|
6 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 5:29PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
A wall, door, or other object shouldn't have HP at all and should not be subject to damage in the traditional sense - it should be breakable based on what it is, and what is happening to it, such as having glass items shatter as a result of any attempt to break them and stone walls/doors barely showing scratches at all until struck with a proper tool (pick, for example) and then simply have a base amount of time that it takes to get through a certain amount of each material...
I'd rather see a list of how many rounds it takes for one person to batter down doors of differing materials or dig through a foot of different substances based on what tool is used than see objects have hitpoints (whether that is a low amount of HP and some sort of hardness mechanic, or objects just having giant pools of HP like a wooden door having 100).
Seconded. AC/HP don't work well for most inanimate objects. You can't really miss them usually, and things are probably either going to do a lot of damage or no damage at all. I'd rather they simply mention how to handle this case in general than trying to say "stone walls have X HP" and have people spend 20 rounds to get through them with a butter knife.
<Ioun> they're apparently making a MolIsCool pp
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 6:09PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
I really hate to say this, as I hated the iterative attacks of 3.x, but I'd much rather see extra attacks than this martial bonus damage stuff. It accomplishes the same thing (higher level fighters doing more damage) but without the problems of martial damage dice and bonuses. Unlike damage bonuses, extra attacks don't make strength or weapon choice obselete, since they multiply along with it. It also makes the game less swingy since critical hits are only maximizing a ([W] + Str mod.) attack, not ([W] + Str mod. +6d6 +20). It's also, IMO, more believable. It makes sense to me a more skilled warrior could get in more hits on an enemy, as opposed to increasing in damage to the point of becoming Hercules. It also balances better against objects. Extra attacks don't let you get around Hardness the way a single, massive attack does.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 5:06AM
#33
|
|
|
Now maybe I'm just being silly, but wouldn't a fairer way of describing the martial dice, in light of the single attack roll, be as a single, well placed attack, striking a vital area? You know, the way Sneak Attack was described back in 3.x? I understand that maybe the damage dice need toned down a bit, but I don't see them as being any more broken than rogues were in previous editions.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 5:27AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2010
|
Why not simple give people less HP overall at highier levels?
Like only +1HP per level instead of +8HP?
Lets say that the HP is Class+CON Value+Level. So a level 1 fighter has 10+16+1=27 HP and a level 20 fighter has 10+18+20=48 HP (lets say he uped his CON twice is this example).
The damage can also up slowly, like at first level +1d6 and +1 every three levels or something. So a level 1 fighter has 1d10+STR (lets say 3)+1d6 and a level 20 fighter has 1d10+STR (lets say 4)+1d6+6+1 (magical weapon). So does average 12 at level 1 and 20 at level 20. Also he would have surge to do more damage by attacking more times some times on the day.
Thoughts?
Sorry bad english, brazilian here.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 2:23PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Lets say that the HP is Class+CON Value+Level. So a level 1 fighter has 10+16+1=27 HP and a level 20 fighter has 10+18+20=48 HP (lets say he uped his CON twice is this example).
I think that's a good idea. Fighters will still care about CON more than INT, and wizards will still value CON more than STR, but it means that CON is no longer super important for everyone.
I would make it even easier and say that everyone gets CON value HP at first level, and then either 1 or 2 HP per level depending on class. So, a fighter would start with 16 + 2 = 18, and end up with 18 + 40 = 58 HP; a wizard would start with 14 + 1 = 15, and end up with 15 + 20 = 35 HP.
HP only double or triple over twenty levels, rather than ending up with 20 times starting HP.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 4:49PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2010
|
Lets say that the HP is Class+CON Value+Level. So a level 1 fighter has 10+16+1=27 HP and a level 20 fighter has 10+18+20=48 HP (lets say he uped his CON twice is this example).
I think that's a good idea. Fighters will still care about CON more than INT, and wizards will still value CON more than STR, but it means that CON is no longer super important for everyone.
I would make it even easier and say that everyone gets CON value HP at first level, and then either 1 or 2 HP per level depending on class. So, a fighter would start with 16 + 2 = 18, and end up with 18 + 40 = 58 HP; a wizard would start with 14 + 1 = 15, and end up with 15 + 20 = 35 HP.
HP only double or triple over twenty levels, rather than ending up with 20 times starting HP.
I would not mind the +2HP per level to fighting classes. All I want is what you said in the end, the guy has double, maybe triple HP in a dedicated build, when they get to 20th level. The damage don't need to scale like crazy if we go by this idea. Anyone else agree?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 03, 2013 - 6:09PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
I would not mind the +2HP per level to fighting classes. All I want is what you said in the end, the guy has double, maybe triple HP in a dedicated build, when they get to 20th level. The damage don't need to scale like crazy if we go by this idea. Anyone else agree?
Yes, I too want to see the rate of HP gain drastically reduced. The same principle behind bounded accuracy should be applied to HP and damage as well. HP bloat has always been one of the most immersion-breaking things about D&D for me. And then there's all the endless arguments about how hp are an "abstraction." Well, they wouldn't need to be so "abstract" if characters didn't get so many HP that they can easily survive falling from any height or jumping in lava.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 6:15AM
#38
|
|
|
Remeber how in AD&D you would't get that many HP anymore after 10th level or so?
I think the idea back then was just that, to not allow HP become soooooo much higher than in the initial levels.
If you compare the HP of 2ed's high level monsters and characters it's a lot more reasonable and interesting than that of 3ed monsters and newer editions.
Although even then it wasn't as low as you guys are suggesting it should be.
The only problem is that the progression was all crooked and weird.
You would gain, say, 9 to 11 HP each level and then all of a sudden you only got 2 or 3 and your Con didn't even add up to it anymore.
Players tended to become frustrated at these levels.
Maybe the following editions should have taken that "final average HP" as a goal and distributed HP-gain more evenly between our 20 levels, instead of keeping up the 1 to 10th level progressing of 2ed indefinitely, which lead to high-level characters having the HP of demi-gods.
Which itself led to an inflation of damage numbers so that that much HP was not considered the stuff from which demi-gods are made.
In 2ed you started out with 1d8+3 damage (say, a longsword and a good Str modifier, as an example) and it was OK to still have that damage in higher levels, probably just having one or two more attacks per round.
Also, because of less inflation in HP, a 10d6 fireball was ever something powerful! And maybe even a basic 5d6 one.
From 3ed on, it was expected of players to increase their damage considerably as they reached high levels, and this inflation is not good for the game since it creates too big a gap between the specializaded character and the average character.
It's not that it was bad or game-breaking. Numbers in 3ed were OK as long as your DM did not allow those questionable feats and prestiges and spells from the "Forgotten Realm's Complete Book of Ultimate Space-Transcendental-Mages Who Can Travel Throughout Time" or some such suplement, and would stick to the core book values.
Still, I would rather see smaller values like in AD&D, so as to bridge that gap between the "specialized" and the "average" a little more.
After all, if at some level 80 is a lot of HP, then 20 points of damage is a strong attack.
But if you push to 200 being a good HP than you need to be doing 50 in a strong attack, and in the end it's all the same thing.
Except the average character who didn't specialize enough to deal 50 damage becomes useless, while if he does his average 10 instead of the "good" being 15 or 20 he's still doing something useful.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 8:11PM
#39
|
|
|
One of the original HP suggestions (Class bonus + Constitution score + Level) isn't bad, except it leaves the whole calculation a little bit lacking. I do like the idea of first level being a little higher, at (Class bonus + Constitution score), which for a Fighter would be (10 + 16) at first level. Makes a starting warrior pretty sturdy. A Wizard of the same level would be say (6 + 10), assuming that Constitution isn't their dump stat, and that they didn't try to make it higher. After first level, they could get a class bonus of say 2 or 3, plus Constitution modifier, giving a Fighter around 6 HP per level, and a Wizard 2 HP per level. Sure, that puts the Fighter around 140 HP by 20, but if you assume a similar damage progression for monsters as for PCs, a damage progession that should top out at something like |W| + Strength modifier + 5d6 + 10 (plus magical bonus), which is still an average damage of 46. I think a critical hit shouldn't maximize martial damage, just weapon damage.
There's a bit of a stream of consciousness thing in this, i'm writing it on my way out the door, heading to work.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 12:38AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
Personally I'm in favour of a degree of front loading. Wizards can survive quite happily with d4 hp if they get Con hp at level 1. Static hp after level 10 could well be brought back too given how they've drawn a clear line differentiating level 11+ progression. Hp + Con bonus does not work as a method of calculation for 20 levels IMO as the gap between Con 10 and Con 20 becomes too massive. One problem with hp is the decision to run rolling and static hp side by side. A method that works for one (such as the first packet with rolled hp) works less well for the other.
Personally, I'm quite happy with Con hp (or half Con for grittier campaigns) + class hp at level 1 and rolled hp with a minimum of 1+Con mod (capped at mnax hit dice) up to level 10 and then possibly +1 hp for non-fighter classes and +2 fighter classes after level 10. I think extra hp could be added based on legacy or prestige class (e.g. +1 to +5 bonus hp at the level you take the prestige class or something).
|
|
|
