Uniting the Editions, Part 3 - Poll

[JamesonCourage]

I'm surprised Critical Hits winning in both polls (I voted for it, too), but I'm very happy that Skills are second in both. That's been my biggest disappointment with the 5e announcements so far. I know that they'll go more into it soon, though, and I'm waiting for that. As always, play what you like

 

[Ant]

Unsurprisingly my votes created AD&D but with critical hits and fumbles.

 

[Imban]

You're always going to get people who vote for the contrarian option. Especially if it's obviously so.

8% is clearly within the realm of "mostly people doing it for the lulz", rather than any actual evidence that more than 1% of respondents would actually want that.

 

[El Mahdi]

...but isn't that one facet of HPs?

(the other two being vitality and actual... hit points)

Good Point Jimlock. And I'm glad you brought it up.

If Defensive ability is a part of the abstract equation of hit points, then attacks would be also. The better you are at attacking, the quicker you bring down opponents, resulting in less "damage"...

So, I don't see it that way.

Even sticking with the D&D definition of hit points, I don't see it that way.

3E PHB, pg. 5
"Each character has hit points (hp), representing how difficult he or she is to kill."

3.5E PHB, pg. 6
"Your hit points (hp) determine how hard your character is to kill."

How hard to kill, not how hard to hit.

3E PHB, pg. 119 & 3.5E PHB, pg. 136
"Your hit points tell you how much punishment you can take before dropping."

Punishment accrual, not avoiding punishment.

3E PHB, pg. 128 & 3.5E PHB, pg. 145
"Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one."

Punishment accrual, and the energy expenditure required to mitigate the amount of physical damage you take (rolling with a punch, taking it in the arm rather than the head, etc.). But you still take damage. Hit points aren't about "avoiding damage".

4E PHB, pg. 293
"Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character's skill, luck, and resolve - all factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation."

That last sentence may make it sound like it includes defensive ability. But if defense is included in HP, then by that definition "attacking" would be also. Your skill at attacking is just as important at keeping you alive in a combat situation as defense is.

Defense and defenseive progression isn't about how tough you are, or how much punishment you can take, or how much combat endurance you have, or your luck at surviving combat. It's simply the skill you have at avoiding or neutralizing attacks in the first place - without taking any damage or punishment.

Real combat training focuses as much on Defending as it does on Attacking, and sometimes even more focused on Defending. It makes little sense that characters get better at attacking, but never improve their defensive abilities except through the inclusion of Armor or Magic Items. (Of which if we accept the idea that Defense is part of HP, then Armor and Defensive Magic Items should increase HP rather than AC/Defense...)

From a game perspective however, Defensive progression has never been a part of core D&D, and adds an unacceptable amount of complication to the game for many gamers (extra bookeeping, sometimes extra rolls, etc.). That's why I think it works best as an add-on module (like it was with 3E's Unearthed Arcana), rather than part of core. But I strongly feel that Defense Progression should definitely be included as a part of 5E (whether core or add-on module).

 

[El Mahdi]

You're always going to get people who vote for the contrarian option. Especially if it's obviously so.

8% is clearly within the realm of "mostly people doing it for the lulz", rather than any actual evidence that more than 1% of respondents would actually want that.

This is also why 83% of all statistics are just made up.


It's a statistical fact. Do an internet search and you'll see for yourself...

 

[Mokona]

Saving throw: My 2 cents on the who should roll debate: the player. I think for game speed and feel, the best option is that players roll all the dice (forgive my ignorance, I forgot in which 3.5E spin-off was introduced first).

Players Roll All The Dice on page 133 of [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786931310/"]Unearthed Arcana[/ame] (2004; v.3.5)

 

[Tuhljin]

Everyone I know who wants Vancian magic wants non-Vancian magic, too (e.g. in separate classes), whereas obviously people who don't want Vancian magic will only vote for the one. You can't make any judgments with this poll unless a separate one actually directly pits the two against eachother with a third option for "both" - unless, of course, that judgment is "both are popular enough to include" which I think is true, and I'm sure that's what Wizards will do anyway.

 

[Aehrlon]

Good Point Jimlock. And I'm glad you brought it up. If Defensive ability is a part of the abstract equation of hit points, then attacks would be also. The better you are at attacking, the quicker you bring down opponents, resulting in less "damage"...

So, I don't see it that way.

Even sticking with the D&D definition of hit points, I don't see it that way.

How hard to kill, not how hard to hit.

Punishment accrual, not avoiding punishment.

Punishment accrual, and the energy expenditure required to mitigate the amount of physical damage you take (rolling with a punch, taking it in the arm rather than the head, etc.). But you still take damage. Hit points aren't about "avoiding damage".

That last sentence may make it sound like it includes defensive ability. But if defense is included in HP, then by that definition "attacking" would be also. Your skill at attacking is just as important at keeping you alive in a combat situation as defense is.

Defense and defenseive progression isn't about how tough you are, or how much punishment you can take, or how much combat endurance you have, or your luck at surviving combat. It's simply the skill you have at avoiding or neutralizing attacks in the first place - without taking any damage or punishment.

Real combat training focuses as much on Defending as it does on Attacking, and sometimes even more focused on Defending. It makes little sense that characters get better at attacking, but never improve their defensive abilities except through the inclusion of Armor or Magic Items. (Of which if we accept the idea that Defense is part of HP, then Armor and Defensive Magic Items should increase HP rather than AC/Defense...)

From a game perspective however, Defensive progression has never been a part of core D&D, and adds an unacceptable amount of complication to the game for many gamers (extra bookeeping, sometimes extra rolls, etc.). That's why I think it works best as an add-on module (like it was with 3E's Unearthed Arcana), rather than part of core. But I strongly feel that Defense Progression should definitely be included as a part of 5E (whether core or add-on module).

Some good points; Defensive improvement might he handled by adding 1/2 your Character Level to your Armor Class. (With a +1 for Fighters, Paladins & Barbarians). With HP being a somewhat abstract AND YET fully ingrained part of the game, I don't see them doing away with them. Read my entry in this post for more on the HP issue: it covers what is IMHO a better way for Characters to "Recover" after a battle but it's not quite so generous as a Healing Surge/Second Wind... well, it is the first time but depletes the more you use it.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-le...points-why-were-they-designed-incoherent.html

The idea for "After Battle Recovery" would be a good example of an optional rule, especially for adventuring parties without a Cleric among them.

 

[Hautamaki]

Nobody likes the weapon speed factors and the weapon vs armour table but I don't think it's because it's a bad idea to make different weapon choices meaningful. I think it was just poor execution of those particular rules that made it somewhat of a pain in the butt to run.

I think that all weapons SHOULD have some distinguishing features and I houseruled them in to my games in a way that I think is pretty simple and effective.

'faster' weapons like rapiers and shortswords get a bonus to-hit to represent their greater speed and ease of use.

heavy piercing or blunt weapons like war hammers and flails reduce armour's damage reduction (I also houseruled in damage reduction for heavy armours).

Axes and flails do X3 crits, all other weapons do X2.

reach weapons like spears, halberds, and polearms always get the first attack in a melee situation to represent their longer reach, even if you have lower initiative.

swords and parrying daggers give a bonus to armour class to represent their defensive parrying utility compared to other weapons.

That's about it, easy to remember and gives all weapons a unique flavour.

 

[Ravendruid]

About the only way D&D will win me back from GURPS will be to bring back non-weapon proficiencies, and lots of them. THAC0 was a pain, and racial limits sucked, but other than those two things and AD&D was by far the best version. 3.5 was pretty good, and even made a few improvements, ie feats, but skills were just too limited.