What rules don't work?

[Thanee]

The application of what hit points represent should always change given the situation and the type of "damage" the character sustains. In the end it is the DM's call to describe it, but the mechanic gives the player and referee a concrete reference point for the amount of punishment, stress, fatigue, and plain old luck the character can endure before death.

Of course, but it still has zero consequences (other than bringing you closer to death), regardless of what type of damage caused the hit point loss. Regardless of the description, the mechanics do not change. You still just cross off some number, which has almost no influence on your character.

A fighter falling down from a mountain and impacting the ground at terminal velocity can afterwards just stand up and walk away, for example. 19 out of 20 times.

And that doesn't "feel" right.

While it's ok and acceptable, from a meta-perspective to use this abstract value, it's one of those things, that make the game highly artificial.

Bye
Thanee

 

[der_kluge]

Magic item creation rules, and the feats that go along with them.

First off, the feats make no sense. How many people ever take "craft magic ring?" And why does one need a separate feat to create a "ring of water walking" as opposed to "boots of water walking". It's the same freaking spell? And why the level requirement for the ring? So, an 11th level caster can create boots of water walking, but not a ring of water walking? What the hell is up with that?

And the rules are overly complicated, and internally inconsistent. I can't count the number of people who post in the rules forum asking for the price of something they are trying to create.


_______

The craft skill also makes no sense. The time it takes to create something is solely based on the materials used. Period. Fortunately, this one comes up less frequently.

_______

Favored class. 'nuff said.

_______

The concept of class skills. Why can't my cleric of the god of thieves take pick pockets and hide in shadows?

_______

The whole inate racial abilities concept. Why is that everyone gnome in the world can speak with burrowing mammals? What if I had a gnome who grew up on an island where there were no burrowing mammals? And why are all halflings good at throwing things? Do all halflings have a temper problem? I don't understand these things.


_______


This thread has reminded me why I like HARP so much.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Of course, but it still has zero consequences (other than bringing you closer to death), regardless of what type of damage caused the hit point loss. Regardless of the description, the mechanics do not change. You still just cross off some number, which has almost no influence on your character.

Hit points are abstract: just because the character lost some hit points doesn't mean he actually took damage. It could be he used up some of his 'luck' dodging a blow or resisting a magical attack.

A fighter falling down from a mountain and impacting the ground at terminal velocity can afterwards just stand up and walk away, for example. 19 out of 20 times.

Not under Gygax's intended rule of d6 per 10' per 10' cumulative. Also, in such cases, the referee could make a reasonable ruling that a save vs. death (or crippling) be made.

And that doesn't "feel" right.

While it's ok and acceptable, from a meta-perspective to use this abstract value, it's one of those things, that make the game highly artificial.

You're right: it is artificial for a person to survive lots of bloody battles and so on. Realistically, a person who wishes to survive avoids physical conflict as much as possible. Would that make for a fun game, particularly for warrior-types? Try playing a warrior in GURPS and see how far you make it. I once thought as you do, but I've since come to appreciate how abstract hit points allow characters to act boldly as a hero.

Here's a further post I made in that DND-L from years ago on the topic:

It depends on a case by case basis. What actually happened to the
character? Using your examples: if he has been in battle after battle, and
had not been killed, you could rule that the character (at the arbitrary 10
hp total) is severly wounded (huge cutes, broken bones, concussions, ect.).
That would be perfectly fine. However, realistically, regardless of how
skilled any character is, if he goes through battle after battle he has a
statistically low chance of surviving. And if he is, in fact, severly
wounded, he should have have wound-based penalties applied to his actions
(similar to being at negative hit points).

I recommend creating a warrior type character in GURPS and see what I mean.
Those characters have a low hp total (avg 10) and must rely on armor and
combat skill (parrying, and shield blocking) to avoid being hit. Once hit,
the character prays the damage is mostly absorbed by the armor (GURPS armor
has damage resistance that reduces hit point damage). And when damage is
sustained, there are several standard conditions that come into effect on
the wounded character: stunning, knockback, location specific critical hits
(with attendent limb crippling effects). Unless using cinematic rules
(which make highly skilled characters unbeatable to low-level types, like in
the Amber chronicles) the character can be slain quite easily by good die
rolls.

This is all fine if that is the type of game and genre (realistic) that you
want, but becomes very difficult to obtain hero level at all. I should also
note that realistic systems (GURPS in particular) makes this quite plain in
the rules and advises players to know how to avoid combat or other high risk
type activities. Again, this is fine, and rather realistic, but not for a
player who wants to be able to be daring on a regular basis.

 

[The Shaman]

Falling damage.

I've uncapped falling damage in 3.x - 20d6 max was okay in 1e AD&D when fewer characters had Con bonuses to to HP, characters tended to level more slowly overall, and at higher levels characters stopped adding hit dice and instead added a set increment, all of which conspired to make HP totals lower.

Now there are 10th level barbarians running around with 150 hit points jumping off 500' cliffs...

 

[Gentlegamer]

Falling damage.

I've uncapped falling damage in 3.x - 20d6 max was okay in 1e AD&D when fewer characters had Con bonuses to to HP, characters tended to level more slowly overall, and at higher levels characters stopped adding hit dice and instead added a set increment, all of which conspired to make HP totals lower.

Now there are 10th level barbarians running around with 150 hit points jumping off 500' cliffs...

Try using the d6 per 10' per 10,' cumulative:

10' 1d6
20' 3d6
30' 6d6
40' 10d6
50' 15d6
60' 21d6 (terminal velocity)

Or, use your judgment and impose a save vs. death for 500' plummets.

 

[Thanee]

Not under Gygax's intended rule of d6 per 10' per 10' cumulative. Also, in such cases, the referee could make a reasonable ruling that a save vs. death (or crippling) be made.

I'm speaking about 3rd edition D&D.

Tho, the hit point "problem" is the same for all editions of D&D (just not this particular example).

As said above, I can accept that, and it allows for a rather heroic playing style, but that still doesn't change, that it feels inherently wrong.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

60' 21d6 (terminal velocity).

21d6 is 73.5 damage on average. Even my 13th level sorceress easily survives that.

Bye
Thanee

 

[diaglo]

I'm speaking about 3rd edition D&D.

the Holmes edition used the d6 for 10' mechanic too.

 

[carpedavid]

Also combat in general is often just standing there and trading blows, while combat normally is more maneuvering and movement and less attacking. However, there is often no advantage in maneuvering ('cept flanking and cutting off retreat), and more often even a disadvantage (AoO).

Tumble. No, really, it's all about the tumble checks, and I can somewhat see why they designed it that way. The highly-dextrous, lightly-armored, fast combatants (rogues and monks) get to move around a lot in combat, while the heavily armored combatants (fighters) pretty much stand in one spot and duke it out. At least, once the monks and rogues in my campaign started putting high ranks in tumble, that particular aspect of combat made a lot more sense.

I could certainly see giving fighters Tumble as a class skill without unbalancing anything. After all, in order to get much use out of it, they'd have to be lightly armored, which negates one of their best benefits (the ability to wear heavy armor).

Armor class of tiny animals. Ever tried to catch a squirrel?

Yes, and I'd submit that the AC bonus they get is just about right

I honestly can't think of any rule that really, really bugs me in 3.5. Most of the objections I had about 3.0 were fixed with the revision.

 

[Gez]

To be honest, one of the thing that don't work is the upper and lower scales of size. I've sometimes thought about using the reverse of the size bonus/penalty to AC and apply it as damage for melee attacks...