Couple of ideas here... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Couple of ideas here... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Arcane Guyver
03-14-05, 10:46 PM Here's a couple things I thought up while at work today. These might not be new ideas, but I wanted to see how you guys would react to them.

#1. Shields are ****ed up. I'm trying to figure out why they apply to someone's Flatfooted AC, and not their Touch AC. If they did apply to Touch AC, they'd probably become a more important piece of equipment.

#2. By RAW, Wizards, Sorcerers, Psions, and all those d4 classes are favored whereas naturally healing is concerned. By resting 8 hours, a Wizard gains 1/4th of his HD per level back. Level 2 and beyond, if going by average HP, the Wizard resting up will receive slightly less than half his hit points back in 8 hours. Compare that wimpy Wizard to a stout Barbarian, who gets 1/12 his HD back, and would take a millenia to heal up naturally without Full Time Care.
Now, I think resting sucks. Nothing breaks the pace more than "Well, I guess we gotta rest up for a couple days until the healer here gets into the positive hit points." So...why not let every class naturally heal 1/4th of their HD?

d4 = 1
d6 = 1.5
d8 = 2
d10 = 2.5
d12 = 3

This wouldn't be too hard to figure out for multiclass characters (it'd probably be a good idea to record the character's healing rate on their character sheet, though). A Barb 6/Rog 6 would have a healing rate of 24 out of 60 (if first level is Barb, and average hp thereafter). Compare to a Wizard 12, who has a healing rate of 12 out of 26 (again, going with average hp).

I'm thinking this way wierd things won't happen, like the frail wizard totally regaining his strength within a day, while the fighter (who probably has a higher Constitution score, to boot) will take about a week to get in fighting shape.

So, what do you guys think?
HailSpork
03-15-05, 01:34 AM Personally, I think that shields should get a bonus when you're *not* flat-footed. Just having a shield reduces the target area where you can be hit. Actively blocking makes it better. Also, shields don't provide the level of protection that they should. If you doubt this, I suggest you test it out.
Attacking from a direction where the shield isn't facing would make it inneffective, but without facing rules, you can't really do this. Personally, I'm thinking about having facing while flat-footed. I'm thinking that the game says that without facing, a shield's protection is spread out.

As for a wizard healing, remember that a wizard heals 100%/(d4+con) per day. The con modifier can make a huge difference (as can rolling). Honestly, I think this rule is more simple than it is accurate. You could alternatively do (max hit die+con) per level, but now you heal 100%/level per day.
One solution is based on percentage. Heal 10% (round up) per day. Maybe make that 25% instead, if you think healing should be fast. Remember that this suggestion takes into account hit dice, constitution mod, and level.
Arcane Guyver
03-15-05, 02:27 AM I agree that shields should be more effective. I just figured that having them deflect attacks that would bypass regular armor would be a nice bonus (especially with them damn Warlocks hanging about!)

I'm a bit confused with your take on the natural healing. You normally don't get your Con bonus added in to your natural healing (and I'm not sure how using that would help bridge the disparity between the various classes and their ability to recuperate naturally).
HailSpork
03-15-05, 04:04 AM Let's say that Fred the wizard rolls nothing but 4's. He has a con of 12. Every day, he heals an amount equal to his level. It takes him 5 days to fully heal. If he has a con of 18, it would take him 8 days. If he were a fighter and rolled 10's, it would take him 14 days.

Now, let's try an alternate rule where you heal (hit die+con) per day. (I meant per day, not per level). Now, it takes either of them a number of days equal to their level; faster if they rolled low on hp.

Now, let's try the rule you suggested. It takes Fred the mage with 12 con 5 days to heal. With 18 con, it's 8 days again. If he's a figher with 18 con, it takes 6 days. A fighter with 12 con takes just over 4 days.

Now, let's try an alternate rule where you heal 10%. Actually, let's try 20%. It takes you 5 days to fully heal, reguardless of class or con. With a 10% rule, it takes 10 days.
Now, remember that this does favor people with high con (as it should). If Fred is a level 5 fighter with 12 con, he has 55 hp and heals 6 per day. If he has 18 con, he heals 7 per day. If he's a mage with 12 con, he heals 3 per day.
Arcane Guyver
03-15-05, 11:23 AM Ah, I get it. Well, I didn't necessarily want to speed up resting, I just wanted everyone to have a similar rate of healing. I sorta like the 20% rule, not sure if my players would go for it, though.
dragoncc
03-15-05, 09:30 PM In reference to the healing issue.
I've also wondered why the high Con/Fort/HP having characters heal much slower than sickly weak low Con/Fort/HP ones (exact opposite of any rational thinking IMO). I think maybe a combo of using a percentage & a bonus for high CON could be achieved (maybe a FORT save thrown in there or something to utilize CON). I think this is one area where more attention to the mechanics should be in order.
HailSpork
03-16-05, 02:45 AM I think maybe a combo of using a percentage & a bonus for high CON could be achieved.
It's a system done for simplicity. Remember that the percentage system *DOES* have a higher healing rate for high con already, as illustrated.

Perhaps adding your Con bonus to the results of curative spells? (not cure minor)

Hehe... I've kind of stolen this thread...
gomen.
Ranger REG
03-16-05, 03:12 AM Here's a couple things I thought up while at work today. These might not be new ideas, but I wanted to see how you guys would react to them.

#1. Shields are ****ed up. I'm trying to figure out why they apply to someone's Flatfooted AC, and not their Touch AC. If they did apply to Touch AC, they'd probably become a more important piece of equipment.
Even though it is not worn, it is still part of the character's person. It doesn't matter, touching a shield or armor -- even your sword scabbard -- is still considered touching the character.

Touch attack is not that devastating, by itself it does not inflict damage. HOWEVER, it may be the effect that transmit via touch attack that can be damaging.
Arcane Guyver
03-16-05, 06:53 PM But wouldn't it be cool to block stuff like ray of frost with a shield? I figure this sort of brings out the line of thought that shields prevent attacks from making bodily contact, and armor prevents damage if you do take the hit.
DragonWatcher
03-17-05, 09:21 AM But wouldn't it be cool to block stuff like ray of frost with a shield? I figure this sort of brings out the line of thought that shields prevent attacks from making bodily contact, and armor prevents damage if you do take the hit.

It sounds to me like this would be an awesome place for a shield special ability. In other words, make it a magical quality that could be added to a shield (or to armor, but if you wanted shields to get more use, limit it to shields in your game).

I think that making all shields effective against touch attacks could really devalue touch attacks. However, adding it as a possible magical option for shields make those shields that have it all the more valuable.

Hell, I'll be using this in my games! :D
Arcane Guyver
03-17-05, 01:32 PM I ran the numbers, and basically, using the shields = dodge bonus, a typical sword-and-board fighter with no Dex and the most pimped out 'board' ever will have a 19 Touch AC. Which I think is fairly accurate. Good luck trying to reach out and touch a guy who doesn't want to be, and just happens to have a door-size piece of wood to put in between you.
Ranger REG
03-18-05, 03:28 AM Personally it doesn't matter if you have a tower shield up. If you're holding it or wearing it, it is part of your person.
dragoncc
03-18-05, 11:29 AM I think what Arcane Guyver is getting at is that a shield unlike suits of armor is more like hiding behind a table than wearing a table & is trying to adjust the rules accordingly (I happen to think its a good idea, IF he can pull it off in a simple manner).
Ranger REG
03-18-05, 04:41 PM If he wants to get into detail, what if the shield is metal and the touch attack is delivering electrical damage?

If you want to rule this on a case-by-case basis, by all means go ahead, it's your own game.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Arcane Guyver 03-14-05, 10:46 PM	Here's a couple things I thought up while at work today. These might not be new ideas, but I wanted to see how you guys would react to them. #1. Shields are ****ed up. I'm trying to figure out why they apply to someone's Flatfooted AC, and not their Touch AC. If they did apply to Touch AC, they'd probably become a more important piece of equipment. #2. By RAW, Wizards, Sorcerers, Psions, and all those d4 classes are favored whereas naturally healing is concerned. By resting 8 hours, a Wizard gains 1/4th of his HD per level back. Level 2 and beyond, if going by average HP, the Wizard resting up will receive slightly less than half his hit points back in 8 hours. Compare that wimpy Wizard to a stout Barbarian, who gets 1/12 his HD back, and would take a millenia to heal up naturally without Full Time Care. Now, I think resting sucks. Nothing breaks the pace more than "Well, I guess we gotta rest up for a couple days until the healer here gets into the positive hit points." So...why not let every class naturally heal 1/4th of their HD? d4 = 1 d6 = 1.5 d8 = 2 d10 = 2.5 d12 = 3 This wouldn't be too hard to figure out for multiclass characters (it'd probably be a good idea to record the character's healing rate on their character sheet, though). A Barb 6/Rog 6 would have a healing rate of 24 out of 60 (if first level is Barb, and average hp thereafter). Compare to a Wizard 12, who has a healing rate of 12 out of 26 (again, going with average hp). I'm thinking this way wierd things won't happen, like the frail wizard totally regaining his strength within a day, while the fighter (who probably has a higher Constitution score, to boot) will take about a week to get in fighting shape. So, what do you guys think?
HailSpork 03-15-05, 01:34 AM	Personally, I think that shields should get a bonus when you're not flat-footed. Just having a shield reduces the target area where you can be hit. Actively blocking makes it better. Also, shields don't provide the level of protection that they should. If you doubt this, I suggest you test it out. Attacking from a direction where the shield isn't facing would make it inneffective, but without facing rules, you can't really do this. Personally, I'm thinking about having facing while flat-footed. I'm thinking that the game says that without facing, a shield's protection is spread out. As for a wizard healing, remember that a wizard heals 100%/(d4+con) per day. The con modifier can make a huge difference (as can rolling). Honestly, I think this rule is more simple than it is accurate. You could alternatively do (max hit die+con) per level, but now you heal 100%/level per day. One solution is based on percentage. Heal 10% (round up) per day. Maybe make that 25% instead, if you think healing should be fast. Remember that this suggestion takes into account hit dice, constitution mod, and level.
Arcane Guyver 03-15-05, 02:27 AM	I agree that shields should be more effective. I just figured that having them deflect attacks that would bypass regular armor would be a nice bonus (especially with them damn Warlocks hanging about!) I'm a bit confused with your take on the natural healing. You normally don't get your Con bonus added in to your natural healing (and I'm not sure how using that would help bridge the disparity between the various classes and their ability to recuperate naturally).
HailSpork 03-15-05, 04:04 AM	Let's say that Fred the wizard rolls nothing but 4's. He has a con of 12. Every day, he heals an amount equal to his level. It takes him 5 days to fully heal. If he has a con of 18, it would take him 8 days. If he were a fighter and rolled 10's, it would take him 14 days. Now, let's try an alternate rule where you heal (hit die+con) per day. (I meant per day, not per level). Now, it takes either of them a number of days equal to their level; faster if they rolled low on hp. Now, let's try the rule you suggested. It takes Fred the mage with 12 con 5 days to heal. With 18 con, it's 8 days again. If he's a figher with 18 con, it takes 6 days. A fighter with 12 con takes just over 4 days. Now, let's try an alternate rule where you heal 10%. Actually, let's try 20%. It takes you 5 days to fully heal, reguardless of class or con. With a 10% rule, it takes 10 days. Now, remember that this does favor people with high con (as it should). If Fred is a level 5 fighter with 12 con, he has 55 hp and heals 6 per day. If he has 18 con, he heals 7 per day. If he's a mage with 12 con, he heals 3 per day.
Arcane Guyver 03-15-05, 11:23 AM	Ah, I get it. Well, I didn't necessarily want to speed up resting, I just wanted everyone to have a similar rate of healing. I sorta like the 20% rule, not sure if my players would go for it, though.
dragoncc 03-15-05, 09:30 PM	In reference to the healing issue. I've also wondered why the high Con/Fort/HP having characters heal much slower than sickly weak low Con/Fort/HP ones (exact opposite of any rational thinking IMO). I think maybe a combo of using a percentage & a bonus for high CON could be achieved (maybe a FORT save thrown in there or something to utilize CON). I think this is one area where more attention to the mechanics should be in order.
HailSpork 03-16-05, 02:45 AM	I think maybe a combo of using a percentage & a bonus for high CON could be achieved. It's a system done for simplicity. Remember that the percentage system DOES have a higher healing rate for high con already, as illustrated. Perhaps adding your Con bonus to the results of curative spells? (not cure minor) Hehe... I've kind of stolen this thread... gomen.
Ranger REG 03-16-05, 03:12 AM	Here's a couple things I thought up while at work today. These might not be new ideas, but I wanted to see how you guys would react to them. #1. Shields are ****ed up. I'm trying to figure out why they apply to someone's Flatfooted AC, and not their Touch AC. If they did apply to Touch AC, they'd probably become a more important piece of equipment. Even though it is not worn, it is still part of the character's person. It doesn't matter, touching a shield or armor -- even your sword scabbard -- is still considered touching the character. Touch attack is not that devastating, by itself it does not inflict damage. HOWEVER, it may be the effect that transmit via touch attack that can be damaging.
Arcane Guyver 03-16-05, 06:53 PM	But wouldn't it be cool to block stuff like ray of frost with a shield? I figure this sort of brings out the line of thought that shields prevent attacks from making bodily contact, and armor prevents damage if you do take the hit.
DragonWatcher 03-17-05, 09:21 AM	But wouldn't it be cool to block stuff like ray of frost with a shield? I figure this sort of brings out the line of thought that shields prevent attacks from making bodily contact, and armor prevents damage if you do take the hit. It sounds to me like this would be an awesome place for a shield special ability. In other words, make it a magical quality that could be added to a shield (or to armor, but if you wanted shields to get more use, limit it to shields in your game). I think that making all shields effective against touch attacks could really devalue touch attacks. However, adding it as a possible magical option for shields make those shields that have it all the more valuable. Hell, I'll be using this in my games! :D
Arcane Guyver 03-17-05, 01:32 PM	I ran the numbers, and basically, using the shields = dodge bonus, a typical sword-and-board fighter with no Dex and the most pimped out 'board' ever will have a 19 Touch AC. Which I think is fairly accurate. Good luck trying to reach out and touch a guy who doesn't want to be, and just happens to have a door-size piece of wood to put in between you.
Ranger REG 03-18-05, 03:28 AM	Personally it doesn't matter if you have a tower shield up. If you're holding it or wearing it, it is part of your person.
dragoncc 03-18-05, 11:29 AM	I think what Arcane Guyver is getting at is that a shield unlike suits of armor is more like hiding behind a table than wearing a table & is trying to adjust the rules accordingly (I happen to think its a good idea, IF he can pull it off in a simple manner).
Ranger REG 03-18-05, 04:41 PM	If he wants to get into detail, what if the shield is metal and the touch attack is delivering electrical damage? If you want to rule this on a case-by-case basis, by all means go ahead, it's your own game.