Gentlegamer
Adventurer
Make 'em d12s . . .Thanee said:21d6 is 73.5 damage on average. Even my 13th level sorceress easily survives that.
Bye
Thanee
What rules don't work?
- Thread starter RangerWickett
- Start date
Psion
Adventurer
My "four conceptual hangups with HPs":
1) I can buy modeling heroism with escalating HP... and natural healing makes more sense now too. But the fact that healing becomes LESS effective (i.e., doesn't scale with HP) with level doesn't match the model and sort of feels wrong to me.
2) Invincibility - being held at knifepoint or faced down with a dozen crossbow wielding guards all the sudden isn't much of a manipulation technique against high level characters, and jumping off cliffs becomes a viable options. Yeah, some heroic models fit this, but I think by default it's a little over the top.
3) Up or down - You never show the effects of your injuries until 0 hp. Until then, you receive no penalties. Any after a knock down drag out fight, you usually are just spiffy the next day.
4) Heroic sages - Linking HP to level works for me for PCs -- its a growth of heroic prowess. But when it comes to NPCs, it doesn't work so well. The greatest cook or sage in the world need not have more HP than a 1st level commoner AFAIAC. (Oddly, the only d20 branded game that really tries to correct this is Star Wars.)
The other side of this coin is, yeah you can correct these, but any correction tends to add enough complications that it's generally not worth it. I came up with a solution to #3 that works for me (no tables, one roll determines both save and results, can often ignore, results proportional to damage, but it requires you be good at doing math in your head.), but the rest I live with.
I wouldn't even begin to suggest that HP DON'T WORK. If they didn't, given these problems, they would be outa here.
The manyshot/shot on the run (and dual strike/spring attack) ruling strikes me as not being the implicit result of the RAW and lawyeristic hair splitting.
Sauropods, due their immense HD, have better reflex saves than cats.
But really, there are a ton of rules that if you over-analyze them, fall down under inspection. (Hong's law, anyone?), but the sort of thing that really bugs me are rules that REALLY have an impact during play.
The biggest one that comes to mind is the iterative attack rule. I would rather prefer that all attack rolls had the same modifier. Iterative attacks at high levels require you to specifically remember which dice roll goes with which attack modifier, which sort of forces the DM to stop and process every attack individually while waiting for the player to do the math. I work around this one too, but I don't like it. Let's just say, this is one thing I dig about spycraft.
1) I can buy modeling heroism with escalating HP... and natural healing makes more sense now too. But the fact that healing becomes LESS effective (i.e., doesn't scale with HP) with level doesn't match the model and sort of feels wrong to me.
2) Invincibility - being held at knifepoint or faced down with a dozen crossbow wielding guards all the sudden isn't much of a manipulation technique against high level characters, and jumping off cliffs becomes a viable options. Yeah, some heroic models fit this, but I think by default it's a little over the top.
3) Up or down - You never show the effects of your injuries until 0 hp. Until then, you receive no penalties. Any after a knock down drag out fight, you usually are just spiffy the next day.
4) Heroic sages - Linking HP to level works for me for PCs -- its a growth of heroic prowess. But when it comes to NPCs, it doesn't work so well. The greatest cook or sage in the world need not have more HP than a 1st level commoner AFAIAC. (Oddly, the only d20 branded game that really tries to correct this is Star Wars.)
The other side of this coin is, yeah you can correct these, but any correction tends to add enough complications that it's generally not worth it. I came up with a solution to #3 that works for me (no tables, one roll determines both save and results, can often ignore, results proportional to damage, but it requires you be good at doing math in your head.), but the rest I live with.
I wouldn't even begin to suggest that HP DON'T WORK. If they didn't, given these problems, they would be outa here.
The manyshot/shot on the run (and dual strike/spring attack) ruling strikes me as not being the implicit result of the RAW and lawyeristic hair splitting.
Sauropods, due their immense HD, have better reflex saves than cats.
But really, there are a ton of rules that if you over-analyze them, fall down under inspection. (Hong's law, anyone?), but the sort of thing that really bugs me are rules that REALLY have an impact during play.
The biggest one that comes to mind is the iterative attack rule. I would rather prefer that all attack rolls had the same modifier. Iterative attacks at high levels require you to specifically remember which dice roll goes with which attack modifier, which sort of forces the DM to stop and process every attack individually while waiting for the player to do the math. I work around this one too, but I don't like it. Let's just say, this is one thing I dig about spycraft.
Last edited:
Shade
Monster Junkie
A few that bug me:
-Counterspelling: It is just too difficult to do without committing several feat slots.
-The near-impossibility of using sneak attack. It already can't be used against several entire creature types, but to not allow it against creatures with any degree of concealment means that sneak attack becomes about as rarely successful as counterspelling.
-Fortification properties for armor: Ugh.
-The fact that Deflect Arrows and Improved Grapple require Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat, meaning that most monsters can't have 'em unless you either waste a feat to give them IUS or make them bonus feats.
-The fact that you can't bull rush multiple opponents at once (unless you take a tactical feat in Complete Warrior).
-That you can only crawl 5 ft. while prone, and can't roll or Tumble away without standing up.
-Counterspelling: It is just too difficult to do without committing several feat slots.
-The near-impossibility of using sneak attack. It already can't be used against several entire creature types, but to not allow it against creatures with any degree of concealment means that sneak attack becomes about as rarely successful as counterspelling.
-Fortification properties for armor: Ugh.
-The fact that Deflect Arrows and Improved Grapple require Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat, meaning that most monsters can't have 'em unless you either waste a feat to give them IUS or make them bonus feats.
-The fact that you can't bull rush multiple opponents at once (unless you take a tactical feat in Complete Warrior).
-That you can only crawl 5 ft. while prone, and can't roll or Tumble away without standing up.
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
Attacks of Opportunity are completely hateful to me.
I actually think that sneak attack is much easier to use than previous editions' Backstab ability. Before, the thief had to successfully hide in shadows and / or move silently and maneuver behind the opponent. Now, all they have to do is flank an opponent.
I actually think that sneak attack is much easier to use than previous editions' Backstab ability. Before, the thief had to successfully hide in shadows and / or move silently and maneuver behind the opponent. Now, all they have to do is flank an opponent.
Last edited:
Gentlegamer said:
Or make it constitution damage. I'd use constitution damage (like they do for poison) any time that the luck/skill explanation for hit points doesn't seem right. 1d12 Con damage for anything that is potentially fatal, and increase from there. Probably Xd20 for long falls, giving people a chance (however tiny) of surviving when they're parachute doesn't open (as appears to be the case in real life)
I don't use the magic item creation rules - although my d20 game is a pretty heavily house-ruled version of 3E. I just have an "Enchant Item" feat instead of all of the various other ones - there's no real difference IMC between enchanting a ring and enchanting a boot.
My least liked rule is the way that Natural Armor and Armor bonus stack for AC. As I said in another post - it makes no sense to get a +2 to AC when you throw a leather poncho over top of platemail. Or a creature with AC 50 being able to push it to 51 just because of a +1 ring of protection.
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
I'd love to, but I only go back to the red basic boxed set. Which is tempting, oh so tempting these days...
This is from WotC Unearthed Arcana, not Arcana Unearthed, right? I'll have to take a look at that, thanks!
diaglo said:
This is from WotC Unearthed Arcana, not Arcana Unearthed, right? I'll have to take a look at that, thanks!
Ryltar said:For 3.x, just use the Facing Variant Rule from UA. Works like a charm.
Gez
First Post
True, this is a little problem... Especially since it means that the healthiest barbarian takes much longer to heal than the sickly elven wizard. That's a bit why I've houseruled Toughness (see the thread about Toughness and Improved Toughness in the Rules forum) to speed up natural healing when you have that feat.Psion said:
If you're really helf at knifepoint or faced down with a dozen crossbows, there is a rule in the DMG for that. It is called "coup de grâce". Sure, the rules as written may be a bit more restrictive than that, but honestly, you can use them. I know I would. And getting a dozen crossbow CDG all at once can be nasty, because even if the damages aren't enough to kill you, twelve saving throw vs. death may be more than your luck...Psion said:
I've solved this problem with a very simple house rule:Psion said:
- Up to your Constitution score in hp are your "pain points". If your hp decrease to this or below, you're wounded.
- Any point above are your "luck/dodge/fatigue points". As long as you're in that total, you're not wounded.
Not that much a problem IMHO. Between Affinity with Skill (yoinked from Arcana Evolved), Skill Focus, Greater Skill Focus (homebrew, gives an additional +2 on top of the +3), one or two, if applicable, of the "+2 to two skills" feats, and Routine-Minded (homebrew, gives a +5 bonus when taking 10 for one skill), and given that I've house-rules the Expert class so that it has as bonus feats like a fighter, but only from the aforementionned feats, I've no problems making a sage with insane skill scores in his specialised field but less than 6 HD.Psion said:
