|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 1:47PM
#191
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Maxperson
Under all of the rules we currently have, "Critical Hits" are measureable and quantifiable. They are just "maximum damage". As I said earlier in the thread, set the lowest starting HP at maximum monster damage at that level +1.
If you noticed, I had the lowest starting at 9. 5+max of your hit die.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 1:53PM
#192
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2009
|
I had noticed that, yes Emerikol.
However "Goblin Leader" (Lvl 1, and a reasonably common thing for starting adventurers to encounter) can do d6+2, with a potential +2 for dirty fighting for a total of 10 with a crit.
So you would need 11 hp, not 9, if my suggestion was the goal.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 4:16PM
#193
|
|
|
I still feel the need is, 3 *average-damage* hits.
This means, the player can still survive one unexpectedly powerful hit, before deciding how to respond.
So, if typical damage is 1d8, namely 4½, we are looking at about 14 hit points minimum.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 4:23PM
#194
|
|
|
Healing needs to be rarer and more difficult.
Just like dealing damage is random and doesnt always hit, I feel healing should be random and doesnt always hit.
Really, spiritual healing requires the “faith” of the one being healed, as well as the healer. Maybe make a Charisma saving throw versus distrust and doubt when receiving magical healing. Something like that.
Different flavors of healing may offer different challenges and benefits.
The presto-shiny insta-heal that some players are accustomed to, makes the narrative sound videogamey.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 5:16PM
#195
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I still feel the need is, 3 *average-damage* hits.
This means, the player can still survive one unexpectedly powerful hit, before deciding how to respond.
So, if typical damage is 1d8, namely 4½, we are looking at about 14 hit points minimum.
Which is coincidentally the average value of 4D6 ... and what Dave Arneson recommended a long time back.. crunch crunch crunch... 
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 4:01PM
#196
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2011
|
In my world (and it is world-specific), 1st-level heroes have next to no real-combat experience. A fighter may have fought an orc or two, but not many. A rogue has probably stolen a purse or many, but he probably didn't ever have to fight for them. (And if he did, it wasn't against a bugbear or something like that.) By 5th level, the heroes have advanced admirably. A wizard is now beginning to master much more complex spells, and a cleric is starting to fully grasp his powers. These heroes face tougher foes than goblins and kobolds, and even orcs are no longer truly a threat, save in large numbers. Around 10th level, the characters are truly prodigies. They battle dragons, fell hordes of lesser monsters, and face demons and worse with confidence. At 15th level, the heroes are worthy of action movies for each character. A rogue is flipping through the air, throwing daggers everywhere. A fighter barrels through an army of monsters, grinning the whole time. A wizard slings spells around, felling fiends with a gesture. A cleric shines like a beacon of hope, leading the way through the battle. Once the heroes reach 20th level, they are crazy awesome. They battle ancient dragons, elder evils, and monsters so ancient that no one alive even remembers what they are. They can stand against gods and primordials, and with enough preparation, they can even destroy these foes.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 8:01PM
#197
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2012
|
To me, I'd prefer only level 1 to be completely inexperienced if clear and straight-forward guidelines on creating characters at higher levels, along with benchmarks for what different levels mean.
I have only ever played a single game where the completely inexperienced hero thing ever played out well. It seemed like the early levels were always the ones I loathed playing through, because no matter what class I chose, I never felt heroic. The one exception was a horror game we played with an exceptional DM, who was really good at controlling the our senses, and keeping us paranoid, and the low HP, and general feeling of powerlessness helped inspire fear in us. However we really learned pretty quickly that starting around level 4 was much better, both for the players, who felt more powerful, and for the DM, who felt more open with the way he could build encounters. And then we moved on to 4e, where level 1 seemed like you were already competent, if not a skilled veteran.
So I don't mind having the option for a low-power level 1, emphasis on "as an option," but I want to make sure it's easy to break out the books and start playing at level 5, for a more experienced feel.
I personally think this is not just possible, but more doable than in prior editions, since feats are rolled into specialties, so if people don't want to tinker, they can just grab a class, race, specialty and background, and spend about 5-10 minutes on character creation.
I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 8:04PM
#198
|
|
|
Actually, in the 2e group that I played in, it was a normal option to start at level 0. One of the players introduced it, when taking their turn to DM, and it became part of the way the group played. Zero represents “next-to-no experience”. Level 1 represented extensive training and preparation, which may or may not include experience in the field. Now usually, we started at level 1, but often enough we were in the mood to start a new campaign raw at level 0. If I recall correctly, three or four of my 2e characters started at zero.
I assumed our rules for L0 came from something quasi-official, but Im beginning to suspect it was homebrew. Greyhawk has rules for L0, but these are different from the ones we used. Basically, we were just an NPC with a dabbling in the class to be.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 07, 2012 - 8:16PM
#199
|
|
|
The one exception was a horror game we played with an exceptional DM, who was really good at controlling the our senses, and keeping us paranoid, and the low HP, and general feeling of powerlessness helped inspire fear in us.
Thats the thing about fragile characters. They only work when it is an important part of the genre, and everyone is in the mood for it. It has to be optional.
Having played several fragile Wizards, I see L1 fragility as generally bad design.
Heh, when we started out at L0, basically everyone was a L1 Wizard. I like the feeling of starting a character from scratch, but the Wizard needs to be on the same playing field as the other classes.
|
|
|
