..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Your right. I glanced at it and thought it was a -2 instead of a +2. They move slow though and get crappy initiative (1d6 instead of 1d20).
I'm not the one botching encounter design, putting level 2 slow monsters against a ranged attacking party of PCs. Like you said most if not all of them were dead before they even got to the PCs that should have been a warning signal...
you could have atleast read the write up.
the "ranged encounter" happened halfway between encounter 1 and 2, if you notice, i didn't even include it as an encounter. I knew the zombies didn't have a chance in hell, it was soley for RP purposes, and to give me time to set up the next encounter (i was winging the whole session, story-line, maps, everything)
in fact, in encounter 1, the mostly zombie encounter, I threw two blind corners in front of them before the zombies, and made the players run over to the zombies' area (they were boxed in by buildings and thus protected from LOS). so it was actually the ZOMBIES that got the first hits in when the PC's came tearing around the corner.
in the second encounter all of the monsters were in a closed in chapel, the PC's didn't get much room for ranged attacks, in fact that encounter was heavily on the goblins side for ranged attacks, because they had cover they could move between and zombie meatshields to stop the PC's advance. it was in this encounter that the Thug, formerly disgraced, shone. by hiding and then jumping out, sneak attacking, and using the rest of his move to find the next peice of concealment.
you could have atleast read the write up.the "ranged encounter" happened halfway between encounter 1 and 2, if you notice, i didn't even include it as an encounter. I knew the zombies didn't have a chance in hell, it was soley for RP purposes, and to
the "ranged encounter" happened halfway between encounter 1 and 2, if you notice, i didn't even include it as an encounter. I knew the zombies didn't have a chance in hell, it was soley for RP purposes, and to give me time to set up the next encounter (i was winging the whole session, story-line, maps, everything)
This is good DMing. Love that kind of thinking.
RP encounters that have no impact on resources, XPs, etc. They are there just to create mood and enhance the story.
I recently ran a seige on a keep the players owned, where they got to pick off attacking creatures and feel the enormity of the mass chaos going on. Because I didn't want this to be more than scene setting, I didn't do much more than toss a few unlikely to hit big blasts their way and some easy to avoid incoming missiles. What they killed or brought down (ogres carrying a battering ram, etc), was just for fun (no XP).
However, when a Bulette sudden emerged from the ground, shattering a section of wall, and the BBEG appeared on his hippogriff, the real conflict was afoot, the threat was real, and decisions had to be made.
I read your account and thought it quite well delivered. Not killing player characters off shouldn't be looked down upon.
This is good DMing. Love that kind of thinking.RP encounters that have no impact on resources, XPs, etc. They are there just to create mood and enhance the story.I recently ran a seige on a keep the players owned, where they got to pick off attackin
This is a good case to argue for more tactics/descriptive text for monsters.
I've always played kobolds, for example, like the following:
If the kobolds have more in their group than the PCs, they attack. Once numbers are equal or less (that's usually one hit per kobold death, of course), they flee.
This is not the case if the kobolds are guarding their warren, in which case they lead them over pit traps, etc.
Sustained kobold archery over distances just never seems to occur IMC.
This is a good case to argue for more tactics/descriptive text for monsters.I've always played kobolds, for example, like the following:If the kobolds have more in their group than the PCs, they attack.Once numbers are equal or less (that's usually o
Nelyo: You are right. Players do metagame themselves too often for my tastes, but fortunately, that's changing a lot with Next/5E. Because 4E was so heavily tactical, combat became a strategy war game.... and it's taking a bit to get out of that thinking.
I spent a lot of time in game stores playing DnD during 3.5, and have three regular groups I played with When we played 2e I was in school, but still spent time at stores playing and just hanging out, and had two groups. IME, metagaming hasn't changed.
Anyway, as a DM, whether player tactical talk is counted as in game or not really depends on the party. If they've been fighting together a while, I know from experience that you don't need to actually say exactly what needs to happen, you can basically speak in shorthand. It's also my experience that it's far easier to react to what your buddy yells at you than to hear the enemie's command and respond accordingly before it's too late.
I spent a lot of time in game stores playing DnD during 3.5, and have three regular groups I played with When we played 2e I was in school, but still spent time at stores playing and just hanging out, and had two groups. IME, metagaming hasn't change
Anyway, as a DM, whether player tactical talk is counted as in game or not really depends on the party. If they've been fighting together a while, I know from experience that you don't need to actually say exactly what needs to happen, you can basically speak in shorthand. It's also my experience that it's far easier to react to what your buddy yells at you than to hear the enemie's command and respond accordingly before it's too late.
Yeah, there's truth to that but...
I have had some hardcore, metagaming, optimizers in my groups... and I absolutely don't want them running other players' characters for them to make sure they "get it right."
Each player makes a character to be theirs.... to roleplay, succeed or fail with. Even the more timid players have a right to determine their own fate and play their own characters without someone telling them what they are doing wrong or how they could play it better. I really try to stamp out that level of interferance.
Example of Good: DM: Jan, it's your turn. Jan: Mike, I am rushing that Elite so you can use Thug for Advantage on it. (To the DM), I move to the elite kobold that's beating on the cleric and attack with my sword. (...) Mike: I am attacking the Elite Kobold by those two using Thug Tactics for Advantage.
Example of Bad: DM: Mike, it's your turn. Mike: I am going to use my sling on this kob.... Jan: No, Mike. See that kobold over there, you'll get to use your Thug Tactics on it. Just move up here for a clear shot, but keep behind us for cover because the other kobolds might see you as an easier target. Mike: Oh, okay. (To the DM) I do what she just said.
It was happening a lot. Eventually, Mike would just stop saying what he was going to do and look to Jan for answers on every one of his turns. I considered it my fault for allowing him to feel like he wasn't playing his own character correctly. Talking strategy after combat, quick commands in combat, etc., is all good... but I want players to own their characters, not be puppets for someone who wants to tactically play the game perfect.
Anyway, that's how I handle it. I am not saying any other DM has to do it my way.
Yeah, there's truth to that but...I have had some hardcore, metagaming, optimizers in my groups... and I absolutely don't want them running other players' characters for them to make sure they "get it right."Each player makes a character to be theirs
Anyway, as a DM, whether player tactical talk is counted as in game or not really depends on the party. If they've been fighting together a while, I know from experience that you don't need to actually say exactly what needs to happen, you can basically speak in shorthand. It's also my experience that it's far easier to react to what your buddy yells at you than to hear the enemie's command and respond accordingly before it's too late.
Yeah, there's truth to that but...
I have had some hardcore, metagaming, optimizers in my groups... and I absolutely don't want them running other players' characters for them to make sure they "get it right."
Anyway, that's how I handle it. I am not saying any other DM has to do it my way.
Sure, if you've got that sort of behavior in your group, you've got to deal with it somehow. I've never seen it in any of my groups, so it's not something I think about. If someone in my groups tried to "run" someone else's character, it would be met with the same response as the DM trying to make someone's character for them/dictate character actions or a player telling the DM what NPCs are around or what they do. The group agrees that it's unacceptable behavior, and has no patience for it.
Yeah, there's truth to that but...I have had some hardcore, metagaming, optimizers in my groups... and I absolutely don't want them running other players' characters for them to make sure they "get it right."Anyway, that's how I handle it. I am not
Sure, if you've got that sort of behavior in your group, you've got to deal with it somehow. I've never seen it in any of my groups, so it's not something I think about. If someone in my groups tried to "run" someone else's character, it would be met with the same response as the DM trying to make someone's character for them/dictate character actions or a player telling the DM what NPCs are around or what they do. The group agrees that it's unacceptable behavior, and has no patience for it.
I started running Encounters (twice a week) at a local hobby shop...and there are some real min-maxer/optimizers there. Most of them are good people, make good friends, etc. Just very enthusiastic about the way the numbers crunch.
A few have come over to home campaigns or "invite only" public games I run. So I had to remind them that this isn't World of Warcraft where they are a Raid Leader. And set some rules down.
I expect, then, in your case, you have never had to worry about people giving too much "advice" during combat and everyone pretty much acts on their own.
I've DMed literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people at various public forums and events (dating to even before encounters)... you get quite a mix of personalities with larger samples.
I started running Encounters (twice a week) at a local hobby shop...and there are some real min-maxer/optimizers there. Most of them are good people, make good friends, etc. Just very enthusiastic about the way the numbers crunch.A few have come ov
Depending on how long the party has known each other(in-game), I don't see much a problem with this sort of talk. I msotly see it as one discussion they may have had about their strategy(like, "If this happens and I do this, you should try doing this or this."). The characters themselves might be really good at combat and have had time to discuss tactics with each other sometime, a benefit the players haven't always had.
Depending on how long the party has known each other(in-game), I don't see much a problem with this sort of talk. I msotly see it as one discussion they may have had about their strategy(like, "If this happens and I do this, you should try doing this
Sure, if you've got that sort of behavior in your group, you've got to deal with it somehow. I've never seen it in any of my groups, so it's not something I think about. If someone in my groups tried to "run" someone else's character, it would be met with the same response as the DM trying to make someone's character for them/dictate character actions or a player telling the DM what NPCs are around or what they do. The group agrees that it's unacceptable behavior, and has no patience for it.
I started running Encounters (twice a week) at a local hobby shop...and there are some real min-maxer/optimizers there. Most of them are good people, make good friends, etc. Just very enthusiastic about the way the numbers crunch.
A few have come over to home campaigns or "invite only" public games I run. So I had to remind them that this isn't World of Warcraft where they are a Raid Leader. And set some rules down.
I expect, then, in your case, you have never had to worry about people giving too much "advice" during combat and everyone pretty much acts on their own.
I've DMed literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people at various public forums and events (dating to even before encounters)... you get quite a mix of personalities with larger samples.
I've run into the behavior, don't get me wrong. I (and the others in the groups I play in) make sure to create an atmosphere where it just doesn't happen in our home games. We may see a bit of it in the first couple sessions with a player who is new to the group, but they either figure out the scene or end up finding a different game.
encounters and like is a whole other thing, and honestly I just don't worry about it as much there. I mean, I let people know how I run a game before the game starts, but I'm not as strict about it as I am at home.
I started running Encounters (twice a week) at a local hobby shop...and there are some real min-maxer/optimizers there. Most of them are good people, make good friends, etc. Just very enthusiastic about the way the numbers crunch.A few have come ov
i think it's more about immersion than meta gaming for me though. i know some great DM's that have some rpetty quirky tricks to bring immersion to the table (one guy won't let you eat anything at the table that you havn't purchases in game, so "rations" are just crackers, if you want to eat fast food or something you have to purchase a meal at an inn)
i find the immersion value goes up when people are encouraged to talk in character, and i find that with new players it breaks the ice and lets them get into that RP feel during non combat portions of the game.
i think with long lasting groups, the problem kinda sorts itself out though, because the players themselves get attuned to each others strategy and don't need to talk about it over the table.
don't get me wrong.... people SHOULD talk at the table out of character, it's a social game, it should be FUN. i just try to make the distinction clear. i find that once they start using their trategy call outs in game, they get into it and prefere to colour their actions with it, it helps the gaming experience.
i think it's more about immersion than meta gaming for me though. i know some great DM's that have some rpetty quirky tricks to bring immersion to the table (one guy won't let you eat anything at the table that you havn't purchases in game, so "ratio
Yeah.. we waste more time with banter amongst friends than anything else... but when it comes to actual character actions, I try to limit that to simple suggestions from others and let each player do what they want.
Doesn't always work, but the more you let even the new guy play his own character, the more they become comfortable roleplaying and being themselves than trying to be what others want them to be.
I can see your point, English. Certainly some validity to it. I let little suggestions slide as long as it's not constant. But at least for me, I like to let everyone be themselves.
I currently don't have a player that doesn't prefer it that way. I suppose if I had a player or players that really didn't want to make their own decisions and needed help from others, I would definitely allow them the extra aid rather than see them flounder and not enjoy themselves because of discomfort.
Yeah.. we waste more time with banter amongst friends than anything else... but when it comes to actual character actions, I try to limit that to simple suggestions from others and let each player do what they want.Doesn't always work, but the more y
Yes, because you know exactly what I'm thinking and are able to predict my actions. Sorry, not what I was thinking. I'm saying that their example was not typical and it was optimized to support their point. Statistically PCs are going to run into way more range attacking monsters than non-ranged attacking monsters. The party was optimized for ranged attacking too.
As opposed to playing it out to the advantage of the party where monsters have to move 3 turns in order to even be in range to deal damage to the party?
No where did I advocate going for the Wizard every time. I said even going for the fighter a reasonable amount of time they are going to have a TPK...
It wouldn't have to negate all damage just 1d6. It would also eat up the Wizard's action economy to the point where they would have to decide whether to renew the shield or cast an offensive spell...
That's why it should be at-will...
Apologies. I did overstep on the assumption that you were pushing your "Next is all TPK" to suit your needs.
You just did it again, but veiled it a little. Just let it go. Don't assume you know what I'm thinking.
The Ranged Problem is always there depending on the encounter setting. I don't generally put everyone at 600 feet apart to start (in fact, running real dungeons prevents that anyway). That said, two things strike me. First, Fighters can be quite effective at range now. Second, and I am sorry, but you all that are Burning Down Wizards... if you are doing it from 500' when a Wizard is barely visible, clearly not a threat, and still behind cover, that's just mean. You'll never convince me that the little weak guy who can't fight back is who I should pick on as a DM. Not to mention all the other reasons that I don't think creatures should be privy to DM information that I've discussed in other threads.
Nice straw man. No where did we say they were 600' apart. Even at 60' apart they are going to see the weak guy and go for them. Also you do realize that most of the time you are playing evil monsters that have no compunction attacking the helpless person in the group. That's just part of making the game real.
However, if what you're saying is that TPK is inevitable if fighters are attacked... I am astounded to hear that. Unless you really are starting all combat at 100'+ and giving all enemies weapons optimized for that range... I just don't see it.
How about a horde of zombies (6) attacking a Fighter at close range? That's about a 1 in 3 chance of killing the fighter before the fighter can kill the zombies.
Kobold: +1 to-hit, d4+1 damage, sling range 30/120. At 120 feet, against that Fighter in AC 17, they have disadvantage... two rolls to both have to be 16 or higher. 6.25% chance of hitting for d4+1 damage... that he can parry 1d6 of. What damage?
How about we use the goblin that deals 1d6 + 1 and has a +1 to hit and a range of 100+. We could even use some level 1 monsters and put them right up on the fighter. You keep using situations that are rare and favor the PCs instead of using neutral situations that should be typical...
Goblin: +1 to-hit, d6+1 damage, shortbow 80/320. At 320 feet, against a fighter in AC 17, they have disadvantage... 6.25% hit. d6 parried. Maybe a little damage in the time it takes a fighter to go 50' per round.
Oh wait... no... Fighter might just be better off going Dodge (+4 AC), moving 25' per round, parrying any miracle shot that lands.
What damage?
Now maybe you are throwing 5th level creatures at a 1st level group and setting it up so that the group is at the greatest disadvantage as possible. Then yes, you will TPK them, no doubt.
I am not trying to come down on you, but every time I look at the numbers, I can't figure out why people conclude that TPKs are a given. Yes, a DM can always TPK the group. I just don't see the need to go out of my way to do it.
Finally.. oh! You advocate an at-will, always usable, action eating D6 deflection for mages? Now that is different, yes. On par with Parry.
Not a bad idea, but I tend to like to have Wizards be about decisions and spellcasting. It's a class about options and adaptability, but not consistancy. But that's just me.
Thanks for the input... agreed or not on all issues, I enjoy discussing the future of D&D with you and others.
As I said above you seem to always use ridiculous situations that are skewed in the parties favor. If that is needed to make the game playable it needs to be part of the rules.
Apologies. I did overstep on the assumption that you were pushing your "Next is all TPK" to suit your needs.[/quote]You just did it again, but veiled it a little. Just let it go. Don't assume you know what I'm thinking.Nice straw man. No where did w
Keep in mind that I don't run a "simulation" game, I run a Fantasy Roleplaying game. Anyone coming into my campaigns should expect it to feel similar to what you get from a good book... Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, Shannara, Belgariad, Black Company, Coldfire, Elric, Conan, etc. etc.
I don't put heavy emphasis on realism.
How about a horde of zombies (6) attacking a Fighter at close range? That's about a 1 in 3 chance of killing the fighter before the fighter can kill the zombies.
Six level 2 creatures versus one level 1 character? Yeah. No doubt.
How about we use the goblin that deals 1d6 + 1 and has a +1 to hit and a range of 100+. We could even use some level 1 monsters and put them right up on the fighter. You keep using situations that are rare and favor the PCs instead of using neutral situations that should be typical...
If we take a one-on-one, or even two-on-one scenario like that, I still have Fighter coming out on top. Take 2 goblins at range vs. the fighter. Start at 80' (optimal range for goblins). It'll take 2 rounds for the Fighter to close. Four +1 attacks vs. AC 17. One hit at 1d6+1. Parry negates D6.
Let's start Fighter vs Level 1 Elite. Goblin Leader. Goblin Leader has 18 HPs and AC 15. Fighter has just 13 HPs (we'll make him human, instead of dwarf, without survivor) and AC 17, plus Parry. Goblin is +2 with 1d6+2, actually, let's say 1d6+4 (we'll give him Dirty Fighter). Human is +7 with 1d8+4.
Elite Goblin hit's 30% for 1d6+4 minus 1d6. Fighter hits 65% for 1d8+4.
Fighter will win that a vast majority of the time.
As I said above you seem to always use ridiculous situations that are skewed in the parties favor. If that is needed to make the game playable it needs to be part of the rules.
-boggle- Rediculous situations? I came up with Fighters being able to Hustle, Parry, Dodge against regular creatures in regular numbers.
The best you come up with is higher level creatures with a 6 to 1 advantage in numbers. Any relatively fair scenario would see the Fighter come out on top, barring an awful streak of rolls on the dice, every time. Please, give me more details about how I am giving "unfair advantage" to the players where you are "playing by the rules."
Keep in mind that I don't run a "simulation" game, I run a Fantasy Roleplaying game. Anyone coming into my campaigns should expect it to feel similar to what you get from a good book... Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, Shannara, Belgariad, Black Com
This is something I posted in one of the player playtest threads about the same topic:
Bringing back false life as a minor spell that can be cast once a battle wouldn't be bad. The once a battle is easy. Just state that if you already have your hit point max altered by this spell then the healing does not work.
False Life Cantrip Abjuration (or maybe Necromancy? :P)
You raise your maximum hit points by 4. If this raises your maximum hit points, your current hit points reflects this new value. This spell lasts 1 minute.
Simple cantrip that just allows you to get to that 8 hit point threshold, and is best cast at the beginning of battle, but does take that wizard's first action if they want the survivability.
Downside... Taking that first action means they will be down a kill in a very short fight. Since most fights are MUCH shorter now, this can make them feel a bit cheated (of course they were already doing the same with the shield spell, so it doesn't matter much).
That said, I see low level wizards as fighting more like a gun-slinger. They know damned well that everyone around them can kill them with a stray, just as they can do to those other people. NO ONE just stands their while getting shot at if you are being even midly realistic about it. Hell, that's why shields were invented... To stop incoming attacks that you don't have the cover for. "Let's just make portable cover that can help even against melee attacks... That'll help."
Looking at the gunslinger mentality, it makes PERFECT sense for the wizard to pop out from cover, take a couple pot shots, and duck again. As it is, the monsters have VERY little chance to hit anyone but the wizard, since they don't seem to get any form of class-based proficiency modifier like players do (even wizards get a +2 to weapon attacks, but no monsters do).
Also... people tend to look at the numbers a bit wrong on this... Think about this. Let's go with a standard of 12 AC for our first level wizard. Let's put him up against an Orc at level 1 because we're sadistic and evil like that, but we'll also use a goblin as a second encounter to work it out too.
If the wizards AC is 12, that means that the orc... a level 3 badass... has a base 55% chance to hit (as they hit on a 10 or better). Now remember, that this is good odds for the average orc, and seeing the clothy, they are likely to use the rage-strike to attack because they aren't intelligent and want to do a ton of damage. This means that they have disadvantage. Now even if they would hit with a 55% chance, they have another 45% chance that they will fail. I know I'm no statistics expert, but this leaves less than a 25-30% chance to fail. (It's not a direct reduction, they affect each other).
Granted, using average damage that orc is going to PUMMEL the wizard (as well they should, being lvl 3 creatures), doing 6.5+7 = 13.5 damage average. So generally between about 11 and 16 damage. This does basically have a chance of out and out killing said mage, but ONLY if they hit, which is highly unlikely. More likely, about 3/4 of the time, the wizard will get at least one more action to jump behind a fighter or a table or something, and cast shield or ray of frost.
Now consider that most fights won't start directly in melee (only a SMALL fraction of them in a very tight and enclosed area, actually). So now we try the same thing with ranged attacks. The orc's ranged attack is 2 lower than his melee attack to hit, so this is a base 45% chance to hit if he doesn't use his rage ability. If he does, than that REALLY affects his accuracy and is going to hit about 20% of the time-ish. Add to that that now his damage isn't as high. It'll still knock that level 1 wizard unconcious garaunteed, but it won't kill him by a long shot. In this scenario, the wizard is still likely to have initiative, but even if they lose, that still means that they have around an 80% chance to not have to worry about that orc, get cover of some kind, and fire back with rays of frost (or cast that shield spell and watch the orc's chance to hit plummet even more.
Either way due to damage, if the wizard gets hit, he drops at minimum damage while the orc is rage striking. While he's not, not as bad, but still deadly.
Okay, so chances are the wizard will live long enough to either gang up on the orc, or run away. (not heroic, but a lvl 1 wizard shouldn't try to take on an orc solo anyway.) with bad luck ( about 20-25%'ish on the generous end ) the wizard drops in that one hit kill, *IF* the orc goes first (about a 40% likelihood).
Goblin time. Same stats for the wizard, but a level 1 creature. Now goblins see a guy in cloth and are excited that it's someone that they can intimidate, so they rush in to melee. This gives the goblin a -1 to hit (not running as ganging up and focus fire, so they don't all jump him at once, besides, he's not seen as a threat yet). With that -1 to hit, the goblin only has a 40% chance to hit the wizard. Better than a beserker orc, but not great. Having hit, said goblin is going to do that 4+ damage needed to drop that con 10 (his dex is 13/14 so we'll assume low con) wizard. With 1d6-1 on his mace attack, that does the damage to drop said wizard on a roll of 5+ on damage (about 1/3rd of the time). so with a 40% chance, 1/3rd of the time that melee goblin will drop the wizard in one hit. This drops the chances to just over 13% total that a melee swing on the wizard will drop him in one swing. This is also under the assumption that the goblin gets first swing and nothing is standing in his way. The goblin will get the first swing about 50% of the time against the wizard, so this cuts his chances in half. This means that roughly 7% of the time the goblin will be able to drop a wizard, WITHOUT killing him, in one swing.
With a ranged attack, this changes a bit, and the goblin gets more dangerous. He's 10% more likely to hit, and will deal enough damage to drop the wizard 1/2 the time. Using the same baseline of calculation, this means that the ranged goblin will drop the wizard in the first swing after getting the initiative on the wizard 12.5% of the time (50% chance of initiative, 50% chance to hit, 50% chance to deal the wizards max hp's in one shot. 50% of 50% is 25%, to% of 25% is 12.5%)
With all this now you have to consider target acquisition. In both cases, the creature will likely assume initially that the wizard is not a threat. They aren't casters, and don't deal with them alot, so they likely assume that the wizard is random redshirt number fifty-three. It is likely that at least one goblin will attempt this in a group of them, but the orc is more likely to go after the big guy in the group unless he's mentally scarred from wizards torturing him when he was a child.
So to put it clearly (with actual calculator work): Wizard, 14 dex, 10 con, 12 AC
Orc: Initiative 40% Melee: 55% - 55% = 30.25% to hit 100% chance to drop in one swing. 30.25% of 40 = 12.1% to hit before wizard's turn. 100% of 12.1% is 12.1% chance to drop the wizard before he acts. Ranged: 45% - 45% = 20.25% chance to hit 100% chance to drop in one shot 20.25% of 40 = 8.1% to hit before the wizard's turn 100% of 8.1 = 8.1% chance to drop the wizard before he acts.
Goblin: Initiative 50% Melee: 40% chance to hit (13 or better to hit) 33% chance to drop in one swing 40% of 50 = 20% chance to hit before wizard's turn 33% of 20 = 6.67% chance to drop the wizard before he acts Ranged: 50% chance to hit 50% chance to drop in one swing 50% of 50 =25% chance to hit before wizard's turn 50% of 25 = 12.5% chance to drop the wizard before he acts
And this is *IF* they see him as a threat enough to attack first round. Odds are stacked in the player's favor.
This is something I posted in one of the player playtest threads about the same topic:Bringing back false life as a minor spell that can be cast once a battle wouldn't be bad. The once a battle is easy. Just state that if you already have your hit po
Keep in mind that I don't run a "simulation" game, I run a Fantasy Roleplaying game. Anyone coming into my campaigns should expect it to feel similar to what you get from a good book... Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, Shannara, Belgariad, Black Company, Coldfire, Elric, Conan, etc. etc.
I don't put heavy emphasis on realism.
Those examples of books aren't really a good example of party friendly games. Lord of the rings = rolemaster, one of the deadlier game where you can expect limb loss soon after character creation. Black company = one of the grittier 3.5 settings. Conan, other than Conan and red sonja, most characters really did live very long... They just don't seem to fit the mold you seem to have for your game. :P
Keep in mind that I don't run a "simulation" game, I run a Fantasy Roleplaying game. Anyone coming into my campaigns should expect it to feel similar to what you get from a good book... Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, Shannara, Belgariad, Black Com
This is something I posted in one of the player playtest threads about the same topic:
Bringing back false life as a minor spell that can be cast once a battle wouldn't be bad. The once a battle is easy. Just state that if you already have your hit point max altered by this spell then the healing does not work.
Good stuff and interesting alternative.
Keep some things in mind, though, that might not make this work for those who are in the kill-the-wizard-at-all-cost camp.
A) Loss of initiative is going to be a killer. B) Encounters are rarely 1 versus. 10 Kobolds, 6 Orcs, 8 Goblins, whatever. People who want help for the Wizard aren't just using one creature to attack them, they are alpha striking them down right away. Even when they are dying, they are finishing them off. +4 HPs might stop one attack. But 4? 7? 10? No chance. C) 10 CON?!? That's one crazy wizard :p CON almost has to be the second score for a Wizard unless we are talking roleplaying groups (granted, I let my players roleplay and take that into consideration when they are involved with combat... so I won't penalize Amy for putting 10 into CON by killing her off at every opportunity to show her the error of her ways). But for campaigns where creatures are ruthless and cunning, that's a death sentence.
I like it, but it won't address the problem at hand for those looking for more meat on their clothies.
Good stuff and interesting alternative.Keep some things in mind, though, that might not make this work for those who are in the kill-the-wizard-at-all-cost camp.A) Loss of initiative is going to be a killer.B) Encounters are rarely 1 versus. 10 Kobo
Those examples of books aren't really a good example of party friendly games. Lord of the rings = rolemaster, one of the deadlier game where you can expect limb loss soon after character creation. Black company = one of the grittier 3.5 settings. Conan, other than Conan and red sonja, most characters really did live very long... They just don't seem to fit the mold you seem to have for your game. :P
lol. Touche.
I played RoleMaster for years (when I had the time for it). Really enjoyed it at the time. (I could go on-and-on about how difficult it is in that RPG to not have a good story derailed by a bad roll - but that's for another website).
But...
There is a huge difference between what their RPGs are like and what the authors were doing when writing the stories Obviously, you know that and are just poking fun at me with the irony.
lol. Touche.I played RoleMaster for years (when I had the time for it). Really enjoyed it at the time. (I could go on-and-on about how difficult it is in that RPG to not have a good story derailed by a bad roll - but that's for another website).But.
This is something I posted in one of the player playtest threads about the same topic:
Bringing back false life as a minor spell that can be cast once a battle wouldn't be bad. The once a battle is easy. Just state that if you already have your hit point max altered by this spell then the healing does not work.
Good stuff and interesting alternative.
Keep some things in mind, though, that might not make this work for those who are in the kill-the-wizard-at-all-cost camp.
A) Loss of initiative is going to be a killer. B) Encounters are rarely 1 versus. 10 Kobolds, 6 Orcs, 8 Goblins, whatever. People who want help for the Wizard aren't just using one creature to attack them, they are alpha striking them down right away. Even when they are dying, they are finishing them off. +4 HPs might stop one attack. But 4? 7? 10? No chance. C) 10 CON?!? That's one crazy wizard :p CON almost has to be the second score for a Wizard unless we are talking roleplaying groups (granted, I let my players roleplay and take that into consideration when they are involved with combat... so I won't penalize Amy for putting 10 into CON by killing her off at every opportunity to show her the error of her ways). But for campaigns where creatures are ruthless and cunning, that's a death sentence.
I like it, but it won't address the problem at hand for those looking for more meat on their clothies.
Well, I just wanted to show the math. A fight isn't going to be 1 versus, and typically if a group decides to focus fire it's on the biggest threat. At the start of most battles that's the big burly fighter or guy praying to heal.
Good stuff and interesting alternative.Keep some things in mind, though, that might not make this work for those who are in the kill-the-wizard-at-all-cost camp.A) Loss of initiative is going to be a killer.B) Encounters are rarely 1 versus. 10 Kobo
nah, i don't want to over-react, it's cool, it's totally cool, i mean, thats only 1200 XP for the fighter...
sure, thats only 7.28 times the suggested level 1 average encounter XP budget.
totally realistic.
6 zombies vs a level 1 fighter?LAWLnah, i don't want to over-react, it's cool, it's totally cool, i mean, thats only 1200 XP for the fighter...sure, thats only 7.28 times the suggested level 1 average encounter XP budget.totally realistic.
Zombies are slow and mindless and make a GREAT encounter. They don't care what they fight, as long as they fight. They'll stop at the fighter, or keep moving, whatever. They're easy to kite and make GREAT early cannon fodder for players.
Zombies are slow and mindless and make a GREAT encounter. They don't care what they fight, as long as they fight. They'll stop at the fighter, or keep moving, whatever. They're easy to kite and make GREAT early cannon fodder for players.
I would also like to note (and I'm sorry for the double post) that just because 3 times the average encounter for a solo player is attacking that fighter doesn't mean he's going to get hit enough for it to matter when the rest of the group is there to DPS, or a cleric can turn undead.
I would also like to note (and I'm sorry for the double post) that just because 3 times the average encounter for a solo player is attacking that fighter doesn't mean he's going to get hit enough for it to matter when the rest of the group is there t
C) 10 CON?!? That's one crazy wizard :p CON almost has to be the second score for a Wizard unless we are talking roleplaying groups (granted, I let my players roleplay and take that into consideration when they are involved with combat... so I won't penalize Amy for putting 10 into CON by killing her off at every opportunity to show her the error of her ways). But for campaigns where creatures are ruthless and cunning, that's a death sentence.
I think this might be my least favorite consequence of having low base HP: anyone who wants to have a good chance of surviving 1st level really has to put their second best score in Con. I started playing D&D around the same time I was reading the Dragonlance books, and it didn't take me long to realize that actually trying to play Raistlin was tantamount to suicide. I like to have the freedom to focus on stats other than Con without having to play in an extremely cautious manner.
The baseline I'd like to see for Next is that using the "default" hp rules, the Wizard with 10 Con gets enough hp to survive two average hits. That should be enough to survive a single crit, which removes the propensity for the Wizard to go down in one "lucky hit." Then, provide two modules that modify hp, one that reduces it for people who think the Wizard should go down in one hit, and one that increases hp for people who like more resilient characters all around.
I think this might be my least favorite consequence of having low base HP: anyone who wants to have a good chance of surviving 1st level really has to put their second best score in Con. I started playing D&D around the same time I was reading the Dr
my wizard actually put more emphasis on dex than con.
the reason is simple, con is a benefit that helps most at the start of an adventure, and less later on. AC is a benefit that is equal through the entire adventure.
my wizard actually put more emphasis on dex than con.the reason is simple, con is a benefit that helps most at the start of an adventure, and less later on. AC is a benefit that is equal through the entire adventure.
I think this might be my least favorite consequence of having low base HP: anyone who wants to have a good chance of surviving 1st level really has to put their second best score in Con. I started playing D&D around the same time I was reading the Dragonlance books, and it didn't take me long to realize that actually trying to play Raistlin was tantamount to suicide. I like to have the freedom to focus on stats other than Con without having to play in an extremely cautious manner.
The baseline I'd like to see for Next is that using the "default" hp rules, the Wizard with 10 Con gets enough hp to survive two average hits. That should be enough to survive a single crit, which removes the propensity for the Wizard to go down in one "lucky hit." Then, provide two modules that modify hp, one that reduces it for people who think the Wizard should go down in one hit, and one that increases hp for people who like more resilient characters all around.
Please do note, though, that I said DM's who know how to adjust for Roleplay rather than Rollplay won't penalize Amy for going with her 10 CON.
I am one of those DMs. I don't assume every creature can automatically mark the weakest, most vulnerable player, and goes for the kill.
I've listed dozens of reasons why a DM doesn't have to have every monster alpha-strike the wizard, and I am tired of trying to give alternative views.
That said, Even if you give CON+Con Mod+Max HD to the wizard, if Amy decides she's never been a gym rat and wants to put 8 to CON, that puts her at 11 HPs.
The kill-the-weakest DMs are still going to kick the crap out of her. Because the Fighters are still going to have 28 HPs or more, Cleric probably 24 HPs, and even the Rogue will have 19. Wizard = Clear Target = Dead.
The main difference is that the rest of the group will survive and hopefully be able to get her corpse back to town instead of being a TPK.
If you really want to eliminate weakness, get rid of HPs being measured by CON and Class. Have everyone start with a baseline (18?) and adjust a modest amount for maybe race or nothing at all. Just call HPs a measure of saavy, endurance, combat awareness, etc., and eliminate it as just being how hardy you are.
Please do note, though, that I said DM's who know how to adjust for Roleplay rather than Rollplay won't penalize Amy for going with her 10 CON.I am one of those DMs. I don't assume every creature can automatically mark the weakest, most vulnerable p
Well, I do some game design and have been going to school for it before switching over to a full Computer science degree. It teaches game theory that is universal in game design. One thing you have to look at is how the players percieve it.
If a DM says, "I think the base rules are a bit too vicious so I'm giving all player characters an extra 4 HP to start," then the players rejoice at how kind their DM is...
If the DM says, "I think the base rules are too weak, so you guys are going to have to roll your HP at level one. If you start with 1 hp as a wizard, I'm sorry, but them's the breaks," then the players are going to think of the DM as a D-Bag, and avoid playing with him.
If you want the option for the game to be hardcore, start the game in hard mode, but place a comment in the PHB just to the side of the HP section of the character creation rules that allows for the addition of extra hp and other methods. This allows both sides to get what they want, and those who have a DM that feels that it is necessary are also satiated by their players thinking their generous.
Well, I do some game design and have been going to school for it before switching over to a full Computer science degree. It teaches game theory that is universal in game design. One thing you have to look at is how the players percieve it.If a DM sa
Well, I do some game design and have been going to school for it before switching over to a full Computer science degree. It teaches game theory that is universal in game design. One thing you have to look at is how the players percieve it.
If a DM says, "I think the base rules are a bit too vicious so I'm giving all player characters an extra 4 HP to start," then the players rejoice at how kind their DM is...
If the DM says, "I think the base rules are too weak, so you guys are going to have to roll your HP at level one. If you start with 1 hp as a wizard, I'm sorry, but them's the breaks," then the players are going to think of the DM as a D-Bag, and avoid playing with him.
If you want the option for the game to be hardcore, start the game in hard mode, but place a comment in the PHB just to the side of the HP section of the character creation rules that allows for the addition of extra hp and other methods. This allows both sides to get what they want, and those who have a DM that feels that it is necessary are also satiated by their players thinking their generous.
a thousand times this.
if i ever make any change to the way the game is run, i try to be upfront about it, i'll explainthe change, what it means, and why i want to do it, and then i will ask the players if they want to go ahead with it.
a thousand times this.if i ever make any change to the way the game is run, i try to be upfront about it, i'll explainthe change, what it means, and why i want to do it, and then i will ask the players if they want to go ahead with it.
Mentioning consitiution being a high stat choice now just reminded me of something. In the packet under the wizards "key abilities" it says this: "Intelligence and Constitution. You use Intelligence to cast spells, and high Constitution provides extra hit points."
So Wizards of the Coast is actually proposing that a wizards Con score be his second highest score to increase survivability. Not sure how people interpret that, but it seems a little... odd for some reason. Never thought of wizards being high Con characters
Mentioning consitiution being a high stat choice now just reminded me of something. In the packet under the wizards "key abilities" it says this: "Intelligence and Constitution. You use Intelligence to cast spells, and highConstitution provides extra
@Aviose: Good stuff! I second that. Part of the reason I like the game as is. I can make it work in the current for no problem. Others can't. They double or triple HPs, players rejoice. Love the DM! My players, happy with my approach, cruise along in my world all the same. Reverse it though, where characters start out with triple HPs, I have to drop it to "old school" levels and, as you say, players are like, man, why you being a d-bag... and every time one dies or even just goes to dying they'll be thinking, I wouldn't even be breaking a sweat if the DM had just left the rules alone. The other DMs get status quo and they cruise along in their worlds.
It's much worse for me.
@Chaosmancer: Unfortunately, I think that, no matter what you set the baseline at, surviving against odds stacked against you is necessary for players. This, sadly, detracts from roleplaying because you aren't thinking about what a character's development through youth and the formative years before they started adventuring, you are just supposed to think how can I survive going forward.
I wish they'd just leave optimization, metagaming, and such out of character creation and just let people develop characters organically. Even an average or New DMs can adjust to party composition and the Strategic/Wargaming types will always let their players know what's important up front.
@Aviose: Good stuff! I second that. Part of the reason I like the game as is. I can make it work in the current for no problem. Others can't. They double or triple HPs, players rejoice. Love the DM! My players, happy with my approach, cruise a
Around 6-7 goblins Around 11-12 kobolds Around 4-5 Dire Rats Around 13-14 Cave Rats Around 20-21 Stirges
Now the Dire Rats might be killed by the group before anyone goes down, but the goblins will get off 3-7 attacks depending on who gets initiative.
Assuming the Dwarf Fighter pre-gen with an AC of 17 those goblins are going to be able to hit the fighter (let's say half of them because the other half attack the armored cleric) around 20% of the time, average DPR for a goblin's ranged attack is 4.5. Average for CS dice to defend is 3.5. So the fighter will take 1 point of damage per round 20% of the time with 3-4 attacks. That's about 1 point of damage for one attack that hits and then they take 0.9 from the 3 others, so a total of about 4 points of damage in 1 round. If the fighter doesn't use their CS Dice they will take around 16 average. So a 1st level fighter better save their CS dice for defense at level 1. Each round they have a pretty good chance of taking out 2 goblins (one for the fighter, and one for the cleric, or when they miss the Wizard and the Rogue take one out each). So the Second round its down to 2 attacking the fighter. So that's 2-3 points of damage average. So far the fighter has taken 6-7 points. That's half the hit points of the fighter in 2 rounds. The third round it would be down to 1 attack for 1 point of damage. So the fighter is now at 6 hit points. Uses a hit dice for 5.5 so they are back up to 11-12 hit points. The cleric uses one of their healing spells and brings the up to max. So the fighter can do 1-2 encounters like this before dying.
Now if we go kobolds the party is in serious trouble. That's a lot of attacks. Half of them attack the fighter. That's 6 kobolds doing 1d4+1 with a 20% chance to hit. That's around 14 damage per round. reduced by CS dice to 10.5. So the Kobolds are going to slaughter the fighter and the Cleric and the remainder of them are going to slaughter the Wizard and Rogue.
The Dire Rats and the Goblins are the only ones the party stands a chance against...
Average encounter for 5 level 1 PCs: 825xpAround 6-7 goblinsAround 11-12 koboldsAround 4-5 Dire RatsAround 13-14 Cave RatsAround 20-21 StirgesNow the Dire Rats might be killed by the group before anyone goes down, but the goblins will get off 3-7 att
I've listed dozens of reasons why a DM doesn't have to have every monster alpha-strike the wizard, and I am tired of trying to give alternative views.
I'm not talking from a viewpoint that assumes a particular style of DM'ing. I don't care if your approach is "gank the Wizard" or "Wizards project a field of harmlessness that makes them last on the target list" or anywhere in between; in my opinion, a system in which the DM can decide "this round this goblin archer will shoot at the Wizard," roll a natural 20, and take the Wizard from full hp to unconscious is a system in which the Wizard is too fragile. You're more than welcome to disagree, I just wanted to put my opinion out there that I don't think the default rules should have level 1 characters vulnerable to one hit KO's unless they're taking on something more powerful than them.
If a DM says, "I think the base rules are a bit too vicious so I'm giving all player characters an extra 4 HP to start," then the players rejoice at how kind their DM is...
If the DM says, "I think the base rules are too weak, so you guys are going to have to roll your HP at level one. If you start with 1 hp as a wizard, I'm sorry, but them's the breaks," then the players are going to think of the DM as a D-Bag, and avoid playing with him.
I guess my question for this is, is the problem that the players want to play hardcore but have trouble getting over the perception that the DM is gimping them, or is it that the players don't really want to play hardcore, but they're more willing to accept it if it's the default rules set? If it really is the former, then for the hardcore module, why not increase damage across the board instead of nerfing hp? You get really fragile characters and it feels like a bonus because the DM is telling you you do more damage.
I'm not talking from a viewpoint that assumes a particular style of DM'ing. I don't care if your approach is "gank the Wizard" or "Wizards project a field of harmlessness that makes them last on the target list" or anywhere in between; in my opinion,
I've listed dozens of reasons why a DM doesn't have to have every monster alpha-strike the wizard, and I am tired of trying to give alternative views.
I'm not talking from a viewpoint that assumes a particular style of DM'ing. I don't care if your approach is "gank the Wizard" or "Wizards project a field of harmlessness that makes them last on the target list" or anywhere in between; in my opinion, a system in which the DM can decide "this round this goblin archer will shoot at the Wizard," roll a natural 20, and take the Wizard from full hp to unconscious is a system in which the Wizard is too fragile. You're more than welcome to disagree, I just wanted to put my opinion out there that I don't think the default rules should have level 1 characters vulnerable to one hit KO's unless they're taking on something more powerful than them.
Never play much Everquest? This is a game that is based a LOT on D&D. Even in this video game you wizard, ESPECIALLY in the late game, gets one shotted or damn close to one shotted any time they draw the enemy's ire.
I loved my wizards in both D&D and Everquest, and wouldn't want it any different than it used to be as a baseline, and that's as a player. As long as you are playing to your intelligence, and you aren't REALLY unlucky (as I posted combat stats for even a 3rd level creature attacking that wizard), your wizard will live until around level 3 minimum.
Most of the groups that I have ever run or played in have a completely different problem than you're saying. I'm not refuting that it can be a problem with how some people run the game, or the luck of some groups of dice (YES specific dice favor certain types of rolls.) I am simply saying that they have meticulously gone over the stats of these creatures with a fine toothed comb and tried to balance the creatures to the right experience, and the right level. Game design is both an art and a science that needs to be gone over painstakingly when it comes to balance. The odds are not exactly in your favor to appeal to even most of the gamers playing your game. It is still far better to start with this as a baseline, and go up from there if you want a less lethal D&D.
DM's frequently acknowledge that people think they're ****s if they take away from the base rules. This is one of the notorious issues with Rifts. The DM feels like an ass if they say, "No, you can't play a dragon juicer, it doesn't fit in this game," and thus the bloat of power in the books causes a problem. It is far easier to say, "I'll add this in to help you guys," for the DM because then it makes him look like the good guy, and not the bad guy.
If a DM says, "I think the base rules are a bit too vicious so I'm giving all player characters an extra 4 HP to start," then the players rejoice at how kind their DM is...
If the DM says, "I think the base rules are too weak, so you guys are going to have to roll your HP at level one. If you start with 1 hp as a wizard, I'm sorry, but them's the breaks," then the players are going to think of the DM as a D-Bag, and avoid playing with him.
I guess my question for this is, is the problem that the players want to play hardcore but have trouble getting over the perception that the DM is gimping them, or is it that the players don't really want to play hardcore, but they're more willing to accept it if it's the default rules set? If it really is the former, then for the hardcore module, why not increase damage across the board instead of nerfing hp? You get really fragile characters and it feels like a bonus because the DM is telling you you do more damage.
To be honest, I'd be fine if they went back to rolling for hit points at first level off of the hit dice. Yes, that would return that 1 hp wizard or 3-4 hp fighter, but it would be a baseline, and I would choose to max first level hit points anyway (bringing the characters to the point that they are at in this version of the rules.)
Even when I want to play a particularly gritty campaign, I'm far more likely to make the grittiness apparent and hide it under higher monster HP or better hit rolls or reduced XP values for monsters than to take something listed as the core rules away from players. The experience on how to do this properly comes from both learning game design as an applied science, and running D&D games for more than the past decade.
All this said, I tend to have to make most encounters tougher than the book suggests, because my players mow down 'appropriate' level encounters. This does not mean I will ask them to lower XP, because I think it's right where it is. I just know that I have to make the fights tougher. Then again, I also tend not to let that nat 20 be a crit, and instead just let it be a normal hit when a monster swings and it could instagib a character.
I'm not talking from a viewpoint that assumes a particular style of DM'ing. I don't care if your approach is "gank the Wizard" or "Wizards project a field of harmlessness that makes them last on the target list" or anywhere in between; in my opinion,
If you want the option for the game to be hardcore, start the game in hard mode, but place a comment in the PHB just to the side of the HP section of the character creation rules that allows for the addition of extra hp and other methods. This allows both sides to get what they want, and those who have a DM that feels that it is necessary are also satiated by their players thinking their generous.
I'd rather not see ANY method as the default setting. Give the DM option a, b or c; a=roll HD+CON bonus, b=max HD+CON bonus, c=max HD+Con stat. I don't see much issue in 'the DM is being a bastard for picking a!' because this is something groups hash out when they pick a game anyway. If the party is up in arms about starting HP, maybe the group and DM are on different pages on what's a fun level of threat and it's most likely better to get out of the way at the start of the game.
I'd rather not see ANY method as the default setting. Give the DM option a, b or c; a=roll HD+CON bonus, b=max HD+CON bonus, c=max HD+Con stat.I don't see much issue in 'the DM is being a bastard for picking a!' because this is something groups hash
It's more of a problem on those close call shots where the character is downed and the player thinks, "If we were running normal games..."
It's just something that's stated in game design theory. If you take something established away from a player, they will likely have an issue with it. If you give something to the player, they will generally be happier. It's the new skills and powers that make most players happy. Now certain aspects of D&D allow this to be a bit more broad, since actual role-playing is also a reward in and of itself, but there should be a system of advancement. I do like the fact that WOTC is trying to take the middle road overall with most of the problems between editions. Even this basic aspect is like this. It is VERY difficult for a lvl 1 monster to hit a lvl 1 PC, but the hit points are still low. (I'd say it's a safe bet that a Player Character as a monster would be considered elite, normally).
This allows them to keep the illusion of them being on the same footing hit point wise, allows them to keep weapons at the same power that PC's use them at, but still allows them to be a decent sized group to take on a group of PC's at-level.
It's more of a problem on those close call shots where the character is downed and the player thinks, "If we were running normal games..."It's just something that's stated in game design theory. If you take something established away from a player, t
@lokiare: Some of your numbers are slightly off. Dwarf Fighter should have no less than D12 maxed + 2 + 1, or 15 HPs, and that's if they didn't put emphasis on CON. Plus you assume every enemy will be in an optimal range. No one get the kobolds in melee, any of them, or the goblins. At +1 to hit, they actually hit 25% of the time, so it's a bit worse on the fighter (unless in melee, where they drop to 15%).
At any rate, you have put forth some good info and food for thought. Goblins seem to me to be a dangerous lot that could offer a scenario of some concern. Crunching the numbers, 7 goblins, with 4 attacking the dwarf (racial hatred considered), 1 hitting for 4 damage, none deflected. (11 of 15 HPs left). 3 attacking the war priest, 1 hit (25% chance) for 5 damage (5 of 10 HPs left). Giving goblins surprise due to Stealthy +5, all at range, ambushing the first creatures that approached.
Initiative will favor PCs, but not all of them. Rogue and Archer likely to go first, though. +5/6 vs AC 13, and +6/7 (x2 - Rapid Shot) vs AC 13 will very likely take down 2 goblins (5 left). 2 Goblins act next. Tough choice now, go for the Elf or Rogue or continue on the forward targets without cover. With not much luck on the Fighter and with cover, I am going to say both go after cleric. 2 shots vs AC 17 (25%)... technically speaking, with 1 hitting before, 5 attacks (@25%) would result in still just the 1 hit on average, but going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say another hits, but this time for 4 damage (2 hits for average). Protect Expertise Dice used by adjacent fighter (again, slightly low with a 3 result). 4 of 10 HPs left (whew). Wizard next. He's a bit of a chicken, knowing how tough this campaign is, so just uses MM to kill one Goblin who hasn't acted. (4 left, 2 yet to act). Goblin next. Goes for the knockdown on Cleric. Miss. Fighter next, closes on 2 goblins, attacks 1 at +6... let's say miss even though the odds are with him. 2 remaining goblins next. 1 is in melee and has really little choice... disengage and run? Viable RP option. Things are looking grim. Naw. He's there to protect til death let's say. -1 vs AC 17. Miss. Maybe running would have been smart. Next. Going for cleric again. 7th attack on cleric at 25% hit, but he's been hit twice already. Still, let's say the dice are a bit tough tonight. Hit. 5 damage. Down goes cleric (-1 with -14 to death). Cleric's turn. Death save. Nope. Now -5 HPs. Bad luck for him. Lost init, got surprised, and got hit more than average. And he's the only one with healing spells. ut oh.
Round 3: Elf and Rogue, as before, take down only 1 (more bad luck), leaving 3 goblins. 1 goblin next. Fight to the death! Attacks Fighter that engaged him. CRIT! Rats, parry for 4. 3 damage with +2 from Dirty Fighter (8 of 15 HPs left). Wizard steps forward and uses kit to stablize cleric. Free goblin next. Goes for Wizard (he did something weird to that guy on the ground). +1 vs AC 11. Hit. 5 damage. (0 of 5 HPs left - maybe he shouldn't have put his second best score into CHA, but he wanted to be good looking). Dying. Fighter next. More bad luck. Miss. Last goblin in melee. Hit at 15%. For d6+1, 5 damage (3 of 15 HPs left). Cleric - nothing, stable but dying.
Round 4: Elf goes for 2 shots, both on unengaged goblin. Kill. Rogue stablizes Wizard. Goblin in melee vs Fighter. Now just 2 of them left, but... what the heck, he attacks. Another hit at 15%! Parry 3 of the d6+1 still means 2 damage through. Yikes. 1 HP left. Desperate fighter goes into Dodge on his turn. AC 21 now. Last goblin in melee... would you believe it? -1 vs AC 21 is .. no.. it missed, but he was nervous. Dice have been going bad against him. Cleric - stable.
Round 5: Elf shoots. Double miss. D'oh! Rogue shoots. Whew. Finally. 1 goblin left. Wizard - stable. Fighter - wants to attack, but stays in Dodge. Doesn't trust dice. Goblin. Guess what, yep, rolled a 20. Bet that fighter wishes he went for that +6 attack. Fighter now down. Cleric - stable.
Round 6: Elf shoots. Last goblin down. About time. Rogue stablizes fighter. Potion is used on Cleric. Cleric stands and heals others. HD are used, and the group limps home. Today wasn't their day.
Yep... that's a tough night for them. It wasn't a good scenario for them and they were surprised (darn spot rolls) plus a lot of dice didn't go well for them, but they still survived. No TPK.
And actually, that's okay by me. Players will end up enjoying their narrow escape and complaints about loaded DM dice... it's part of the D&D experience.
What about tough encounters? Yeah, bad news there. *If* I set it up to their disadvantage *and* die rolls go horribly against them, definitely high chance of TPK. Which is why I use tough sparingly and why I rarely stack the deck against PCs in those encounters.
As for kobolds. -shrug- No surprise unless I am really being a jerk. AC 11 means die rolls will have to go REALLY bad. Awful melee means closing in on them is big trouble. Mob Tactics? Not as good as you might think. First, kobolds have to get to melee to apply it on their turn (not their favorite position) and then they have to SURVIVE being there to maintain it. On top of that, the bonus to it only applies to the characters they applied it to, which is likely to be the hardier melee types since I don't see big chicken kobolds running through the party to get to back line guys simply as a suicide mission for a chance that other kobolds behind will be able to attack that target. Just. Don't. See. It.
4 Kobolds will drop to normal attacks a round and that doesn't include the possibility of Sleep or Burning Hands messing them up royally. They will be lucky to not break ranks and flee after round 1 or before most of them act in round 2.
@lokiare: Some of your numbers are slightly off. Dwarf Fighter should have no less than D12 maxed + 2 + 1, or 15 HPs, and that's if they didn't put emphasis on CON. Plus you assume every enemy will be in an optimal range. No one get the kobolds in
@lokiare: Some of your numbers are slightly off. Dwarf Fighter should have no less than D12 maxed + 2 + 1, or 15 HPs, and that's if they didn't put emphasis on CON. Plus you assume every enemy will be in an optimal range. No one get the kobolds in melee, any of them, or the goblins. At +1 to hit, they actually hit 25% of the time, so it's a bit worse on the fighter (unless in melee, where they drop to 15%).
I went with the pregen fighter with 14 hit points. Go argue that with Mearls.
At any rate, you have put forth some good info and food for thought. Goblins seem to me to be a dangerous lot that could offer a scenario of some concern. Crunching the numbers, 7 goblins, with 4 attacking the dwarf (racial hatred considered), 1 hitting for 4 damage, none deflected. (11 of 15 HPs left). 3 attacking the war priest, 1 hit (25% chance) for 5 damage (5 of 10 HPs left). Giving goblins surprise due to Stealthy +5, all at range, ambushing the first creatures that approached.
Initiative will favor PCs, but not all of them. Rogue and Archer likely to go first, though. +5/6 vs AC 13, and +6/7 (x2 - Rapid Shot) vs AC 13 will very likely take down 2 goblins (5 left). 2 Goblins act next. Tough choice now, go for the Elf or Rogue or continue on the forward targets without cover. With not much luck on the Fighter and with cover, I am going to say both go after cleric. 2 shots vs AC 17 (25%)... technically speaking, with 1 hitting before, 5 attacks (@25%) would result in still just the 1 hit on average, but going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say another hits, but this time for 4 damage (2 hits for average). Protect Expertise Dice used by adjacent fighter (again, slightly low with a 3 result). 4 of 10 HPs left (whew). Wizard next. He's a bit of a chicken, knowing how tough this campaign is, so just uses MM to kill one Goblin who hasn't acted. (4 left, 2 yet to act). Goblin next. Goes for the knockdown on Cleric. Miss. Fighter next, closes on 2 goblins, attacks 1 at +6... let's say miss even though the odds are with him. 2 remaining goblins next. 1 is in melee and has really little choice... disengage and run? Viable RP option. Things are looking grim. Naw. He's there to protect til death let's say. -1 vs AC 17. Miss. Maybe running would have been smart. Next. Going for cleric again. 7th attack on cleric at 25% hit, but he's been hit twice already. Still, let's say the dice are a bit tough tonight. Hit. 5 damage. Down goes cleric (-1 with -14 to death). Cleric's turn. Death save. Nope. Now -5 HPs. Bad luck for him. Lost init, got surprised, and got hit more than average. And he's the only one with healing spells. ut oh.
Your calculating this all wrong. You should figure out how much chance of hitting they have (25%) and then multiply that by the average damage they do (1d6 is 3.5, 1d8 is 4.5, 1d4 is 2.5). Then multiply that number by the number of attackers (in most cases half will go after the fighter and the other half will go after the cleric). subtract the average CS dice. So your numbers are off.
Round 3: Elf and Rogue, as before, take down only 1 (more bad luck), leaving 3 goblins. 1 goblin next. Fight to the death! Attacks Fighter that engaged him. CRIT! Rats, parry for 4. 3 damage with +2 from Dirty Fighter (8 of 15 HPs left). Wizard steps forward and uses kit to stablize cleric. Free goblin next. Goes for Wizard (he did something weird to that guy on the ground). +1 vs AC 11. Hit. 5 damage. (0 of 5 HPs left - maybe he shouldn't have put his second best score into CHA, but he wanted to be good looking). Dying. Fighter next. More bad luck. Miss. Last goblin in melee. Hit at 15%. For d6+1, 5 damage (3 of 15 HPs left). Cleric - nothing, stable but dying.
Round 4: Elf goes for 2 shots, both on unengaged goblin. Kill. Rogue stablizes Wizard. Goblin in melee vs Fighter. Now just 2 of them left, but... what the heck, he attacks. Another hit at 15%! Parry 3 of the d6+1 still means 2 damage through. Yikes. 1 HP left. Desperate fighter goes into Dodge on his turn. AC 21 now. Last goblin in melee... would you believe it? -1 vs AC 21 is .. no.. it missed, but he was nervous. Dice have been going bad against him. Cleric - stable.
Round 5: Elf shoots. Double miss. D'oh! Rogue shoots. Whew. Finally. 1 goblin left. Wizard - stable. Fighter - wants to attack, but stays in Dodge. Doesn't trust dice. Goblin. Guess what, yep, rolled a 20. Bet that fighter wishes he went for that +6 attack. Fighter now down. Cleric - stable.
Round 6: Elf shoots. Last goblin down. About time. Rogue stablizes fighter. Potion is used on Cleric. Cleric stands and heals others. HD are used, and the group limps home. Today wasn't their day.
Yep... that's a tough night for them. It wasn't a good scenario for them and they were surprised (darn spot rolls) plus a lot of dice didn't go well for them, but they still survived. No TPK.
And actually, that's okay by me. Players will end up enjoying their narrow escape and complaints about loaded DM dice... it's part of the D&D experience.
What about tough encounters? Yeah, bad news there. *If* I set it up to their disadvantage *and* die rolls go horribly against them, definitely high chance of TPK. Which is why I use tough sparingly and why I rarely stack the deck against PCs in those encounters.
As for kobolds. -shrug- No surprise unless I am really being a jerk. AC 11 means die rolls will have to go REALLY bad. Awful melee means closing in on them is big trouble. Mob Tactics? Not as good as you might think. First, kobolds have to get to melee to apply it on their turn (not their favorite position) and then they have to SURVIVE being there to maintain it. On top of that, the bonus to it only applies to the characters they applied it to, which is likely to be the hardier melee types since I don't see big chicken kobolds running through the party to get to back line guys simply as a suicide mission for a chance that other kobolds behind will be able to attack that target. Just. Don't. See. It.
4 Kobolds will drop to normal attacks a round and that doesn't include the possibility of Sleep or Burning Hands messing them up royally. They will be lucky to not break ranks and flee after round 1 or before most of the act in round 2.
Again you aren't doing the math right and your not looking at the numbers I posted. The XP budget allows for way too many kobolds in a 'normal' encounter. Enough that in their first volley of arrows they can take anyone out...
11 kobolds 20% hit chance 3.5 average damage. So if 5 of them attack the fighter that's 3.5 * 5 - 3.5 = 14 damage average per round. That's all it takes is one round and the fighter is gone...
I went with the pregen fighter with 14 hit points. Go argue that with Mearls.Your calculating this all wrong. You should figure out how much chance of hitting they have (25%) and then multiply that by the average damage they do (1d6 is 3.5, 1d8 is 4.
DM's frequently acknowledge that people think they're ****s if they take away from the base rules. This is one of the notorious issues with Rifts. The DM feels like an ass if they say, "No, you can't play a dragon juicer, it doesn't fit in this game," and thus the bloat of power in the books causes a problem. It is far easier to say, "I'll add this in to help you guys," for the DM because then it makes him look like the good guy, and not the bad guy.
The thing is, games routinely include difficulty levels, and players have no trouble deliberately taking something away from themselves in order to have a more challenging or interesting game. A group I played with in my 3.X days had a self-imposed ban on the core full caster classes because no one liked the way those classes deformed balance. You can get players to agree to have something taken away from them if they're on board with the direction and tone of the game.
The thing is, games routinely include difficulty levels, and players have no trouble deliberately taking something away from themselves in order to have a more challenging or interesting game. A group I played with in my 3.X days had a self-imposed b
Your calculating this all wrong. You should figure out how much chance of hitting they have (25%) and then multiply that by the average damage they do (1d6 is 3.5, 1d8 is 4.5, 1d4 is 2.5). Then multiply that number by the number of attackers (in most cases half will go after the fighter and the other half will go after the cleric). subtract the average CS dice. So your numbers are off.
-blink-
I slanted the numbers in the creatures' favor in hopes of supporting the TPK outcome, and still couldn't. If I go strictly by averages, the characters are going to win hands down.
Again you aren't doing the math right and your not looking at the numbers I posted. The XP budget allows for way too many kobolds in a 'normal' encounter. Enough that in their first volley of arrows they can take anyone out...
11 kobolds 20% hit chance 3.5 average damage. So if 5 of them attack the fighter that's 3.5 * 5 - 3.5 = 14 damage average per round. That's all it takes is one round and the fighter is gone...
How exactly are 11 kobolds all going first and always at range in every attack "using the numbers right?"
11 Kobolds... let's say ALL attacking the fighter to burn down the first obvious threat. Of the 11 with +0 initiative going against 5 characters of which 3 or 4 should have +init, odds say that at least 3 die before acting (2 Rapid Fire, 1 Rogue Sling, 1 Magic Missile). The Fighter and Cleric who might not have Initiative bonuses will go around the same time as the kobolds.
So 8 kobolds left. Odds are not ALL of them beat the Fighter, but I am tired of arguing. 8 Attacks at 25% = 2 Hits. Average Damage: 7. Average Parry: 3.5, rounding down.
Fighter takes 4 damage. Fighter and cleric will, on average, kill 1 more kobold at least. 7 kobolds left, not much damage taken, some kobolds in melee, ranged attackers going before kobolds come next, and kobolds likely to break ranks and flee with just a couple more deaths.
Where am I going wrong here?
-blink-I slanted the numbers in the creatures' favor in hopes of supporting the TPK outcome, and still couldn't. If I go strictly by averages, the characters are going to win hands down.How exactly are 11 kobolds all going first and always at range
Your calculating this all wrong. You should figure out how much chance of hitting they have (25%) and then multiply that by the average damage they do (1d6 is 3.5, 1d8 is 4.5, 1d4 is 2.5). Then multiply that number by the number of attackers (in most cases half will go after the fighter and the other half will go after the cleric). subtract the average CS dice. So your numbers are off.
-blink-
I slanted the numbers in the creatures' favor in hopes of supporting the TPK outcome, and still couldn't. If I go strictly by averages, the characters are going to win hands down.
Again you aren't doing the math right and your not looking at the numbers I posted. The XP budget allows for way too many kobolds in a 'normal' encounter. Enough that in their first volley of arrows they can take anyone out...
11 kobolds 20% hit chance 3.5 average damage. So if 5 of them attack the fighter that's 3.5 * 5 - 3.5 = 14 damage average per round. That's all it takes is one round and the fighter is gone...
How exactly are 11 kobolds all going first and always at range in every attack "using the numbers right?"
11 Kobolds... let's say ALL attacking the fighter to burn down the first obvious threat. Of the 11 with +0 initiative going against 5 characters of which 3 or 4 should have +init, odds say that at least 3 die before acting (2 Rapid Fire, 1 Rogue Sling, 1 Magic Missile). The Fighter and Cleric who might not have Initiative bonuses will go around the same time as the kobolds.
So 8 kobolds left. Odds are not ALL of them beat the Fighter, but I am tired of arguing. 8 Attacks at 25% = 2 Hits. Average Damage: 7. Average Parry: 3.5, rounding down.
Fighter takes 4 damage. Fighter and cleric will, on average, kill 1 more kobold at least. 7 kobolds left, not much damage taken, some kobolds in melee, ranged attackers going before kobolds come next, and kobolds likely to break ranks and flee with just a couple more deaths.
Where am I going wrong here?
You are thinking in terms of a single combat. I'm thinking in terms of 10 combats or 100 combats. that's why we use averages of numbers it paints a picture over the course of many encounters. So one to two encounters maybe the party gets lucky, over the course of 10-100 encounter the party TPKs more often than not. I'm looking at the game from the perspective that many many groups will encounter this problem, not just your one single group. That's really what WotC needs to take into account too...
-blink-I slanted the numbers in the creatures' favor in hopes of supporting the TPK outcome, and still couldn't. If I go strictly by averages, the characters are going to win hands down.How exactly are 11 kobolds all going first and always at range
You are thinking in terms of a single combat. I'm thinking in terms of 10 combats or 100 combats. that's why we use averages of numbers it paints a picture over the course of many encounters. So one to two encounters maybe the party gets lucky, over the course of 10-100 encounter the party TPKs more often than not. I'm looking at the game from the perspective that many many groups will encounter this problem, not just your one single group. That's really what WotC needs to take into account too...
Uh, no.
Kobold encounter was strictly by the numbers. Players didn't get lucky. They won statistically.
If you ran an 11 kobold encounter 100 times, you wouldn't see "TPKs more often than not." No statistical analysis would ever come to that conclusion.
Uh, no.Kobold encounter was strictly by the numbers. Players didn't get lucky. They won statistically.If you ran an 11 kobold encounter 100 times, you wouldn't see "TPKs more often than not." No statistical analysis would ever come to that conclus
11 kobolds 20% hit chance 3.5 average damage. So if 5 of them attack the fighter that's 3.5 * 5 - 3.5 = 14 damage average per round. That's all it takes is one round and the fighter is gone...
Your math is off. If 5 kobolds with a 20 % hit chance and 3.5 average damage attack, the damage is 3.5 * 5 * .2 = 3.5 or only one hitting on average and doing 3.5 average damage. From this we can see that AC makes a huge difference, as the fighter only expects to take about .7 damage per round per kobold. A wizard with 13 AC, on the other hand (meaning 13 dex and either a shield spell or half cover to hide behind), gets hit 45% of the time, and can expect to take 1.575 damage per kobold per round (these values don't take max damage on crits into account, because I'm a lazy mathematician). Once again, I am not trying to argue specifics on how many monsters will be attacking who; that debate is a dead end because no one's going to convince anyone that their justification for how their monsters act is more valid than anyone else's.
Edit: Ninja'd. I think Iokaire might be getting at the idea that if any individual combat has, say, a 10% chance of causing a TPK, that might look low, but cumulative probability means that by encounter 7 there's a 50/50 chance that the party has experienced a TPK. That said, if I'm too lazy a mathematician to account for max damage crits in average damage per round, there's no way I'm going to make it through an attempt to calculate the average chance of a TPK assuming an equal level encounter.
Your math is off. If 5 kobolds with a 20 % hit chance and 3.5 average damage attack, the damage is 3.5 * 5 * .2 = 3.5 or only one hitting on average and doing 3.5 average damage. From this we can see that AC makes a huge difference, as the fighter on
11 kobolds attacking with 25% chance to hit and NO parry still means 9,625 damage. Also, CS doesn't figure well into averages, since it blocks a single attack, almost completely. With an 2-3 kobolds hitting, that mean 1-2 times 3,5 damage, or an approximate of max 7 per round. All of Shade's other points are on also.
still, Shade is closer to the "averages"11 kobolds attacking with 25% chance to hit and NO parry still means 9,625 damage.Also, CS doesn't figure well into averages, since it blocks a single attack, almost completely. With an 2-3 kobolds hitting, tha
Your math is off. If 5 kobolds with a 20 % hit chance and 3.5 average damage attack, the damage is 3.5 * 5 * .2 = 3.5 or only one hitting on average and doing 3.5 average damage.
Don't forget the Parry for -1d6 damage. But kobolds average 25% hit (+1) so the math comes out to 4.375 - 3.5. 5 Kobolds average 0.875 damage per round against a Parrying Fighter.
From this we can see that AC makes a huge difference, as the fighter only expects to take about .7 damage per round per kobold. A wizard with 13 AC, on the other hand (meaning 13 dex and either a shield spell or half cover to hide behind), gets hit 45% of the time, and can expect to take 1.575 damage per kobold per round (these values don't take max damage on crits into account, because I'm a lazy mathematician). Once again, I am not trying to argue specifics on how many monsters will be attacking who; that debate is a dead end because no one's going to convince anyone that their justification for how their monsters act is more valid than anyone else's.
Agreed!
Actually, I see the merit in how others DM their campaigns most of the time (there is the odd stray that, no matter how I look at it, it seems impossible to comprehend). Sometimes, I even borrow a little from the styles of others to (hopefully) improve my own campaigns.
But, yeah, you do run into a lot of brick walls here where no give or take is found.
Don't forget the Parry for -1d6 damage. But kobolds average 25% hit (+1) so the math comes out to 4.375 - 3.5. 5 Kobolds average 0.875 damage per round against a Parrying Fighter.Agreed!Actually, I see the merit in how others DM their campaigns mo
Actually, I see the merit in how others DM their campaigns most of the time (there is the odd stray that, no matter how I look at it, it seems impossible to comprehend). Sometimes, I even borrow a little from the styles of others to (hopefully) improve my own campaigns.
But, yeah, you do run into a lot of brick walls here where no give or take is found.
Hence my (not particularly successful) attempt to reframe the question as "How many hits should the wizard expect to take before going down?" as opposed to "How much pain is going to be heading the wizard's way in an average encounter?"
Hence my (not particularly successful) attempt to reframe the question as "How many hits should the wizard expect to take before going down?" as opposed to "How much pain is going to be heading the wizard's way in an average encounter?"
Edit: Ninja'd. I think Iokaire might be getting at the idea that if any individual combat has, say, a 10% chance of causing a TPK, that might look low, but cumulative probability means that by encounter 7 there's a 50/50 chance that the party has experienced a TPK. That said, if I'm too lazy a mathematician to account for max damage crits in average damage per round, there's no way I'm going to make it through an attempt to calculate the average chance of a TPK assuming an equal level encounter.
Ah ha! -lightbulb-
Nelyo, you did me a great service there by getting me to (maybe) see the cumulative effect. *If* a first level party had to continually survive battle after battle, hundreds, if not thousands, without any other change in the data, eventually, a single encounter will VERY LIKELY result in a TPK (it's still not 100%... if you flip a coin 2000 times, and it came up heads every time, flip 2001 is still nothing more than 50/50).
Now that I will not deny as being the absolute truth.
But... (and you knew this was coming)
Things do change.
1) Even discounting real magic items, coins are earned, healing potions found/bought, etc. 2) Obviously, characters level. 3) Encounters aren't static. Not every one is the same. 4) This is the biggie, because it'll point out the big gap in some DMing styles and Campaign Survivability. DMs adapt. DMs observe. DMs alter the data.
If I ran 2 or 3 encounters with "Normal" XP budgets, and players barely survived each, having to limp home and recover after just one battle, *I* would quickly adjust my thinking and reduce the difficulty of "average" encounters to reflect the results I had seen. The near death encounters shouldn't the norm in my opinion for the reasons stated above. Eventually, they'll result in more than just near deaths, and that's not my goal as a DM.
I'll even go so far as to admit to pulling a deus ex machina when a poorly conceived encounter results in deaths players couldn't avoid without DM intervention. I've bungled a few encounters I've created and I've run into awful encounters in published materials. I will certainly try to mask the "fudging" or work it into the story if it can't be masked, but I won't punish players (and unavoidable TPKs are exactly that) for something they had no control over.
Anyway... I talk to much...
Thanks for the clue! I'm often looking for them!
Ah ha! -lightbulb-Nelyo, you did me a great service there by getting me to (maybe) see the cumulative effect. *If* a first level party had to continually survive battle after battle, hundreds, if not thousands, without any other change in the data,
1) Even discounting real magic items, coins are earned, healing potions found/bought, etc. 2) Obviously, characters level. 3) Encounters aren't static. Not every one is the same. 4) This is the biggie, because it'll point out the big gap in some DMing styles and Campaign Survivability. DMs adapt. DMs observe. DMs alter the data.
If I ran 2 or 3 encounters with "Normal" XP budgets, and players barely survived each, having to limp home and recover after just one battle, *I* would quickly adjust my thinking and reduce the difficulty of "average" encounters to reflect the results I had seen. The near death encounters shouldn't the norm in my opinion for the reasons stated above. Eventually, they'll result in more than just near deaths, and that's not my goal as a DM.
Exactly. This is why I'm more focused on individual character survivability than group survivability at this point (though the two are linked). There are so many variables that affect the liklihood of a TPK that it's much better to playtest it out than to do a bunch of number crunching or hypothetical situations. If party survivability is too low, then you'll notice when you find yourself fudging rolls or monster actions to allow the party to do survive more than one or two encounters between long rests. Likewise, if the party survivability is too good, you'll notice when you start sending in reinforcements or littering the battlefield with traps or terrain that benefits the monsters just to make the players sweat.
I'm more concerned with individual character survivability because I feel that has a more direct impact on the fun (no one likes spending half the fight unconscious and unable to do anything) and because I like giving my characters names and detailed backstories (and when I'm DMing I encourage my players to do the same to make roleplaying and plot hooks easier), which is a lot of effort to put into a character who has a good chance of not surviving until level 2.
Exactly. This is why I'm more focused on individual character survivability than group survivability at this point (though the two are linked). There are so many variables that affect the liklihood of a TPK that it's much better to playtest it out th
Edit: Ninja'd. I think Iokaire might be getting at the idea that if any individual combat has, say, a 10% chance of causing a TPK, that might look low, but cumulative probability means that by encounter 7 there's a 50/50 chance that the party has experienced a TPK. That said, if I'm too lazy a mathematician to account for max damage crits in average damage per round, there's no way I'm going to make it through an attempt to calculate the average chance of a TPK assuming an equal level encounter.
Ah ha! -lightbulb-
Nelyo, you did me a great service there by getting me to (maybe) see the cumulative effect. *If* a first level party had to continually survive battle after battle, hundreds, if not thousands, without any other change in the data, eventually, a single encounter will VERY LIKELY result in a TPK (it's still not 100%... if you flip a coin 2000 times, and it came up heads every time, flip 2001 is still nothing more than 50/50).
Now that I will not deny as being the absolute truth.
But... (and you knew this was coming)
Things do change.
1) Even discounting real magic items, coins are earned, healing potions found/bought, etc. 2) Obviously, characters level. 3) Encounters aren't static. Not every one is the same. 4) This is the biggie, because it'll point out the big gap in some DMing styles and Campaign Survivability. DMs adapt. DMs observe. DMs alter the data.
If I ran 2 or 3 encounters with "Normal" XP budgets, and players barely survived each, having to limp home and recover after just one battle, *I* would quickly adjust my thinking and reduce the difficulty of "average" encounters to reflect the results I had seen. The near death encounters shouldn't the norm in my opinion for the reasons stated above. Eventually, they'll result in more than just near deaths, and that's not my goal as a DM.
I'll even go so far as to admit to pulling a deus ex machina when a poorly conceived encounter results in deaths players couldn't avoid without DM intervention. I've bungled a few encounters I've created and I've run into awful encounters in published materials. I will certainly try to mask the "fudging" or work it into the story if it can't be masked, but I won't punish players (and unavoidable TPKs are exactly that) for something they had no control over.
Anyway... I talk to much...
Thanks for the clue! I'm often looking for them!
That's exactly what I was trying to get you to understand. Even if its only a 25% chance of TPK in a single combat. That means almost certainly a TPK in 4 combats.
That means 1 out of 4 groups will experience a TPK in the first encounter.
That's 25% of the time customers will be annoyed or angered that their carefully crafted characters died in the first fight of the game. Not a good way to retain customers.
If you want to calculate crits in that's 5% out of that 25%. So 20% is regular hits and 5% is crits. A crit by most of these monsters will take a Rogue or Wizard out with one hit. 2 crits means the fighter and/or cleric goes down. The way to calculate it out is using this formula:
(Percent chance to hit * average damage) + (percent chance to crit * max damage) = average damage per round or average DPR. That tells us across 4000 attacks what the average will be per round. Once we have that number we can throw in the number of members of the party, how many monsters there are and see how many monsters we are going to kill on average. With the Fighter killing about 1 per round. The Wizard killing 3+ every other round (note they aren't down until the second round). The Cleric might get 1 per round. The Rogue might get 1 per round. In other words 11 kobolds will take 3+ rounds to kill and in that time they have a very good chance of TPKing the party...
Ah ha! -lightbulb-Nelyo, you did me a great service there by getting me to (maybe) see the cumulative effect. *If* a first level party had to continually survive battle after battle, hundreds, if not thousands, without any other change in the data,
Exactly. This is why I'm more focused on individual character survivability than group survivability at this point (though the two are linked). There are so many variables that affect the liklihood of a TPK that it's much better to playtest it out than to do a bunch of number crunching or hypothetical situations. If party survivability is too low, then you'll notice when you find yourself fudging rolls or monster actions to allow the party to do survive more than one or two encounters between long rests. Likewise, if the party survivability is too good, you'll notice when you start sending in reinforcements or littering the battlefield with traps or terrain that benefits the monsters just to make the players sweat.
I'm more concerned with individual character survivability because I feel that has a more direct impact on the fun (no one likes spending half the fight unconscious and unable to do anything) and because I like giving my characters names and detailed backstories (and when I'm DMing I encourage my players to do the same to make roleplaying and plot hooks easier), which is a lot of effort to put into a character who has a good chance of not surviving until level 2.
Yeah.
Of course, character survivability is largely reliant on DM style and player actions. The fact that, so far, in 5 playtest sessoins (13 encounters), the "dying" totals (there were no deaths) are Two Fighters - 2, Rogue - 3, Cleric - 0, Wizard - 1, might make you conclude that Rogue was the weakest and survivability was overall pretty high (average only 1 dying every 2 battles with no deaths).
A lot would disagree with that assessment.
Yeah.Of course, character survivability is largely reliant on DM style and player actions. The fact that, so far, in 5 playtest sessoins (13 encounters), the "dying" totals (there were no deaths) are Two Fighters - 2, Rogue - 3, Cleric - 0, Wizard -
(Percent chance to hit * average damage) + (percent chance to crit * max damage) = average damage per round or average DPR. That tells us across 4000 attacks what the average will be per round. Once we have that number we can throw in the number of members of the party, how many monsters there are and see how many monsters we are going to kill on average. With the Fighter killing about 1 per round. The Wizard killing 3+ every other round (note they aren't down until the second round). The Cleric might get 1 per round. The Rogue might get 1 per round. In other words 11 kobolds will take 3+ rounds to kill and in that time they have a very good chance of TPKing the party...
25% chance of TPK? No. Don't see that.
2 Fighters (1 defender, 1 archer with rapid shot) will average 3 attacks at 80% hit rate. That's 2.4 kills per round. 1 Wizard (tougher here, because of sleep and burning hands use or not). Hrm. I am going to allow your 1.5 kills per round. 1 War Cleric with 75% hit rate will kill 0.75 per round. 1 Rogue with 80% hit rate will kill 0.80 per round.
Average kills per round: 5.45. Almost, not quite, half their numbers in round 1. Given the INIT advantage players have, kobolds will be rapidly diminishing in output every round...
Much greater odds that the kobolds will break and run in round 2 than surive to attack for more than 3 rounds.
I give them, at best, a 1 in 25 chance of a TPK. Probably more like 1 in 50.
25% chance of TPK? No. Don't see that.2 Fighters (1 defender, 1 archer with rapid shot) will average 3 attacks at 80% hit rate. That's 2.4 kills per round.1 Wizard (tougher here, because of sleep and burning hands use or not). Hrm. I am going to allo
(Percent chance to hit * average damage) + (percent chance to crit * max damage) = average damage per round or average DPR. That tells us across 4000 attacks what the average will be per round. Once we have that number we can throw in the number of members of the party, how many monsters there are and see how many monsters we are going to kill on average. With the Fighter killing about 1 per round. The Wizard killing 3+ every other round (note they aren't down until the second round). The Cleric might get 1 per round. The Rogue might get 1 per round. In other words 11 kobolds will take 3+ rounds to kill and in that time they have a very good chance of TPKing the party...
25% chance of TPK? No. Don't see that.
2 Fighters (1 defender, 1 archer with rapid shot) will average 3 attacks at 80% hit rate. That's 2.4 kills per round. 1 Wizard (tougher here, because of sleep and burning hands use or not). Hrm. I am going to allow your 1.5 kills per round. 1 War Cleric with 75% hit rate will kill 0.75 per round. 1 Rogue with 80% hit rate will kill 0.80 per round.
Average kills per round: 5.45. Almost, not quite, half their numbers in round 1. Given the INIT advantage players have, kobolds will be rapidly diminishing in output every round...
Much greater odds that the kobolds will break and run in round 2 than surive to attack for more than 3 rounds.
I give them, at best, a 1 in 25 chance of a TPK. Probably more like 1 in 50.
Your damage is halved with multi-weapon attacks, so its the same thing 1 kill per round...
25% chance of TPK? No. Don't see that.2 Fighters (1 defender, 1 archer with rapid shot) will average 3 attacks at 80% hit rate. That's 2.4 kills per round.1 Wizard (tougher here, because of sleep and burning hands use or not). Hrm. I am going to allo
(Percent chance to hit * average damage) + (percent chance to crit * max damage) = average damage per round or average DPR. That tells us across 4000 attacks what the average will be per round. Once we have that number we can throw in the number of members of the party, how many monsters there are and see how many monsters we are going to kill on average. With the Fighter killing about 1 per round. The Wizard killing 3+ every other round (note they aren't down until the second round). The Cleric might get 1 per round. The Rogue might get 1 per round. In other words 11 kobolds will take 3+ rounds to kill and in that time they have a very good chance of TPKing the party...
25% chance of TPK? No. Don't see that.
2 Fighters (1 defender, 1 archer with rapid shot) will average 3 attacks at 80% hit rate. That's 2.4 kills per round. 1 Wizard (tougher here, because of sleep and burning hands use or not). Hrm. I am going to allow your 1.5 kills per round. 1 War Cleric with 75% hit rate will kill 0.75 per round. 1 Rogue with 80% hit rate will kill 0.80 per round.
Average kills per round: 5.45. Almost, not quite, half their numbers in round 1. Given the INIT advantage players have, kobolds will be rapidly diminishing in output every round...
Much greater odds that the kobolds will break and run in round 2 than surive to attack for more than 3 rounds.
I give them, at best, a 1 in 25 chance of a TPK. Probably more like 1 in 50.
25% chance of TPK?
A simple "no" is the answer to that, regardless of whatever math you want to do. Read the playtest forums, talk to someone who played a lot of 3.0/3.5 (and it's a LOT easier to have characters die in 3.0/3.5 than in DDN!!)
No, just no. A party will TPK once in every 4 encounters? We're not playing the same game, I don't think.
Edit: Herp derp. Forgot to do .75^x (where x = # of encounters) and added them like a noob.
25% chance of TPK? No. Don't see that.2 Fighters (1 defender, 1 archer with rapid shot) will average 3 attacks at 80% hit rate. That's 2.4 kills per round.1 Wizard (tougher here, because of sleep and burning hands use or not). Hrm. I am going to allo
Your damage is halved with multi-weapon attacks, so its the same thing 1 kill per round...
Yes, and no.
2 Attacks from an 18 DEX Human Fighter with Rapid Shot on 2 seperate targets are 80% hit for 1d8 (bow) + 1d6 (expertise) + 4.... halve that against a 3 HP creature and, well....
It's still going to kill 2 targets most the time.
Yes, and no.2 Attacks from an 18 DEX Human Fighter with Rapid Shot on 2 seperate targets are 80% hit for 1d8 (bow) + 1d6 (expertise) + 4.... halve that against a 3 HP creature and, well....It's still going to kill 2 targets most the time.
Besides which, a 25% chance of TPK in one encounter is a 68% chance of TPK in 4 encounters, not 100%. But there are several things that the characters have as an advantage over the monsters:
More access to healing items Go unconscious instead of dying Ability to run away, heal, and come back (technically monsters can do this too, but the point is it makes it harder to TPK in that situation) They level up, gaining more powers
Assuming a 1% chance of TPK per encounter, there's a 50-50 chance after 68 encounters. That's assuming the PC's never thing, "Wow this is out of hand.. let's get the freak out of here" when things turn sour.
Additionally, no matter what there's always a chance of TPK if you go straight by the numbers. PC's can miss too often and the monsters can hit too often. Stuff happens.
BTW, even with the wizard's health as it is and the Goblin's attack bonuses and damage as they are, an arrow from a goblin will ko a wizard exactly... 17% of the time. I think that's enough for the wizard to feel that the goblin's attack is dangerous, but not so high that they feel crippling fear whenever goblins are around.
Besides which, a 25% chance of TPK in one encounter is a 68% chance of TPK in 4 encounters, not 100%. But there are several things that the characters have as an advantage over the monsters:More access to healing itemsGo unconscious instead of dyingA
Sorry, still shaking my head over the "25% chance of a TPK" thing.
So, using the 25% TPK chance:
x encounters, % tpk chance: 1, 25% 2, 43.75% 3, 57.8% 4, 68.3% ... So about two thirds of parties TPK within the first 4?
5, 76.3% 6, 82.2% 7, 86.6% 8, 90% ... So 9/10ths of parties with be dead within 2 days (assuming 4 encounters a day) of adventuring?
So again -- assuming that it's easier to TPK in 3.x than DDN, and I believe it is:
How in the world did we ever play so many long-running campaigns? I know I didn't imagine it..
When your model doesn't match reality, adjust your model.
Sorry, still shaking my head over the "25% chance of a TPK" thing.So, using the 25% TPK chance:x encounters, % tpk chance:1, 25%2, 43.75%3, 57.8%4, 68.3% ... So about two thirds of parties TPK within the first 4?5, 76.3%6, 82.2%7, 86.6%8, 90% ... So
So again -- assuming that it's easier to TPK in 3.x than DDN, and I believe it is:
How in the world did we ever play so many long-running campaigns? I know I didn't imagine it..
When your model doesn't match reality, adjust your model.
Well the answer for us was NEVER play levels 1-2, since everytime we tried, we ended up making new characters before the adventure was even 1/2 way through. 3rd level was our 'level 1' since it allowed a reasonable chance to live through it.
Well the answer for us was NEVER play levels 1-2, since everytime we tried, we ended up making new characters before the adventure was even 1/2 way through. 3rd level was our 'level 1' since it allowed a reasonable chance to live through it.
"3rd level was our 'level 1' since it allowed a reasonable chance to live through it" should be "3rd level was our 'level 1' since our particular playstyle allowed a reasonable chance to live through it.
That's got to be the caveat before something like "the chance for a TPK is 25% per encounter" is stated as any sort of fact, right?
Playstyle matters, and the rules should support multiple styles, I guess.
Some DMs kill characters, some don't. There's always a DM/playstyle choice, clearly, because different DMs playing with the exact same rules have achieved wildly different results.
"3rd level was our 'level 1' since it allowed a reasonable chance to live through it" should be"3rd level was our 'level 1' since our particular playstyle allowed a reasonable chance to live through it. That's got to be the caveat before something li
This only helps if #1 you are not KO'd and #2 if you are super rich. AT 25gp a shot, Our wizard would neec to spend about 75gp per fight, assuming he got lucky and could still take that action.
Ability to run away, heal, and come back (technically monsters can do this too, but the point is it makes it harder to TPK in that situation)
Not really unless it's a truely random fight and the monsters are somehow slower than you. If things go bad and the goblins have you outnumbered and on the run, why are they letting you go? Is dragging a KO'd party member speeding you up?
True, but that's only if the players feel like it after spending most of thier time on their backs, staring up at the ceiling and wondering why they aren't playing a game where instant death/KO isn't around every corner.
I'll take these one at a time. This only helps if #1 you are not KO'd and #2 if you are super rich. AT 25gp a shot, Our wizard would neec to spend about 75gp per fight, assuming he got lucky and could still take that action.Not real helpful in a TPK
"3rd level was our 'level 1' since it allowed a reasonable chance to live through it" should be "3rd level was our 'level 1' since our particular playstyle allowed a reasonable chance to live through it.
That's got to be the caveat before something like "the chance for a TPK is 25% per encounter" is stated as any sort of fact, right?
Playstyle matters, and the rules should support multiple styles, I guess.
Some DMs kill characters, some don't. There's always a DM/playstyle choice, clearly, because different DMs playing with the exact same rules have achieved wildly different results.
LOL you DID see that I said "Well the answer for us." right? Everything I said was after that. I've already said on this thread that it's clear some people seem to have no problem with the system as is.
I'll disagree with the 'Some DMs kill characters, some don't' part. This, for me at least, was never about me trying to kill our players. My issue with hp as they stand in the playtest is that I can't come up with a logical way NOT to kill them after so many KO's and wipes. It just happens SO often, that I have to say SOMETHING happens and not 'well YET again, you wake up and find yourself left for dead...'.
To be honest, 25% sounds about right to me from my experience with 'our particular playstyle'. Maybe even on the low side!
LOL you DID see that I said "Well the answer for us." right? Everything I said was after that. I've already said on this thread that it's clear some people seem to have no problem with the system as is.I'll disagree with the 'Some DMs kill character
It is interesting how two (not just "us" but in general, though I bet accurate) talented DMs with extensive experience and talent for the "position" can both come to such dramaticly opposite conclusions with the exact same material. And neither are wrong for their particular setting.
Now, granted, I don't have to go out of my way to kill players... it's still, quite honestly, pretty easy, but I struggle to fully understand how it's impossible for some to find a way NOT to kill them. Similarly, no matter the input or advice, another DM will not see how to use what I offer in their campaign to help players survive because it is just impossible for them to think that way.
Same rules, same DMing talent, two polar opposite results.
It is interesting how two (not just "us" but in general, though I bet accurate) talented DMs with extensive experience and talent for the "position" can both come to such dramaticly opposite conclusions with the exact same material. And neither are
I'm not talking from a viewpoint that assumes a particular style of DM'ing. I don't care if your approach is "gank the Wizard" or "Wizards project a field of harmlessness that makes them last on the target list" or anywhere in between; in my opinion, a system in which the DM can decide "this round this goblin archer will shoot at the Wizard," roll a natural 20, and take the Wizard from full hp to unconscious is a system in which the Wizard is too fragile. You're more than welcome to disagree, I just wanted to put my opinion out there that I don't think the default rules should have level 1 characters vulnerable to one hit KO's unless they're taking on something more powerful than them.
This.
Someone brought up Everquest: I don't care. It's bad in that, too.
This. Someone brought up Everquest: I don't care. It's bad in that, too.
I'm not talking from a viewpoint that assumes a particular style of DM'ing. I don't care if your approach is "gank the Wizard" or "Wizards project a field of harmlessness that makes them last on the target list" or anywhere in between; in my opinion, a system in which the DM can decide "this round this goblin archer will shoot at the Wizard," roll a natural 20, and take the Wizard from full hp to unconscious is a system in which the Wizard is too fragile. You're more than welcome to disagree, I just wanted to put my opinion out there that I don't think the default rules should have level 1 characters vulnerable to one hit KO's unless they're taking on something more powerful than them.
This.
Hm.
I guess I still can't quite go over to your "side".
1) Protect. Wizards could just take cover behind the Fighter and rely on that feature. 2) Not dead. Unlike monsters, a Wizard isn't *dead* at 0 or -1 HPs. 3) Healing. It's abundant. Not only isn't a Wizard dead, very soon he'll likely be alive and at full health. 4) D&D should include an element of danger. If the weakest, most frail character amongst you can take an arrow to the chest without pausing, what's there to be afraid of? Overwhelming odds against you? DMs will have to work hard to create danger because no single event will ever put the fear of dying into a group if it's literally impossible to accomplish. 5) There will always be one-more-reason to boost HPs even more. One example of something capable of one-shotting the weakest link. "Wait," the goblin shaman just did a Ray of Enfeeblement on my cleric and killed him. Can we please have starting HPs at 25+ so a Crit Ray could never take me out?!? That's only fair!"
All that said.... I agree, there needs to be something extra for wizards... I like the idea of giving them spells to overcome adversity, but wouldn't bat an eye at a boost to HPs.
This.[/quote]Hm.I guess I still can't quite go over to your "side".1) Protect. Wizards could just take cover behind the Fighter and rely on that feature. 2) Not dead. Unlike monsters, a Wizard isn't *dead* at 0 or -1 HPs.3) Healing. It's abundant.
1) even behid the fighter, the wizard is still an easy target.
2)but being out of the fight isn't fun
3) out of combat healing is ok.
4) yes, but the danger should be from the monsters, not the dice.
5) if speed wasn't a factor (it is), i would agree with starting with lot's of hit points, and have combat go about 20 rounds (for the d20 to average out). But then combat would take way too long.
1) even behid the fighter, the wizard is still an easy target.2)but being out of the fight isn't fun3) out of combat healing is ok.4) yes, but the danger should be from the monsters, not the dice.5) if speed wasn't a factor (it is), i would agree wit
1) even behid the fighter, the wizard is still an easy target. 2)but being out of the fight isn't fun 3) out of combat healing is ok. 4) yes, but the danger should be from the monsters, not the dice. 5) if speed wasn't a factor (it is), i would agree with starting with lot's of hit points, and have combat go about 20 rounds (for the d20 to average out). But then combat would take way too long.
Wizard being an easy target, yes, but wizard with Protect taking 1d6 less damage is a lot harder to kill.
Agree on dying, but healing gets you back in the fight, and depending on when the blow falls, the dying as often as not doesn't even miss an action.
What's wrong with in combat healing?
Not sure what you mean by speed being a factor.
Finally, high hits, high HPs, is kind of where 4E is. Long battles with lots of action and real ebb and flow. 4E has much more predictability about it because of this. It's easier to balance encounters and have expected outcomes. Even down to the science of how much resources should be used in every encounter.
It's great, really.
5E will need to come with a 4E-style module/add-on to give people all that back. I just don't personally want to see it as the default. I already have the most recent version of D&D (4th) I spent good money on to achieve that.
For me, I want 5E to be something a little more open, less predictable, and a whole lot simpler, swifter, and cleaner to start.
Wizard being an easy target, yes, but wizard with Protect taking 1d6 less damage is a lot harder to kill.Agree on dying, but healing gets you back in the fight, and depending on when the blow falls, the dying as often as not doesn't even miss an acti
4) D&D should include an element of danger. If the weakest, most frail character amongst you can take an arrow to the chest without pausing, what's there to be afraid of? Overwhelming odds against you? DMs will have to work hard to create danger because no single event will ever put the fear of dying into a group if it's literally impossible to accomplish.
If being able take a single hit without dropping removes all fear of dying from your group, what happens to the group of hill dwarf fighters and clerics in heavy armor? Believe me, even in a system like 4e where hit points and healing were plentiful, it was still quite possible to put the fear of death into groups (my group still utters the word "Tembo" with fear and horror).
5) There will always be one-more-reason to boost HPs even more. One example of something capable of one-shotting the weakest link. "Wait," the goblin shaman just did a Ray of Enfeeblement on my cleric and killed him. Can we please have starting HPs at 25+ so a Crit Ray could never take me out?!? That's only fair!"
Until HP reaches 1, there will always be one-more-reason to drop HP even further. "Wait, the fighter just survived a scratch from a giant centipede, he's unstoppable!" "1 HP characters should be the default, that way when I tell players they can actually roll their hit points I'll seem awesome and when I tell them to stick to 1 HP they'll go along with it."
All exaggeration aside, this is supposed to be the promise of modularity, that one group can have their super-fragile grit fest and another group can have their super tough grind fest and we can all say we're playing D&D. The sticking point is in deciding where the default settings should be.
All that said.... I agree, there needs to be something extra for wizards... I like the idea of giving them spells to overcome adversity, but wouldn't bat an eye at a boost to HPs.
I dislike the idea of making wizards rely on their spells for this if only because if a wizard has to have a certain set of spells active at all times to expect to survive, then you might as well just give them the benefits, reduce their spell slots accordingly, and save everyone the hassle of bookkeeping that mage armor that's always on.
[EDIT: I get my dwarfs mixed up]
If being able take a single hit without dropping removes all fear of dying from your group, what happens to the group of hill dwarf fighters and clerics in heavy armor? Believe me, even in a system like 4e where hit points and healing were plentiful,
If being able take a single hit without dropping removes all fear of dying from your group, what happens to the group of hill dwarf fighters and clerics in heavy armor? Believe me, even in a system like 4e where hit points and healing were plentiful, it was still quite possible to put the fear of death into groups (my group still utters the word "Tembo" with fear and horror).
Agreed. Just depends on how long you want it to take to reach that fearful point.
Until HP reaches 1, there will always be one-more-reason to drop HP even further. "Wait, the fighter just survived a scratch from a giant centipede, he's unstoppable!" "1 HP characters should be the default, that way when I tell players they can actually roll their hit points I'll seem awesome and when I tell them to stick to 1 HP they'll go along with it."
I've never honestly seen much argument for lower HPs. The VAST VAST majority of people arguing for change want more HPs. I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't think it applies much. If not being able to be one shotted is the requirement, though, I can easily go through very plausible, very real examples of basic, average encounters that will cause problems.
Not a single one of us saying "I am okay with HPs as is, what about other options" are saying "HPs are too high, let's reduce them all to 1." A lot of people are saying, "1 shot hits should never happen... ever." We are discussing that as it's a relevant topic and worth examining.
All exaggeration aside, this is supposed to be the promise of modularity, that one group can have their super-fragile grit fest and another group can have their super tough grind fest and we can all say we're playing D&D. The sticking point is in deciding where the default settings should be.
I wasn't exaggerating about where to stop, but your point is well taken.
If half of us like the HPs as is, and half want more, I think we are pretty good. Especially considering the wide range the "want more" are looking for. Some want just +5. Some want CON+Max HD, some want CON+CON_MOD+Max HD, and I remember seeing some others options including even more than that.
elec needs a Wizard to be able to withstand alpha-strikes by entire groups of monsters who will make him priority #1. 4E offered a lot for that situation (better AC, better HPs, better powers, better support from teammates). Something like BASE-10+CON with supporting powers & spells to enhance the control & flow might be the answer.
Lokaire sees deaths galore. Impossible to avoid without a significant boost (triple HPs I know he called for at least once, or CON+MOD+4 or 6 for Wizard). HPs must be sustainable over dozens, if not hundreds of battles.
Others want to survive just that 1 hit from a goblin arrow (more than 7).
Still others want to survive a hit+crit (more than 11).
-shrug- Honestly, as one of the "it's okay as is" types, the truth is, I'm pretty adaptable and with any kind of balance between damage taken, defense, and HPs they come up with, I am sure I will be able to work with.
If they change it, I doubt I will mind all that much unless the default is approaching 4E... I already play 4E... I was looking forward to something quicker and cleaner.
I dislike the idea of making wizards rely on their spells for this if only because if a wizard has to have a certain set of spells active at all times to expect to survive, then you might as well just give them the benefits, reduce their spell slots accordingly, and save everyone the hassle of bookkeeping that mage armor that's always on.
Can't agree with you there. To me, saying Wizards shouldn't rely on spells is like saying Fighters shouldn't rely on Armor.
Mage Armor as an option means choices. More offense or more defense? It won't be mandatory, because maybe the Wizard has found a good healer and Protect oriented Warrior. 6 HPs don't seem like much, but with Caramon deflecting 1d6 off you every round, they will hold up to a lot of abuse.
Now, say, you give class features (sorcerer?) that boost AC (let's pump it up to 15) and HPs (let's say they start with 14, CON+4), then what decisions on spells will the have? Trying to decide whether they want 2 Burning Hands or a Burning Hands + Sleep?
I don't know. Probably would work. I tend to view Wizards as masters of preperation with a multitude of possible solutions to a problem. Not just burn or more burn.
Agreed. Just depends on how long you want it to take to reach that fearful point.I've never honestly seen much argument for lower HPs. The VAST VAST majority of people arguing for change want more HPs. I understand the point you are trying to make
Can't agree with you there. To me, saying Wizards shouldn't rely on spells is like saying Fighters shouldn't rely on Armor.
Mage Armor as an option means choices. More offense or more defense? It won't be mandatory, because maybe the Wizard has found a good healer and Protect oriented Warrior. 6 HPs don't seem like much, but with Caramon deflecting 1d6 off you every round, they will hold up to a lot of abuse.
Now, say, you give class features (sorcerer?) that boost AC (let's pump it up to 15) and HPs (let's say they start with 14, CON+4), then what decisions on spells will the have? Trying to decide whether they want 2 Burning Hands or a Burning Hands + Sleep?
I don't know. Probably would work. I tend to view Wizards as masters of preperation with a multitude of possible solutions to a problem. Not just burn or more burn.
I can see your point, but defensive spells are only an option or a choice if a wizard can reasonably be able to forgo them. To refer to your analogy, saying using defensive spells is a choice is like saying the fighter can choose not to wear armor. Technically he can; realistically, he can't.
As far as what spells to take instead of the defensive suite, I don't know, maybe Charm Person so he has at least one spell that's not combat oriented? Utility spells like Grease? There are a lot of potential utility spells to bring in if the wizard gets the option to make a choice other than "burn and protect-my-squishy-self."
I can see your point, but defensive spells are only an option or a choice if a wizard can reasonably be able to forgo them. To refer to your analogy, saying using defensive spells is a choice is like saying the fighter can choose not to wear armor. T
I'm confused where people get the idea there's no danger sense in 4th(I mean, it's a paragon feat for heaven's sake :P).
I've had numerous encounter where we got the tar beat out of us, I've died a number of times, and one DM who was good at balancing difficult encounters where even for a partially optimized party, it was still incredibly challenging and we'd die if we didn't use our heads, but were still very winnable.
I'm confused where people get the idea there's no danger sense in 4th(I mean, it's a paragon feat for heaven's sake :P).I've had numerous encounter where we got the tar beat out of us, I've died a number of times, and one DM who was good at balancing
I can see your point, but defensive spells are only an option or a choice if a wizard can reasonably be able to forgo them. To refer to your analogy, saying using defensive spells is a choice is like saying the fighter can choose not to wear armor. Technically he can; realistically, he can't.
As far as what spells to take instead of the defensive suite, I don't know, maybe Charm Person so he has at least one spell that's not combat oriented? Utility spells like Grease? There are a lot of potential utility spells to bring in if the wizard gets the option to make a choice other than "burn and protect-my-squishy-self."
This my be a keypoint in our discussion.
For the Wizard, Mage Armor wouldbe option in my campaign because I am not specifically targetting her for death in every encounter. Typically, I'd say a Wizard might fact 10-20% of the attacks in combat. Much less where the battle layout favors them (easy cover, solid protection from fighters, roleplay reasons, etc) and more where the Wizard is more easily attacked and recognized for their weakness and/or power (seperated, exposed for what they are be a significant spell, etC).
That said, a front-line Fighter should (and will) expect to be relying heavily on AC to survive. I know some do, but I don't run all my creatures around combat completely ignoring the warriors. For those that do, yeah, a Fighter really could consider armor optional for all the attacks they face.
@English: I meantioned in another threat that in my last 4E campaing, 3 of 6 characters died, and 1 of the 3 relacements died. The difference is on how long it took to get those results. Every one of those were in "winnable" encounters, but something went wrong (bad luck or bad execution). It happens (though it doesn't make me feel great or happy). The specter of death creates drama and tension, both good for roleplaying and memorable moments.
This my be a keypoint in our discussion.For the Wizard, Mage Armor would be option in my campaign because I am not specifically targetting her for death in every encounter. Typically, I'd say a Wizard might fact 10-20% of the attacks in combat. Muc
Way to mischaracterize me. I want enough hit points that a lucky shot can't kill the Wizard or the Fighter or any class.
So Con score + roll hit dice would be fine.
Way to mischaracterize me. I want enough hit points that a lucky shot can't kill the Wizard or the Fighter or any class.So Con score + roll hit dice would be fine.
For the Wizard, Mage Armor wouldbe option in my campaign because I am not specifically targetting her for death in every encounter. Typically, I'd say a Wizard might fact 10-20% of the attacks in combat. Much less where the battle layout favors them (easy cover, solid protection from fighters, roleplay reasons, etc) and more where the Wizard is more easily attacked and recognized for their weakness and/or power (seperated, exposed for what they are be a significant spell, etC).
You keep talking about DM's specifically targeting the wizard for death as though that's the only reason the wizard's hp is a problem. Even if you are not specifically targeting the wizard, if attacks are being directed at them, and their hp is low enough that they can be dropped in one hit by any one of those attacks, then defensive measures are a requirement, or else their low AC means they will get hit, and their low hp means they will more than likely go down and put the party in a bad position. So if you have all of your monsters ignore the wizard because they're incapable of realizing that an unarmored opponent might be dangerous/a good target, or if one of the players plays a fighter that babysits the wizard all over the battlefield, then yes, it would be an option, but not in any game where the wizard can expect to be attacked at all.
I'm not asking for a wizard that can survive any possible crit he suffers, I'm asking for a wizard that can suffer a crit from an equal level monster doing average damage for that level. I have yet to see anyone ask for a wizard that can survive a critted Ray of Enfeeblement.
You keep talking about DM's specifically targeting the wizard for death as though that's the only reason the wizard's hp is a problem. Even if you are not specifically targeting the wizard, if attacks are being directed at them, and their hp is low e
I'm not asking for a wizard that can survive any possible crit he suffers, I'm asking for a wizard that can suffer a crit from an equal level monster doing average damage for that level. I have yet to see anyone ask for a wizard that can survive a critted Ray of Enfeeblement.
Fair enough.
Min HPs @ level then.... 1st: 8 (Goblin for 7) 2nd: 9 (Skeleton for 8) 3rd: 15 (Orc for 14) 4th: 11 (Gnoll for 10) 5th: 16 (Orog for 15) 6th: 19 (Bugbear for 18)
Giving Wizards 10 CON, Max HD, and +3/level, looks like they need +5 at first, +2 at second, +5 at third, +0 at fourth, +0 at fifth, and +0 at sixth.
So mainly, it's surviving level 1 to 3. Hrm. +5 obviously solves those level... and I suppose being a little tougher at higher levels where they might be able to survive another shot after crit or a couple of shots without crit isn't terrible. Is +5 just too.... generic? No RP flavor to it? How about CON + HD? Too much emphasis on CON? Would it make CON the stat no character could ignore? No RP flavor to stats because of the requirement to take CON? Hm.
As I said before, if they boosted HPs, I wouldn't bat an eye, just adjust and move on (unless combat became slogfests that took longer and longer to complete).
I attack the wizard in my campaigns often enough. I just don't prioritize them without a story-driven or RP reason (ie: creatures see them cast, they are left open and vulnerable, they are targetted for assassination, etc etc etc).
I guess the real problem is whether or not Dying is an acceptable state in campaigns and how fast does it take you to get there.
I don't mind fraility, but could live with a HP boost. Just toss an extra creature or two in to up the challange in response.... I would just ask that if they make Characters twice as survivable, that they reduce XPs of monsters they'll face to reflect it.
@lokaire: Fair enough. Still a pretty good jump (10 CON wizard would more than triple HPs on average and a 14 CON wizard almost triple). It should do a lot to eliviate those TPKs you are encountering.
Fair enough. :)Min HPs @ level then....1st: 8 (Goblin for 7)2nd: 9 (Skeleton for 8)3rd: 15 (Orc for 14)4th: 11 (Gnoll for 10)5th: 16 (Orog for 15)6th: 19 (Bugbear for 18)Giving Wizards 10 CON, Max HD, and +3/level, looks like they need +5 at first, +
I'm not talking from a viewpoint that assumes a particular style of DM'ing. I don't care if your approach is "gank the Wizard" or "Wizards project a field of harmlessness that makes them last on the target list" or anywhere in between; in my opinion, a system in which the DM can decide "this round this goblin archer will shoot at the Wizard," roll a natural 20, and take the Wizard from full hp to unconscious is a system in which the Wizard is too fragile. You're more than welcome to disagree, I just wanted to put my opinion out there that I don't think the default rules should have level 1 characters vulnerable to one hit KO's unless they're taking on something more powerful than them.
This.
Hm.
I guess I still can't quite go over to your "side".
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />All that said.... I agree, there needs to be something extra for wizards... I like the idea of giving them spells to overcome adversity, but wouldn't bat an eye at a boost to HPs.
I don't want the wizard to be as hard to kill as the fighter. I just want the wizard to not a weakling.
Believe me, even in a system like 4e where hit points and healing were plentiful, it was still quite possible to put the fear of death into groups (my group still utters the word "Tembo" with fear and horror).
Hey, mine too! :D
heh...they were one or two levels below it, too.
I think they're getting a bit too cocky with their new party, though. Strong group, well made...need to face a tenbo.
I'd really like either shield or mage armor to be a class feature or cantrip. Shield and counterspell could work, with being reactive, and they could be a class feature, and when you use them you have to burn a spell slot, but you don't have to prepare them, idk. Something like that.
This.[/quote]Hm.I guess I still can't quite go over to your "side"...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />All that said.... I agree, there needs to be something extra for wizards... I like the idea
As I said before, if they boosted HPs, I wouldn't bat an eye, just adjust and move on (unless combat became slogfests that took longer and longer to complete).
I attack the wizard in my campaigns often enough. I just don't prioritize them without a story-driven or RP reason (ie: creatures see them cast, they are left open and vulnerable, they are targetted for assassination, etc etc etc).
I guess the real problem is whether or not Dying is an acceptable state in campaigns and how fast does it take you to get there.
I don't mind fraility, but could live with a HP boost. Just toss an extra creature or two in to up the challange in response.... I would just ask that if they make Characters twice as survivable, that they reduce XPs of monsters they'll face to reflect it.
Yeah, as we can see by your analysis of monster damage, part of the problem here is that there really doesn't appear to be any coherent benchmarks in place for the monsters, whether in terms of how much XP they're worth or what kind of damage a monster of X level should be dealing.
I consider Dying to be a condition that should not happen too often in campaigns. It cuts a player out of the action, making them a spectator, and it greatly increases the chances of a TPK, since the party is suddenly missing a big chunk of their actions and capabilities. Not to mention that you only get a rush and a sense of danger out of your character being at negative hp if it's a relatively infrequent occurance; if it happens too often, the response is not "Oh no, is my character going to make it?" but "Oh look, I'm on the ground again, does anyone want anything out of the 'fridge while I'm up?" They might not be feeling invincible, but the danger of impending death loses its teeth. Which is why I consider putting the players in direct fear of their characters' lives only one small part of a much larger toolbox of DM tools for getting them immersed in the game.
I think they're getting a bit too cocky with their new party, though. Strong group, well made...need to face a tenbo.
This is why I don't mind a system having a few monsters which are clearly stronger than the other monsters of similar hit dice/level; as long as they are clearly marked to the DM as "You can kill parties with this thing, you might want to drop hints about running being an option early and often," they can be an excellent way of countering a feeling of invincibility. Just watch out that you don't actually kill the entire party and completely derail your campaign in the process.
I'd really like either shield or mage armor to be a class feature or cantrip. Shield and counterspell could work, with being reactive, and they could be a class feature, and when you use them you have to burn a spell slot, but you don't have to prepare them, idk. Something like that.
I could get behind this; maybe make it a cantrip with no cost but which can only be cast as a ritual so that if, on occasion, the DM decides to send an enemy capable of stripping those protections after the party (much like he might use a rust monster), the wizard can't simply throw it back up next turn because it's an at-will.
Yeah, as we can see by your analysis of monster damage, part of the problem here is that there really doesn't appear to be any coherent benchmarks in place for the monsters, whether in terms of how much XP they're worth or what kind of damage a monst
Well, any turn the Wizard uses to throw up the shield, that's one turn he's not throwing magic at the enemies. I think that's already a fair enough trade-off.
Well, any turn the Wizard uses to throw up the shield, that's one turn he's not throwing magic at the enemies. I think that's already a fair enough trade-off.
I could get behind this; maybe make it a cantrip with no cost but which can only be cast as a ritual so that if, on occasion, the DM decides to send an enemy capable of stripping those protections after the party (much like he might use a rust monster), the wizard can't simply throw it back up next turn because it's an at-will.
I think the cost of an action and a spell slot will stop wizards from just spamming it every time, but this is the sort of particulars that could be solved in playtesting, I think.
I think the cost of an action and a spell slot will stop wizards from just spamming it every time, but this is the sort of particulars that could be solved in playtesting, I think.
I hate to do this, since it goes against one of my codes of posting on forums, but I am going to respond to this based off only off my opinion on the subject, and not the opinions presented in the tome of post that lay before me.
I have tinkered around in the past with many many many many variants to how to handle character/monster durabilty, with varying and interesting degrees of succuess. I used a saving throw system for a while in 3rd, and it proved to be both exciting at its best and crippling at its worst. The potential to 'die' in one hit made every encounter a pleasingly stressful experience, but the problem was, finding a reasonable way to determine the DC and not have to rebuild the whole game system. One of my encounters went on for 5-6 minutes in game time, just because the party's rogue could not do the shear amount of damage required to provide a high enough DC for an ogre. Granted, it made for an interesting narrative, but an excessive amounts of rolls.
Other systems I have played go about character durability differently, some with scaling hp, some without. It all depends on the player/gm style they wish to cater to. And perhaps with the modularity that D&D 5 is supposedly going to incorporate, we might see some interesting varieties crop up inside the D&D ruleset. However, aside from White Wolf (whose durability system eludes me at the moment), the largest competition Wizards has in the RPG market is probably Fantasy Flight. And their scaling encounter design is based marginally on scaling hp, and more around mitigating devastating attacks and controlling mechanics such as damage reduction and cover.
In second edition, the DM I regularly played with gave us all a bonus+10 to hp at level one, because he did not like our frailty. And I personally prefer to go with 10, 8 or 6 plus Constitution for my D&D game. A d4 for hit points, while still a playable character, really brings into question that persons ability to function in a world populated with 1d12 chucking orcs. However, I think that a world with 1d12 chucking orcs should still be a threat to level 10 fighters. If a level 10 fighter has 93 hp and an 18( 19 with shield) AC, the threat the orcs offer is marginalized to the point its almost trivial. Granted, this is not as bad as say, 3rd or 4th, in which a 10th level mage could stroll into a small orc encampment, and proceed to slaughter the orcs with his quarterstaff (because the math for his attacks and defenses far out weighted the 4hp, +4 to attack orcs).
I favor a high base line hp system, with heroic characters (PCs and certain NPCs), that have smaller gains as the levels go on. Like a fighter getting 2 or 3 hp a level, not modified by constitution, and a rogue, wizard, cleric, getting 1 to 2. The benefit of constitution comes from saves against poison, petrification, or death magic (perhaps against energy types such as cold and acid), and maybe passive damage reduction for the excessively high constitutions.
Fights that are simply HP grinds drag the game on, and make it less interesting for classes that can not deal out the damage. A rogue's (Thug) ability to just throw down 6d6+[w] damage a turn is going to shine above almost any other class feature, even a wizards ability to immolate large areas with fire, because in the encounters it matters, the rogue is more reliable, more durable, and does not risk party damage.
On an aside, I also dislike automatic damage.
I hate to do this, since it goes against one of my codes of posting on forums, but I am going to respond to this based off only off my opinion on the subject, and not the opinions presented in the tome of post that lay before me.I have tinkered aroun
I've been pushing for spellcasting solutions for Wizards because that's what they do best. I like some of the suggestions here.
As cantrips, they would have to be limited in duration. 1 minute? 10 rounds?
I still prefer them as spells-at-level, forcing the wizard to decide on offense or defense, but I could be swayed the other way.
Dying is... okay to me... 1 person "knocked down" every other battle just bring the reality of how near death is in so dangerous an occupation.
Keep in mind, I don't slit many throats, so dying != death very often.
Part of the problem with D&D is who "healthy" you are even at near-death hit points. Sometimes, putting them on-the-ground, where they can feel how close to a dirt nap they really are, drives home the point.
Plus, as one of my players like to so proudly tout (his character is self titled "the Immortal" because he's "cheated death" a few times), regaining your feet, returning to the battle, and overcoming a near fatal wound ("My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!") to extract revenge can be quite satisfying.
I've been pushing for spellcasting solutions for Wizards because that's what they do best. I like some of the suggestions here.As cantrips, they would have to be limited in duration. 1 minute? 10 rounds?I still prefer them as spells-at-level, forc
I've been pushing for spellcasting solutions for Wizards because that's what they do best. I like some of the suggestions here.
As cantrips, they would have to be limited in duration. 1 minute? 10 rounds?
I still prefer them as spells-at-level, forcing the wizard to decide on offense or defense, but I could be swayed the other way.
Dying is... okay to me... 1 person "knocked down" every other battle just bring the reality of how near death is in so dangerous an occupation.
Keep in mind, I don't slit many throats, so dying != death very often.
Part of the problem with D&D is who "healthy" you are even at near-death hit points. Sometimes, putting them on-the-ground, where they can feel how close to a dirt nap they really are, drives home the point.
Plus, as one of my players like to so proudly tout (his character is self titled "the Immortal" because he's "cheated death" a few times), regaining your feet, returning to the battle, and overcoming a near fatal wound ("My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!") to extract revenge can be quite satisfying.
One of my favorite 4e moments was when my shadar-kai monk succeeded in his last death saving throw, got up, and got the kill hit in on the BBEG. Really awesome moment.
as to spell solutions, and cantrips, I like the idea of them having a real cost, but being a basic part of the class. The wizard can save himself from death using magic, but he loses a spell slot for the day, and/or his action next turn. I'm not sure that spell slot and use of reaction wouldn't be cost enough, though.
One of my favorite 4e moments was when my shadar-kai monk succeeded in his last death saving throw, got up, and got the kill hit in on the BBEG. Really awesome moment. as to spell solutions, and cantrips, I like the idea of them having a real cost, b
Sometimes, putting them on-the-ground, where they can feel how close to a dirt nap they really are, drives home the point.
It depends.
If it happens rarely enough where they cna still keep fighting, but get an occasional reminder that yes, they can indeed die, is not a bad idea IMO.
But if it's happening every fight, then it's less "Oh man, might die!" and more turning dying into just another status effect that monsters inflict on occasion.
Or to shorten it. When someone dying comes up every encounter, it's no longer interesting or special, it's just another inconvenience like being prone or dazed would be.
It depends.If it happens rarely enough where they cna still keep fighting, but get an occasional reminder that yes, they can indeed die, is not a bad idea IMO.But if it's happening every fight, then it's less "Oh man, might die!" and more turning dyi
Sometimes, putting them on-the-ground, where they can feel how close to a dirt nap they really are, drives home the point.
It depends.
If it happens rarely enough where they cna still keep fighting, but get an occasional reminder that yes, they can indeed die, is not a bad idea IMO.
But if it's happening every fight, then it's less "Oh man, might die!" and more turning dying into just another status effect that monsters inflict on occasion.
Or to shorten it. When someone dying comes up every encounter, it's no longer interesting or special, it's just another inconvenience like being prone or dazed would be.
Agreed.
Probably happening every other encounter right now, but low levels, especially first, tend to be a little more.. hazardous.
Let me tell you, despite all the elevated HPs 4E, I saw Dying even at high levels more often that in previous (or this test of 5E) versions. Man, things can really mess you up in that version.
It depends.If it happens rarely enough where they cna still keep fighting, but get an occasional reminder that yes, they can indeed die, is not a bad idea IMO.But if it's happening every fight, then it's less "Oh man, might die!" and more turning dyi
Sometimes, putting them on-the-ground, where they can feel how close to a dirt nap they really are, drives home the point.
It depends.
If it happens rarely enough where they cna still keep fighting, but get an occasional reminder that yes, they can indeed die, is not a bad idea IMO.
But if it's happening every fight, then it's less "Oh man, might die!" and more turning dying into just another status effect that monsters inflict on occasion.
Or to shorten it. When someone dying comes up every encounter, it's no longer interesting or special, it's just another inconvenience like being prone or dazed would be.
Agreed.
Probably happening every other encounter right now, but low levels, especially first, tend to be a little more.. hazardous.
Let me tell you, despite all the elevated HPs 4E, I saw Dying even at high levels more often that in previous (or this test of 5E) versions. Man, things can really mess you up in that version.
Ditto that. I even got killed in one game when after a series of really bad rolls, I got thrown out of a window by the Big Bad.
It's also why I'm confused when people claim that 4e PCs are invincible superheroes.
It depends.If it happens rarely enough where they cna still keep fighting, but get an occasional reminder that yes, they can indeed die, is not a bad idea IMO.But if it's happening every fight, then it's less "Oh man, might die!" and more turning dyi
Ditto that. I even got killed in one game when after a series of really bad rolls, I got thrown out of a window by the Big Bad.
It's also why I'm confused when people claim that 4e PCs are invincible superheroes.
heh. Yah.
Not so invinsible feeling when you got knocked prone, have ongoing 10, and that Mad Wraith Terror's aura is an auto-daze plus 5 damage.
Let's see, my choices are stand (and do nothing else) or do something from prone at reduced effectiveness and grant CA. Yippie.
Effects really is what 4E is about. Pure damage is nice, but nothing is scarier than some of the effects enemies could inflint on you.
If you eliminated effects and reduced damage to 5E levels, 4E characters would look pretty invincible. It would be pretty easy to have AC 22/23 and 55-60 HPs by level 5. In a vacuum, that all sounds great.
heh. Yah. Not so invinsible feeling when you got knocked prone, have ongoing 10, and that Mad Wraith Terror's aura is an auto-daze plus 5 damage.Let's see, my choices are stand (and do nothing else) or do something from prone at reduced effectivene
can i be a jerk for a second and say that i mentioned that there sems to be an issue with the monster design a really loooong time ago? and that everybody said i was dumb and it's the HP's fault.
now a few pages later Shade puts numbers to my concernes and it's a whole different story.
lol.
but seriously, it's telling that the monsters that take up the least amount of XP make up the largest challenge in the level 1 bracket. the monsters need to be standardized, they don't need to be seperated from the rules the players follow like 4e did, but they do need some form of standardization.
can i be a jerk for a second and say that i mentioned that there sems to be an issue with the monster design a really loooong time ago? and that everybody said i was dumb and it's the HP's fault.now a few pages later Shade puts numbers to my concerne
Ditto that. I even got killed in one game when after a series of really bad rolls, I got thrown out of a window by the Big Bad.
It's also why I'm confused when people claim that 4e PCs are invincible superheroes.
heh. Yah.
Not so invinsible feeling when you got knocked prone, have ongoing 10, and that Mad Wraith Terror's aura is an auto-daze plus 5 damage.
Let's see, my choices are stand (and do nothing else) or do something from prone at reduced effectiveness and grant CA. Yippie.
Effects really is what 4E is about. Pure damage is nice, but nothing is scarier than some of the effects enemies could inflint on you.
If you eliminated effects and reduced damage to 5E levels, 4E characters would look pretty invincible. It would be pretty easy to have AC 22/23 and 55-60 HPs by level 5. In a vacuum, that all sounds great.
which is one of my biggest gripes on 4E.
in one campaign we fought against a jester boss (out DM modeled her after Shaco from League of Legends) that could teleport and strike. her dagger didn't do that much insane damage, but it dazed, slowed, and knocked down. as the parties leader role, it was not a fun fight for me. he didn't even meta game or anything, he just had so much effect to throw around.
it wasn't even a poorly built encounter in terms of mechanics, the PC's prevailed without any deaths or getting too banged up, it just wasn't that fun.
i find the combat get slowed down in 4e sooooo much because there is a good minute of upkeep at the start of everybodies turn, picking powers, save ends, rolling effect damage, etc.
heh. Yah. Not so invinsible feeling when you got knocked prone, have ongoing 10, and that Mad Wraith Terror's aura is an auto-daze plus 5 damage.Let's see, my choices are stand (and do nothing else) or do something from prone at reduced effectivene
can i be a jerk for a second and say that i mentioned that there sems to be an issue with the monster design a really loooong time ago? and that everybody said i was dumb and it's the HP's fault.
now a few pages later Shade puts numbers to my concernes and it's a whole different story.
lol.
but seriously, it's telling that the monsters that take up the least amount of XP make up the largest challenge in the level 1 bracket. the monsters need to be standardized, they don't need to be seperated from the rules the players follow like 4e did, but they do need some form of standardization.
Numbers can sometimes be very helpful if realizing the nature of a situation. I already knew that XP values were skewed, but what Shade's numbers brought to my attention is that damage values shift in a weird manner as you go up in level, which makes trying to determine what a good hp curve is really difficult. As it is, it looks like you wouldn't need much scaling at all if 1st level characters get a few more hp or, conversely, if they just manage to survive to level 3 their chances of survival go way up, since monster damage hasn't changed that much in the meantime.
Honestly I'm half convinced that the designers decided first that player hit points needed to be on the 2e/3e level of fragility and then tried to build the rest of the combat system around that fact. It explains why the wizard is the only class without access to good AC and why monster attack bonuses are so low (so that the fighter, who only barely manages double digit hp at level 1, ends up very much more durable in comparison), why monster hp is so low (so they can be killed quickly before they have the chance to do too much damage), and why monster damage starts lower than player damage and doesn't go much of anywhere (so that when monsters do hit it's not a guaranteed KO).
That's probably just a side effect of fixating so much on this one aspect, though. It's probably more likely that they just decided they wanted to make combat really fast and said "You know what would make for fast combat? Giving everyone a smattering of hp."
in one campaign we fought against a jester boss (out DM modeled her after Shaco from League of Legends) that could teleport and strike. her dagger didn't do that much insane damage, but it dazed, slowed, and knocked down. as the parties leader role, it was not a fun fight for me. he didn't even meta game or anything, he just had so much effect to throw around.
it wasn't even a poorly built encounter in terms of mechanics, the PC's prevailed without any deaths or getting too banged up, it just wasn't that fun.
Dazed, slowed, and knocked prone? Why not just say "stunned" and call it a day? You might as well be with that combo of effects. I discovered early in DMing 4e from trying out a monster from Dragon which stunned in a close blast that recharged half the time that combat gets really really boring and really really slow if you have too much action denial flying around. Combat in 4e was designed to reward good tactics and teamwork, and all that flies out the window if players are sitting around twiddling their thumbs instead of acting.
@Ogrenomnom An interesting thing I've noticed from playing non-D&D systems such as Storyteller is that in an absolute sense of "number of hits until death" characters tend to be fairly durable, but they feel less durable because wound penalties start adding up. As opposed to D&D's "you're fine until you drop," you get to experience a sense that your character is hurt without having your control completely taken away. And then there's Legend of the Five Rings, where you are both extremely fragile and there are wound penalties, so suffering a hit from a katana wielding opponent probably leaves you either dead or crippled, but then, that's entirely fitting for the tone they're trying to set.
At any rate, I think the identity of D&D is too closely tied to the HP system for any major changes to it to happen in anything but an Unearthed Arcana-style outlier module.
Numbers can sometimes be very helpful if realizing the nature of a situation. I already knew that XP values were skewed, but what Shade's numbers brought to my attention is that damage values shift in a weird manner as you go up in level, which makes
Yeah. From the outside as DM (and/or player), you see first hand how subtle changes effect dynamic play dramatically.
Because D&D is full of conflict, even in RP Campaigns, HPs are easy to point at because they are so central to it. You have them, you flourish. You don't, you wither. At least, that's the easy take on them.
But so much goes into what HPs value really means. Chance of being hit. Powers to lessen or eliminate hits. Average damage by attacks. Powers to mitigate damage that was delt. Healing, magic, death/dying rules. There's a lot that goes into it. Even XP value of creatures, as it relates to encounter building, has a big impact on HP's true value.
Balancing half the core will give us some unreliable results and vastly different opinions because people will approach the game from different angles and anywhere there's a weak link, the balance of power chain will look broken (both for the good and bad).
Before I even cracked open a dice case, my first glance through this playtest packet showed me some very unbalanced values for creatures vs XP value and creatures vs level. We all kind of knew that trouble was coming.
HPs, as always, just seems to be the easiest thing to point at. AC doesn't garner half as much attention for all the effect it has on the game.
After that, it'll be attack and damage.
But all of it is equally important to balance in the long run.
Whatever they do with HPs, I'll be fine with, so long as they look at the whole picture.
I must admit, I would love... LOVE... to be in on those brainstorming development sessions for Next. I think we'd all like to believe we'd bring a solid perspective and useful input to table. Probably why most of us are here.... the chance that someone is listening and something we offer strikes a cord that helps improved D&D in the edition to come.
Every once in a while, I have to smack myself and remind myself that arguing about DM style is intersting, but not particularly helpful to the cause. :P
Yeah. From the outside as DM (and/or player), you see first hand how subtle changes effect dynamic play dramatically.Because D&D is full of conflict, even in RP Campaigns, HPs are easy to point at because they are so central to it. You have them, y
I'm not even going to try to read a 42 page thread, but I feel that starting HP feels low, even if it may not technically be low. Our group turned up its nose at a 4 HP wizard regardless of whether the math works out or not.
I'm not even going to try to read a 42 page thread, but I feel that starting HP feels low, even if it may not technically be low. Our group turned up its nose at a 4 HP wizard regardless of whether the math works out or not.
As I said before, if they boosted HPs, I wouldn't bat an eye, just adjust and move on (unless combat became slogfests that took longer and longer to complete).
I attack the wizard in my campaigns often enough. I just don't prioritize them without a story-driven or RP reason (ie: creatures see them cast, they are left open and vulnerable, they are targetted for assassination, etc etc etc).
I guess the real problem is whether or not Dying is an acceptable state in campaigns and how fast does it take you to get there.
I don't mind fraility, but could live with a HP boost. Just toss an extra creature or two in to up the challange in response.... I would just ask that if they make Characters twice as survivable, that they reduce XPs of monsters they'll face to reflect it.
Yeah, as we can see by your analysis of monster damage, part of the problem here is that there really doesn't appear to be any coherent benchmarks in place for the monsters, whether in terms of how much XP they're worth or what kind of damage a monster of X level should be dealing.
I consider Dying to be a condition that should not happen too often in campaigns. It cuts a player out of the action, making them a spectator, and it greatly increases the chances of a TPK, since the party is suddenly missing a big chunk of their actions and capabilities. Not to mention that you only get a rush and a sense of danger out of your character being at negative hp if it's a relatively infrequent occurance; if it happens too often, the response is not "Oh no, is my character going to make it?" but "Oh look, I'm on the ground again, does anyone want anything out of the 'fridge while I'm up?" They might not be feeling invincible, but the danger of impending death loses its teeth. Which is why I consider putting the players in direct fear of their characters' lives only one small part of a much larger toolbox of DM tools for getting them immersed in the game.
I think they're getting a bit too cocky with their new party, though. Strong group, well made...need to face a tenbo.
This is why I don't mind a system having a few monsters which are clearly stronger than the other monsters of similar hit dice/level; as long as they are clearly marked to the DM as "You can kill parties with this thing, you might want to drop hints about running being an option early and often," they can be an excellent way of countering a feeling of invincibility. Just watch out that you don't actually kill the entire party and completely derail your campaign in the process.
I'd really like either shield or mage armor to be a class feature or cantrip. Shield and counterspell could work, with being reactive, and they could be a class feature, and when you use them you have to burn a spell slot, but you don't have to prepare them, idk. Something like that.
I could get behind this; maybe make it a cantrip with no cost but which can only be cast as a ritual so that if, on occasion, the DM decides to send an enemy capable of stripping those protections after the party (much like he might use a rust monster), the wizard can't simply throw it back up next turn because it's an at-will.
If its at-will it still eats up the Wizard's action economy. The Wizard has to decide whether they attack or defend in every round.
My suggestion was to make it a minor spell that negates 1d6 damage and then wears off. That way each time the Wizard is hit they have to waste an action to get it back up. It solves the low hit point problem and the Wizard super power problem...
Yeah, as we can see by your analysis of monster damage, part of the problem here is that there really doesn't appear to be any coherent benchmarks in place for the monsters, whether in terms of how much XP they're worth or what kind of damage a monst
I'm not even going to try to read a 42 page thread, but I feel that starting HP feels low, even if it may not technically be low. Our group turned up its nose at a 4 HP wizard regardless of whether the math works out or not.
Ditto that. I even got killed in one game when after a series of really bad rolls, I got thrown out of a window by the Big Bad.
It's also why I'm confused when people claim that 4e PCs are invincible superheroes.
heh. Yah.
Not so invinsible feeling when you got knocked prone, have ongoing 10, and that Mad Wraith Terror's aura is an auto-daze plus 5 damage.
Let's see, my choices are stand (and do nothing else) or do something from prone at reduced effectiveness and grant CA. Yippie.
Effects really is what 4E is about. Pure damage is nice, but nothing is scarier than some of the effects enemies could inflint on you.
If you eliminated effects and reduced damage to 5E levels, 4E characters would look pretty invincible. It would be pretty easy to have AC 22/23 and 55-60 HPs by level 5. In a vacuum, that all sounds great.
This.
It really makes it feel like the PCs are succeeding against powerful enemies, too. Damage never really got me like that. Always felt like a game construct designed to control battle time, for some reason.
in one campaign we fought against a jester boss (out DM modeled her after Shaco from League of Legends) that could teleport and strike. her dagger didn't do that much insane damage, but it dazed, slowed, and knocked down. as the parties leader role, it was not a fun fight for me. he didn't even meta game or anything, he just had so much effect to throw around.
it wasn't even a poorly built encounter in terms of mechanics, the PC's prevailed without any deaths or getting too banged up, it just wasn't that fun.
i find the combat get slowed down in 4e sooooo much because there is a good minute of upkeep at the start of everybodies turn, picking powers, save ends, rolling effect damage, etc.
That's really on the DM, and balancing effects vs pure damage in a given encounter. The remainder of the problem if too high monster HP.
The DMG and MM could have had more advice on encounter building, however.
I will say, though, I've never seen a minute of upkeep at the start of a turn. Even with completely new players. I've seen players take way too long strategizing, and started using a 2 minute timer to cut down on it, but never huge amounts of time on upkeep.
If its at-will it still eats up the Wizard's action economy. The Wizard has to decide whether they attack or defend in every round.
My suggestion was to make it a minor spell that negates 1d6 damage and then wears off. That way each time the Wizard is hit they have to waste an action to get it back up. It solves the low hit point problem and the Wizard super power problem...
True. I would say 1d6 doesn't eat a spell slot, but to use it against higher level attacks, the wizard can burn a spell slot, making the shield more effective so it blocks more damage. To negate magical attacks, especially ones that don't do damage, or do more than damage (ie, use counterspell), the wizard must burn a spell slot equal to or greater than the level of the spell he's countering. Some additional benefit could be gained from burning a higher level slot.
heh. Yah. Not so invinsible feeling when you got knocked prone, have ongoing 10, and that Mad Wraith Terror's aura is an auto-daze plus 5 damage.Let's see, my choices are stand (and do nothing else) or do something from prone at reduced effectivene
Ditto that. I even got killed in one game when after a series of really bad rolls, I got thrown out of a window by the Big Bad.
It's also why I'm confused when people claim that 4e PCs are invincible superheroes.
heh. Yah.
Not so invinsible feeling when you got knocked prone, have ongoing 10, and that Mad Wraith Terror's aura is an auto-daze plus 5 damage.
Let's see, my choices are stand (and do nothing else) or do something from prone at reduced effectiveness and grant CA. Yippie.
Effects really is what 4E is about. Pure damage is nice, but nothing is scarier than some of the effects enemies could inflint on you.
If you eliminated effects and reduced damage to 5E levels, 4E characters would look pretty invincible. It would be pretty easy to have AC 22/23 and 55-60 HPs by level 5. In a vacuum, that all sounds great.
This.
It really makes it feel like the PCs are succeeding against powerful enemies, too. Damage never really got me like that. Always felt like a game construct designed to control battle time, for some reason.
in one campaign we fought against a jester boss (out DM modeled her after Shaco from League of Legends) that could teleport and strike. her dagger didn't do that much insane damage, but it dazed, slowed, and knocked down. as the parties leader role, it was not a fun fight for me. he didn't even meta game or anything, he just had so much effect to throw around.
it wasn't even a poorly built encounter in terms of mechanics, the PC's prevailed without any deaths or getting too banged up, it just wasn't that fun.
i find the combat get slowed down in 4e sooooo much because there is a good minute of upkeep at the start of everybodies turn, picking powers, save ends, rolling effect damage, etc.
That's really on the DM, and balancing effects vs pure damage in a given encounter. The remainder of the problem if too high monster HP.
The DMG and MM could have had more advice on encounter building, however.
I will say, though, I've never seen a minute of upkeep at the start of a turn. Even with completely new players. I've seen players take way too long strategizing, and started using a 2 minute timer to cut down on it, but never huge amounts of time on upkeep.
If its at-will it still eats up the Wizard's action economy. The Wizard has to decide whether they attack or defend in every round.
My suggestion was to make it a minor spell that negates 1d6 damage and then wears off. That way each time the Wizard is hit they have to waste an action to get it back up. It solves the low hit point problem and the Wizard super power problem...
True. I would say 1d6 doesn't eat a spell slot, but to use it against higher level attacks, the wizard can burn a spell slot, making the shield more effective so it blocks more damage. To negate magical attacks, especially ones that don't do damage, or do more than damage (ie, use counterspell), the wizard must burn a spell slot equal to or greater than the level of the spell he's countering. Some additional benefit could be gained from burning a higher level slot.
Yeah, put a line a the bottom of the minor shield spell description that says "If you memorize this spell in a spell slot it grants an additional 1d8 protection for each spell slot level."
Or something along those lines...
heh. Yah. Not so invinsible feeling when you got knocked prone, have ongoing 10, and that Mad Wraith Terror's aura is an auto-daze plus 5 damage.Let's see, my choices are stand (and do nothing else) or do something from prone at reduced effectivene
Ditto that. I even got killed in one game when after a series of really bad rolls, I got thrown out of a window by the Big Bad.
It's also why I'm confused when people claim that 4e PCs are invincible superheroes.
heh. Yah.
Not so invinsible feeling when you got knocked prone, have ongoing 10, and that Mad Wraith Terror's aura is an auto-daze plus 5 damage.
Let's see, my choices are stand (and do nothing else) or do something from prone at reduced effectiveness and grant CA. Yippie.
Effects really is what 4E is about. Pure damage is nice, but nothing is scarier than some of the effects enemies could inflint on you.
If you eliminated effects and reduced damage to 5E levels, 4E characters would look pretty invincible. It would be pretty easy to have AC 22/23 and 55-60 HPs by level 5. In a vacuum, that all sounds great.
This.
It really makes it feel like the PCs are succeeding against powerful enemies, too. Damage never really got me like that. Always felt like a game construct designed to control battle time, for some reason.
in one campaign we fought against a jester boss (out DM modeled her after Shaco from League of Legends) that could teleport and strike. her dagger didn't do that much insane damage, but it dazed, slowed, and knocked down. as the parties leader role, it was not a fun fight for me. he didn't even meta game or anything, he just had so much effect to throw around.
it wasn't even a poorly built encounter in terms of mechanics, the PC's prevailed without any deaths or getting too banged up, it just wasn't that fun.
i find the combat get slowed down in 4e sooooo much because there is a good minute of upkeep at the start of everybodies turn, picking powers, save ends, rolling effect damage, etc.
That's really on the DM, and balancing effects vs pure damage in a given encounter. The remainder of the problem if too high monster HP.
The DMG and MM could have had more advice on encounter building, however.
I will say, though, I've never seen a minute of upkeep at the start of a turn. Even with completely new players. I've seen players take way too long strategizing, and started using a 2 minute timer to cut down on it, but never huge amounts of time on upkeep.
If its at-will it still eats up the Wizard's action economy. The Wizard has to decide whether they attack or defend in every round.
My suggestion was to make it a minor spell that negates 1d6 damage and then wears off. That way each time the Wizard is hit they have to waste an action to get it back up. It solves the low hit point problem and the Wizard super power problem...
True. I would say 1d6 doesn't eat a spell slot, but to use it against higher level attacks, the wizard can burn a spell slot, making the shield more effective so it blocks more damage. To negate magical attacks, especially ones that don't do damage, or do more than damage (ie, use counterspell), the wizard must burn a spell slot equal to or greater than the level of the spell he's countering. Some additional benefit could be gained from burning a higher level slot.
Yeah, put a line a the bottom of the minor shield spell description that says "If you memorize this spell in a spell slot it grants an additional 1d8 protection for each spell slot level."
Or something along those lines...
Hmm. yeah, I suppose that's simpler than what i was thinking. I was going for more, "You can use this as a higher level spell, burning one of your prepared spells of that level. If you do so, it gives X added benefit."
heh. Yah. Not so invinsible feeling when you got knocked prone, have ongoing 10, and that Mad Wraith Terror's aura is an auto-daze plus 5 damage.Let's see, my choices are stand (and do nothing else) or do something from prone at reduced effectivene
Personally i find disturbing that most classes can inflict several times their total hp in a round, and at 1st level it's so much evident!
The Wizard in particular. I don't feel like every wizard should take the Survivor specialty to survive.
4hp+CON mod. vs 4d4 of Burning Hands, vs 3d6 of the Eldritch Blast, vs Base Damage+2d6 of Sneak Attack.
It's not just "1 hit and die". It's *overkill*!
I love many of the changes in this edition but I can see wizards fumbling and dying with their own spells, and gettin hammered by every sort of danger.
Did I forgot to mention that we're going to have more robust (talking about Constitution) wizards than fighters? You *have* to roll that d4 at second level, hoping you don't score a 1! (I feel to always roll the dice, no matter what). I can see *lots* of wizards dying by just falling damage and tinkering with their spells.
Personally, with this level of damage at 1st level, I think the rule for initial hit points should be:
1° level: Constitution Score + Maxed Hit Die. Next levels: Constitution Modifier + Hit Die.
or at least, add 10hp at 1st level if the mechanic of using once the score and then the modifier seems excessive.
Woa, 43 pages! No, you're not the only one.Personally i find disturbing that most classes can inflict several times their total hp in a round, and at 1st level it's so much evident!The Wizard in particular. I don't feel like every wizard should take
Another side to this debate, which I've seen more of since I've been checking these forums, is the issue of AC and monster to hit bonuses. Wizards are definetly in danger, but Fighters with their massive AC almost never get hit and have parry dice to reduce the damage if they are hit. I agree wizards need more HP, but if we implement that system without taking into account the fighter and these other issues we could really see fighters as unstoppable... until wizards get spells that lay waste to everything.
Maybe increase the wizards hit dice to a d6 and let them wear light armors? Or give them an AC bonus from "protective Wards" placed in their robes? Just something to close the gap.
Another side to this debate, which I've seen more of since I've been checking these forums, is the issue of AC and monster to hit bonuses. Wizards are definetly in danger, but Fighters with their massive AC almost never get hit and have parry dice to
Another side to this debate, which I've seen more of since I've been checking these forums, is the issue of AC and monster to hit bonuses. Wizards are definetly in danger, but Fighters with their massive AC almost never get hit and have parry dice to reduce the damage if they are hit. I agree wizards need more HP, but if we implement that system without taking into account the fighter and these other issues we could really see fighters as unstoppable... until wizards get spells that lay waste to everything.
Maybe increase the wizards hit dice to a d6 and let them wear light armors? Or give them an AC bonus from "protective Wards" placed in their robes? Just something to close the gap.
Give them class feature cantrips. one gives them extra HP, and the other is the shield/counterspell I described above.
Give them class feature cantrips. one gives them extra HP, and the other is the shield/counterspell I described above.
Another side to this debate, which I've seen more of since I've been checking these forums, is the issue of AC and monster to hit bonuses. Wizards are definetly in danger, but Fighters with their massive AC almost never get hit and have parry dice to reduce the damage if they are hit. I agree wizards need more HP, but if we implement that system without taking into account the fighter and these other issues we could really see fighters as unstoppable... until wizards get spells that lay waste to everything.
Maybe increase the wizards hit dice to a d6 and let them wear light armors? Or give them an AC bonus from "protective Wards" placed in their robes? Just something to close the gap.
There are a lot of people clamoring for better chances for monsters to hit because the Fighter is just so unassailable. I think this is a consequence of the Fighter needing to be much more durable than the Wizard, but the designers not wanting to give the Fighter grossly inflated hp relative to the Wizard. I think with a slight bump to hp and some method for the Wizard to narrow the AC gap (be it spells, class features, or access to light armor), you could easily increase monster hit bonuses and make things more interesting.
There are a lot of people clamoring for better chances for monsters to hit because the Fighter is just so unassailable. I think this is a consequence of the Fighter needing to be much more durable than the Wizard, but the designers not wanting to giv
Another side to this debate, which I've seen more of since I've been checking these forums, is the issue of AC and monster to hit bonuses. Wizards are definetly in danger, but Fighters with their massive AC almost never get hit and have parry dice to reduce the damage if they are hit. I agree wizards need more HP, but if we implement that system without taking into account the fighter and these other issues we could really see fighters as unstoppable... until wizards get spells that lay waste to everything.
Maybe increase the wizards hit dice to a d6 and let them wear light armors? Or give them an AC bonus from "protective Wards" placed in their robes? Just something to close the gap.
There are a lot of people clamoring for better chances for monsters to hit because the Fighter is just so unassailable. I think this is a consequence of the Fighter needing to be much more durable than the Wizard, but the designers not wanting to give the Fighter grossly inflated hp relative to the Wizard. I think with a slight bump to hp and some method for the Wizard to narrow the AC gap (be it spells, class features, or access to light armor), you could easily increase monster hit bonuses and make things more interesting.
Obviously the Fighter needs to be more durable than than the Wizard, but HP and AC aren't the only ways to make someone durable. Parry increases the fighter durablity by a huge amount.
The real problem is Wizards getting one-shot and the disparity between PC AC.
As I have stated in my quick fixes thread, community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/... I think a +5 to starting HP would be good. And I think that all heavy armor should get -1 to AC (except Ringmail) and Mountain Dwarves should lose their AC bonus (and get something else in return).
This makes the 16 the Max AC at level 1 (without buffs).
Bring HP and AC closer together, and tanks using damage reduction as a means of mitigation, makes the game much less swingy and far more interesting, IMHO.
On the same note, I like some of the ideas listed above for defensive cantrips.
There are a lot of people clamoring for better chances for monsters to hit because the Fighter is just so unassailable. I think this is a consequence of the Fighter needing to be much more durable than the Wizard, but the designers not wanting to giv
I think heavy armour should still be the toughest armour though a plate clad fighter should be better protected than a leather clad agile rogue. In a bounded system you probably don't want the difference to be great, but it should be attainable. Damage resistance is one option but how will that stack with combat superiority?
I think heavy armour should still be the toughest armour though a plate clad fighter should be better protected than a leather clad agile rogue. In a bounded system you probably don't want the difference to be great, but it should be attainable. Da
I'm not even going to try to read a 42 page thread, but I feel that starting HP feels low, even if it may not technically be low. Our group turned up its nose at a 4 HP wizard regardless of whether the math works out or not.
Heh.. not starting before 4th level at our house consider giving that a try?
Heh.. not starting before 4th level at our house consider giving that a try?
Still a pretty good jump (10 CON wizard would more than triple HPs on average and a 14 CON wizard almost triple). It should do a lot to eliviate those TPKs you are encountering.
