The Genius of D&D

[Numion]

Levels, or the carrot-effect, is a big part of D&D succes. In games that have more gradual advance schemes, players in my group at least, don't bother to think about the game on their free time. But in D&D, they tend to bring up the plans for their character up whenever I see them.

They're clearly more excited about the game, than in the case of other, levelles systems. So, in a way I agree with Monte, but then again I'm a known Monte fanboy

 

[Desdichado]

Arthur Tealeaf:
Then you have a boring DM. If you ever wrote a book, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the heroes died from a lucky shot from a guard or something, ending the story abruptly in the middle f the plot. At least that is what it seems like. Either that or your character would be immune to almost all damage. Wooot, exciting!
No good Dm would let that happen, even if its "fair game", because it's no fun for noone (except the evil DM with an aggenda towards that particular player)

One small problem there. D&D games are not books. They are games. If the player knows that he can never die because his DM won't let him so the "story" isn't ruined, then the game loses its sense of challenge and the fun is gone. It's not the DMs fault if the player characters die. It's the way the game is. That's an inherent risk in everything that the player characters do, which is what makes the game exciting. Not the overarching plot of the game.

I disagree completely that good DMs shouldn't let lucky shots kill PCs.

Then what does AC represent??????

Okay, so both AC and Hit Points mean the same thing??? Hit points should be called Evasion Points or Dogde Points if what you are saying is correct. And if HP represents all this, why don't we just do away with AC and give out insane amounts of HP, dince losing hit points doesn't necessarily mean taking any damage!

Blargh

Dude, have you read the player's handbook? This is described in some detail there. It really shouldn't be a surprise.

 

[Carnifex]

2 points from me on this one:

1)Most RPG'ers I know did not begin on D&D, but rather on GURPS, Champions, Paranoia, Feng Shui, Call of Cthulu, or the White Wolf games. Or even them Fighting Fantasy game books I managed to convince a good number to try 2e because they all knew I was probably the best DM there. Sure, it had rules problems, but it was largely nice and simple, with a number of Monte's points meanign that people *liked* it. In addition, the point brough up in this thread about the appeal of a fantasy game was present. My Planescape campaign cemented the appeal of D&D, and the advent of the (IMHO) truly excellent 3e means that D&D is now the primary game. It wasn't before.

2) I think it was mmadson (I could be wrong) who stated earlier in the thread that once we all accept that people want fights lasting three or four rounds, then it'll be okay. I disagree. I don't always want fights lasting that long. I especially don't want fights lasting that long because the players just got sliced up by a bunch of mooks I sent at them early on in an adventure. When it comes to the toe-to-toe battles against elite cambion knights or evil wizards of a dark organisations, I *want* long battles. The fighter trading blows with his leering demonic foe, both covered in dozens of gashes pouring out blood or ichor but still, still fighting on to the bitter end. The huge mage battle as both sides blanket each other with area affect spells, and even then the archmage comes striding out of the inferno, slightly singed but very, very irritated, to blast his opponents with some incredibly impressive pyrotechnic uber-spell.

That is what I call fun, and I have to say that even when as a DM the players wipe one of my treasrued villains off the face of the planet, I really don't care of it was a good, epic, cinematic, fun battle. If Kilshanor, Baatorian archmage of the City of Splinters, had been cut down by two swrod-strikes and a spray of magic missiles from the sorcerer, I'd have been a bit disappointed.

Which brings up the fact that magic missiles would suddenly become very powerful in a high AC, low hp setting.

 

[Victim]

Which brings up the fact that magic missiles would suddenly become very powerful in a high AC, low hp setting.

As if they weren't powerful now. The wizard and sorcerer in our group almost never got a chance to fireball/lightning bolt anything until we started using a battlematt. Even with attacks consisting almost entirely of magic missiles, they still dished out a fiar share of damage from levels 6 to 8 with them.

If 7th level characters are doing their fair share of offense by chain casting a 1st level spell, it's probably already too powerful.

Of course, mmadsen already recognized the need to rework most of the spells.

Then you have a boring DM. If you ever wrote a book, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the heroes died from a lucky shot from a guard or something, ending the story abruptly in the middle f the plot. At least that is what it seems like. Either that or your character would be immune to almost all damage. Wooot, exciting!
No good Dm would let that happen, even if its "fair game", because it's no fun for noone (except the evil DM with an aggenda towards that particular player)

I think doing that throws the baby out with the bathwater (OMG, did I just write that?). First of all, I don't agree that lots HP means immune to all damage. Second, I like the chance for impossible things to happen. As a player, I like to throw DMs for a bit of loop. I seek to prevent villains from escaping, even if they're supposed to get away. I've done crazy things with a wizard to keep a foe from escaping. I've figured out plans that render my character almost invulnerable to the big bosses attacks - because of a lucky guess mostly, and only for 1 min/level at most. I like the impossible critical hits that fell supposedly long term villains. I don't expect the DM to fudge die rolls when a hasted wizard drops a double barreled disentegration (DC 23, twice) against an undead boss with a +5 Fort save, and I don't expect him to fudge to save our characters either. I'd rather trust in Deathward or Contigencies than in someone else's sense of what makes a good game and their ignoring of reason because of it. Nothing keeps the NPCs from using the same defenses we do. When there's so many ways to die from bad luck, there's no reason the enemies shouldn't operate in groups instead of having one big uber-boss so that any one guy getting killed doesn't screw up the whole plan and so the one guy left can grab some bodies and make a brake for it with teleport. Most of my characters set out do the impossible: even if it wouldn't make the best novel, it makes for a hell of game.

Then what does AC represent??????

Okay, so both AC and Hit Points mean the same thing??? Hit points should be called Evasion Points or Dogde Points if what you are saying is correct. And if HP represents all this, why don't we just do away with AC and give out insane amounts of HP, dince losing hit points doesn't necessarily mean taking any damage!

AC is the easy stuff. It take care of the shots that bounce off your armor, the wild misses, the times when all you need to do is tilt your your head back a bit and let the breeze from your opponent's sword cool your face.

HP is the hard stuff, the things that you need to push yourself to do. The neophyte fighter sucks it up and grits his teeth as that goblin blade slides along his arm. It's not a grave wound, but it hurts - he wants to cry, to sit down and wrap it with bandages, to run home since he's not cut out for this dangerous life - but he keeps on fighting. Boromir takes an arrow to the heart - instead of falling down and dieing, he decides that it's not his yet so he keeps fighting. Sure, unless someone else finishes him or his friends arrive witht quasi magical healing, his time will come in 5 minutes regardless of how he pushes himself, but he thinks maybe he can kill the orcs before they get his friends first, even if it rips his open even worse. HP. When the duelist is fighting 5 guys, and they launch a coordinated attack, swords are everywhere. High, low, middle; there's no way to block and dodge them all, it's impossible. Then he does anyway. HP.

 

[mmadsen]

[I guess everyone wants to discuss Hit Points. I can't really throw stones...]

I think it was mmadson (I could be wrong) who stated earlier in the thread that once we all accept that people want fights lasting three or four rounds, then it'll be okay. I disagree.

I think you missed my point. D&D fights already last for three or four hits. As much as Hit Points escalate at higher levels, the damage increases right along with it. Thus, fights last about three or four hits.

If you realize then that people enjoy having enough Hit Points to last three or four hits, you can devise whatever alternative system with that in mind. People don't like the notion of fewer Hit Points because they're afraid of rampant one-shot kills (of their own PCs primarily), but fewer Hit Points are only "gritty" if damage remains high (and to-hit probabilities remain high). If you set up the system so that damage doesn't escalate quite so quickly, you don't need Hit Points to accumulate quite so quickly either, and mundane attacks can remain unlikely to kill our heroes but not totally meaningless.

Which brings up the fact that magic missiles would suddenly become very powerful in a high AC, low hp setting.

As would True Strike. And, of course, in a system with armor-as-DR, they wouldn't.

 

[hong]

[I guess everyone wants to discuss Hit Points. I can't really throw stones...]

No, but you can stow thrones.

I think you missed my point. D&D fights already last for three or four hits.

A meaningless statement.

As much as Hit Points escalate at higher levels, the damage increases right along with it. Thus, fights last about three or four hits.

Prove this.

If you realize then that people enjoy having enough Hit Points to last three or four hits,

Prove this.

People don't like the notion of fewer Hit Points because they're afraid of rampant one-shot kills (of their own PCs primarily), but fewer Hit Points are only "gritty" if damage remains high (and to-hit probabilities remain high). If you set up the system so that damage doesn't escalate quite so quickly, you don't need Hit Points to accumulate quite so quickly either, and mundane attacks can remain unlikely to kill our heroes but not totally meaningless.

Since when have mundane attacks been "totally meaningless"? If you really believe that every high-level campaign consists solely of sending the PCs up against opponents of equal or higher level (your "red queen" argument), you clearly haven't played a lot of high-level campaigns.

Besides which, your argument is circular. If it really is possible to tweak a low-hp system so that it functions exactly like a high-hp system, then there's no point to doing it.

 

[Victim]

Oops, I was in a hurry and forgot about healing.

Besides just curing injuries, healing magic does 2 things in relation to HP.

First, you can't do the impossible without paying a price for it at some time or another. When you push and fight on despite that wound, you'll bleed more, rip it open, make it worse. When you decide you're going to block all those shots regardless whether a person should be able to do it, you're pushing your body in ways that it wasn't meant to pushed, driving it beyond its normal limits. Healing magic is going to help fix the damage that you do to yourself when you decide that normal human limits don't apply.

Second, the presence of healing magic allows for different rationalizations and new "strategies" (insanities). Powerful healing allows for some completely different images. Maybe the tough warrior really does have 3 arrows in his heart and a shield arm hanging on by a bloody tendon. Since he's going to be healed soon, it doesn't matter that he'll probably die in a few minutes. All he has to do is keep fighting until he's healed or can drink a potion or two. With healing around, people could fight past the point where they should be dead with sheer determination and then get better. It does require some suspension of disbelief ruleswise because, techniquely, they would get better without healing, but in play that will almost never happen between healing spells, wands, potions, etc.

As an alternate idea that's part of point 2, having healing around might change the way people do some things. It might be acceptable to take a few hits to maintain a position or stance where the fighter can drive home a truly leathal strike, instead losing that positional advantage because you had to dodge back, or turn your attack into a parry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess everyone wants to discuss HP because they're one of the most controversial parts of DnD. Over 10 levels, an increase in pure wound taking ability of 6 to 10 fold is a bit hard to rationalize, and thus often criticized.

While in many cases, your point about the same # of average hits needed to drop a target is correct, I do see some change in the number of hits. It will often be 5-6 instead of 4-5, for example. However, that could be included in your idea by simply adding a bit more HP as well as defense.

However, spells bypass DR, so stuff like magic missile would still be incredibly dangerous. Truestrike would be safe, except in the hands of Sor 1 fighting class X which has a decent attack already, and then throws truestrike and few points of Power Attack to beat DR. It's already a good combo, and it would be even more brutal since truestrike could easily beat the class defense bonus at mid levels and the character could already have a high STR attack good enough to beat through DR. Magic Missile doesn't give crap about DR, so it would start cutting through people.

I suppose you could change DR so it does work on spells, but that would really screw with alot of things.

However, a big problem would be that the chance to hit bottoms out at 5%. After that point, additional increases in defense would be meaningless. Dodgy type characters might start putting on armor to get DR since their defense is already maxed.

Also, missing a lot is quite frustrating. I get very annoyed when fighting monsters like incorporeal undead because their main defense makes people miss all the time, regardless of strategy.

Finally, finding the proper damage scaling point would be hard. Fighters can do quite a bit of damage. So can wizards. However, most of a wizard's attack don't care about Defense, and do care about Reflex and HP and SR. A fighter's attacks care about DR, AC, and HP. If you make unbypassble DR in the form of armor commonly availible while you increase AC, fighters are in bad shape. Even if you make armor DR work against spells, wizards usually drop damage in bigger chunks (10d6 once instead of 1d8 +10 twice), so they still aren't hurt to badly on their big guns. You'd have to chance all the damage dealing spells around, and might throw another imbalance in. For example, many spells use Ray attacks. It's assumed that these attacks will be pretty easy in most cases (with proper targeting, ie, you still can't hit the monk). Adding a big dodge bonus to AC will screw with the way these spells are supposed to work.

It seems like a lot of complicated changes for a relatively minor effect.

However, it would provide a nice, indirect nerf to Harm.

 

[Carnifex]

mmadsen -

You are indeed correct, you said hits. My bad. I was indeed thinking of hits but for some bizarre reason typed rounds instead.

My points, and argument, are still directed against your claim that people want combats to last three or four hits. Maybe *you* do, but I have seen no evidence in other players (or at least not in a significant number of other players if you consider some of the people agreeing with you in this thread to be agreeing with your claim of '3-4 hits') that this is something that 'people want'. My agrument still holds, because in many cases a 3-4 hit fight is short, anticlimatic, and removes many tactical opportunities and considerations available in longer combats. Consider the fact that high level characters attack multiple times per round, and if people wanted 3-4 hits it'd be brutally short combats.

Now, you may say that under your proposed system these battles *would* take longer. However, as has been said many times so far, many find missing lots of times frustrating and not fun, and I think my players would feel that way too - in the past when confronted by high Ac opponents the fighter-types sometimes get irritated when even their best shots barely hit.

Also, I know my players *don't* want those 3-4 hits combats. The bariaur fighter/champion of Va'asha loveed being a tank, able to suck up dozens of strikes and tear mooks apart like jelly in a blender without too much fear. it was part of his character visualisation, and made him fun and heroic. In general, fighter players would most likely dislike a system that gives lucky hits dealing greater portions of damage as opposed to lesser strikes but usually fairly steady damage. As it is, a powerful character with a good weapon can, on a crit, inflict near massive damage anyway.

 

[mmadsen]

I'm more than a bit perplexed by people's reactions to my statement that people enjoy combats that last three or four hits (per combatant, on the receiving end). Carnifex said, "Maybe you do, but I have seen no evidence in other players... that this is something that 'people want'," and hong simply declared it "A meaningless statement."

I get the feeling no one read my lengthy post on Hit Point Scaling -- or it was terribly unclear.

I say that people want fights to last for three or four hits because that's how long D&D fights currently last (between well-matched opponents), and people seem to like D&D as it stands; any suggested change meets with stiff resistance.

To support my point that fights last for three or four hits (per combatant), I trot out some numbers:

If we look at typical monsters along the power spectrum, we see that the damage they deal out increases to match the high Hit Points of high-level characters. This should surprise no one. CR-1/4 Goblins deal out 1d8-1; CR-1 Gnolls deal out 1d8+2; CR-2 Ogres deal out 2d6+7; CR-7 Hill Giants deal out 2d6+10; CR-10 Fire Giants deal out 2d8+15.

At every level, the opposition does enough damage to hurt the heroes and kill them in, say, three or four blows -- whether those are 7-point blows against a low-level Fighter or 24-point blows against a 10th-level Fighter.

Monsters (and Wizards) mete out more damage as levels progress. Fighters need more attacks to keep up, since their mundane weapons don't progress in damage quite as quickly.

In a fight between two "textbook" 10th-level Fighters (AC 24, hp 79, bastard sword: +15/+10, 1d10+6), they hit quite often: +15 vs. AC 24 hits on a natural 9 or higher (60% of the time), and +10 vs. AC 24 hits on a natural 14 or higher (35% of the time).

That averages to almost one hit per round, for 11.5 points per hit, meaning fights last for about eight hits, taking about eight rounds, even with low-damage sword attacks against high-hp Fighters. If we reduced Hit Points and increased AC, they could easily spend eight rounds landing, say, four hits, and those four hits could be lethal. (And that would be in line with many Fighter-vs.-monster fights.)

Which brings us to hong's point: "If it really is possible to tweak a low-hp system so that it functions exactly like a high-hp system, then there's no point to doing it."

What I'm trying to demonstrate is that it's possible to tweak a low-hp system so that it's just as heroic and simple-to-use as D&D's higher-hp system -- and such a lower-hp, higher-AC system avoids the inconsistencies of "missed me" hits, non-damage that needs healing, etc., and keeps masses of mundane attacks at least plausible.

 

[WizarDru]

Wow, I have just the opposite impression. D&D is the game everyone started with and the game almost everyone left -- or rather, if you're playing another game, it's because you finally couldn't take the D&Disms any more (1st- or 2nd-edition presumably).

Third Edition certainly brought a lot of nostalgic 1st- and 2nd-edition players back into the fold though; that's clear.

That's what I was referring to...the fact that despite it's inconsistincies and weaknesses, players came back in droves to a game with classes, levels, and all of the other D&D trappings, even after they abandoned it with the advent of 2e (after having suffered the subsequent loss of faith in 1e). I know, I was one of those who never even played a game of 2e...I was already out the door. I can't think of another game system that's had that kind of mass influx BACK to a game, after such a large exodus.

And while I don't question that many (likely even most) players got their start with D&D (more with basic, though), my point was that there were (and in my personal experience ARE) many players who didn't start with D&D. If being first was the only reason that a game was successful, then we'd all be playing 'Empire of the Petal Throne'. It's unfair to charge Magic: The Gathering with being lucky to be there first, for example. I knew within a half-hour of buying it that it would be huge. It comes off sounding like that doubter of Sherlock Holmes ability, who, after hearing one of Holmes deductions explained at length, points out that the observations were all 'obvious' ones...but ones he completely missed. MTG was a revultionary game built on solid mechanics...that's what made it a success. D&D is the same way.