Post/Author/DateTime	Post
undead_dungeon_master 02-05-08, 04:29 PM	Not bad, but it seems that (especially at high levels) there is no real reason to have negative hit points. Example: In the examples given (if I understand them correctly) there is almost zero chance that you will run out of hit points... As a matter of fact, in the example given, you would have to be at 0 hit points before the monster hit you with a crit, dealing 60 damage (the minimal amount required to kill in one hit against the fighter).... Unless the monsters keep hitting you even after your are unconcscious.... Why not just change the rule to : If you have 0 or less hit points, roll a d20. If you roll bad (10 or less) a total of three times you die If you roll a 11-19, nothing happens If you roll a 20, you get %25 of your hitpoints Done. Accomplishes %99 of the same thing, but does not seem nearly as confusing to me, and no negative hit points to track.... Also, I do not have to justify how a character can heal (magical or otherwise) for over 50 (or whatever) hit points if the character is dying, but only for 8 hit points if the character is conscious.... Does being unconscious allow for vastly improved healing??? (I know I could just say, Dems da rules, but come on...) Also, shouldn't we consider rolling a one to be instant death, or at least count as two failures? I mean if rolling a 20 is such a huge boon, why is there not a negative on a 1?
undead_dungeon_master 02-05-08, 04:30 PM	P.S. The idea is much better (IMHO) than the current -10 hit point system. However, I see no real reason to bother tracking the negative hit points, as it does not affect healing anymore. Furthermore, the way I understand it, the chances of a one hit instant death is so miniscule that it is not worth bothering with. BTW, here are my new house rules, for those who care: If you have 0 or less hit points, roll a d20. If you roll a 1, this counts as two failed rolls If you roll bad (2-9) mark the roll as a failure If you roll a 11-19, nothing happens If you roll a 20, you get %25 of your hitpoints All healing (magical or otherwise) heals starting at 0 hit points. If you have 3 or more failed rolls, you die Viola.
Centor 02-05-08, 05:34 PM	Well the main reason to track them is that yes a monster might keep hitting you once you drop. I mean if its not an intelligent monster and it starts chewing on you, its certainly not going to stop just cause you went limp. Most of the time you are right however, in a fight with intelligent things that are not necessarily trying to kill you out right, they will move on once you hit the floor and stay there. However, even in that situation if you stop counting how close to deaths door you are then there is nothing to add intensity to the rush to heal you. it becomes the same problem of well his down and I’ll get to him once I’ve killed this monster. So I think you have to have negitive hit points or you'll never really know when or if you die, cause its way to easy to roll above 10 in a series of 3. Death needs to be a real threat or the game is just not any fun. my 2cp
Loki5654 02-05-08, 05:43 PM	http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=987301 http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=987317 http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=987442 4E discussion goes in the 4E forum (the 4um?).
undead_dungeon_master 02-05-08, 05:58 PM	Well the main reason to track them is that yes a monster might keep hitting you once you drop. I mean if its not an intelligent monster and it starts chewing on you, its certainly not going to stop just cause you went limp. Most of the time you are right however, in a fight with intelligent things that are not necessarily trying to kill you out right, they will move on once you hit the floor and stay there. However, even in that situation if you stop counting how close to deaths door you are then there is nothing to add intensity to the rush to heal you. it becomes the same problem of well his down and I’ll get to him once I’ve killed this monster. So I think you have to have negitive hit points or you'll never really know when or if you die, cause its way to easy to roll above 10 in a series of 3. Death needs to be a real threat or the game is just not any fun. my 2cp Even "stupid" creature would attack the next threat, until the could feed in "safety".... Also, the article indicates that the only ways to die are: 1. You fail three rolls 2. You are defeated (-60 hit points) in a single blow Thats it... Negative hit points do not kill you on thier own....
undead_dungeon_master 02-05-08, 06:04 PM	http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=987301 http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=987317 http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=987442 4E discussion goes in the 4E forum (the 4um?). True, but this has relevance to 3.5 as it has suggestions for how to play this in 3.5..
VulcanStormwrath 02-05-08, 06:45 PM	Well the main reason to track them is that yes a monster might keep hitting you once you drop. I mean if its not an intelligent monster and it starts chewing on you, its certainly not going to stop just cause you went limp. Most of the time you are right however, in a fight with intelligent things that are not necessarily trying to kill you out right, they will move on once you hit the floor and stay there. However, even in that situation if you stop counting how close to deaths door you are then there is nothing to add intensity to the rush to heal you. it becomes the same problem of well his down and I’ll get to him once I’ve killed this monster. So I think you have to have negitive hit points or you'll never really know when or if you die, cause its way to easy to roll above 10 in a series of 3. Death needs to be a real threat or the game is just not any fun. my 2cp Not to mention area spells. "Holy Crap!! Redgar's body is in the middle of that Cloudkill spell!!! We need to drag him out!"
celestialkin 02-05-08, 07:16 PM	So let me get this straight. They made it so it is nearly impossible for you to die/lose? Sounds like those kid video games where you have infinite lives and never take a penalty for losing. If the kids never lose or die they will never whine, pout, or complain about it, right? :rolleyes: Kinda takes the point out of even trying. At the very least it won't be rewarding.
undead_dungeon_master 02-05-08, 08:46 PM	Not to mention area spells. "Holy Crap!! Redgar's body is in the middle of that Cloudkill spell!!! We need to drag him out!" Area of affect spells would rarely do 60 points of damage to a single target (and 60 is the example threshold given)... So, really, it wound't change much. Also, in the case of cloud kill, the continual damage would drastically raise the chances of actually killing the character as even if the character recovered, he would most likely drop below zero again.... Once again, if the characters can recover the -50 hit points with a zero level cleric spell (minor healing) to put the character at 1 hit point... Why bother keeping track of the negative hit points???
Seeker95 02-05-08, 09:38 PM	4E discussion goes in the 4E forum (the 4um?).Articles on the Website are pretty much general fair game. And since this particular article includes elements of the game in general (hit points, death, and dying) and a specific 3e application of the rules (the Try it Now sidebar), it is even more applicable to the D&D General Board than most threads we find here.
Seeker95 02-05-08, 09:50 PM	Area of affect spells would rarely do 60 points of damage to a single target (and 60 is the example threshold given)... So, really, it wouldn't change much.Fireball at 10th level averages 35 points of damage. In 3e, a 10th level barbarian with a Con of 18 would "average a maximum" of 126 hit points, placing him at the -60 to death threshold. And he is a hit point brute. Drop his Con to 15, and he is much less impressive. At 10th level, with a more reasonable 15 Con: Barbarian ave 85 hp, dead at -43 Fighter ave 75 hp, dead at -38 Cleric ave 65 hp, dead at -33 Rogue ave 55 hp, dead at -28 Wizard ave 45 hp, dead at -23. In the unconscious and dying realm, that 10th level fireball is going to finish off 3/5th of the party, assuming the fireball does only average damage, and the dying character is at 0. Maximize that fireball, and they are all dead.
fatal error 02-05-08, 10:30 PM	So let me get this straight. They made it so it is nearly impossible for you to die/lose? No, it makes it nearly impossible to go from positive to dead in a single blow. If everyone goes down, it's still a TPK. And, by mid-levels in 3.5, anyone surviving, particularly the cleric, meant you didn't really need to worry about death that much anyway. Plus, hopefully, with a death system less prone to random crits and save-or-dies, they can afford to make resurrection harder to obtain. In fact, if that happens, then the change is the opposite of which you speak. Instead of penalty-less resurrection, you'll die less but it will mean more when it happens. And I'm not sure how anyone could dislike that, at least in its ideal form.
Ebonarc 02-05-08, 10:38 PM	No, it makes it nearly impossible to go from positive to dead in a single blow. If everyone goes down, it's still a TPK. And, by mid-levels in 3.5, anyone surviving, particularly the cleric, meant you didn't really need to worry about death that much anyway. Plus, hopefully, with a death system less prone to random crits and save-or-dies, they can afford to make resurrection harder to obtain. In fact, if that happens, then the change is the opposite of which you speak. Instead of penalty-less resurrection, you'll die less but it will mean more when it happens. And I'm not sure how anyone could dislike that, at least in its ideal form. Exactly. I like what I read in that article. They seem to have found a mechanic that will eliminate a lot of annoyances at once.
celestialkin 02-05-08, 11:26 PM	No, it makes it nearly impossible to go from positive to dead in a single blow. If everyone goes down, it's still a TPK. And, by mid-levels in 3.5, anyone surviving, particularly the cleric, meant you didn't really need to worry about death that much anyway. Plus, hopefully, with a death system less prone to random crits and save-or-dies, they can afford to make resurrection harder to obtain. In fact, if that happens, then the change is the opposite of which you speak. Instead of penalty-less resurrection, you'll die less but it will mean more when it happens. And I'm not sure how anyone could dislike that, at least in its ideal form. Um, then it is either TPK or no death at all? As said before unless a creature keeps clawing at your unconscious body completely ignoring your party pounding at it until you are completely gone it won't happen. It will likely move on to an actual threat instead of continuing to beat on a defenseless immobile body. -60? Come on. Honestly how likely will it be that you will see a single death in an entire adventure, or even an entire campaign? Again, I am pretty sure this has been done to make the game much easier to attract less devoted people. Now that I think about it, how important will a cleric/healer be now? Player 1: "Wow, Player 3 got knocked down to -15!" Player 2/cleric: "So? What's the big deal? He has another 45+ points. I'll take care of it in another 15 rounds or so when the whole battle is over. Geez."
GnomeIllusionist 02-06-08, 12:40 AM	Now that I think about it, how important will a cleric/healer be now? Player 1: "Wow, Player 3 got knocked down to -15!" Player 2/cleric: "So? What's the big deal? He has another 45+ points. I'll take care of it in another 15 rounds or so when the whole battle is over. Geez." It might make the Cleric and Warlord more important, but for a quite different reason. I would verbally assail a party member that left me to make 15 saving throws. I'm basically already dead if you follow that plan. I think the main problem here is that people see the way you die as 'reach -60hp' when it's actually 'reach -60hp OR fail three saving throws'. Failing three saving throws is very possible without a healer. This will make death less likely, but I doubt it will be as rare as some people are making it out to be.
runestar 02-06-08, 12:50 AM	Plus, hopefully, with a death system less prone to random crits and save-or-dies, they can afford to make resurrection harder to obtain. I sure hope not. Resurrection was not for if you died, but when you did die. Thus, it wouldn't matter how easy or difficult it would be to die in any game. You still need a readily accessible mechanic to bring the dead back to life. Else, make it too difficult and people will just go for the alternative - rolling up a new PC.
Phrennzy 02-06-08, 01:26 AM	So let me get this straight. They made it so it is nearly impossible for you to die/lose? Sounds like those kid video games where you have infinite lives and never take a penalty for losing. If the kids never lose or die they will never whine, pout, or complain about it, right? :rolleyes: Kinda takes the point out of even trying. At the very least it won't be rewarding. You also have the threat of dying after rolling under 10 three rounds in a row. That's a 12% right there.
celestialkin 02-06-08, 01:44 AM	You also have the threat of dying after rolling under 10 three rounds in a row. That's a 12% right there. Are there modifiers? Especially at mid-high levels? Either way a 12% chance? This is assuming you are left to make the save three rounds in a row, and that you fail those three rounds in a row. This only gets dangerous if it's allowed to go on for a large amount of time. Considering most battles (in 3.5) on average only go on for eight or so rounds (based of those recent threads), and that party members usually do not go down right at the start of a battle that seems unlikely. Now if you get modifiers/bonuses to this roll forget about it. As much as I disliked having a character die (unless it got the party some laughs) it still made the game fun and interesting. If there is no challenge or sense of risk there is not much point to it for me. If I know I am almost certain to get though every single encounter, or that it is almost impossible for my character to die unless the entire party goes with me I am not gonna be very motivated. I definitely won't consider it a challenge. At least in RPGs and MMOs there is usually some kind of a penalty to make you want to avoid dying, which also put some realism into it.
Sarella Starshine 02-06-08, 09:02 AM	Celestial: I suggest you go and re-read that article. the ammount of negative hitpoints that a character has is 1/2 thier total HPs. It is NOT a flat -60. The ONLY way to get that large of a negative hitpoint total is to have at least 120hps (which if you read the article says that is appropate for a level 15 fighter), which is usually found among higher level characters, which will be facing mobs that do more damage (a level-appropate monster for the level 15 fighter will do ~30 HPs of damage, so the threat of a 'crit-and-die' is still there, but it will not be a normal event). So, that means that those high HP classes (fighter, barbarian, etc) will have a higher death threshold than those low hp classes (rogue, wizard, sorc, etc). Which, makes sense, the fighter types are supposed to be tougher. (If you think about it, why would a fighter with ~200 hps have the same exact death threshold than a wizard with ~10 hps? That makes less sence and has the effect of making combat even that more deadly to the fighter than to the wizard, as the cushion that the fighter has (-10 hps) will be easily and very readily breached any hit the monster can land on the fighter.) The stabilization roll is much like it is now (but instead of a d%, its a flat d20 roll). There are no modifications to the dice roll (much like now). While it appears that the stabilization threashold has decreased, it acctually has increased (45% vs 10%), with a small chance of recovery (5%). (Remember, the old rule was a flat 10% to stabilize, with no chance of recovery. Which, ment for the most part, if one was unconcious, one might as well have died).
undead_dungeon_master 02-06-08, 09:45 AM	Um, then it is either TPK or no death at all? As said before unless a creature keeps clawing at your unconscious body completely ignoring your party pounding at it until you are completely gone it won't happen. It will likely move on to an actual threat instead of continuing to beat on a defenseless immobile body. -60? Come on. Honestly how likely will it be that you will see a single death in an entire adventure, or even an entire campaign? Again, I am pretty sure this has been done to make the game much easier to attract less devoted people. Now that I think about it, how important will a cleric/healer be now? Player 1: "Wow, Player 3 got knocked down to -15!" Player 2/cleric: "So? What's the big deal? He has another 45+ points. I'll take care of it in another 15 rounds or so when the whole battle is over. Geez." In my version of the rules, I count a natural one as 2 failures.... And three failures means you are out... Also, basically, even with the rules as the are, the chance of death is pretty high unless someone intervenes quickly (regarldless of the hit point issue)... Example (as described): Round 1: %50 percent (1-10) failure rate per roll %45 percent (11-19)chance to gain another round BUT NOTHING GOOD HAPPENS %5 percent SUPER LUCK kicks in, and you save your own bacon Round 2: %50 percent (1-10) failure rate per roll (3 failures at any time mean you die) %45 percent (11-19)chance to gain another round BUT NOTHING GOOD HAPPENS %5 percent SUPER LUCK kicks in, and you save your own bacon repeat and rinse.. Or to put it another way: You have an %80 (rounded) chance of dying on your own (average) You only have a %20 (rounded) of getting up on your own (average) You will still have less than 5 rounds to save your buddy on average... Keep in mind: Rolling a 19 (11-19 to be correct) only gets you one more chance to get a try roll a 20 on the next turn.... In my version: Rolling a natural 1 (%5) counts as two failures.... Which adds much more "tension" to the table and can reduce a character to having only two turns to be healed.... I like my version better (but I might be biased....)
runestar 02-06-08, 09:48 AM	(If you think about it, why would a fighter with ~200 hps have the same exact death threshold than a wizard with ~10 hps? That makes less sence and has the effect of making combat even that more deadly to the fighter than to the wizard, as the cushion that the fighter has (-10 hps) will be easily and very readily breached any hit the monster can land on the fighter.) It depends on your interpretation of just what hp entails. For example, one explanation of it is that it actually represents how much "combat stress" you can endure, rather than how much actual damage you can take. It seems a bit ludicrous that a higher lv fighter can withstand multiple sword wounds that penetrate his body or survive a minute-long dip in lava (since it deals just 10d6 fire damage/round), much less heal it all after some bed rest. As such, only the last few points of hp you have are your real hp, the rest are you parrying/dodging blows and the like. Hence, if a fighter is knocked unconscious, he is no longer able to defend himself. In this sense, he is every bit as vulnerable as the wizard, so it makes sense for them both to have the same negative hp pool.:)
Centor 02-06-08, 09:56 AM	Exactly, Plus I think that the article said three failed saves MAX. It actually said that 1-9 rolled made you worse, bleed out, and did not specify the amount of damage you took. However, it strongly suggested that it would be more than the normal 1 hp bleed. So in the example of the 15th level fighter with a -60 threshold, what if he was hit in the first round and dropped to -50, he makes his roll and rolls a 3, he takes some form of damage that now drops him to -55, one last roll that has the same out come and he’s a goner. So death is still a factor and a very real threat. With these new rules its just more in line with your characters power level. Runestar, I agree in a way with you actually, but what is nice about this system is that the level 1 fighter, mage whatever, is lower than the level 15 fighter mage whatever, which is more balanced for over all game design.
undead_dungeon_master 02-06-08, 10:18 AM	BTW, as a EVIL DM (TM) I like the fact that they do have a much better chance of dying on their own, and it would most likely happen in 5 turns or less as it is, and in as little as 2 turns in my version. Also, if the character dies, I feel that they "did get a chance". Currenly in 3.5, I am much more likely to drop them to -5 (instead of just killing them right out by doing doing enough damage to kill them... ) which still gives them a much higher chance of survivial than in the "4e" version. For a comparision, if you are dropped to 0 hit points in either version (I count zero as out... so there!!!) the 4e drastically increases the chances of death. 3.5 10 rounds, with a %10 chance each round of stabalizing.. %10 x 10= nearly %100 4e 3-6 rounds, with a %5 percent chance per round =%15-%30 (yes, I know that technically, someone could roll on forever... but it seems unlikely)
ieattrollsforbreakfast 02-06-08, 01:50 PM	BTW, as a EVIL DM (TM) I like the fact that they do have a much better chance of dying on their own, and it would most likely happen in 5 turns or less as it is, and in as little as 2 turns in my version. Also, if the character dies, I feel that they "did get a chance". Currenly in 3.5, I am much more likely to drop them to -5 (instead of just killing them right out by doing doing enough damage to kill them... ) which still gives them a much higher chance of survivial than in the "4e" version. For a comparision, if you are dropped to 0 hit points in either version (I count zero as out... so there!!!) the 4e drastically increases the chances of death. 3.5 10 rounds, with a %10 chance each round of stabalizing.. %10 x 10= nearly %100 4e 3-6 rounds, with a %5 percent chance per round =%15-%30 (yes, I know that technically, someone could roll on forever... but it seems unlikely) There's something wrong with your maths here, you can't simply add probabilities like that. In 3.5, the chance of reaching -10 if you start at -1 is 0.9^9 = 0.387, or a 38.7% chance of death. In 4e, the average number of rounds you will survive is 6. The probabilities of dying each round are a little more complicated to work out, I'd have to get back to you on that. EDIT: Found the stats on ENworld (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=218339&page=4&pp=30): Time / Recovered / Died 3 rds later / 0.143 / 0.091 4 rds / 0.181 / 0.228 5 rds / 0.211 / 0.365 6 rds / 0.232 / 0.478 7 rds / 0.246 / 0.564 8 rds / 0.256 / 0.624 9 rds / 0.262 / 0.664 10 rds / 0.266 / 0.689 So that means in 9 rounds of dying you're nearly twice as likely to die in 4e than 3e. Of course, you rarely start from -1 in-game, so it's a bit of a shaky comparison.
teasing1 02-06-08, 03:18 PM	I think the 4E is perfectly fine and will work way better than the 3E system. If you've reached 0hp or lower because Bloodraging Orcs bashed your head in with thier twohanded weapons, having "alot" of "negative life" would help so much because atleast in my world, raging orcs dont act in a very logical manner. Some would stay and coup de grace you in a very gory fashion even in the midst of combat, others will try to bullrush thier way to the wiz/sorc/ranger. Think drunkards, big muscly drunk bastards with no brains to make hasty decisions of whats best atm. What im trying to say is that, tanks should have thier edge in surviving battles cause thats what they do, they survive battles. PCharacters in 4e are heroes, npc's and commoners are not and will therefore not follow the same rules ase PC's.
undead_dungeon_master 02-06-08, 04:18 PM	There's something wrong with your maths here, you can't simply add probabilities like that. In 3.5, the chance of reaching -10 if you start at -1 is 0.9^9 = 0.387, or a 38.7% chance of death. In 4e, the average number of rounds you will survive is 6. The probabilities of dying each round are a little more complicated to work out, I'd have to get back to you on that. EDIT: Found the stats on ENworld (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=218339&page=4&pp=30): Time / Recovered / Died 3 rds later / 0.143 / 0.091 4 rds / 0.181 / 0.228 5 rds / 0.211 / 0.365 6 rds / 0.232 / 0.478 7 rds / 0.246 / 0.564 8 rds / 0.256 / 0.624 9 rds / 0.262 / 0.664 10 rds / 0.266 / 0.689 So that means in 9 rounds of dying you're nearly twice as likely to die in 4e than 3e. Of course, you rarely start from -1 in-game, so it's a bit of a shaky comparison. Sure, if you want to use that kinda of math!!!! Of course, either way, you will have a much better chance of dieing in 4e than in 3e.... Hey, can you get one of those eggheads (no offense) to figure out how a natrual 1 counting as two failure would change the survivability chances? (and yes, I know that it will affect them negatively....) I want to know the %/likely hood that this will happen. P.S. And I can tell you that despite your math skills, technically, the previous roll does not affect your chances on the new roll. Statiscally, speaking of course... In other words (despite what some will tell you), if you flip a quater 40 times in a row, and it has landed on heads every time so far.... What is the chances of it landing on heads the 41st time??? Exactly %50 chance!!!! P.P.S. I know what I said in the P.S. above this is both absolutely correct but under this context is completely wrong and your numbers are correct... I just wanted to feel smart for a second, so don't kill it... :cool:
VulcanStormwrath 02-06-08, 04:27 PM	Um, then it is either TPK or no death at all? As said before unless a creature keeps clawing at your unconscious body completely ignoring your party pounding at it until you are completely gone it won't happen. It will likely move on to an actual threat instead of continuing to beat on a defenseless immobile body. -60? Come on. Honestly how likely will it be that you will see a single death in an entire adventure, or even an entire campaign? Again, I am pretty sure this has been done to make the game much easier to attract less devoted people. Now that I think about it, how important will a cleric/healer be now? Player 1: "Wow, Player 3 got knocked down to -15!" Player 2/cleric: "So? What's the big deal? He has another 45+ points. I'll take care of it in another 15 rounds or so when the whole battle is over. Geez." Rondom encounters with monsters who attack to eat make taking damage in the negatives more important. Evil bastards who CDG their enemies would throw your players into a panic, forcing people to break off a joined battle to cover a fallen ally, add to that the need to drag someone from the range of area spells, falling monsters/dragons/giants, and other random collaterol damage like stuff being set on fire, and you've upped the level of excitement, without instakilling the party. Which I believe is the point
undead_dungeon_master 02-06-08, 04:29 PM	I think the 4E is perfectly fine and will work way better than the 3E system. If you've reached 0hp or lower because Bloodraging Orcs bashed your head in with thier twohanded weapons, having "alot" of "negative life" would help so much because atleast in my world, raging orcs dont act in a very logical manner. Some would stay and coup de grace you in a very gory fashion even in the midst of combat, others will try to bullrush thier way to the wiz/sorc/ranger. Think drunkards, big muscly drunk bastards with no brains to make hasty decisions of whats best atm. What im trying to say is that, tanks should have thier edge in surviving battles cause thats what they do, they survive battles. PCharacters in 4e are heroes, npc's and commoners are not and will therefore not follow the same rules ase PC's. Um... I disagree: If they coup de grace, you should be dead anyway. I don't care if you are a fighter or wizard, a coup de grace kills you either way. This is because, supposedly, Hitpoints are based not just on physical endurance, but primarily on the ability to dodge/roll with punches/deflect damage. It is hard to do deflect damage when unconcious... And if you die due to coup de grace, you do not get another roll.... Sorry about your character.. But I say that killing a character....."builds" character....
undead_dungeon_master 02-06-08, 04:32 PM	I think the 4E is perfectly fine and will work way better than the 3E system. If you've reached 0hp or lower because Bloodraging Orcs bashed your head in with thier twohanded weapons, having "alot" of "negative life" would help so much because atleast in my world, raging orcs dont act in a very logical manner. Some would stay and coup de grace you in a very gory fashion even in the midst of combat, others will try to bullrush thier way to the wiz/sorc/ranger. Think drunkards, big muscly drunk bastards with no brains to make hasty decisions of whats best atm. What im trying to say is that, tanks should have thier edge in surviving battles cause thats what they do, they survive battles. PCharacters in 4e are heroes, npc's and commoners are not and will therefore not follow the same rules ase PC's. BTW, I feel that fighters DO have a better chance of survival in battle... That is the reason why they have so many more hitpoints!!! There, I increased the fighters survivability for you...
PenderGrass 02-06-08, 04:51 PM	Here is a sneak peek of v4.5: Step 1: All players roll a d20 Step 2: Compare the d20 with the following - 1 - Character dies (go back to step 1) 2-4 - Character made it to level 5 before dying (go back to step 1) 5-9 - Character made it to level 15 before retiring (go back to step 1) 10-17 - Character gained lots of magic and player had fun (go back to step 1) 18-19 - Character was really really cool, player had lots of fun (go back to step 1) 20 - Player had so much fun that he now rolls at +1 on his next step 1 roll Now that is what I call simplified D&D. :P :rolleyes: :P :rolleyes: :dragon: *****
undead_dungeon_master 02-06-08, 05:07 PM	Here is a sneak peek of v4.5: Step 1: All players roll a d20 Step 2: Compare the d20 with the following - 1 - Character dies (go back to step 1) 2-4 - Character made it to level 5 before dying (go back to step 1) 5-9 - Character made it to level 15 before retiring (go back to step 1) 10-17 - Character gained lots of magic and player had fun (go back to step 1) 18-19 - Character was really really cool, player had lots of fun (go back to step 1) 20 - Player had so much fun that he now rolls at +1 on his next step 1 roll Now that is what I call simplified D&D. :P :rolleyes: :P :rolleyes: :dragon: ***** Insiders view of 5th edition: Roll a d20 Record number Declare victory!!!! Man, that game is STREAMLINED!!!
ieattrollsforbreakfast 02-06-08, 07:16 PM	Sure, if you want to use that kinda of math!!!! Of course, either way, you will have a much better chance of dieing in 4e than in 3e.... Hey, can you get one of those eggheads (no offense) to figure out how a natrual 1 counting as two failure would change the survivability chances? (and yes, I know that it will affect them negatively....) I want to know the %/likely hood that this will happen. I can tell you that your chance to die on the second round would in that case be 5%...as for subsequent rounds, hmm...again, I'd need a bit of time! P.S. And I can tell you that despite your math skills, technically, the previous roll does not affect your chances on the new roll. Statiscally, speaking of course... In other words (despite what some will tell you), if you flip a quater 40 times in a row, and it has landed on heads every time so far.... What is the chances of it landing on heads the 41st time??? Exactly %50 chance!!!! P.P.S. I know what I said in the P.S. above this is both absolutely correct but under this context is completely wrong and your numbers are correct... I just wanted to feel smart for a second, so don't kill it... :cool: Yeah, exactly, it's a common mistake. Probabilities have to be worded very carefully. In the case of the quarter flipping the chance of flipping 41 heads is 4.5E-13, but the chance of flipping a 41st head having already flipped 40 is 0.5. In this case, the chance of rolling a result to worsen your condition is always 0.5, regardless of what's come before, but the chance of rolling 3 in a row (to die as quickly as possible) is 0.5^3 = 0.125.
PenderGrass 02-06-08, 07:43 PM	Insiders view of 5th edition: Roll a d20 Record number Declare victory!!!! Man, that game is STREAMLINED!!! Insider View of v5.5 edition: Step 1: Send WotC money. Step 2: Repeat step 1. You're playing D&D now, kids! No books to buy, no charts to learn, no complicated feats or skills, nothing more than just sending money into WotC. Doesn't get any more simplistic than that. :dragon: *****
Millenia 02-07-08, 03:48 AM	So let me get this straight. They made it so it is nearly impossible for you to die/lose? Sounds like those kid video games where you have infinite lives and never take a penalty for losing. If the kids never lose or die they will never whine, pout, or complain about it, right? :rolleyes: Except for the part where very few games actually such a life system. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathIsASlapOnTheWrist)
Mock26 02-07-08, 12:40 PM	Huh. What's next? Monsters in boxes with slots for the easy insertion of swords and spears? It sounds to me like they are doing everything in their power to remove the possibility of death. Personally I've always thought that the possibility of death added greatly to the enjoyment of the game as it made it more real.
undead_dungeon_master 02-07-08, 12:44 PM	Huh. What's next? Monsters in boxes with slots for the easy insertion of swords and spears? It sounds to me like they are doing everything in their power to remove the possibility of death. Personally I've always thought that the possibility of death added greatly to the enjoyment of the game as it made it more real. I would argue that with my "house" rules, death seems more likely than in 3.5!!! But, I am probably biased....