• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

To all the other "simulationists" out there...

Korgoth

First Post
mmadsen said:
This brings up two good points. Hit points are a measure of plot-protection, but (1) anyone competent gets extra hit points, whether or not they're the hero or villain of the story, and (2) they don't provide plot-protection against anything except attacks that hit.

I think the system would work much more smoothly if hit points were eclipsed by action points, which (a) could be used against a rogue's hide and move silently rolls, a sniper's to-hit roll, etc., not just against damage rolls from hits, and (b) would only go to heroes and villains, not anyone competent.

I think it is interesting to note how the scale has changed over time. In OD&D, a hobgoblin has 1+1 HD (i.e. 1d6+1 hp). It attacks better than a 3rd level Fighter (but not as well as a 4th level Fighter). A hobgoblin in and of itself was quite competent, capable of landing a telling blow on virtually any Player Character, but could be dispatched by a single dagger or sword blow. The only "super hobgoblins" were the hobgoblin king and his 2-4 bodyguards, who all fought like ogres (more than a match for a 4th level hero)!

In OD&D, having the attack characteristics of a regular hobgoblin suggested competence. Even a 1st level character was fairly competent... there's almost nothing in the game that he cannot hit, save for those creatures immune to non-magical weapons. Even a mighty ogre could be laid low by the spear thrusts of four men (assuming they rolled as well on damage as he did on hp).

In 3.x, it seems like the ACs and other factors scale up so rapidly that, compared to anything of significance, 1st and even 2nd and 3rd level characters are fairly incompetent creatures. And so perhaps there is the temptation to stock a watch tower with a super hobgoblin merely so that it has a chance of hitting one of the PCs at some point. But the result of that is that, for it to be able to land a blow at all, it has to be Jean Claude van Hobgoblin. Which means that for the DM to even bother putting a hobgoblin there, the watchtower has to become an epic contest with the lowly watchman sucking up multiple sword wounds. I'm guessing that this trend will progress further and further, to the point that Beowulf, Conan and Chuck Norris will seem like Redshirts compared even to mid level PCs.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Gentlegamer

Adventurer
Celebrim said:
I play every game that I run the way I want to run it. I don't play it the way the designer wanted to run it. To me, every GM is the peer of the designer. The GM relies on the designer to do the heavy lifting when it comes to the design of the game, because its the designer's 'day job' and he's good at it. But I don't expect the designer to deliver to me exactly the game I want to play, nor do I feel obligated to play it the way he wants to play it. Afterall, boiled to its essentials, he's just another GM.
*clap, clap, clap*

Well said! I heartily agree. The GM is better equiped to tailor his rulings to the tastes, expectations, and other unique circumstances of the playing group/campaign than slavish adherence to what a designer came up with.
 

mmadsen said:
This brings up two good points. Hit points are a measure of plot-protection, but (1) anyone competent gets extra hit points, whether or not they're the hero or villain of the story, and (2) they don't provide plot-protection against anything except attacks that hit.

I think the system would work much more smoothly if hit points were eclipsed by action points, which (a) could be used against a rogue's hide and move silently rolls, a sniper's to-hit roll, etc., not just against damage rolls from hits, and (b) would only go to heroes and villains, not anyone competent.
A solution is to replace hit points with outright plot-protection points that works against any kind of attack/threat.
Torg basically did this with Possibilities. If you took damage, you could spend them to reduce the damage. (And you could a lot more with this). So, the baseline of an attack would be dealing "real" damage (often serious damage), but your possibilities negated that damae.
High experienced Shadowrun groups used their Karma Pool for this purpose.

Any one that needs plot protection gets plot protection points. The rest just gets good skill modifiers and defenses.
 

Shazman

Banned
Banned
I think it all boils down to the "mook" hobgoblin in this case isn't as much of a mook as the rogue wanted him to be, because if the PC's kept him from sounding the alarm, the following battle wouldn't be "challenging" enough. Either you run the NPC like the module says, and the fort gets warned, or the DM lets the rogue eliminate him either through DM fiat, a houserule, or reducing his level and then uping the challenge of the following encounter somehow. So the DM has to balance the need of the player of the rogue to one-shot the guard with the need of the camp to be warned for plot purposes.
 

mmadsen

First Post
Korgoth said:
I think it is interesting to note how the scale has changed over time.
Definitely, level inflation has changed how hit points play out. The game is very different when almost everyone has one hit die, and only heroes have four hit dice.

Also, when the designers reacted to the increased hit dice by increasing the amount of damage characters do, it was generally through non-random bonuses or extra dice, not larger dice, so the randomness (coefficient of variance, technically) was reduced.
Korgoth said:
In 3.x, it seems like the ACs and other factors scale up so rapidly that, compared to anything of significance, 1st and even 2nd and 3rd level characters are fairly incompetent creatures.
Well, back in the day, 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-level characters were competent because (a) 4th-level characters were defined to be heroes, and (b) the rules did not spell out their incompetence; for the most part, they simply had fewer hit points. They didn't have low skills, for instance.
 

I would like to note that The Red Hand army is composed largely of level 1 and 2 Hobgoblins. Only about 5 percent (I don't have the book on me now so this is a guess) of the Red Hand Army are 4th level Hobgoblin verterans.

The reason the bridge was full of the 4th level warriors was because the leadership realized that defending the bridge was very important. Therefore, they sent their elite soldiers there instead of the level 1 and 2 mooks. As rougerouge stated, they also sent a dragon and some hell hounds along for good measure.

The reason the rouge couldn't one shot the guard was because the game rules are not really designed around Solid Snake tactics. If you wanted the rouge to one shot the guard, your gonna have to mess around with the rules or the guard's stats.
 

mmadsen

First Post
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
A solution is to replace hit points with outright plot-protection points that works against any kind of attack/threat. [...] Any one that needs plot protection gets plot protection points. The rest just gets good skill modifiers and defenses.
Exactly. Plot-protection points could be used to modify any roll, so our heroes could use their plot-protection points to avoid getting hit by big, slow attackers, to avoid getting hurt by small, nimble attackers, to avoid getting surprised by sneaky attackers, etc. But they'd only have so many plot-protection points, so they'd want to use them wisely, where they'd get the most bang for their luck.

Elite troops who aren't the heroes -- random knights of Gondor, riders of Rohan, etc. -- would have good to-hit and AC numbers -- we'd probably use a damage save, too -- but they wouldn't have plot-protection points.

Heroes who aren't elite troops -- the hobbits, the Chosen One of most stories, etc. -- would have mediocre numbers, but they'd have lots and lots of plot-protection points.
 

mmadsen

First Post
Gentlegamer said:
The GM is better equiped to tailor his rulings to the tastes, expectations, and other unique circumstances of the playing group/campaign than slavish adherence to what a designer came up with.
Yes and no. The GM likely knows the tastes of his players (and himself) better than some far away team of designers, but the GM may not understand the consequences of various game-design decisions, because games are complex systems with many interconnected parts.

Almost everyone has some house-rule horror stories to tell, right?
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top