Post/Author/DateTime	Post
shiffd 06-11-05, 05:54 AM	You know that trap with the swinging blades that you put in the dungeon at 5th level. Did the people come back at 10th level to walk through the trap, take its full damage and laught about it? Is your theif wondering why it is that they can't find the sweetspot on the sleeping kings chest? They got all that training on how to be an expert assasin but for some strange reason everytime they stab a warrior king in the heart he wakes up as if completely uninjured and pummels them till the guards get there? How about all those fireballs, suffocation spells etc. Whats up with peoples rolling with skin meltage? How about falling off cliffs and down stairs? All the 1 levels seem to die will enough, but those 10th level wizards, man, no prob. THrow them out of a plane while they are asleep, see if they care. Probly bounce twice on the landing without thinking twice about it. Can someone come up with a laundry list of rules, or atleast a list of reference for the 15 books which will cover it. The rules should explain how characters can be properly dealt non-combat damage such that they aren't immune to traps, backstabs, damage taken while they are asleep/held, fire, acid, extreme temperatures, falling, being smashed etc. at high levels. If there is no such set of rules then I suggest people look to fix the HP system or admit that D&D has NO realism in recieving injuries after about 3rd-5th level.
J Milburn 06-11-05, 08:08 AM	Coup de grace? Have you forgotton something massive here? This warrior king is going to need a massive fortitude save to protect himself, coupled with death attack and death from massive damage! If you dont like the abstract system for dnd, try the abstract sytem from SW, Wound and Vitality damage. There are alot of posts on this forum about converting them to dnd.
J Milburn 06-11-05, 08:10 AM	Oh, you are refering to an earlier version arent you? New versions were brought out for a reason.
shiffd 06-11-05, 10:42 AM	Oh, you are refering to an earlier version arent you? New versions were brought out for a reason. Please explain. I think there is some stuff out there. I've heard of some stuff from Unearthed Arcana. Also I've heard of stuff from Mutants & magic, Warhammer and the reference above. So how many books do I need to answer the above questions? Or are people really answering those questions at all. It's like having no bottom on your boat and calling it a leak, then offering a few patches to fix it. How about a new bottom? Anway I've read up on the new system. HP is still there. I looked at some 3.0 books, my understanding is that the PHB and DMG aren't much different than the online SRD for 3.5. Other guy- Mass damage? isn't that like 50 points? I haven't seen anything about death with backstabs, looks like +d6 damage every couple levels, or are you referencing a feat of somekind? Let me make it a simple list Mass Falling damage Crushing damage Acid Fire Suffocation/drowning extreme temperatures Electric damage damage taken while asleep damage dealt in combat situations while flatfooted (from regular weapons) bleeding damage backstab --------------TRAPS----------------------- If people could address each point of how it is applied with disregard to HP via level. Maybe I need to go order some more supplements, GOD FORBID I figure a simple solution out myself. NEVER delete rules, always buy more rules inside of books with cool pictures. Sounds like a good motto to me :D . Anyway RATHER than a laundry list for 'mass damge' (50+) and saves this, saves that. It might be easier to make ALL damage essentially the same and potentially lethal. Give characters better saves or evasive ability in combat if you want them to live through heroic encounters, but a screwy psi-fi aura of luck/protection/absorbtion wont do the trick. But I digress. IF someone can figure out a way to deal with the above things descriptively and/or realisticly, I'm gonna use a system someone else suggested on another forum where HP can be stacked up level-to-level in the same old way but realism can still be accomplished (in the combat area).
HailSpork 06-11-05, 10:53 AM	Here's my condensed version of the list: Hit Point Damage Pretty much anything that has to do with HP is exaggerated. Why can a 10th level wizard survive a hit with a longsword when a 1st level fighter might not? Why does a casting of Heal in 3.0 run the risk of killing a 1st level wizard?
J Milburn 06-11-05, 01:30 PM	Pretty much all the things on your list are in the dmg. Fire acid electricity etc damage is just a simple roll, flatfooted damage is normal apart from rogues, who add a load of d6s to it. Backstab there are no rules for. Damage while asleep or otherwise helpless is a coup de grace if taken a round over and done intentionally. The list goes on. Check the dmg for all of those, with the phb looking at things from a characters perspective.
shiffd 06-11-05, 08:02 PM	Pretty much all the things on your list are in the dmg. Fire acid electricity etc damage is just a simple roll, flatfooted damage is normal apart from rogues, who add a load of d6s to it. Backstab there are no rules for. Damage while asleep or otherwise helpless is a coup de grace if taken a round over and done intentionally. The list goes on. Check the dmg for all of those, with the phb looking at things from a characters perspective. Are you admitting that there is no reality in the system? Or are you telling me there's something in there I've never seen or heard of before but thats not online in the SRD? I mean does it say "All ACid/Fire etc damage is done as a percentage of HP" or "ALl backstabs automatically require a save VS death, plus near fatal wound?" Does it say "All traps are mass damage by percent of HP" or what. I'm pretty sure you just have an X amount of damage, and SOMETIMES a save. Hopefully it says something in there about disregarded the rules for what you call 'coup de grace' when peopple are sleeping/held ect. But isn't that sad that you just say 'ok, your dead' at that point because nothing in the 50+ book seried of mechanics and rules can help you figure the situation. What if its NOT a theif? Should someone with NO knowledge of anatomy automatically kill a prone victim? Or should they inflict a normal wound with the average chance of death (IE experienced warrior would probly still kill a victim, but a wizard for example, might severely injure but strike a non-vital area, like miss the heard and puncture a lung, simple puncture the intestines etc.). I mean its either A: High LEvel is immune to deadly damage or B: it kills them automatically. There is nothing in the system that really makes damage realistically related to its deadly effects. What rolls do you make with Acid and FIre damage? Isn't it a DAMAGE roll? THe reflex either increasing or decreasing the amount of damage? If you got enough HP it don't matter anyways right? That's why traps only work if they are built specifically for hte LEVEL of the PC's. As a DM you always gotta build traps for each adventure to match or exceed you PC's HP amounts. That's just wierd. You can do percentages but then its like "You lost 75 percent of your hitpoints, your bleeding/injured whatever" Anyway it means a lot more/less based on level. is 25% left 2 hitpoints or 50. Again you have to make traps that have damage figured to PC level. Also if you look at other threads about wound systems you'll see how difficult they are to implement ON TOP of the HP system. So you end up with -Critical system, wound system, save system, extra fortitude save rules etc. Thnen the compensation on healing, regenerating, monsters, magic etc. to compensate for the HP, you gotta work really hard with managing all that power in everything. LUckily you can nust buy more books as you've suggested, which will give you all the stats and numbers etc. A calculator, eraser, pencil and lot of paper will help with the calculations. ANd then there is Fatigue. The Heroic HP system kinda includes fatigue but not really so you got all these other systems. Does magic cause fatigue, does not sleeping, does elements, does heavy exertion. ANd does that cause damage? How much? What if you have 200 HP, does it really matter how much damage the fatigue causes? Should ones level INCREASE the amount of damage they TAKE from things? I don't think its in the DMG. But next time I'm in a country that sells wizards products I'll definitely look it up. Most of the ideas I've been told about come from other books and series.
DM Zoc 06-11-05, 08:26 PM	D&D has NO realism in recieving injuries at all. It's not supposed to. If you want a semi-realistic set of rules, go play GURPS. D&D is a heroic fantasy role-playing system. Disregard logic when it makes the game less fun. Can you truly say that it's fun for your character, whom you've been playing with and developing for years, to die in the middle of the night from something you never saw coming? Do you think a player is willing to return to a DM who frequently says, "You go to bed as usual, but never wake up in the morning; roll a new character," ? My friend, Liz, like to quote the old AD&D 1E DMG:A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn't been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasty, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste.
Temrek 06-11-05, 08:31 PM	If someone is dropped in a pool of acid I would say they are definatly helpless to the acid damage. Good luck managing that fort save with a DC of 20 - 130 Coup the grace is basically an instant death attack done to a helpless victim which is what I was refering to above. Falling damage makes no sense but I guess it is for gameplay (which is more important then realism), otherwise a harpy could kill a 20 level character by just snatching him, house rule like I did. Traps, well if you are skilled in avoiding fatal wounds it might mean that instead of having half your head cut through you have half your arm cut through.
shiffd 06-11-05, 09:04 PM	D&D has NO realism in recieving injuries at all. It's not supposed to. If you want a semi-realistic set of rules, go play GURPS. D&D is a heroic fantasy role-playing system. Disregard logic when it makes the game less fun. Can you truly say that it's fun for your character, whom you've been playing with and developing for years, to die in the middle of the night from something you never saw coming? Do you think a player is willing to return to a DM who frequently says, "You go to bed as usual, but never wake up in the morning; roll a new character," ? My friend, Liz, like to quote the old AD&D 1E DMG: THANK YOU! A straightfoward answer gets a straightfoward response- I LOVE THAT GAME! Thank you for being honest. At the same time I'm a believer. I believe that more realism can be achieved while allowing or even enhancing the gameplay. But its a different type of play, more like gambling than shopping. I believe that DND more and more caters to powergaming. There are some less than freindly words for that. Anyway the dice have become irrelevant and at the same time more numerous as with stats calculations and rules. I'd like to see a move away from excessive stat-crunching, dice rolling, calculating and rule stacking. THAT would increase the value and fun of gameplay for many people. Arguably DND caters to the audience that play for no other reason than to stack up a supercharacter and pride themself on it. I'm just from a different audience. EXAMPLE: Last game I played in college I refused to take an automatic 18 as everyone else in the party had. I also wouldn't reroll a not so good char, the DM was kinda mad, but I was like, man if we're all supermen I aint playin. So I was a druid whose highest score was lower than everyone elses third best if you know what I mean. Anyway I saved the parties ass on numerous occasions because of good rollplaying and well used spell selection, however I oculdn't participate in most combat. THe other 18 16 16 etc. prestige class munchkins were so powerful the DM had no choice but to beef monsters. So i'd sit there as they rolled and debated out all their rule sets to kill a giant or two, completely unhelpful or beneficial to the story. Boring to me but blast for the powergamers to sit their and debate how many attacks they get, what their damage bonus is etc.. Anyway I ended up playing WHitewolf, GURPS etc. BUT I LOVE DND- THE SETTING/IDEA, but the rules cater to a different crowd. Most of the people I liked to RP with in college wouldn't touch DND cuz of the ruleset and average player, they'd beg me to play other types of games with them and I would. Usually I'd enjoy myself, but I wouldn't like the setting. DND is my favorite setting. So thats why I'm trying to fix its rules to my style of play. DOes that make sense? I like DND but just not the average style of play, which I think is caused by the HP rules. and stuff.
DM Zoc 06-11-05, 09:35 PM	I like DND but just not the average style of play, which I think is caused by the HP rules. and stuff. The vitality/wounds variant addresses the problem fairly well. I know a number of people who play with it. I'm concerned that you think D&D has a "setting" at all, because it doesn't. You could take the exact same characters and locations and port them over to GURPS; you'd just spend a lot of time with the conversions, especially the magical items (but no more time than would be needed to re-write the HP rules in D&D). GURPS fantasy is a lot of fun, but I don't think the appropriate books have been ported to the new edition yet. As it stands, you could probably "fix" the system for you by just staying at levels 1-5. Then you have to accept that a player can die instantly and irrevocably without a chance to do anything about it, though.
shiffd 06-12-05, 12:01 AM	The vitality/wounds variant addresses the problem fairly well. I know a number of people who play with it. I'm concerned that you think D&D has a "setting" at all, because it doesn't. You could take the exact same characters and locations and port them over to GURPS; you'd just spend a lot of time with the conversions, especially the magical items (but no more time than would be needed to re-write the HP rules in D&D). GURPS fantasy is a lot of fun, but I don't think the appropriate books have been ported to the new edition yet. As it stands, you could probably "fix" the system for you by just staying at levels 1-5. Then you have to accept that a player can die instantly and irrevocably without a chance to do anything about it, though. Yea thats basically what I do. At about 5th level I make efforts to get hte PC dead if they aint already. Unless its a video game, in which case the computer does all therule crunches and dice rolls for you. But for tabletop I gotta get axed by the DM, or if I'm DM pass it on. DND isn't a setting, but it has set settings. YES, I've played settings typical of DND (FOrgotten realms type, mystara type, grayhawk type, darksun type) in GURPS> A lot of conversions and its not that fun cuz I don't like GURPS that much. MOstly its okay but it lacks a lot. Anway HP system is harder to read up on than eliminate in my opinion. You gots so many rules for all these spells and whatnot, its a lot to do. BUT 3.5 is about the most balanced rollplaying systems out there. It may not be realistic but it has a remarkable amount of balance, it just takes insanely too many numbers, rules and calculations to reach that balance and stuff. On your last line, that is exactly what I'm always looking for. I accept death, I accept loss. I haven't been scared by it so I never mind losing. WInning is fun to, but its not worth winning if losing wasn't possible. DND is about one of the only "GAMES" in the world where you aren't suppose to lose atleast half the time. SPorts, other board games, card games, martial arts (which is really a game), party games, gameshows etc. In all those games you got winners and loosers. DND is the only thing people seem to be silly enough to call 'a game' and yet never risk loosing. So either its a game where everyone is a winner, or a game where everyone is a looser, depending on your perspective. I didn't even rollplay for the last 4 years cuz I've been playing athletic games. Recently I've had a major injury and a number of surgeries so I'm stuck with video games and the internet. All my buddies are out enjoying their healthy bodies in play (and risking losing not always winning). Me, well I'm stuck in a world where everyone wins . The books are great, most of the 'games'..... yawn
Temrek 06-12-05, 01:34 PM	What ultimatly decides if a game is roleplaying or hack and slash is those who play it. I have only DMed for the D&D ruleset and players have died a lot in the game, so if you want to play D&D with heavy roleplaying focus find a group that wants to do that as well.
shiffd 06-13-05, 06:41 AM	What ultimatly decides if a game is roleplaying or hack and slash is those who play it. I have only DMed for the D&D ruleset and players have died a lot in the game, so if you want to play D&D with heavy roleplaying focus find a group that wants to do that as well. True that, and you make a good point. The group of players is the key, not the rules. What I've found is that people who like to roleplay stick with other systems, many wont even get near DND. THe crews that i've encountered who play DND usually are into RIFTS, WARHAMMER and other Powergaming hackn'slash type mediums. I've had trouble getting groups together interested in playing DnD unless powergamers and munchkins are invited, in which case you've usually got a party of about 20 stat-crunched, loaded dice toting superheros. Anyway college experiences from a RPG club of about 50 members. We all were good friends but built our games around playstyles. DnD & DnD settings ended up completely taken over by the powergamers. I was always like 'I WANT MY GAME BACK' my friends would try and get me to realize that DnD was simply a Powergame. I always disagreed with that, but have had trouble proving it. Thank you for letting me know that there is roleplaying out there in the DnD world and stuff. I really don't like any campaign worlds outside of those typical of DnD. Shadowrun is OK, but still not my type of setting.
Temrek 06-13-05, 10:31 AM	Maybe you should try to run a campaign and invite only those who you would like to play it and show them that D&D dosent always have to be about power gaming, really the best way to go about this is to IMO: Use default method for generating stats: 4d6 drop lowest or if you want the PCs to be really scared use non elite PCs (3d6 for stats and no max hp at first level). Dont pull any punches, use instant death variant rule found in DMG (modified or not, sure the chance of a peasant killing the PCs is not big but it is there!) Consider allowing coup de graces in more situations (ie if the target is very unaware allow the PCs to attempt to grapple the opponent and if they succed they can attempt a coup de grace, to represent that they should grab the victim before slitting its throat). Throw away the attitude changing default thingy for diplomacy and have the PCs actully present an argument when making diplomacy checks (it can be debated that the diplomacy skill is something that should be done away with and leave it to 100% roleplaying but I disagree but I wont go there). Make prestiege classes something you have to earn rather then qualify for if you even want to allow core stuff. That said, D&D if used right can be really good for roleplaying with intresting PCs.
DM Zoc 06-13-05, 10:33 AM	On your last line, that is exactly what I'm always looking for. I accept death, I accept loss. I haven't been scared by it so I never mind losing. WInning is fun to, but its not worth winning if losing wasn't possible. I'm curious about how many weeks you spend building each character and a backstory. Also, by D&D rules, a 50% loss chance at every encounter would mean that only 0.01220703125% (1 in 8192) characters would make it to second level; a lot of classes get interesting abilities beyond first level, which would never come into play. The alternative is to start with high-level characters, in which case you have to spend more time on the backstory and then you have to explain why you overcame such insurmountable odds to make it so far, only to start failing once the campaign begins.
Temrek 06-13-05, 10:37 AM	I'm curious about how many weeks you spend building each character and a backstory. Also, by D&D rules, a 50% loss chance at every encounter would mean that only 0.01220703125% (1 in 8192) characters would make it to second level; a lot of classes get interesting abilities beyond first level, which would never come into play. The alternative is to start with high-level characters, in which case you have to spend more time on the backstory and then you have to explain why you overcame such insurmountable odds to make it so far, only to start failing once the campaign begins. I dont think he means 50% loss chance per encounter but the chance of failure should be very real.
shiffd 06-14-05, 04:01 AM	I'm curious about how many weeks you spend building each character and a backstory. Also, by D&D rules, a 50% loss chance at every encounter would mean that only 0.01220703125% (1 in 8192) characters would make it to second level; a lot of classes get interesting abilities beyond first level, which would never come into play. The alternative is to start with high-level characters, in which case you have to spend more time on the backstory and then you have to explain why you overcame such insurmountable odds to make it so far, only to start failing once the campaign begins. I have two big categories of play that I do which I could categorize things into. One style of play is game intensive. It's not so much a story as a game or challenge. Characters have little backstory but a basic type or concept. Their is some kinda crawl through a dungeon, something quasi linear. Basically Traps, riddles, puzzles monsters etc. IF there isn't much risk in it, it isn't fun. The rules used must also be simple and straight forward. A small nubmer of simple but important roles will determine the outcome. I find that DnD has too many rules and rolls with too little meaning and too little risk for this to be possible. Fixing the HP system is where I find it possible to make DnD useful for that type of gaming. Secondly is roleplaying intensive. HEre backstory is extremely important. There is a concept and flavor to the campaign and characters must be fit into the plot. Back during 2ndEdition I developed a backstory page to the Character sheet. It included things like hobbies, pasttimes, childhood, family (parents, grandparents, siblings and other kin), short term gaols, long term goals, phobias, beliefs, dislikes/likes, loves, enemies etc. Each item was given an XP value. Characters could gain XP by roleplaying through things in their backstory. IE accomplishing goals, seeking a love, vanquishing an enemy, helping kin, dealing with a phobia and RPing preferences and belief systems into the game well. Anyway Combat is very sparse, mostly puzzles, trapes, riddles and preparation for combat. I use a lot of house rules which expand RP opportunities. LIke gathering spellcomponents, getting combat training, replacing equipment, getting wounds cared for etc. I find the HP system makes combat long, drawn out, hard to describe and unmeaningful. The fixes I put in are aimed at making combat describable realisticly, climactic, relatively quick and simple to figure with less rules, rolls and calculations and lots of outcomes which provide RP opportunites. So its actually more likely to get maimed and injured than killed. THose injuries can then be RP'd after the battle, expanded the amount of time for RPing without cumbersome rules. It's true you don't want your PC's that have had a lot of time and energy put into them to just die. That's what the party is for. Each PC is vulnerable to be put outa action during combat so they gotta work teamwise to accomplish gaols and avoid common dangers. Thus after each encounter people come away with serious injuries. Instead of everyone having just lost a mass of hitpoints and waiting a couple months/days(depending on the clerical power available) for it all to heal/get healed, you just have like 1-2 people critically injured that need immediate -RP'd- attention to wounds or they'll die. This way combat ADDS to the story not detracts from it. Anways I find that the same set of changes to HP benefit roleplaying and gaming equaly. If you want to tell a story then you need realism. IF you want to play a game then you need risk. So regardless of which thing people use as an excuse for why they use a HP system I got the same reason not too. The only other reason to use the standard HP system is powergaming, clearly I've not developed a system which is good for that.
shiffd 06-14-05, 05:20 AM	Maybe you should try to run a campaign and invite only those who you would like to play it and show them that D&D dosent always have to be about power gaming, really the best way to go about this is to IMO: Use default method for generating stats: 4d6 drop lowest or if you want the PCs to be really scared use non elite PCs (3d6 for stats and no max hp at first level). Dont pull any punches, use instant death variant rule found in DMG (modified or not, sure the chance of a peasant killing the PCs is not big but it is there!) Consider allowing coup de graces in more situations (ie if the target is very unaware allow the PCs to attempt to grapple the opponent and if they succed they can attempt a coup de grace, to represent that they should grab the victim before slitting its throat). Throw away the attitude changing default thingy for diplomacy and have the PCs actully present an argument when making diplomacy checks (it can be debated that the diplomacy skill is something that should be done away with and leave it to 100% roleplaying but I disagree but I wont go there). Make prestiege classes something you have to earn rather then qualify for if you even want to allow core stuff. That said, D&D if used right can be really good for roleplaying with intresting PCs. In my college RPG club days I tried and tried to get the roleplayers to play DnD with me, they wouldn't. They would beg me to GM Vampire, Wherewolf or even GURPS but woudln't play in a DnD game run by me or others. Naturally the powergamers would play in anygame they could do their thang in, I didn't DM for them cuz I was to strict on character creation, they didn't like the restrictions, no more than 1 18, roll with my dice in front of me, etc.. I don't like micromanagement anyway so its not like I was volunteering much. Vampire was good cuz it brought the powergamers and the roleplayers together, it was a good medium to manage both crowds, but I had the whole concept. I'm a DnD fan from teh beginning and to the core. Anyway I'm trying to start a campaign over at plothook. I might end up using standard 3.5 (if that's what the players want). Its a really great idea for a plot (well I like it). If people are interested I'll implement some houserules. Likely people will want to go with what they know, its much easier that way. I encourage people to check it out if they're interested.
Temrek 06-14-05, 10:02 AM	Well good luck on finding a group to play with. The only hint I can give you is tell them what type of game you are looking for and what changes you have made to the rules. I see your point about wounds and sush but the systems I have played with that lacked hp systems has always been lacking to my experience. Either they made combat unbearible long or the best swordsman in the world was afraid of the peasant becouse if the peasant got the first strike chance of death was too high. They where all homebrewn though so it is probubly not the best of exemples. Things you should consider: Having a HP system dosent mean wounds cannot happen, limbs can still be severed etc... its all up to the GM. Wounds that penetilze combat abilitys is something you need to think long and hard of before using, first hit can be too desicive to really create epic battles.
Paul Hopebringer 06-14-05, 04:49 PM	Well, why not have all the tricky bits happen after you reach half-hp, except in special cercumstances? You know, after you hit half your hit-points, you start needing to worry about getting killed (instantly, and without neccissarily having to be worn down further) I just had that thought, but I think I just had a good idea :D.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-14-05, 05:21 PM	Did the people come back at 10th level to walk through the trap, take its full damage and laught about it? Not if I have anything to say about it. I assume that the PC's are actually trying to avoid the damage. If they intentionally stand in front of, say, a swinging blade trap and let it hit them, I'd say, "Okay. The swinging blade takes your head off as you stand there like an idiot. You're dead." My way of interpreting the damage is that at 5th level, 10 damage from a trap is a much harder and more injuring hit than 10 damage from the same trap at 10th level, because they're better at avoiding it. That's my take, however.
shiffd 06-15-05, 04:29 AM	Not if I have anything to say about it. I assume that the PC's are actually trying to avoid the damage. If they intentionally stand in front of, say, a swinging blade trap and let it hit them, I'd say, "Okay. The swinging blade takes your head off as you stand there like an idiot. You're dead." My way of interpreting the damage is that at 5th level, 10 damage from a trap is a much harder and more injuring hit than 10 damage from the same trap at 10th level, because they're better at avoiding it. That's my take, however. I should keep in mind that you are talking about 1st addition... All I can say is that there are many other things that determine how well you avoid the trap. So you're doubling up things. IF you have ONE idea, then it should be handled Idealy with ONE mechanic. Having one idea (avoiding a swinging blade for example) handled by a variety of mechanics, potetnially- Savings throw, base ability score (check), ability score and HP. Then theres damage reduction handled by any DR stat you've got and HP. Hmmmm...... HP includes luck, avoidance, stamina, experience and who knows what else. Anyway its OK for basic stuff I guess. I'm gonna look up Blue Rose someone else was talking about. Sounded interesting.
Malibu Trojan 06-30-05, 02:15 PM	Balance > Realism :twocents:
Drachasor 06-30-05, 02:56 PM	To be quite frank, you DON'T WANT TO BE PLAYING D&D. You don't recognize that fact, and aren't constantly fighting against it. That however, does not change the fundamental truth. You don't like how D&D works; you don't like the lack of realism. Problem is, that's an inherent part of the D&D game and you really can't get rid of it without changing the game so much it isn't D&D. Min-Maxing, to a very significant extent, is a big part of how D&D works. You are SUPPOSED to make your character good at combat. Battle is one of the most significant elements of the entire game. Non-battle areas, by contrast, aren't handled all that well, and they will never be handled "realistically" in a D&D setting. If there's something you like about D&D, but it isn't the hit points, the magic, the levels, the stats, the combat system, how it deals with the environment, traps, etc...then what the HECK is it? Go find yourself a more gritty game, like GURPS (and I here Palladium is more realistic, but I know nothing about it). It will be a lot less trouble and hardship for you, and it will be easier on any new people you play with--you won't have to spend hours and hours explaining how you aren't really playing D&D. Not only that, it will surely acheive your desire a lot more effectively than any mish-mash of rules you generate for D&D. You need a system designed from the ground up to be gritty and "realistic", and D&D is designed from the ground up to be something far, far different. It's hard, but let go. You don't want to play D&D, so you might as well stop now. If it helps, make a list of the things you like about D&D and the things you don't like. When you realize the things you like are a lot, lot fewer in number than the things you don't, then I think you'll see what I mean. -Drachasor
DM Zoc 06-30-05, 08:55 PM	Standing perfectly still while a blade comes toward your neck is like attempting to CDG yourself. There's a chance that you'll survive, but it's not likely.
shiffd 07-01-05, 05:00 AM	To be quite frank, you DON'T WANT TO BE PLAYING D&D. People have told me that for along time. But people not interested in D&D usually aren't interested in its settings either. I don't really like PSi-FI future. I don't really like playing supernatural creatures like vamps, wherewolfs, superheros etc. I like the D&D settings. APplying them to other systems usually finds few interested parties. So I played Wherewolf, Vampire and GURPS for a few years, then I quite roleplaying. Actually maybe I don't like roleplaying, I get creeped out by a lot of roleplayers. I mean I'm a fan of people, like I don't like to hate on or judge people, but the roleplaying community has a very large amount of sociopathic people with all sorts of difficult to stand personalities. So you get a group together and you start getting creeped out after awhile. So I quit roleplaying about half way through college. Actually I think it was that I was roleplaying but I kept missing gaming sessions to go on dates. Anyway I had a free pass, missing for a date was allowed, but it kinda sucks when you are only there 1 outa 3 sessions or so, you really miss a lot of the story. Anyway I'm in Japan now and I had major surgery so I'm kinda house ridden. Rehab etc. will take awhile. SO I started playing D&D again. There are no roleplayers in this country outside of Tokyo (which is VERY far from me) so I am playing on the net for the first time. IT's fun I think. What I like about D&D- the settings it is usually played in. Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings, Orcs, ogers, gilatenous cubes, dragons, dungeons stuff like that. You get the picture. Things I've never liked too much about D&D- HP&its trappings, Savings throws (they've fixed those, reducing it down a bit), powergamers. Anyway the list of things I like are very much bigger, but related to setting. Changing the rules is rarely an option, because most people like it roughly the way it is. The rest don't like the D&D settings or are in confusion about what rule changes they do or don't want. Some people want less realism, some want more. Some people want less powergaming, some want more. Some want more roleplaying, some want more. Anyway its a mixed bag. At this point I am playing two D&D games on line. 3.5. Its very fun. I like the setting, the characters. THe DM's have little to any clue about what I don't like about the system. I haven't complained or said anything in game, I never do. Once the games started I just go with the flow, common sense, I mean its no use debating mid-game. But I'm just thinking like by next year I'll probly quit roleplaying again. But I've seen some new systems people have introduced me to. Blue Rose and Rollmaster and Deadlands and some other stuff. Well I'm looking stuff up as I go. Most of these systems have no gamming community to speak of though. Few people even online to get into a game with. ITs so much easier to jump in on a 3.5 game, theres a couple dozen starting every day it seems like (on 1 of the dozen or so sites out there that have d20 3.5 d&D). So anyone I'll probly jsut stick with 3.5, have fun untill they hit about 5th level and get my PC killed. Then on to the next game or quit again. And stuff.
Drachasor 07-01-05, 09:42 AM	I didn't say you don't want to be playing a fantasy game. I said you don't want to be playing D&D. There's a very big difference. There are many other fantasy games out there to choose from. The Fantasy version of GURPS is just one example. D&D is never going to have the sort of realism you want, and any attempt to make it have that is never going to be that good. When you like the setting/backstory, but not the system, then you don't want to be playing with that system. I've never played GURPS, but I am sure that can be modified to have elves, dwarves, etc. (if it doesn't already). I am sure there is a fantasy themed version of it too. Anyhow, you want to be playing a fantasy game, you just don't want it to be D&D. -Drachasor
shiffd 07-01-05, 07:17 PM	SO you've never played fantasy gurps? You know few have. That's cuz its not very popular. I myself don't like GURPS much. I've played a futuristic sci-fi game in it once. It was okay, but I didn't like the game so much. I don't know maybe cuz it wasn't fantasy. GURPS is nice becasue you have the freedom to develop your char in anyway you want at any point in time. You can just spend points on this or that skill and let it develop, the problem is the clumping and number mashing. I never found a big enough crowd interested ina D&D setting with the GURPS game. Vampire Dark Ages is NOTHING like d&d cuz ,well you're a stupid vampire, I hate vampires, why would I want to be one? And wherewolf? Well you spend more time as an enraged creature/half creature than you would as a fantasy creature. Anyway good systems but bad concepts. My point is there are no people out there that want to play GURPS in a D&D world. Let's say I get a bunch of forgotten realms fans together. Hey you guys wanta to play in a FR type setting using the GURPS systesm? Answer of 80% NO, we want to play D&D (as in d20). 15% NO, I want to play X (vamp DA etc.) 5% maybe, heres my geeked out character sheet. GURPS isn't quite as balanced PC to PC as 3.5 is. Also I"ve only played once but I've heard that in a low tech game its easy to max out on relavant skills and stuff. I don't know that was a long time ago. Anyway I'm not sure that GURPS is the right system. I posted for Blue Rose to see if anyone was interested- NO ONE. People like 3.5 and stuff. SO I've been exploring the finer points of why. 1/2 the crowd knows it isn't realistic, teh other half will start out claiming it is, untill they encounter me and the other 1/2 that explains to them that it never really was. Then they all decide they like it the way it is anyway. Theres a few out there that are making/posting other rules, like Sinaz and stuff. I found about 5 people online that are trying to make some changes. I've also found people interested in MERP which is a little more realistic, but way too rule heavy. I downloaded the manual. DAMN! Well I'm sure its easy enough, I'll probly try a MERP game later. Right now I'm in 2 3.5 games still, no time for a MERP game.
XrP-Leon The Second 07-03-05, 12:54 AM	In my House Rules, I've addressed this problem. Under the Hit Points and Massive Dmage rewrites. you can find the thread here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=457441), here, (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=457441) here, (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=457441) or here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=457441) In any case, I like my system. And although the thread has over 100 views, no one's posted about it.
XrP-Leon The Second 07-03-05, 03:30 AM	For instance in my system. Your first level fighter with 18 con will have 32 hit points, and your 20th level fighter that has 18 starting Con, and let's say 24 ending con (10 and under calculated as 18, 11 and over was 24) will have 239 Hit points. But, you don't have to hit that hard to bring him down, or at least stun him. His Con is 24, this means his HP range is -24 thru +239, and for 24 points of damage in one hit, he needs a fortitude save of 20, for a hit of 48, a save of 30, and for a hit of 72 damage, a save of 40. Likewise, your little first level character will need a DC 20 fortitude save fif he's hit for 18+ dmage in one blow. -Yawns- Just go to my thread on my new house rules, you seem to be looking for something like what I have, if only the new HP/massive dmage rules, (Anthough, the rules work best if you use everything, since only one rule change will throw it all off kilter)
shiffd 07-03-05, 04:06 AM	No, sorry I'm not looking for mass-damage rules. The problem is that you are talking about A: Hero points or B: fatigue. Hero Points-not a bad idea if you are making a game/story about heros. But not realistic or lifelike in nature. Storylike and I-dont-want-to-lose-but-insist-its-a-game-like. Anyway I'm all down for stories, but WTF roll dice? There are plenty of RPG's where you don't use die. I suggest those if you want to make a story without reality, mechanic & 1roll dice restrictions. Fatigue- Fatigue isn't normally calculated solely by how much or how well you've been attacked. One is fatigues mostly by their own actions, their own attacks, defenses, movement, anykind of skill that causes exertion etc. So if you got two dudes of similar physical condition battling it out, then one drops from fatigue and the other doesn't untill some 15 rounds later, then it doesn't make sense. IT only makes sense if one was fighting harder or one was in better condition. How successful the attacks might have been of their enemies is somewhat irrelevent, unless they got hit by some of those attacks and lost blood, suffered damage etc. But as you said in your system you aren't hit untill 0HP. Stamina doesn't work as a reason since the only thing that would lower staminA (HP) is being almost hit, not riding a horse for 3 days, or running up a hill, or swinging or climbing or cutting orcs in half (Yes cutting orcs in half does take some energy out of you, at some point you'd have to get tired right? Swinging that big ass sword and cutting through bone & tendon). Anyone all your left with as an abstract explanation of HP is luck/hero points/carma ISHT like that. Stamina and CON don't play a logical role since the HP can't be lowered by other fatigueing things besides damage or potential damage. I'm trying to work out a system for fatigue that is equally effected by all exertion. Gonna take some time though. ANyway I got another thread going on it. 3 physical conditions bleeding, tissue damage & bone damage for in-combat. Added to that will be fatigue. Then longterm conditions (things which are dealt with over time- Chronic pain, Blood loss (this is in the intermediate time frame), disability (caused by unhealed/healable bone damage). I still need to work on naturally healing & Chronic pain as well as disability, but I'm pretty much all set for the 3 physical combat conditions and blood loss and stuff.
XrP-Leon The Second 07-03-05, 01:34 PM	No, sorry I'm not looking for mass-damage rules. Alright, but read my post anyways. The problem is that you are talking about A: Hero points or B: fatigue. Hero Points-not a bad idea if you are making a game/story about heros. But not realistic or lifelike in nature. Storylike and I-dont-want-to-lose-but-insist-its-a-game-like. Anyway I'm all down for stories, but WTF roll dice? There are plenty of RPG's where you don't use die. I suggest those if you want to make a story without reality, mechanic & 1roll dice restrictions. Right, but this is a dice game, so you have to make the rules for dice, again, it sounds like you haven't read my post. Fatigue- Fatigue isn't normally calculated solely by how much or how well you've been attacked. One is fatigues mostly by their own actions, their own attacks, defenses, movement, anykind of skill that causes exertion etc. I know, my new rules that I have here don't quite get to fatigue as damage yet, I'm working on it. So if you got two dudes of similar physical condition battling it out, then one drops from fatigue and the other doesn't untill some 15 rounds later, then it doesn't make sense. While they both may have the same con, one may be better trianed to dodge or twist himself to get the blows to glance off (hence higher HP in my system) IT only makes sense if one was fighting harder or one was in better condition. How successful the attacks might have been of their enemies is somewhat irrelevent, unless they got hit by some of those attacks and lost blood, suffered damage etc. But as you said in your system you aren't hit untill 0HP. They exception is massive dmage and critical hits, which you suffer penalties from recieving in addition to HP loss, again, you haven't read my thread. Stamina doesn't work as a reason since the only thing that would lower staminA (HP) is being almost hit, not riding a horse for 3 days, or running up a hill, or swinging or climbing or cutting orcs in half (Yes cutting orcs in half does take some energy out of you, at some point you'd have to get tired right? Swinging that big ass sword and cutting through bone & tendon). Yes, I agree. Still wrking on that, I'll get back to you. Anyone all your left with as an abstract explanation of HP is luck/hero points/carma ... ISHT like that. Don't cuss, even if it is typoed. Stamina and CON don't play a logical role since the HP can't be lowered by other fatigueing things besides damage or potential damage. Yes, working on that. Read my post, check it out, and help me, we seem to be rolling together on this one. And con and stamina play a very large role. Your fatassed video gamer with the stamina of a pencil can't dugde and jump around. A monk from a warring monistary has been trianing all his life for dodging, jumping and stabbing is much more able to do it, and keep doing it. I don't see how you think that physical ability doesn't make a diffrence in combat. I'm trying to work out a system for fatigue that is equally effected by all exertion. Sounds great, tell me when you done. Gonna take some time though. Obviously. The best paintings take some time, choose what you will draw, decide on the paint colors, sketch it out, paints one layer at a time, then let it dry, and paint over your mistakes. ANyway I got another thread going on it. link? 3 physical conditions bleeding, tissue damage & bone damage for in-combat. Added to that will be fatigue. Then longterm conditions (things which are dealt with over time- Chronic pain, Blood loss (this is in the intermediate time frame), disability (caused by unhealed/healable bone damage). Cool, I might build on this idea. I still need to work on naturally healing & Chronic pain as well as disability, but I'm pretty much all set for the 3 physical combat conditions and blood loss and stuff. Cool.
XrP-Leon The Second 07-03-05, 01:43 PM	I was also thinkning about that... In my system, you can go to -HP = to your con. Lets say 20 con, for easiness and a round number. Your hit points at first level as a fighter is 35, and you can go to -20. That's 35 HP of dodging, twisting, moving and parrying, all of which wears you out. The problem is negative HP. I was thinking that -1 thru -10 could act as if you where at 0, and can take half round actions. Then from -11 thru your -con, (20, here) you are unconcious from blood loss, shock, or any other logical reason. This, of cource doesn't help you if your HP is 8, except that you effectively have the Die Hard feat, but so does everyone else, so it's cool. Subdual dmaage is still applied, but maybe we can work out a third type of dmage system to tack onto these two for fatigue. Perhaps for each strenous activity you do, take X amount of Stamina damage, and once you hit 0 act as if you where Fatuged.... I don't know, I don't feel like working that one out, I though I'd done a decent job already.