Clearly my brain got scrambled a bit by our most recent Edition Warz thread, but an idea popped into my head that I think might work.
One of the things about D&D is the eternal problem of character's HP increasing to the point that lower-level critters are no longer a credible threat. Now I know you can do the "always fighting orcs" tactic of just buffing up the orcs, but what about if the characters leveled but didn't get any more HP - like, ever - except maybe through magic items or spells (so temporary or subject to being damaged/lost)?
That way (seems to me) you'd have characters whose powers grew over time, but whe were still fragile enough that you could run a "gritty" campaign with all orcs all the time (or skellies or whatever) and keep the danger levels high without having 20HD zombies or something being needed to pose any kind of threat. You'd have the added bonus of PCs being able to cut through swathes of low-level baddies as their powers/spells/abilites increased, but it would also "keep them honest" in that they wouldn't do it with impunity.
Additionally, this does away with some of the head-scratching that comes along with wondering how gaining experience makes a person as tough as a Sherman Tank eventually.
Think that might work?
I know that the GoO Game of Thrones OGL only gave 2, 3 or 4 hits per level to characters. Granted, that isn't quite what you're after, but they also had a wound system.
Quote from: Werekoala;498066Clearly my brain got scrambled a bit by our most recent Edition Warz thread, but an idea popped into my head that I think might work.
One of the things about D&D is the eternal problem of character's HP increasing to the point that lower-level critters are no longer a credible threat. Now I know you can do the "always fighting orcs" tactic of just buffing up the orcs, but what about if the characters leveled but didn't get any more HP - like, ever - except maybe through magic items or spells (so temporary or subject to being damaged/lost)?
That way (seems to me) you'd have characters whose powers grew over time, but whe were still fragile enough that you could run a "gritty" campaign with all orcs all the time (or skellies or whatever) and keep the danger levels high without having 20HD zombies or something being needed to pose any kind of threat. You'd have the added bonus of PCs being able to cut through swathes of low-level baddies as their powers/spells/abilites increased, but it would also "keep them honest" in that they wouldn't do it with impunity.
Additionally, this does away with some of the head-scratching that comes along with wondering how gaining experience makes a person as tough as a Sherman Tank eventually.
Think that might work?
This can work, yeah.
My friends who are big DnD fans designed following houserules for 3rd edition (much simplified here)
Each character's hitpoints are corresponding to his Constitution. Weapon damage is normal - but armours, besides usual AC, also grant damage reduction.
One rule we used to use:
All characters start with their Constitution in hit points.
Only fighters gain hp as they level, at a rate of their Constitution bonus. (Dwarves also gain hp, if you are using Basic D&D).
Everyone else never gains hit points.
Only did this with Basic, 1e and 2e. It should work with 3e as long as you account for Toughness some way. Not sure about 4e.
Quote from: Werekoala;498066Clearly my brain got scrambled a bit by our most recent Edition Warz thread, but an idea popped into my head that I think might work.
One of the things about D&D is the eternal problem of character's HP increasing to the point that lower-level critters are no longer a credible threat. Now I know you can do the "always fighting orcs" tactic of just buffing up the orcs, but what about if the characters leveled but didn't get any more HP - like, ever - except maybe through magic items or spells (so temporary or subject to being damaged/lost)?
That way (seems to me) you'd have characters whose powers grew over time, but whe were still fragile enough that you could run a "gritty" campaign with all orcs all the time (or skellies or whatever) and keep the danger levels high without having 20HD zombies or something being needed to pose any kind of threat. You'd have the added bonus of PCs being able to cut through swathes of low-level baddies as their powers/spells/abilites increased, but it would also "keep them honest" in that they wouldn't do it with impunity.
Additionally, this does away with some of the head-scratching that comes along with wondering how gaining experience makes a person as tough as a Sherman Tank eventually.
Think that might work?
I think you could do it but it would produce a very different game (one where characters need to carefully weigh whether to engage in each encounter). I personally like the idea of powerful characters who are still squishy (working on a similar concept in an ongoing side project).
Quote from: Werekoala;498066Clearly my brain got scrambled a bit by our most recent Edition Warz thread, but an idea popped into my head that I think might work.
One of the things about D&D is the eternal problem of character's HP increasing to the point that lower-level critters are no longer a credible threat. Now I know you can do the "always fighting orcs" tactic of just buffing up the orcs, but what about if the characters leveled but didn't get any more HP - like, ever - except maybe through magic items or spells (so temporary or subject to being damaged/lost)?
That way (seems to me) you'd have characters whose powers grew over time, but whe were still fragile enough that you could run a "gritty" campaign with all orcs all the time (or skellies or whatever) and keep the danger levels high without having 20HD zombies or something being needed to pose any kind of threat. You'd have the added bonus of PCs being able to cut through swathes of low-level baddies as their powers/spells/abilites increased, but it would also "keep them honest" in that they wouldn't do it with impunity.
Additionally, this does away with some of the head-scratching that comes along with wondering how gaining experience makes a person as tough as a Sherman Tank eventually.
Think that might work?
Nope...
You may want to check out E6 (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html) if the D&D you are using is the d20 variety. I've wanted to get a chance to see this in action for years but haven't heard of anyone running a game I could join.
In any event, leveling up as we know it stops after sixth level in E6.
I guess it would work, but if the bad guys got one fifth level spell off at some point, everyone would be dead. If that's what you're after, then I guess good for you?
Well the bad guys would be subject to the same (or more) restrictions. There is plenty of gear, and plenty of spells, that would offer the PCs protection from higher-leve lstuff, since their abilities would be advancing like normal, jut not their HP. A guy in +5 plate is still going to get all the benefits thereof, just not the HP.
It seems like the last thing most editions of D&D need is for spellcasters to be more powerful. I think a high-level combat which is resolved entirely by which side's spellcaster gets initiative would be a bad idea.
Quote from: JDCorley;498097It seems like the last thing most editions of D&D need is for spellcasters to be more powerful. I think a high-level combat which is resolved entirely by which side's spellcaster gets initiative would be a bad idea.
It does feel a lot like Malazan Book of the Fallen though :).
And all the fun and tactics'd be to eliminate the other's side spellcaster advantage - just like in the books.
Another option is trading out hit points for skill points or feats-so say every other level, or every third level you roll a hit die, like you normally would to increase hit points. The other levels give you something else X points of skills, or Y feats.
Quote from: Werekoala;498096Well the bad guys would be subject to the same (or more) restrictions. There is plenty of gear, and plenty of spells, that would offer the PCs protection from higher-leve lstuff, since their abilities would be advancing like normal, jut not their HP. A guy in +5 plate is still going to get all the benefits thereof, just not the HP.
Personally, I'm a big fan of the "game inside the game," E6. I think the most fun way to play the game is to cap level advancement at 6. After sixth, the characters keep learning new feats or whatever, but otherwise it stops.
CR 8 Monsters stay scary. Humans that can kill 20 men will never encounter a man that they would need 20 equals to take down. You never have to deal with all the goofy, world wrecking crap like 4th and 5th level spells. When the village leader comes to the 3rd or 4th level party and asks for help, it is very possible that there is no one else strong enough to help. Most of all, HP never gets out of control.
I bring up E6 as an alternative because it reducing HP as characters level has some problems. Mainly, 10th level characters vs. appropriate and fair opponents are already playing rocket tag. A full attack from a 10th level rogue or fighter has the ability to kill a CR 10 monster straight off. If spells and attacks keep getting more powerful but defenses stay the same, you are just going to increase the problem that the only thing that matters is winning initiative.
Yeah, I haven't ever played E6, but it sounds like it might address the issues in the OP. Actually, has anyone ever tried E6 with editions other than 3? What would that look like?
What 4th level spells are "world-wrecking"?
Quote from: Cranewings;498144Personally, I'm a big fan of the "game inside the game," E6. I think the most fun way to play the game is to cap level advancement at 6. After sixth, the characters keep learning new feats or whatever, but otherwise it stops.
It's too bad no one ever actually made E6 into a book and published it.
Quote from: Werekoala;498066That way (seems to me) you'd have characters whose powers grew over time, but whe were still fragile enough that you could run a "gritty" campaign with all orcs all the time (or skellies or whatever) and keep the danger levels high without having 20HD zombies or something being needed to pose any kind of threat. You'd have the added bonus of PCs being able to cut through swathes of low-level baddies as their powers/spells/abilites increased, but it would also "keep them honest" in that they wouldn't do it with impunity.
Additionally, this does away with some of the head-scratching that comes along with wondering how gaining experience makes a person as tough as a Sherman Tank eventually.
Think that might work?
It works great. That's how Arduin did it. You got what seemed like a ton of HP when you started, 20-25 give or take. They went up very slowly at level. It offered the benefits you mentioned and also reduced the need for most of the party to be roughly the same level. It's a great rule.
Quote from: CRKrueger;498178What 4th level spells are "world-wrecking"?
4th level MU spells that gave me issues as a DM would be Globe of Invulnerability, Stoneskin, Summon Monster IV, Lesser Geas, Ice Storm, Shout, Wall of Fire, Hallucinatory Terrain, Enervation, and Polymorph. They didn't break the game since I planned from them, but it is an obvious jump up in ability from level 3 spells.
I've observed that a number of near-D&D games follow the pattern of extra HP for beginning characters, but only a small number per level after that.
I may not mistaken on one or two examples but I'm thinking of Palladium 1e, Atlantis/Arcanum, Talislanta, Shades of Fantasy.
I've also seen the houserule that only the 1st level HP (either generated in standard D&D fashion or equal to Con, or something like that) be considered "physical damage capacity" and all subsequent HP be "defense".
"Defense" points in these houserules typically:
1. Are bypassed on critical hits.
2. Regenerate at the end of each combat, or end of each day, or at a very high rate per day.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;498240I've also seen the houserule that only the 1st level HP (either generated in standard D&D fashion or equal to Con, or something like that) be considered "physical damage capacity" and all subsequent HP be "defense".
"Defense" points in these houserules typically:
1. Are bypassed on critical hits.
2. Regenerate at the end of each combat, or end of each day, or at a very high rate per day.
Star Wars D20's got exactly those rules. And I think Modern D20, since SW D20 is really an adaptation of Modern D20 rules for SW verse.
Quote from: Werekoala;498066Think that might work?
Notice that it minimally alters the effectiveness of wizards while completely hosing fighters.
So, basically, no. It won't work.
I recommend E6 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/9470/roleplaying-games/ex-the-many-games-inside-the-worlds-most-popular-roleplaying-game).
Quote from: Justin Alexander;498327Notice that it minimally alters the effectiveness of wizards while completely hosing fighters.
So, basically, no. It won't work.
I recommend E6 (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/9470/roleplaying-games/ex-the-many-games-inside-the-worlds-most-popular-roleplaying-game).
Bah, so let the wizards be powerful!
It's not like Gandalf was equal to Aragorn.
Yeah, it works fine. It's called Stormbringer.
I love running Stormbringer for this exact reason. PCs can get nasty powerful, but they are still human when it comes to a knife in the gut. Are sorcerers and priests scary powerful? Yeah, its Stormbringer. But there's a nasty price with that power.
If you haven't played Stormbringer, go to eBay and pick up the 2nd or 3rd edition of the game. Great stuff.
Quote from: danbuter;4981944th level MU spells that gave me issues as a DM would be Globe of Invulnerability, Stoneskin, Summon Monster IV, Lesser Geas, Ice Storm, Shout, Wall of Fire, Hallucinatory Terrain, Enervation, and Polymorph. They didn't break the game since I planned from them, but it is an obvious jump up in ability from level 3 spells.
Actually, my spells are Scrying, Dimension Door, Greater Invisibility, and Discern Lies. I don't mind player characters being strong as much as I mind spells that imply the ancient setting can't exist without stupid shit like lead lined castle walls built on antimagic platforms.
Quote from: Rincewind1;498330Bah, so let the wizards be powerful!
It's not like Gandalf was equal to Aragorn.
booorrriiinnnngggg
Quote from: Cranewings;498382booorrriiinnnngggg
Care to elaborate? I know it's not the first argument ever made on the case, but I honestly at some point (let's be honest, after reading Play Dirty :P) never more cared for the balance of classes in my games.
In a class/level system the classes should be fairly balanced, because power level/effectiveness is determined by level. If you want to have a Gandalf/Aragorn situation, just make your Gandalfalike 10 levels higher than your Aragornalike.
Quote from: JDCorley;498485In a class/level system the classes should be fairly balanced, because power level/effectiveness is determined by level. If you want to have a Gandalf/Aragorn situation, just make your Gandalfalike 10 levels higher than your Aragornalike.
Except that he'd also be tougher and probably battle better then Aragorn at that point.
There's a huge difference between allowing wizards to have power beyond mortal comprehension and abilities, and turning them into supercollections.
Well I think the LotR comparison is kinda valid - after all, even though the Fellowship was made up (for the most part) of pretty epic figures, they could still be felled by arrows - if not, those goblin archers (in the movie) could shoot at them all day and Aragorn wouldn't need to duck. Gandalf did too, I'll note. If they didn't have the protection of Story Immunity, I doubt many of them would have made it beyond the first book. So they were very powerful, very competent people who could still be taken down much like any other person.
As to overpowered wizards - enforce the concentration rules, and harry them with arrows or whatehaveyou, and I'd imagine they'll be quite busy trying to avoid getting killed, and lucky to get off a spell or two in a really big fight.
Quote from: Werekoala;498496Well I think the LotR comparison is kinda valid - after all, even though the Fellowship was made up (for the most part) of pretty epic figures, they could still be felled by arrows - if not, those goblin archers (in the movie) could shoot at them all day and Aragorn wouldn't need to duck. Gandalf did too, I'll note. If they didn't have the protection of Story Immunity, I doubt many of them would have made it beyond the first book. So they were very powerful, very competent people who could still be taken down much like any other person.
As to overpowered wizards - enforce the concentration rules, and harry them with arrows or whatehaveyou, and I'd imagine they'll be quite busy trying to avoid getting killed, and lucky to get off a spell or two in a really big fight.
And despite the difference in their powers, who was the guy who actually vanished the great evil directly?
The lousy hobbit, that's who.
The wizards are the greatest character, when you can feel the wizard - an arcane advisor to the party's leader. Unless the wizard has a high charisma and is the party's leader, that is - in which the warrior is perhaps his bodyguard/prince he wishes to reinstate/military advisor etc. etc.
All I am saying that unless the players are some PvP buffs, they will not really have much problems with being inadequately powerful. Besides - magical items can be used to balance stuff out, and in low magic settings - Profession system from D20 Modern.
LotR comparisons are boring...anyway, if you want to emulate LotR maybe you should design a game from the ground up for it.
About campaign-breaking spells, how about adding extremely rare and expensive material components? Or take the Carcosa route and require extreme acts?
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;498502LotR comparisons are boring...anyway, if you want to emulate LotR maybe you should design a game from the ground up for it.
About campaign-breaking spells, how about adding extremely rare and expensive material components? Or take the Carcosa route and require extreme acts?
LotR is just a metaphor that a party that is not perfectly balanced still can work great. Plus One Ring probably did that for me. Not that I have any need of emulating LotR - I'd rather go with the setting of Malazan or Black Company. Both have really powerful wizards, who can fall to an arrow, if caught under right opportunity. Or first books from Wheel of Time. Or Star Wars - even in later episodes, Han Solo's still a pretty cool guy. Or in Conan, where the powerful magic still perishes before the will of a mortal and steel.
Of course, those are just books - but then again, let's face it. If you're building a campaign, you might as well draw inspirations from everywhere. And a wizard that is slightly/slightly more powerful in terms of raw damage he can deal out/knowledge, will not be that much of a problem. Especially since in DnD they are glass cannons.
Quote from: Werekoala;498496As to overpowered wizards - enforce the concentration rules, and harry them with arrows or whatehaveyou, and I'd imagine they'll be quite busy trying to avoid getting killed, and lucky to get off a spell or two in a really big fight.
No. A second level spell in 3e makes you immune to being "harried by arrows" essentially forever.
Quote from: JDCorley;498514No. A second level spell in 3e makes you immune to being "harried by arrows" essentially forever.
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Protection_from_Arrows
10/-. Nothing that a Sneak Attack won't help surpass with a good roll.
Shortbow 1d6 + 2d6 SA (3rd level rogue), that's 3d6 attack. 8/18 chance to deal damage in range of 1 to 8. And the 3rd level wizard will have something between 6 and 24/27 (the 24/27 is including 18 Con and Toughness feat).
Not to mention that when I'd be such a rogue, I'd draw two daggers and run into melee, and take the wizard out before he/she could concentrate to smack me down. Rogues are perfect wizard killers.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;498502LotR comparisons are boring...anyway, if you want to emulate LotR maybe you should design a game from the ground up for it.
?
I think the thing is, lots of gamers want to have the leeway to emulate LOTR but also emulate more high magic fantasy as well. Personally I would find a game that focused entirely on running a LOTR style game, a bit boring. But I don't mind having LOTR elements in a game like D&D.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;498517I think the thing is, lots of gamers want to have the leeway to emulate LOTR but also emulate more high magic fantasy as well. Personally I would find a game that focused entirely on running a LOTR style game, a bit boring. But I don't mind having LOTR elements in a game like D&D.
(http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=41760944)
LotR IS the High Magic Fantasy. Still - it's completely not what my metaphor was about. I took LotR and a good bunch of other classics to showcase how parties that weren't balanced in power worked just fine.
Not that there's anything wrong with balance of power per say - it is just unnecessary for a successful game/rpg.
Quote from: Rincewind1;498515Not to mention that when I'd be such a rogue, I'd draw two daggers and run into melee, and take the wizard out before he/she could concentrate to smack me down. Rogues are perfect wizard killers.
I thought we were talking about high level characters, not low level. At low levels, the proposed game changes don't even kick in.
And no, doing a few points of damage doesn't make a Concentration check difficult. Remember, the wizard knows that Concentration is the spell that will let him murder 20th level fighters with a third level spell. There is no reason for him to put his skill points anywhere else.
Quote from: JDCorley;498521I thought we were talking about high level characters, not low level. At low levels, the proposed game changes don't even kick in.
And no, doing a few points of damage doesn't make a Concentration check difficult. Remember, the wizard knows that Concentration is the spell that will let him murder 20th level fighters with a third level spell. There is no reason for him to put his skill points anywhere else.
You can also be a killing machine for anything that's alive even as far as 7th level! Here, let me give you a write up.
Step 1. Pick Sun Elf as a race, assign 18 to int, have starting of 20 with bonus.
Step 2. Take Wizard as class.
Step 3. Take SF Illusion and GSF Illusion
Step 4. Phantasmal Killer + Fox's Cunning
Step 5. GG no re
With GSF, 21 Int + fox's cunning bonus, you will have the DC of your PK around 23 + 1/2/3. And that's one of the more laughably obvious builds.
Builds don't make a hero. Builds are just numbers. If a player'd make such a Sun Elf and just say he's a wizard, I'd slap him probably and tell him he takes me for an idiot.
But if he made a backstory about a Sun Elf wizard who actually does rarely use his magic, as he accidentally killed his brother in a spell duel/promised his wife whom actually wanted to test his love, and now only uses his vast magical powers for special occasions such as saving everyone's arse - now there, me lad, there you have some material for an interesting character. And interesting characters make a hero.
First of all, by writing a character backstory, you are stepping outside the realm of the character, how do you even know your character has a brother? You aren't playing your character's parents, they decide if your character has a brother, not your character. By stepping outside your character you ruin immersion/emulation and you become a story swine and are trying to destroy the hobby.
Second of all, what does "being a hero" have to do with the discussion? I assume everyone is roleplaying well and having fun in their own way. It doesn't mean that the game benefits when wizards can do everything everyone else can do better than them and combat is resolved by whose spellcaster gets initiative. That's just not fun. It makes the game worse than playing it the normal way.
Quote from: JDCorley;498530First of all, by writing a character backstory, you are stepping outside the realm of the character, how do you even know your character has a brother? You aren't playing your character's parents, they decide if your character has a brother, not your character. By stepping outside your character you ruin immersion/emulation and you become a story swine and are trying to destroy the hobby.
Bollocks. Pundit likes Amber, he can't be against character backstories - and they are imo important for immersion, as they are the moment to flesh the character out.
QuoteSecond of all, what does "being a hero" have to do with the discussion? I assume everyone is roleplaying well and having fun in their own way. It doesn't mean that the game benefits when wizards can do everything everyone else can do better than them and combat is resolved by whose spellcaster gets initiative. That's just not fun. It makes the game worse than playing it the normal way.
First of all, you mistake "allowing wizards to be slightly more powerful" with "letting them become overlords of humanity riding fellow players like bitches".
But let's say that the spellcaster has magic that allows him for some really powerful spells, compared to what the rest of the party can do, but he retains a low hit dice of DnD wizard.
Obviously, term "glass cannon" comes to mind. And if you see an enemy party - you send out your rogue with a poison - tipped arrow to take the enemy's wizard out. Remember that adventurer's aren't some random morons running around - they are people who live in the world for quite some time. They know what their wizard is capable of - they will want to take other's side wizard out first.
You can hinder the wizard in other ways - perhaps drawing upon the very arcane power is dangerous, as it can render the user mad? Perhaps it's always a contest between not drawing too much, nor too little? You call these things problems, I call them opportunities.
I'm trying to advice Werekoala that an imbalanced party is not equal to a bad party. Because I find it a steaming pile of bullshit sold by MMORPGs. I presume Werekoala wishes to make a campaign about epic adventures, even if he downgrades heroes hit points. Heroes hit points, you might've noticed I wrote. Because as I said many times....
A character is something that's beyond just the bunch of numbers.
Quote from: Rincewind1;498520(http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=41760944)
LotR IS the High Magic Fantasy. Still - it's completely not what my metaphor was about. I took LotR and a good bunch of other classics to showcase how parties that weren't balanced in power worked just fine.
Not that there's anything wrong with balance of power per say - it is just unnecessary for a successful game/rpg.
I wasn't talking about the literary subgenre of high fantasy, but the distinction gamers make between high magic and low magic settings. By gaming standards, lord of the rings is pretty low magic in my opinion.
I understood that you were arguing for a lack of balance. But I was responding to eliot's point (if I understood it) that games emulating LOTR should go all the way and be built from the ground up to resemble it. My point was simply that some gamers want flexibility in a system so it can hit certain LOTR notes while also allowing for more high magic play.
LotR has few wizards, but it has a plethora of magical ancient items, artifacts and magical creatures - but really, we ought to take that talk to a LotR thread. I'd rather help Werekoala then be forced into defending some 'agenda' of mine.
I'm not saying that LotR model is a perfect RPG party - but it proves that a party without balance can work. And if you scroll up, I have made much more examples of adventuring parties in fantasy literature, that worked despite power differences.
Of course, if your players snark at the very prospect of such heresy - then don't do that. Or do it but make them thing you did not, and tell only when it's too late. :P
Quote from: Rincewind1;498545LotR has few wizards, but it has a plethora of magical ancient items, artifacts and magical creatures - but really, we ought to take that talk to a LotR thread.
I'm not saying that LotR model is a perfect RPG party - but it proves that a party without balance can work. And if you scroll up, I have made much more examples of adventuring parties in fantasy literature, that worked despite power differences.
Keep in mind I agree with you that imbalanced parties can work (though I would quibble and say really it is about not balancing everything around combat), but I don't think LOTR proves it can work since it is a story and not a game. What proves it can work is that there are games out there where balance isn't the priority, and plenty of people have enjoyed playing mixed parties (though again I would say really it tends to boil down to not balancing the game around combat).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;498546Keep in mind I agree with you that imbalanced parties can work (though I would quibble and say really it is about not balancing everything around combat), but I don't think LOTR proves it can work since it is a story and not a game. What proves it can work is that there are games out there where balance isn't the priority, and plenty of people have enjoyed playing mixed parties (though again I would say really it tends to boil down to not balancing the game around combat).
Though let's face it, when you plan out adventures, you usually drive inspirations from movies/books/comics etc. etc. And if it's a fantasy adventure, LotR provides some guidance how to be a good GM...and a bad GM, as DM of the Rings taught us ;).
Quote from: Rincewind1;498533Bollocks. Pundit likes Amber, he can't be against character backstories - and they are imo important for immersion, as they are the moment to flesh the character out.
Haha, yeah. Immersion. "My parents treated me kindly." "You were just a TINY BABY, you can't DO THAT."
QuoteFirst of all, you mistake "allowing wizards to be slightly more powerful" with "letting them become overlords of humanity riding fellow players like bitches".
That's the proposal, essentially. Right?
QuoteBut let's say that the spellcaster has magic that allows him for some really powerful spells, compared to what the rest of the party can do, but he retains a low hit dice of DnD wizard.
Hit dice are not the main means of high level D&D3 spellcaster protection even before this change.
QuoteObviously, term "glass cannon" comes to mind. And if you see an enemy party - you send out your rogue with a poison - tipped arrow to take the enemy's wizard out.
You can't see the wizard, he's invisible. Or an illusion. And he can see your rogue. And poison doesn't do anything to hinder his spell use. And he's immune to arrows all day. And anyway, he saw you first.
QuoteRemember that adventurer's aren't some random morons running around - they are people who live in the world for quite some time. They know what their wizard is capable of - they will want to take other's side wizard out first.
Like I say, reducing all combats to "whose wizard can get a spell off first" seems like boring combats to me.
But if that's what you're after and you don't think that would be boring, go ahead.
I think it would be boring as hell.
QuoteYou can hinder the wizard in other ways - perhaps drawing upon the very arcane power is dangerous, as it can render the user mad?
Wait, what?! I thought the whole point of this exercise was to make spellcasters more powerful.
If you want to try to balance spellcasting in other ways, I'm all for it. As...everything I've posted in the thread has shown.
QuoteYou call these things problems, I call them opportunities. I'm trying to advice Werekoala that an imbalanced party is not equal to a bad party.
No, it's true, clearly you don't find it boring to show up to a game and sit there doing dick-all while we wait with bated breath to see if the spellcasters' initiative rolls work out in our favor. I do.
See JDCorley, the problem is now - I can take such a party, and they will have a terrific game. Because I'm a good GM, and mechanics are my bitch, not I am theirs. So I can put a 20th level wizard at the lead of 1st level party, and they'll all still have a blast. And for the last time - I had written"let the Wizards be more powerful then warriors", not "Let the wizards be the cruel overlords of the party". Check it.
Heck, you know what, maybe I'll even write such a scenario after I'm finished with my current work, just to showcase that it can be done.
Take this rule and hammer it into your head, whenever you care about anything else I posted or not. Srsly.
Mechanics will never substitute for good GMing
I agree, I assume all the proposed games we're talking about had good GMs, so I don't know what the hell that has to do with anything whatsoever related to the topic.
And actually a high-level wizard leading a low-level party seems like a good way to get what you want, so...good for you, I guess? But it really works better when a wizard level and a non-wizard level are equivalent, so you can gauge exactly how much more powerful the wizard you want is. It sounds like there's a point at which it's too powerful?
Quote from: Werekoala;498066Clearly my brain got scrambled a bit by our most recent Edition Warz thread, but an idea popped into my head that I think might work.
One of the things about D&D is the eternal problem of character's HP increasing to the point that lower-level critters are no longer a credible threat. Now I know you can do the "always fighting orcs" tactic of just buffing up the orcs, but what about if the characters leveled but didn't get any more HP - like, ever - except maybe through magic items or spells (so temporary or subject to being damaged/lost)?
That way (seems to me) you'd have characters whose powers grew over time, but whe were still fragile enough that you could run a "gritty" campaign with all orcs all the time (or skellies or whatever) and keep the danger levels high without having 20HD zombies or something being needed to pose any kind of threat. You'd have the added bonus of PCs being able to cut through swathes of low-level baddies as their powers/spells/abilites increased, but it would also "keep them honest" in that they wouldn't do it with impunity.
Additionally, this does away with some of the head-scratching that comes along with wondering how gaining experience makes a person as tough as a Sherman Tank eventually.
Think that might work?
One of my systems uses something along this line.
HP starting is a little higher, but fighters gain only 2-5 per lev, down to 1-2 per lev for mages.
I added a 'use protection ability' and a 'potential protection' to each armor. Bascially, fighters gain 1 point of 'use protection' per 3 levels (3, 6, 9, 12). Clerics got it 1 per 4 levels, thief types one per 5 levels. So a 6th level fighter may have only 23 hp on average, but if they are wearing armor, they have what is called these days a Damage reduction of 2 from most attacks per attack.
Casters are adjusted by basically making spells above first level more difficult to cast with a spell success roll. So when a caster first gets the ability to cast a spell, it was basically a crapshoot if it would work. Spells below the casters get easier and easier based on how far below the caster's level they are. So at level 5, fireball is a 50% chance of working...changes the dynamic of combat, etc, when the artillery is hit or miss. By the time the mage is level 7, it has a 60% chance of working, at level 9, that fireball (or any third level spell) has an 80% chance of working....you can see how this changes the dynamic, as that wall of armor called a fighter becomes a lot more important when the spell might or might not work.
Character backstory is absolutely fine, before the campaign starts, as long as it is approved by the GM, who's authority is absolute.
There is no immersion before the campaign begins, by definition, since immersion only happens in play. Duh.
RPGPundit
Interesting theory, so if we've been playing for a few sessions and I musingly say, "I think my guy should have a brother," I've destroyed the hobby? Or will there be some tattered remnants left?
Quote from: JDCorley;499027Interesting theory, so if we've been playing for a few sessions and I musingly say, "I think my guy should have a brother," I've destroyed the hobby? Or will there be some tattered remnants left?
To me - no, unless it'd break the campaign in some way, and it is important for your character.
Come on Corley. Pundit is an extremist, after all. You know that. The difference is, you can call him an extremist and call on his bullshit extremism at times, and he will not crank out the banhammer 'cos you insulted him, as he could. And that's why I like his style.
The difference between who and what? I don' get it.
Quote from: JDCorley;499027Interesting theory, so if we've been playing for a few sessions and I musingly say, "I think my guy should have a brother," I've destroyed the hobby? Or will there be some tattered remnants left?
In my opinion this sort of thing is usually fine, so long as it doesn't lead to inconsistencies (and GM approval is particularly important to me when things are proposed during play). You aren't going to be able to think of everything about your character and some stuff will come up during play (do I have any business connections in this city? What is my father's occupation).
If you said "My character should have a brother" in my game, I'd tell you your character probably needs to have a conversation with his parents. Depending on their age and other factors, he could have a brother in 9 months. No guarantees - might be a sister.
Kaldric has given the only non-swine answer. The rest of you are forever story gamers. Report for your tattoo.
Quote from: JDCorley;499318Kaldric has given the only non-swine answer. The rest of you are forever story gamers. Report for your tattoo.
Actually I did that after like, first three posts here :P.
I got my tattoo back when they published Dragonlance. I just don't like that kind of game as much, so play it rarely, and run rarelier.
Quote from: Kaldric;499262If you said "My character should have a brother" in my game, I'd tell you your character probably needs to have a conversation with his parents. Depending on their age and other factors, he could have a brother in 9 months. No guarantees - might be a sister.
Good answer!
Less jokingly, though, its not really for the player to decide after the game starts whether he has a brother or not. If there's some goddamned reason, he could suggest it, and the GM is the one who would say yes or no to that.
To give a different sort of example, the PC might be at a fancy dinner party, and conversation turns to riding. The player could certainly ask the GM "it would make sense that my upper class character could be into showjumping, right?". The Gm would then decide if that was the case.
The other side of that is that the GM can, of course, impose backstory on the player. Though again, as a question of etiquette, he may sometimes want to ask the player what he thinks about it; and the GM should NOT impose any backstory that would actually radically oblige the player to change how he's RPed the character until that time.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Werekoala;498066Clearly my brain got scrambled a bit by our most recent Edition Warz thread, but an idea popped into my head that I think might work.
One of the things about D&D is the eternal problem of character's HP increasing to the point that lower-level critters are no longer a credible threat. Now I know you can do the "always fighting orcs" tactic of just buffing up the orcs, but what about if the characters leveled but didn't get any more HP - like, ever - except maybe through magic items or spells (so temporary or subject to being damaged/lost)?
That way (seems to me) you'd have characters whose powers grew over time, but whe were still fragile enough that you could run a "gritty" campaign with all orcs all the time (or skellies or whatever) and keep the danger levels high without having 20HD zombies or something being needed to pose any kind of threat. You'd have the added bonus of PCs being able to cut through swathes of low-level baddies as their powers/spells/abilites increased, but it would also "keep them honest" in that they wouldn't do it with impunity.
Additionally, this does away with some of the head-scratching that comes along with wondering how gaining experience makes a person as tough as a Sherman Tank eventually.
Think that might work?
Haven't read the whole thread but isn't there something called E6 based on a similar concept? The one that's like 3x but it stops at 6 and you keep getting feats?
As a GM, I actually love it when players are lazy and don't make me much of a character history, just two - three sentences.
A whole lot of guns that I could throw in there. You are just a former veteran from the army? Guess what, your fighting buddy shows up with murder in his eyes, as he claims that you are a foul deserter who should be hanged, and he'll do everything he can to prove that.
Always give the GM a good character history. Being lazy with your character history is for me a signal that:
1)The player will be lazy with RPing and gaming
2)The player doesn't really care about the character.
And if the player cares so little about the character - why should I care to keep it alive?