonuses, but ought to have a greater amount of chances at being successful by rolling a pool of d20s makes sense. In the real world, most people who are very experienced are less likely to totally screw up an action - so even if they aren't successful the first time, they'll quickly adjust and be successful. Why shouldn't this also work in D&D? You want to schmooze your way past the guard? Why should your success hinge on a [B]single[/B] d20 roll on Bluff or Diplomacy if you happen to have put 10 ranks into the skill vs. someone who has no ranks and is solely relying upon a high Charisma? Shouldn't someone who has devoted more ranks in a skill get more chances to be successful at any single task than someone who hasn't? Now - do I want to flip through 15 look up tables to figure out if my sword swing sliced through the ACL instead of the MCL? No. Do I want to turn the Alchemy skill into a semester-long ORganic Chemistry class? Nope. [/QUOTE]

Verification