The Genius of D&D

[mmadsen]

I'll ask again: If the PCs always have to worry about being killed by any schlep with a weapon in his hand, what's the point of levelling up?

Again, doubling, tripling, and quadrupling Hit Points is not the one and only way to power up characters. In a high-AC, moderate-hp system, a high-level Fighter wouldn't worry about "any schlep with a weapon in his hand," because he'd strike that "schlep" down, same as always. And, realistically, no "schlep" would approach Sir Lancelot to see if he might be the guy to score a lucky crit (and still die the next round).

We're not talking about reducing the power level; we're talking about changing the mechanics for high power. In a high-AC, moderate-hp system, a high-level Fighter can wade into battle against hordes of spear-carriers, and he'll kill them as spectacularly as always. He'll Cleave and Whirlwind Attack them the same as always. Instead of getting whittled down though, getting hit most of the time, but only taking 5% of his Hit Points per shot, he'll get hit much, much less often -- but those hits might take 20% of his Hit Points at a time.

In much the same way that infrequent leveling up is more exciting than incremental improvement, fewer hits that do more damage are more interesting than consistently taking a few points of damage for twenty rounds in a row.

And it makes more sense, since hits can be hits, and misses can be misses, and we don't need a lot of hand-waving to excuse mechanical strangeness.

 

[Umbran]

Another point about levels...

I've played games with and without levels. While, in theory, a level-less game can be played in slow progression, with people buying a little big of a skill each session, in practice it often isn't. In my experience, players tend to save up their XP for a while, and spend them in a big lump - effectively, making it like a D&D level up.

Also, people make the claim that you get all of the bonuses of levelling, in one big lump. But really, how big is that lump? You get a few hit points, a little bit of save bonus, maybe a point of BAB, maybe a spell. Not really all that much. You wind up doing it 10 to 20 times during the life of the character. In the long run, the power increments really aren't that big, and you do many of them. I think people get hung up on the "fact" that it's a lump, when overall, the process evens out to being fairly continuous.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Bah.

The "hit-point reality problem" hasn't happened in any game I've been a part of, in any of the 5-10 people I've introduced the game to.

They just seem to accept it. A stubbed toe is 1 hp of damage. To a Wizard, that could mean they broke it, it severed an artery and they're wary about going adventuring again. To a Fighter, it means "ow, durn rocks" because they're tougher.

8 hp of damage is still a deep slash with a sword. It's just that it means a lot less to a guy who can take ten of those and keep on tickin' than it does to a guy who can't take half of that and keep on tickin'.

That's why HP is abstract, yo. Stabbing with a sword is still stabbing with a sword, it's just that heroes are unrealistically resilient to being stabbed with a sword. Curing that 8 hp of damage is mighty potent to the hack who can't take it, but not a problem to the dude who can.

Yar!

 

[mmadsen]

If you are always scaling up the the opposition to maintain precise balance with the characters new abilities then what is the point of "progress" at all? You are just DMing like a boring computer game.

Well put. Of course, this "Red Queen" situation is a staple of D&D DMing. First you fight Goblins, then Orcs, then Gnolls, then Bugbears, then Ogres, and so on. Oddly, you don't seem to run into Goblins much once you're a famous warrior (but when you do, they're suddenly much smarter than the Goblins you used to fight, and they ambush, set traps, use poison, etc.).

I am afraid to break the news to you all, but the last 3 editions of D&D just are not very simple.

In any attack on D&D, the defenders loudly proclaim its simplicity. Certain elements are simple. Some are simple and good, some simple and bad. Other elements are downright complicated though. Just try handing a 10th-level Wizard to your niece to play as her first character.

Many, many alternative games saw D&D as simple and unrealistic -- and they saw "unrealistic" as meaning both implausible and not gritty. So they aimed for high complexity (lots of rules, lots of charts), high plausability, and grittiness (low power, high lethality).

Whenever anyone attacks an implausible D&D mechanic then, the cry goes out, "If I wanted to crunch numbers and keep detailed track of numbers, I'd be an accountant!" (as ThenHeCame put it).

But plausible mechanics don't have to be more complex or less heroic. Just because armor-as-AC and ever-increasing Hit Points are simple doesn't mean any alternatives have to be complex (or gritty).

 

[rounser]

And it makes more sense, since hits can be hits, and misses can be misses, and we don't need a lot of hand-waving to excuse mechanical strangeness.

If Chewbacca does not make sense, you must acquit!
[produces a monkey]
Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey.

 

[rounser]

Of course, this "Red Queen" situation is a staple of D&D DMing. First you fight Goblins, then Orcs, then Gnolls, then Bugbears, then Ogres, and so on. Oddly, you don't seem to run into Goblins much once you're a famous warrior (but when you do, they're suddenly much smarter than the Goblins you used to fight, and they ambush, set traps, use poison, etc.).

"You see," said the Red Queen to Alice, "It takes all of the running you can do just to stay in one place. If you wish to get anywhere then you must run twice as fast as that."

 

[mmadsen]

Also, people make the claim that you get all of the bonuses of levelling, in one big lump. But really, how big is that lump? You get a few hit points, a little bit of save bonus, maybe a point of BAB, maybe a spell. Not really all that much.

Sometimes the lump can be huge, and sometimes it's subtle. For instance, the jump from 1st to 2nd level is almost always gigantic, regardless of class, because Hit Points go up 50%. The jump from 2nd to 3rd level is still pretty big for that reason. Multiclassing into that first level of Wizard is a huge jump too, since overnight you learn dozens of 0-level cantrips and a few 1st-level spells.

The increases to BAB, Saves, and Skills are usually subtle though. For a Rogue, each step from, say, 4th level through 10th is a baby step; each level is less than +1 to BAB and Saves, +1 to most Skills, a few Special Abilities here and there, and +1d6 Hit Points (for someone who already has more than a dozen). Still, the Hit Points are the biggest difference from level to level.

 

[mmadsen]

Careful guys... Monte isnt saying Dungeons, Levels and HPs are the best rules/way in RPGing. He is saying their simplicity and ease of use made D&D the long term and big game it is. They might not be great stuff... but they work.

I'm inclined to agree, Rashak Mani, but Monte does say that the 3E team was wise not to mess with those "genius" elements.

Proverb I love... "The simple may not be always the best, but the best is always simple."

I like it -- and it's quite applicable!

 

[mmadsen]

Another "genius of D&D" (which I'm beginning to think should be retitled "Synergistic Genius of D&D") point related to Monte's points:

Compared to many other RPGs, character generation is quick and stat blocks are small, meaning that character generation and writing out stats didn't take away time and focus from creating adventures. Who wants to create an adventure for a system with stat blocks that go on for over a page, and can take over half an hour to create a single NPC?

That's another good point, rounser. Quick and easy character generation is vital for introducing new players to gaming, and it certainly makes adventure-writing a lot easier.

Note that compared to earlier editions, 3E courts this problem with it's bigger stat blocks and more intensive character creation decisions, but the payoff is worth it...

3E could benefit a lot from spelling out more examples. For instance, the Fighter alone could be a Knight, an Archer, a Pikeman, a Hoplite, etc., and each of those Fighters would take different Feats and Skills.

 

[Victim]

Against relatively weak opponents, a bonus to AC isn't going to mean a whole lot. Let's look at a character of mine in a campaign that just ended. He's essentially a 12th level cleric. His AC almost immediately after waking is going to around 14 as he grabs his shield (+1 with daylight ability) and slaps his wrists into bracers of natural armor. His walking around AC is going to be about 25 since his plate armor will be on. It might be higher if he uses an extended Magic Vestment on the shield, but our group was big enough that I didn't have the spells. His AC fully buffed "We're teleporting into a combat zone!" is going to 35 from haste and shield of faith. He can produce all these effects from his own gear and items.

A guard (war 1) with masterwork bolts, a masterwork X-bow, weapon focus, and a 14 DEX has a +6 attack bonus. This guy is pretty well trained and well equiped for a normal person.

At what point does my cleric care about any additional AC when fighting guards? It doesn't matter unless he's wiping the dang sleep out of his eyes. A natural 20 needed to hit is still a natural 20 needed to hit after an +100 super-ninja bonus to AC is added. Because there's always 5% chance of success or failure, against any given target number, the value of bonuses will eventually drop to nothing.

That high level fighter with good gear will get hit at almost the same rate and will absorb far fewer hits. The only way he'd see any kind of parity after your changes would be: A) His companions are too dumb to cast spells on him and the rogue steals all the gold so he can't get better equipment; or B) He's some kind of pevert who fights naked.