Community

Jun 30, 2012 -- 3:31PM, Edymnion wrote:

So while from a mechanical point of view they were taking hitpoint damage left and right, from a cinematic perspective all the shots missed because the heroes didn't go to 0 or less HP, hence there was never a killing blow dealt.

I get that.  I'd like to know how many people think that "feels" right.  I'd wager single digit approval ratings for that kind of explanation.

As a DM who's played with dozens of players, I don't think I've known a single gamer who would have been happy with me telling him or her that "yes, their character "hit" with their missile weapon attack, but it didn't actually hit.  It just came close to making contact.  That 12hp of damage--or maybe even that 30hp crit you landed--didn't actually inflict any sort of real wound on your hated foe.  It just threw him a little more off balance, chewed up some of his cosmic luck, etc.  You'll get him eventually.  Kudos for your assist to the Dwarf who'll kill him (drop him below 1hp) by kicking him in the groin next round."

It just feels absurd.  So it should be fixed.

I agree that armor can help reduce the need for hp inflation.  I've always assumed it would.  A wizard should be squishy as much because he is too hindered by wearing armor (or simply not skilled enough in its use) as because he's just not as physically hardy or good at rolling with blows and shaking them off.  Both things should factor in--but armor should be a very substantial portion of that.  Which is why I've said before that, if you really want to boil it down, the way armor really, physically works is pretty darn close the definition of hit points (thus, there is a case for saying Armor = hp bonus, straight up).

Jul 2, 2012 -- 8:10AM, Edymnion wrote:

In those scenarios I prefer to turn it around on the players.

If they don't like it when constant attacks aren't producing visibly handicapping results on the monster, then those same attacks made by the monster should mess the players up just as badly.  They usually settle down when they realize what they're asking for will be applied to them as well.

My favorite example of that was "We should have called shots!" in 3.X.  Everyone wanted them, so the next encounter they went up against was a group of kobold sorcerers with True Shot, crossbows, cover, all making called shots at the player's heads.  Using the rules the players wanted, the entire party was slaughtered in the first two rounds.

"Okay, you want to keep playing with these rules and roll new characters, or should we call this a bad dream and have everyone wake up now?"

They never asked for called shots again.

Sorry, but I would have called that cheap DM brutality to refuse his players what they want.  True Shot doesn't work in a system that has called shots.  But if people want more realistic, impairing damage from called shots, why not give it to them and strip out McGuffins like True Shot?

Sounds like you've got a thing against realism and simulationists and favor the gamist approach.  That's fine--except when you're playing with people who just want a little more realism.  Your answer to me about describing missile damage sounds like the gamist approach of just saying "This is the way the rules work, and the only way to attempt to explain them is with some goofy absurdities.  If you don't like it, tough.  Not interested in trying to fix it."

D&D Next feedback is supposed to be all about this sort of thing: what feels wrong, what is a problem for players and DMs, what do people want, and is there any way we can fix it?

Hence why I'm suggesting an alternative to missile damage.  If it's harder to hit, you hit less often, and should do more damage when you do.  It makes missile weapons more of a "Striker" type weapon by nature.  More realistic, more favorable to shoot out motifs, easier on the imagination, and more tactically significant when people are shooting at you from a distance.

BTW: True Shot is a good example of what happened to 3e: it became horribly imbalanced.  4e was the pendulum swinging too far from the worst-balanced edition to the most ruthlessly-balanced.  Hopefully we can arrive back near the middle with D&D Next.

1.  If that's what they were going for (instant kills), then I agree.  I just disagreed with what looked like the premise--that called shots must be imbalanced.

2. I used them all the time in 3e   (both as player and as DM).  It caters to different play styles.  Most of my players didn't use them that often, no (of course there weren't that many fighter-types).  But they did often come up with them when the circumstances were right.

I thought many of the 3e feats should be things you can do anyway.  Why shouldn't I be able to "Power Attack" without the feat?  I can just be recklessly swinging hard.  Why did I need a feat to shield bash effectively?

In 2e I played in groups with a lot more fighter-types.  We used called shots a lot.  My first game did abuse them ( decapitation and even *shudder* "double decap" called shots--but hey, we were 10, and that was cool at the time).  But later we got some sense.  Letting called shots effect criticals was sufficient.  And if a player ever wanted to do cause some effect that seemed possible but wasn't necessarily handled in the rules, I let them try it with a called shot of varying difficulty.

Examples:  "I want to cut off that naga's fang so he can't bite me that hard again!"  "Okay, called shot -6, or -4 if you ready an action for when he tries to bite you again.  You'll reduce his damage if you hit (in addition to doing damage)."
"I need to keep that manticore from flying off; I'm going to chop his wing."  "Okay, roll a called shot.  If you hit, he'll have to make a check to see if he can fly, with half your damage as a penalty."
"This is personal.  I want to shove the pointy end of my sword in his face."  "Okay, called shot -8.  If you hit, you crit and may daze him or blind him with blood--if you don't kill him."

A called shot system just needs some support, balance examples, and adjudication hints for a DM.  Write ups or tables for many individual options wouldn't really be necessary, but some people might like them, like critical hit tables.

Upon selecting the first rank, you gain five use per rest. Further uses per rest can be purchased through