|
2 months ago ::
Mar 24, 2013 - 10:15AM
#281
|
Date Joined:
Jul 22, 2008
|
Although it doesn't truly have save-or-suck in the sense that classic DnD did, the way 13th Age handles really powerful spells is they can only be used on targets whose current hp are within a certain number. So, for example, the Wizard can't use Hold Person against the Orc Chieftan unless the Fighter and Rogue beat him down a few turns first.
The more that I think about hp-threshold, the more I like it. It describes Hp as level of resistance, not just health. You are not going to resist a lot if you are half dead. HP may be a good measure of fortitude saving throw.
The benefit is that HP-threshold makes hard-to-breach-saves breachable with a bit of work, and it handles save-or-suck spells well. Also it allows for coopereration between melee and arcane classes.
Hp-Thresshold is a pandora's box because it applies to combat mechanic too. eg. at what threshold are you still effective. This is not neccessarilly a bad thing. I fact this may be an a new direction in which to drive DDN, to make it distinct from 3.X. There is opportunity here to describe mechanically what exactly is HP.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 24, 2013 - 10:24AM
#282
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2003
|
Although it doesn't truly have save-or-suck in the sense that classic DnD did, the way 13th Age handles really powerful spells is they can only be used on targets whose current hp are within a certain number. So, for example, the Wizard can't use Hold Person against the Orc Chieftan unless the Fighter and Rogue beat him down a few turns first.
Right, and that puts the caster on the hp depletion track so he's playing the same game as the noncasters. As long as the hp threshold is equal or less than the median damage a noncaster can expect to inflict as a special ability, balance is maintained.
In 13A, the hp thresholds are typically just a bit under the max hp a standard monster of the same level of the spell would expect to have. Example, a 3rd level monster moght typically have around 45 hp and a 3rd level Hold Person might only be usable on creatures under 36 hp or something like that.
Its mostly to guarantee these spells can't be used to neuter Large or Huge monsters during the first round of combat. The escalation die also helps with that, incentivizing you to hold off on using your big guns until later in the battle.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 24, 2013 - 12:37PM
#283
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
An answer that 4th ed tried and caused people to bail to Pathfinder.
Going back will cause the 4E people to bail from 5E.
Thats why they should just make 4.5. We have other options via the OGL and more than a few of them look better than this pile.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 24, 2013 - 12:44PM
#284
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2003
|
An answer that 4th ed tried and caused people to bail to Pathfinder.
Going back will cause the 4E people to bail from 5E.
Thats why they shuld just make 4.5. We have other ooptions via the OGL and more than a few of them look better than this pile.
I wouldn't mind a DnD-esque game based on the 4E Gamma World put out a few years ago where every 4E race, theme, background, paragon path, and subclass is an "archetype" and you combine any 2 archetypes of your choice to create a character. As you progress, you can choose which features/traits/talents/powers you want from your archetypes (like how they work with themes), so if you really want to emphasize your guy is Dwarf, it totally works.
Failing that, though, I always have 13th Age and whatever spinoffs get made from its OGL. 
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 25, 2013 - 12:25AM
#285
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
heh bit late but I like this post. I don't think BA is as strict as people seem to think it is. Everyone gets a regular attack bonus (or a spellcating bonus for spellcasters) of +0 or +1 to +3 or +5 from level 1 to 20. That means accuracy is bounded at 1/5 levels (for people who reach +5) and 1/6 levels for those who reach +3. In AD&D and 3e, the accuracy was bounded at 1/1 and in 4e at 1/2 (but levels went to 30 instead of 20). Bounded accuracy does not mean no scaling. it's "bounded" not non-existent. This bonus is low enough so that it doesn't really require scaling such that any target is unhittable by any PC.
I agree that they're obviously not treating this as gospel, but there's also a sort of dogged determination with it. Maybe because we're acting as though they're doing something that they're not doing, so they're basically refusing to give in out of a sense that they've got the moral high ground. Thing about marketing and PR though is that while the customer may not always be right, the customer does need to feel like they are. Giving a bit of ground on the issue would go a long way toward shutting people up, even if it's lip service and not a whole lot more.
To me the issue is that PC saving throws and AC don't scale. This means when an NPC cleric casts hold person, a 10th level PC is as vulnerable to its effects as a 1st level PC, unless the 10th level PC has purposefully boosted his Wisdom Ability, or has taken specific feats or class features that can boost his saves.
We really ought to have some kind of passive save increase that can move with he caster's save increase. Treadmill or no, it does create a difference between low level and high level when you do it. AC's a tougher nut to crack. I really want AC to be armour and not to do with levelling so much but there are obvious problems with that, as we see in the playtest.
Defenses and saving throws should scale at the same rate as attack and spellcasting bonuses. That world solve 80% of the issues attributed to bounded accuracy.
Yes.
The remaining issue is for those people who do think some foes should be unreachable untila certain level and who think some foes should be unmissable by high-level PCs. The easy fix to that would be to offer a module that triples the attack/spellcasting bonuses (which should now also modify saves and AC) and offer monster design guidelines for upping monster's Attacks, DCs, AC, and Saving Throws.
I've been toying with thresholds. So if a monster is 4 levels higher then you basically can't hit them and they can't miss you unless you've got advantage or something like that. I don't really like the solution though 'cause it feels forced. I'd much rather the thresholds come naturally out of the system.
As for the kobold posion swarm, that has nothing to do with bounded accuracy. That's just the math of having lots of attacks against a few targets. Using the poison in the equipment packet, you are effectively adding 50% to the kobolds' damage output.
All through D&D there are encounters and situations where the law of averages pretty much assures that a big force of weak units will win against a big one. I remember working out the math of 300 orcs vs one planetar and discovering if the planetar was dumb and the orcs all had bows and arrows it would probably get killed, even if it took 100 of the orcs with it.
The notion that you can just rush in and kill things indiscriminately because of a level discrepancy without BA is just rubbish.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 25, 2013 - 6:10AM
#286
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I agree that they're obviously not treating this as gospel, but there's also a sort of dogged determination with it. Maybe because we're acting as though they're doing something that they're not doing, so they're basically refusing to give in out of a sense that they've got the moral high ground.
I think any doggedness is not on the developers' side. The problem is that so many criticisms of BA are misplaced.
Thing about marketing and PR though is that while the customer may not always be right, the customer does need to feel like they are. Giving a bit of ground on the issue would go a long way toward shutting people up, even if it's lip service and not a whole lot more.
I disagree that it would shut anybody up. The reason? If they changed BA, it wouldn't fix 80% of the problems people mis-attribute to BA. So all that would happen is the developers would say "We've adjusted BA top accommodate criticism" and people would respond "You didn't fix anything, idjits!" Plus, the problems that BA does address would now be unaddressed.
I've been toying with thresholds. So if a monster is 4 levels higher then you basically can't hit them and they can't miss you unless you've got advantage or something like that. I don't really like the solution though 'cause it feels forced. I'd much rather the thresholds come naturally out of the system.
It is going to be forced no matter what.
Okay. It's been a long time in coming. But people seem to want it.
Wrecan's (Not-so-)Patented Unbounded Accuracy ModuleAdd an awesomeness bonus to the AC, saves, ability rolls, save DCs, and attack rolls of each character equal to half the character's level. Adjust creatures' XP as follows:
Difference
Between APL*
and Creature Level |
XP
Adjustment |
| -6 or greater |
Minionize! |
| -5 to -3 |
-20% |
| -3 to -2 |
-10% |
| -1 to +1 |
No change |
| +2 to +3 |
+10% |
| +4 to +5 |
+20% |
| +6 or greater |
Invulnerate! |
Minionize! Grant these creatures an awesomeness bonus as if they were the party's level. Eliminate any powers that inflict save-or-suck conditions (assume the PCs are so experienced that they easily resist such attacks, and the minions, realizing how outclassed they are, don't even try). Give the creatures 1 hp each, but they do not take damage inflicted on a missed attack or a failed saving throw. Such creatures are worth XP equal to one-quarter their usual value. Invulnerate! These creatures cannot be affected by the PCs with their usual tactics. If the creature hits the PC with an attack, the PC is reduced to zero hp. To destroy such a creature, the PCs must somehow arrange for the creature to take massive damage through unconventional means (such as Jack chopping down the impossibly high beanstalk the giant is descending). Encounters with these creatures are best expressed through some sort of Skill Challenge. XP should be awarded not based on the combat XP of the creature but on the difficulty of the skill challenge in accordance with the rules for such challenges found in the Exploration section. *APL means "Average Party Level". Use the median of the level s of those PCs (and the PCs' allies) involved in the encounter.
|
|
|
|
2 months ago ::
Mar 25, 2013 - 6:38AM
#287
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
AC is almost as troublesome as HP, I think. I like it when my AC comes from somewhere we can point to, which is a plus for BA. In 3e there's an attempt to to do this, but ultimately "natural" armour became the level based bonus 'cause a storm giant (CR 13) has a +12 natural armour bonus but a hill giant (CR 7) has a +9 natural armour bonus. It could be the storm giant's got tougher skin or is physiologically somehow harder to hurt, but probably that difference is basically there to make the numbers match with their challenge ratings. Admittedly, the storm giant's total AC of 27 is made up partially with equipment, but there's also a +5 breastplate in that list so the magic item is also concealing level based AC increases, but increased AC by equipment is at least something I can relate to and understand (even if I have to concede that it makes no real sense if you actually examine the convention). But we've seen what happens when they go down the "more hp" route: it feels just as artifical. More to some than others but it's the same basic issue. I like that the playtest is offering a broader range of creatures to challenge players at a given level and I wouldn't want that to change. My first session with the new material was interesting; I still think the monsters are too weak but they're much better. I think the XP rewards are too high as well and advancement far too fast. I'd rather the levels make more of a difference in terms of the numbers but take longer to get, but I can see why they want advancement to be quick for the playtest so we sample a larger range of material in fewer games. The one thing I really like from this packet is the advancement feels a lot less lopsided. I'd still like to see feats be totally conceptually based with the "mix and match" rules as an aside and strong encouragement to take specialties, but I can live with it as it is. Retraining is mad helpful as well.
|
|
|
