|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 8:48AM
#151
|
|
|
I would like to have the death save strikes mechanic expanded to use the similiar disease progression design from 4e for the "dying" condition. I think simply having damage taken after you have the "dying" condition count as a failed save that pushes you along the dying progression. Here is an example, I made up some stuff just to have more then one stage. Near DeathYour harrowing near death experience leaves you weakened and in need of rest. Stage 0: The target recovers from the condition.
Stage 1: While affected by this stage, the target takes a -2 penalty to Fortitude.
Stage 2: While affected by this stage, the target takes a -2 penalty to Fortitude, and grants combat advantage.
Stage 3: The target dies.
Check: At the end of each round, the target makes an Endurance check if it is at stage 1 or 2.
Lower than Easy DC: The stage of the condition increases by one.
Easy DC: No Change
Moderate DC: The stage of the condition decreases by one.
Special: The Check occurs after each extended rest while target has 1 or more hit points. Any damage taken with 0 hit points counts as a failed endurance check.
Edit: I used the "Foul Rotting" disease as a base for the example. Spoiler:
Show
Foul Rotting
Grotesque lesions form on your skin as your flesh begins to loosen and your bones soften.
Stage 0: The target recovers from the disease.
Stage 1: While affected by this stage, the target takes a -2 penalty to Fortitude and loses a healing surge.
Stage 2: While affected by this stage, the target takes a -2 penalty to Fortitude, loses a healing surge, and grants combat advantage.
Stage 3: The target dies, collapsing into a pool of noxious slime.
Check: At the end of each extended rest, the target makes an Endurance check if it is at stage 1 or 2.
Lower than Easy DC: The stage of the disease increases by one.
Easy DC: No Change
Moderate DC: The stage of the disease decreases by one.
Special: The level of the disease equals the target’s level.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 10:43AM
#152
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Anyway, back to healing and HP, how do people feel about the current number of HPs characters have in 4th Ed (would you like more, less, the same etc)?
Moderated by
Orc_Bane
on Mar 07, 2012 - 02:31PM
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 10:54AM
#153
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2008
|
You do realize that your responses to this poster ring of immaturity, right? I like the current HP in 4th ed. I think the only reason for more would be so that they could include, for those that desire it, a random method of generating HP: earning 8 or d8 for Fighters, Paladins per level, 6 or d6 per level for Middle Road guys like Warlocks and Rangers, and 4 or d4 for Wizards and the like. As far as Starting HP? I prefer more front-loaded to less, so the idea of about 24-25 HP for a starting Wizard, and 35ish for a starting fighter seems about right to me.
Moderated by
Orc_Bane
on Mar 07, 2012 - 02:33PM
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition.Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotes
Show
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 11:04AM
#154
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
1) You do realize that your responses to this poster ring of immaturity, right?
2) I think the only reason for more would be so that they could include, for those that desire it, a random method of generating HP: earning 8 or d8 for Fighters, Paladins per level, 6 or d6 per level for Middle Road guys like Warlocks and Rangers, and 4 or d4 for Wizards and the like.
2) Yeah, the HP per level in 4th are close to the taking average HP of previous edtions.
Sorry, folks, in a foul mood today (moving is always stressful).
Moderated by
Orc_Bane
on Mar 07, 2012 - 02:33PM
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 11:11AM
#155
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2008
|
1) You do realize that your responses to this poster ring of immaturity, right?
2) I think the only reason for more would be so that they could include, for those that desire it, a random method of generating HP: earning 8 or d8 for Fighters, Paladins per level, 6 or d6 per level for Middle Road guys like Warlocks and Rangers, and 4 or d4 for Wizards and the like.
2) Yeah, the HP per level in 4th are close to the taking average HP of previous edtions.
Sorry, folks, in a foul mood today (moving is always stressful).
I think we would apreciate that you attempt not to take your foul mood out on other people.
Moderated by
Orc_Bane
on Mar 07, 2012 - 02:33PM
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition.Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotes
Show
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 11:14AM
#156
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
I think we would apreciate that you attempt not to take your foul mood out on other people.
Just not tolerating the usual, and don't take it/these boards too personally/seriously, not good for you.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 12:13PM
#157
|
|
|
I like the current amount of hit points. Feels like you're playing someone who doesn't fear the housecats, rats and stiff winds in the world.
Moderated by
Orc_Bane
on Mar 07, 2012 - 02:43PM
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!  I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 2:09PM
#158
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
Anyway, back to healing and HP, how do people feel about the current number of HPs characters have in 4th Ed (would you like more, less, the same etc)?
Too many at level 1. and con doesn't matter enough. 10 at creation, plus 1-3 per level (dependent upon class, includes level 1) plus con bonus would have been a much nicer progression.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 07, 2012 - 4:22PM
#159
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
Tactical Misteps? He rushed straight into the middle of the enemy group on the initiative immediately after the wizard softened them up. This locked them in place quite effectively. Not having played a defender, I'm assuming that is at least the standard tactic.
Focus fire usually kicked in around round 2-3 when the enemies realized that our defenses were similar and are offenses rather less so.
Since 3/5 characters stayed out of melee range and the fighter was a bigger threat than I was...
All armor and other defensive items were the best our level allowed (including feats to access better armor). I take no responsibility for his preference for two-handed weapons. I generally used a glaive myself, so it wasn't like my AC was actually hgiher than his or anything.
I have no idea what book Comrade's Succor is in. Our wizard was the only ritual caster and he pretty much stuck to the floating disc to carry his share of the loot. I don't think he ever bothered to get any rituals beyond his first few and I'm quite sure that he didn't have religion, nature, or heal for skills.
By one opinion, we seem to have spent too much on defense.
I don't tell the DM to run monsters as anything less than intelligent. If their tactics make sense for them, then it would strain suspension of disbelief for them to start suiciding via mark when they have no compelling reason to target me instead. Besides, he was an experienced 4e DM and most of our group was new to D&D period. We kind of had to assume that he was doing it right.
Another thing nobody seems to be pointing out in response to Journeyman's rather unique (in my experience) problem is that a party with 3/5 characters pure ranged should be encountering a lot more artillery. Space out your artillery and the fighter can't lock down more than one at a time, so there's no reason for them to target the fighter as opposed to the much lower AC warlock or the much lower HP wizard.
Also, he seems to completely misunderstand intelligent tactics. The fighter should not be capable of locking down more than 2 or 3 guys at a time. If he can, then the monsters are in fact playing stupid and bunching up close enough that he can mark them all, rather than spreading out from round 1 and chasing down the ranged characters. Even if they are all stuck in melee with the fighter, just because he does more damage doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile knocking down the leader so you only have to kill the fighter once. Focusing fire on the leader is one of the smartest things to do, even though they are the only characters who aren't closet strikers.
I would also argue that a defender's job is not to lock down every monster on every turn and appropriate 100% of the damage. His job is to know his limits, and take what he can take. No more, no less. Would you really prefer a game where the fighter can't bite off more than he can chew? More particularly, would you prefer a game where a fighter optimized for offense instead of defense can't bite off more than he can chew?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 08, 2012 - 11:07AM
#160
|
Date Joined:
Jun 16, 2005
|
A few points here:
1. Many monsters are, in fact, stupid. When creatures with Int<10 and no decent range attack have a choice of a) attacking the people that they can reach, or b) spending their round getting shot at and then charged by those same melee types... Makes sense to me. YMMV No idea why we saw relatively few artillery monsters. Might have had something to do with how fast they died. Also, Warlords have a wonderful power that lets me force move all enemies within an area (and several others for moving allies.) We weren't easy to bypass.
2. As noted, the fighter and I had fairly identical defenses once mark was used. This meant that attacking me would draw a very powerful attack from him, whereas attacking him had no immediate downside. I can't really fault creatures for assuming that 3-1 odds would let them drop him even after they realized that I could heal. Particularly given that I can heal myself just as easily as healing him.
3. No meta-gaming allowed. If the monster lacks the skill to recognize a class, he doesn't recognize the class until he actually sees what it does. Not many monsters can just look at a guy in armor and say "That's no fighter, that a Warlord!" until it's too late.
4. a)I've been corrected on the notion that a defender can hold 100% aggro safely (under 4e at least).
b) I prefer a game where basing your roleplay concept around being the best at x (where x is what the class theoretically does best) is not setting yourself up for failure. A Defender should theoretically be able to defend everyone. A healer should theoretically be able to heal anyone. Their success at this should depend primarily on their own choices (character build/equipment/tactics), not those of another player. 4e is not set up to do this out of the box.
c) I lack the full range of books or experience to say conclusively whether 4e is capable of this at all.
d) My experience was apparently less typical than I assumed. Given the design objectives of 4e I did not expect system mastery to be a prerequisite to playing a simple class "properly".
|
|
|
