|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 3:14PM
#71
|
|
|
in other words: the inspiration doesn't have to happen physically on the spot, it could take all sorts of forms- it could be loyalty, memories of prior conversations or experiences, hallucinations, Naruto-esque never-give-up montages, that involve or had been invoked at some point by the warlord (even if the instance in which it was is created on the spit.
the same way vancian casters supposedly prepared spells, without the last few steps to launch them later, the warlord prepares his allies and soldiers beforehand for what they must face.
That's fantastic.
thanks!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 6:56PM
#72
|
|
|
in other words: the inspiration doesn't have to happen physically on the spot, it could take all sorts of forms- it could be loyalty, memories of prior conversations or experiences, hallucinations, Naruto-esque never-give-up montages, that involve or had been invoked at some point by the warlord (even if the instance in which it was is created on the spit.
the same way vancian casters supposedly prepared spells, without the last few steps to launch them later, the warlord prepares his allies and soldiers beforehand for what they must face.
That's fantastic.
thanks!
I like your warlord solution; very creative! But it does create an obvious loophole: adventure with a warlord once, and you're set for life! Dreams are just dreams, right, so you don't actually need the warlord present to have a Naruto wake-up montage.
And if you do need a warlord physically present to have a "I can't die yet!" moment, we're back to my explanation: martial magic. 
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 7:07PM
#73
|
|
|
it's a case of schroedinger's warlord (bonus points if they were a rzorclaw shifter), you don't know that they recieved the proper motivation to get themselves out of it until the power's used and they do- if the warlord is present they arbitrarily had it within them at that moment, if he isn't, then they don't- kinda like how vancian casters forget spells despite having memorized them a silly number of times. (it's still unrealistic, but hey)
although- you could spend the rest of a campaign after a warlord passes on having a character remember that warlord every time they self-spend a surge XD kinda like roleplaying gurren lagaan after kamina
alternative solution: it's the power-of-friendship,
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 7:16PM
#74
|
|
|
I just redefined what the various states of post-zero-HP.
At zero HP or below, you're 'down'. Still conscious, but incapable of taking actions.
If you fail the three saves, then you're 'out'; unconscious and incapable of being healed by quick-and-dirty effects.
If you reach negative-bloodied HP, then you're dead.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 9:41PM
#75
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
it's a case of schroedinger's warlord (bonus points if they were a rzorclaw shifter), you don't know that they recieved the proper motivation to get themselves out of it until the power's used and they do- if the warlord is present they arbitrarily had it within them at that moment, if he isn't, then they don't- kinda like how vancian casters forget spells despite having memorized them a silly number of times. (it's still unrealistic, but hey)
although- you could spend the rest of a campaign after a warlord passes on having a character remember that warlord every time they self-spend a surge XD kinda like roleplaying gurren lagaan after kamina
alternative solution: it's the power-of-friendship,
Well, it really is non-deterministic, which drives some people bonkers. You're at zero HP, but you can't really know what that means in-and-of itself, until you either die or recover.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 06, 2012 - 11:21PM
#76
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2003
|
TMS: I loved your warlord example. Great job! Many other posters have said this, I'm just tossing in a bit more of my flavor.
Hit points are mostly just a metagame tool to reflect damage, and how that translates to your game is up to you. There is no inherent value to a hit-point, since someone with 10 hit-points is going to be hurt very badly if they get hit for 23 hit-points worth of damage, while someone with 170 hit-points won't seem to be hurt very much at all by that same amount of damage.
This is how I do it:
- Before you're bloodied, the damage you take never (or very rarely) causes actual physical harm. The loss of these hit-points reflect physical exhaustion. You block a heavy blow with your shield which makes your arm ache, your armor absorbs a blow, your barely dodge or block a strike, etc.
- Once you're beyond you're bloodied value, I begin to describe damage as actually causing harm. Cuts, bruises, bloodied noses, etc. The closer you come to having zero hit-points, the more serious it may be.
- Serious damage that is enough to incapacitate someone (such as a deep stab, badly broken bones, hand gets cut off, etc) is usually reserved for when a character is dropped.
I do something similar.
All hits above "bloodied" value (or half hp in pre-4e) are not representative of actual damage.
Once someone is "bloodied", they have taken at least one hit.
Critical hits are likewise treated as a physical hit.
Major wounds, like broken bones, are likewise reserved for negative-hp values.
I just redefined what the various states of post-zero-HP.
At zero HP or below, you're 'down'. Still conscious, but incapable of taking actions.
If you fail the three saves, then you're 'out'; unconscious and incapable of being healed by quick-and-dirty effects.
If you reach negative-bloodied HP, then you're dead.
I like it!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 07, 2012 - 9:50AM
#77
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
fwiw:since 4e allows players to refluff stuff without changing the mechanics, I allow death to be described more as 'severely wounded'. The PC's injuries are severe enough to prevent him from taking any actions until he can access some stronger, costly (500gp) healing... which could even represent say, chirurgery if you want a low magic feel.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 12, 2012 - 1:17PM
#78
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2007
|
I tended to describe attacks as follows: Your first defense is your doge (dexterity bonus), then follow the magical defensive bonuses, then shield and last but not least armor. So depending on how I narrate, the players know how close an attack came to harm them – for example: You easily doge/ sidestep the incoming attack…. The incoming blow is deflected by the invisible magical force fields surrounding you… The attack bounces off your shield… The attack is stopped by your armor… We although used the parry rules from the 2ed AD&D Complete fighters handbook so I narrated successful parries/blocks as such. Now hits and hit-point loss represented always some kind of injury from minor cuts and bruises to deep, bleeding wounds depending on the amount of damage and the characters total hit-points. Really serve/gruesome or hindering things were usually reserved for confirmed critical hits. Since this was 2ed we didn’t have to narrate healing surges or a warlocks inspired healing.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 12, 2012 - 1:47PM
#79
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
I tended to describe attacks as follows: Your first defense is your doge (dexterity bonus), then follow the magical defensive bonuses, then shield and last but not least armor.
So depending on how I narrate, the players know how close an attack came to harm them – for example:
You easily doge/ sidestep the incoming attack….
The incoming blow is deflected by the invisible magical force fields surrounding you…
The attack bounces off your shield…
The attack is stopped by your armor…
So, for every attack, you consult a table or something for the target, which tells you which of these descriptions to use? If not, how do you accurately describe the attacks?
After a while, don't people figure out pretty much what numbers those descriptions equate to?
Now hits and hit-point loss represented always some kind of injury from minor cuts and bruises to deep, bleeding wounds depending on the amount of damage and the characters total hit-points. Really serve/gruesome or hindering things were usually reserved for confirmed critical hits.
But a critical hit isn't hindering. The target's combat effectiveness is not hindered at all. Now, one could reflavor the target's subsequent misses to blame them on a bad wound, or hits to reflect the desperation due to the wound, but if one's bothering to do that, they could just as easily describe HP loss as something other than physical damage.
Since this was 2ed we didn’t have to narrate healing surges or a warlocks inspired healing.
And all is costs you is always having to have someone play a healer or carrying around wands of cure light wounds.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 12, 2012 - 2:44PM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2007
|
I tended to describe attacks as follows: Your first defense is your doge (dexterity bonus), then follow the magical defensive bonuses, then shield and last but not least armor.
So depending on how I narrate, the players know how close an attack came to harm them – for example:
You easily doge/ sidestep the incoming attack….
The incoming blow is deflected by the invisible magical force fields surrounding you…
The attack bounces off your shield…
The attack is stopped by your armor…
So, for every attack, you consult a table or something for the target, which tells you which of these descriptions to use? If not, how do you accurately describe the attacks?
After a while, don't people figure out pretty much what numbers those descriptions equate to?
Yes in both cases. And figuring out the numbers is part of the fun for some players. Of course we let it slide sometimes for extended battles and reverted to just hit/miss/damage to speed things up.
Now hits and hit-point loss represented always some kind of injury from minor cuts and bruises to deep, bleeding wounds depending on the amount of damage and the characters total hit-points. Really serve/gruesome or hindering things were usually reserved for confirmed critical hits.
But a critical hit isn't hindering. The target's combat effectiveness is not hindered at all. Now, one could reflavor the target's subsequent misses to blame them on a bad wound, or hits to reflect the desperation due to the wound, but if one's bothering to do that, they could just as easily describe HP loss as something other than physical damage.
It started out as reflavoring but was house-ruled fairly quickly (mostly something like a penalty to the next action again stolen from the Complete fighters Handbook and from GURPS)
Since this was 2ed we didn’t have to narrate healing surges or a warlocks inspired healing.
And all is costs you is always having to have someone play a healer or carrying around wands of cure light wounds.
lol Nothing wrong with playing a healer IMO. Priests had so many other goodies that they were more than mere healers anyway.
|
|
|
