|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 2:16PM
#71
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
Lastly, I think death should have a punishment. IMO, losing a Con point works well.
Deathspirals are bad, M'kay.
Well. I think players need to be afraid of death or they 'll just be careless in the way they play their character.
Except if you just throw an arbitrary penalty for dying, it just becomes another annoyance after a while. And with a CON penalty, it'll be happening more often, since dying makes them lose hit points, which makes them die faster, which makes them lose more hit points, etc.
As far as Raise Dead, it depends on the table and how much you want death to mean in our game.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 2:23PM
#72
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
The usual punishment of being "out" until the party comes up with a rez is quite adequate.
No... the game shouldn't stop for that player. Give him a monster or animate his dead corpse into a zombie.
Every group I've been in punished the "dead" guy with a beer/tacobell run.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 2:28PM
#73
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
Lastly, I think death should have a punishment. IMO, losing a Con point works well.
Deathspirals are bad, M'kay.
Well. I think players need to be afraid of death or they 'll just be careless in the way they play their character.
Except if you just throw an arbitrary penalty for dying, it just becomes another annoyance after a while. And with a CON penalty, it'll be happening more often, since dying makes them lose hit points, which makes them die faster, which makes them lose more hit points, etc.
As far as Raise Dead, it depends on the table and how much you want death to mean in our game.
Also demonstrates one of D&D's classic faults, that there's almost no way to fail that doesn't involve dying.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 3:50PM
#74
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2008
|
Lastly, I think death should have a punishment. IMO, losing a Con point works well.
Deathspirals are bad, M'kay.
Well. I think players need to be afraid of death or they 'll just be careless in the way they play their character.
Except if you just throw an arbitrary penalty for dying, it just becomes another annoyance after a while. And with a CON penalty, it'll be happening more often, since dying makes them lose hit points, which makes them die faster, which makes them lose more hit points, etc.
As far as Raise Dead, it depends on the table and how much you want death to mean in our game.
Also demonstrates one of D&D's classic faults, that there's almost no way to fail that doesn't involve dying.
How so?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 5:35PM
#75
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2013
|
Also demonstrates one of D&D's classic faults, that there's almost no way to fail that doesn't involve dying.
Just my own opinion, but I really feel that's more of a DM/playstyle fault than a game fault.
At least as far back as 1E and BECMI, "failure" for the group has meant anything and everything from the princess dying because you couldn't find the antidote to the poison she ingested to the undead horde overtaking the kingdom because you couldn't find and destroy the lich's phylactery.
Since they are now available for download, grab some of the old 1E adventures and give them a look-through. You might be surprised at the various ways the party can fail (that do not involve death) as opposed to the perhaps one and only way they can succeed. And before anyone chimes in about the Tomb of Horrors, that one is an exception. It was a tournament module designed to kill off PCs. That's it. Whoever lasted the longest without dying (or in the rare 1 out of 100 chance that someone made it all the way through on their first playthrough) was the "winner".
Of course, party death is a near-guaranteed failure, but that has never been the only way to fail or even the most proliferated way.
The 2 core goals of DDN:
1. Create a version of D&D that embraces the enduring, core elements of the game.
2. Create a set of rules that allows a smooth transition from a simple game to a complex one.
- Mike Mearls
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 6:29PM
#76
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Everyone wants a different game, and so wizards should be working on a sidebar that explains what happens if you choose certain options. For instance: 1). No ressurection: pro: death is very serious - gives the opportunity for heroic sacrifices. Con: can make players feel a beloved character died before the story is complete. Best used: when creating characters is fast, and when shorter campaigns mean less time for complex stories. 2). Gold only, or temporary setbacks. Pro: players can choose when their characters story ends. Con: some people find death is too temporary, leading to reduced interest/engagement. 3) permanent drawbacks: pro: Keeps death a disincentive, increasing "edge of seat feeling". Con: Permanent drawbacks can feel like the player is being permanently punished for bad rolls or bad decisions previously. IMHO, permanent drawbacks seem the worst of all worlds - cheapening death compared To "no resurrection" and punishing players. But, as long as the dm who is makin the permanent drawback understands the players who like that kind of thing, I'm happy.
People's characters may die 50+ time in a session in World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has over time lessened penalties on death. World of Warcraft has 8-10 million paid subscriptions which approximates $90,000,000+/month revenue from subscriptions. D&D may want to take notes. These forums and surveys are such a small, self-selected sample that I think it's counter productive to listen to 90% of them, if WotC wants to increase market share.
World of Warcraft is a VIDEO GAME. D&D is an RPG. They are very, very different types of games.
One makes damn near $100,000,000 a month...
Well if money is the only criteria, D&D should be a big oil corporation.......but money is not the only criteria and D&D should not be made to be like WoW.
I think Hasbro cares about the $$$$'s. And I hate to say it but D&D is a game created to make a profit.
D&D makes a profit. It doesn't have to be as large a profit as WoW to be kept around.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 6:31PM
#77
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Everyone wants a different game, and so wizards should be working on a sidebar that explains what happens if you choose certain options. For instance: 1). No ressurection: pro: death is very serious - gives the opportunity for heroic sacrifices. Con: can make players feel a beloved character died before the story is complete. Best used: when creating characters is fast, and when shorter campaigns mean less time for complex stories. 2). Gold only, or temporary setbacks. Pro: players can choose when their characters story ends. Con: some people find death is too temporary, leading to reduced interest/engagement. 3) permanent drawbacks: pro: Keeps death a disincentive, increasing "edge of seat feeling". Con: Permanent drawbacks can feel like the player is being permanently punished for bad rolls or bad decisions previously. IMHO, permanent drawbacks seem the worst of all worlds - cheapening death compared To "no resurrection" and punishing players. But, as long as the dm who is makin the permanent drawback understands the players who like that kind of thing, I'm happy.
People's characters may die 50+ time in a session in World of Warcraft. World of Warcraft has over time lessened penalties on death. World of Warcraft has 8-10 million paid subscriptions which approximates $90,000,000+/month revenue from subscriptions. D&D may want to take notes. These forums and surveys are such a small, self-selected sample that I think it's counter productive to listen to 90% of them, if WotC wants to increase market share.
World of Warcraft is a VIDEO GAME. D&D is an RPG. They are very, very different types of games.
World of Warcraft is a MMORPG, and Dungeons and Dragons is a TTRPG. Both are RPGs.
No. Video games are misclassified as RPGs. They are not RPGs since all you do is run around playing a video game with other people. Unless you are on a roleplaying specific server (and the vast majority of people on those don't roleplay, either), there is no roleplaying involved.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 6:36PM
#78
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Just wait. You'll see soon enough.
Incoming! Take Cover!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 7:02PM
#79
|
Date Joined:
May 23, 2012
|
Take a look at this and help me improve these healing powers.
| Level |
Power Die |
Or +/- |
| 1-5 |
1d4 |
2 |
| 6-10 |
1d6 |
3 |
| 11-15 |
1d8 |
4 |
| 16-20 |
1d10 |
5 |
| 21-25 |
1d12 |
6 |
| Cure Wounds |
Healing |
1st |
off-hand |
wis vs dc 10 |
Reduce your damage or your ally damage by your power die. |
| Cure Affliction |
Healing |
2nd |
off-hand |
wis vs disease dc |
Slow Affliction
If you roll -4+ than the needed DC, the effect is slowed for the duration of the encounter. The affected takes half damage from ongoing effects.
Neutralize Affliction
If you roll -3 to -1 the needed DC, the effect is temporarily neutralized for the duration of the encounter. The affected takes no damage for 1 day.
Remove Affliction
If you roll the DC or higher, the affliction is completely removed during the encounter and after.
|
| Regenerate Restore |
Healing |
3rd |
Main |
wis vs con |
restore age, sight, hearing, experience points, limbs, and movement to yourself and party members. |
| Raise Dead |
Healing |
4th |
Main |
wis vs con |
Your dead ally's hit points are restored to 0. Roll a d20. Roll above a 10 3 times and the dead are raised. Each roll under 10 does 1d6 damage. If the dead takes damage equal to the constitution score + level, the dead can't come back. |
| Animate Objects |
Healing |
5th |
Main |
wis vs dc 10 |
You animate a number of objects equal to your power die. Each object has hit points equal your power die and does your power die in damage. The objects use your attack roll. |
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 9:38AM
#80
|
|
|
Two suggestions: 1). If you want people to rally around your cause, please say more than "it's like a video game". After all, wizardy 1 was released in 1981 with fighter wizard cleric rogue and so every version of d&d with the core four since then has been like a video game. If having that core four is okay even though it is like a video game, then we need more info on why you don't like things other than just "like a video game". Now, if the argument is "it came first from a video game", then you have to argue why an ideas lineage disqualified it. Or, explain _why_ you don't like the idea.
2). For anyone who is a dm, saying "players need to fear death" or any other punatice rule, the dm should be banned from creating a rule that is more punitive than a rule in a game they've enjoyed as a player. If you argue for con loss as a player, or permanent death as a player, feel free to institute that in your game. Otherwise, you may want to create games that you'd enjoy playing as a player.
|
|
|
