The Myth of the Bo9S's Popularity

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Exactly. IMO, this whole deal would be avoided if D&D just explicitly called out vitality points and wound points as in SWd20. But I guess that system is too complicated for most people's tastes. Given that, it should be made apparent (maybe even carefully explained in the rules) that having 26 hit points simply means that you don't automatically die when someone shoots at you, takes a swing at you, or throws you through a plate glass window.

I think it primarily suffered from the implementation of the critical rules, that allowed random instant death each round. If you'd remove that and replace it with D&D 3 or D&D 4 critical hit rules, I think the system would work okay. Though I think there is another benefit of the Sgaga Edition(and probably D&D 4?) method of determining 1st level hit points: Your first character class matters more if you gain triple HD in hit points. This can be important for balancing the 1st level benefits of classes (#skills, #feats, #hp, size of attack and defense bonuses).

It might still be okay to just declare that the hit points gained by your first nHD are considered your wound points.

 

[Lackhand]

I think it primarily suffered from the implementation of the critical rules, that allowed random instant death each round. If you'd remove that and replace it with D&D 3 or D&D 4 critical hit rules, I think the system would work okay. Though I think there is another benefit of the Sgaga Edition(and probably D&D 4?) method of determining 1st level hit points: Your first character class matters more if you gain triple HD in hit points. This can be important for balancing the 1st level benefits of classes (#skills, #feats, #hp, size of attack and defense bonuses).

It might still be okay to just declare that the hit points gained by your first nHD are considered your wound points.

How about "Half your hit points are considered wound points, and the other half vitality points"?

 

[Mistwell]

If he has an 18 Con, a few points less damage than average will result in him still standing after 4 hits.

If he has Extra Second Wind, even with your scenario and average damage rolls, he could take 4 shots in a combat...I didn't say that it would happen every time, I said it could happen and it can happen 3 times most battles, even with the 14 Con and no special abilities in this area.

You said "1st level Saga PCs are pretty much immune to death in SWSE." And from that we were supposed to read an implied 18 Con?

 

[AllisterH]

I did some character builds and it's not that hard. Most of the disciplines have at least one 4th or 5th level maneuver that has no pre-req, probably to allow those 10th level Warblades & Crusaders to branch out without taking a 1st level maneuver.


Yup, this is a very dip friendly system. I'd have been happier if it had been capped to 4x the MA level. That would limit both the 20/1 and 10/1 to Initiatior 4th, or 1st and 2nd maneuvers. Still quite useful since virtually every stance is a equivalent to a feat but not quite so dip-friendly.

I disagree.

One of the main problems with multiclassing is that many class abilities are just not worth it the higher level you are in the original class.

Look at your example for a moment. A 20th level character has actually picked useful class abilities for 20th level.

It should be noted that your example isn't valid though. 1st level warblades (and all martial adepts) MUST select a 1st level stance.

re: Prep
Again, see what I mean. If a fighter had spells cast on him, he was a match for a wizard. That doesn't tell me that the fighter was decent. That tells me that the fighter was designed to be useful only if the fighter uses magic.

Seriously, why else would people use high level magic users as BBEG as much as we do if we though high level fighters were as dangerous/challenging?

 

[JohnSnow]

Exactly. IMO, this whole deal would be avoided if D&D just explicitly called out vitality points and wound points as in SWd20. But I guess that system is too complicated for most people's tastes. Given that, it should be made apparent (maybe even carefully explained in the rules) that having 26 hit points simply means that you don't automatically die when someone shoots at you, takes a swing at you, or throws you through a plate glass window.

I think you can avoid the complication of wound and vitality points by just deciding that hit points are reflective of your overall health.

To steal the Saga Example, it makes more sense to think of every hit as a grazing blow until the one that plummets you below zero hit points. Basically, until the character hits 0 hp, he might be battered and bleeding, but he's not really hurt. Your "wound points," so to speak, are the points below 0 hp.

A Condition Track similar to Saga's could model this really well with one small change. If exceeding the character's "damage threshold" caused a persistent "wounded" condition until properly treated, you combine the benefits of hit points and wound points. In other words, those serious wounds (like the solid hit that exceeds your damage threshold) represent the rare blow that temporarily renders the hero's arm useless...or the like.

If hit points recovered faster, people might accept that they don't represent serious physical injury. They're an abstract combination of minor wounds and fatigue. A character who's been nickel-and-dimed from 60 hp to 1 isn't "uninjured." He's a mess of scratches, bruises, and the like, but unless he's taken some solid hits (ones that exceeded his "threshold"), his wounds are not, separately, serious. But by the time he's down to a few hit points, he's vulnerable, and the hit that pushes him to 0 makes him "wounded" enough that he falls.

If you institute that notion, a high-level character might be able to take a few solid hits. But like Boromir in the film version of Fellowship of the Ring, he's mostly been slowly worn down. Those last few arrows, and especially the very last one, are what killed him. Up until that last shot, a good healer could have patched him up (maybe with some penalties from the persistent conditions from his wounds). But it was that over-the-damage-threshold hit into his chest that actually did him in.

Using a combination of known 4e rules and inferences based on SAGA, if you model Boromir as a 10th-level fighter, he would have a damage threshold of 25 (Base 10, +2 for fighter class, +3 for Con, +5 for level, +5 for his mail). That would mean a shot that did over 25 hp in damage would be enough to kill him, if it also dropped him below 0 hit points. That's probably a number that's achievable by a dedicated archer, if not all the time. Which means a good hit "wounds" him, and a solid hit that also drops him below 0 hp (or the 5th level down on the Track) kills him. Now normally, a PC won't be overwhelmed like that, but it could happen.

I have no idea if 4e is going to have a damage threshold rule, but if it doesn't, something like this might be my first houserule.

 

[The Little Raven]

Back when there was serious management at WOTC, I remember an article stating that if everyone wants one feat, this means it is BROKEN.

Y'know what's funny? They designed the 3e to be like that on purpose. That's why they talked about the concept of "system mastery" and the fact that an experience player can look at Toughness and know it sucks, but a new player has to learn it the hard way before achieving "system mastery."

Was not 4e a paragon of game balance supposed to improve on the oh-so-broken-and-not-fun 3.x bad,bad,bad game ?

Please take your strawman somewhere else, as it's already been pointed out when this strawman is brought up in other threads that nobody is saying "3.X is not fun at all" except people like you trying to stick words in our mouths.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Seriously, why else would people use high level magic users as BBEG as much as we do if we though high level fighters were as dangerous/challenging?

An NPC opponent has very different considerations than a PC.
A BBEG has ONE encounter. A wizard in such a role is much more powerful than a fighter in that role -- but that doesn't mean that a wizard PC is much more powerful than a fighter PC. Look at some of the differences between being a BBEG and being a PC:
1) The BBEG will almost certainly be at full strength and full spells when encountered. The PC will not (in most adventures I've seen, the players have to fight through several rounds of guards or wards before getting to the BBEG)
2) Unlike most PC wizards, the BBEG can just retreat if the battle goes the slightest bit against him (most players do not want to sit out for a climactic battle, even if it means their PC might die)
3) The BBEG often doesn't care if he kills many of his allies in the process of killing the PCs. Most PCs are more careful in this regard.
4) The BBEG can afford to burn through lots of one-shot items and once-per-day abilities.

Whether or not a PC wizard is much more powerful than a PC fighter might indeed be a valid question -- but looking at how those classes fill the BBEG role won't answer the question.

 

[JohnSnow]

You said "1st level Saga PCs are pretty much immune to death in SWSE." And from that we were supposed to read an implied 18 Con?

Side note: a character in SWSE who's reduced to 0 hp has to make a DC 10 Constitution check (at a -10 penalty!) or remain unconscious. If you fail by 5 or more, you die.

That means the 1st-level PC needs to roll a 20 or higher (slightly less if he's got a Con bonus) to recover. If he rolls a 15 or less (again, slightly lower if he has a CON bonus), he dies.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I disagree.

One of the main problems with multiclassing is that many class abilities are just not worth it the higher level you are in the original class.

Look at your example for a moment. A 20th level character has actually picked useful class abilities for 20th level.

I wouldn't have a problem with multiclassing that's as valuable as single classing. What I do have a problem with is multiclassing that's more valuable than single classing. Unless the latest Complete book has something I haven't read, there's no single class level that's as valuable as a dip into Martial Adept.

I have casters interested in taking MA class levels so they can use Concentration checks instead of Fort and Ref saves, not to mention the "dispel adverse affect" ability, or the Dim Door as a swift action.

It should be noted that your example isn't valid though. 1st level warblades (and all martial adepts) MUST select a 1st level stance.

Really? Where's the page number so I can waive it at my players.

 

[Zurai]

Really? Where's the page number so I can waive it at my players.

"All <crusaders/swordsages/warblades> begin play knowing one 1st level stance."

The book specifically states that the initial stance can only be first level.