How often and to what degree?Psychic Robot wrote:I would rather be able to heal whenever I choose.
One could always use SKR's "Sprint Healing" ufufu
Moderator: Moderators
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:You do not seem to do anything.Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:You do not seem to do anything.Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
MartinHarper wrote:Babies are difficult to acquire in comparison to other sources of nutrition.
MartinHarper wrote:Babies are difficult to acquire in comparison to other sources of nutrition.
MartinHarper wrote:Babies are difficult to acquire in comparison to other sources of nutrition.
If he could have avoided it (without Bad Things Happening), Frodo wouldn't have taken the Ring to Mordor.Nobody faces a series of hard opponents or challenges one right after the other if they can avoid it, so why should we expect or demand PCs do otherwise? It's not like we expect Rocky to fight Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Ivan Drago in rapid succession. One could make an argument that those three are "boss" fights for Rocky, but we also don't expect many D&D characters to take on a CR+4 ecounter by themselves.
Engaging and predetermined are running at cross purposes. On one hand, you want to feel that your actions are relevant to your success (or that doing "better" is better than auto-calculating the result).Maybe we need a way to make mook fights engaging, even if they're essentially predetermined, so that adventures don't require PCs to be continuously challenged by "level-appropriate" opposition? Maybe somehow shift the focus away from being injured and recovering rapidly to avoiding injury in the first place? I don't know.
A boss fight for a single person's their same CR, actually. And that's definitionally possible to do. Once, for many characters. And indeed, the system expects them to rest after that. Or only going after that right after resting.violence in the media wrote:Nobody faces a series of hard opponents or challenges one right after the other if they can avoid it, so why should we expect or demand PCs do otherwise? It's not like we expect Rocky to fight Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Ivan Drago in rapid succession. One could make an argument that those three are "boss" fights for Rocky, but we also don't expect many D&D characters to take on a CR+4 ecounter by themselves.
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
I think you're looking at this in a more meta sense than I was. Within the premise of the game (Han Solo joining the Rebellion, Frodo taking the Ring to Mt. Doom) they have the freedom and desire to avoid as many fights as they can. It doesn't matter how many orcs or stormtroopers they kill along the way, provided the Ring winds up in the firey embrace of the volcano. On the Death Star. Which explodes.Elennsar wrote:Interesting comments.
If he could have avoided it (without Bad Things Happening), Frodo wouldn't have taken the Ring to Mordor.
Okay, bad example. Point is, that is an "if". Telling stories about heroes is ultimately telling stories about people doing things they'd rather not to prevent things they'd really rather not have happen. (Rest snipped for space.)
I mean engaging in the sense that there is a point to doing well or poorly in the fight, but within the realization that Luke Skywalker is in no real danger from any quantity of Stormtroopers. Like someone else mentioned, make mook encounters more about things like:Engaging and predetermined are running at cross purposes. On one hand, you want to feel that your actions are relevant to your success (or that doing "better" is better than auto-calculating the result).
But if it is pre-determined, that's not entirely true.
Which, personally, is desirable. Characters fighting more than is necessary to accomplish their goals does not suit either of those two.Within the premise of the game (Han Solo joining the Rebellion, Frodo taking the Ring to Mt. Doom) they have the freedom and desire to avoid as many fights as they can. It doesn't matter how many orcs or stormtroopers they kill along the way, provided the Ring winds up in the firey embrace of the volcano. On the Death Star. Which explodes.
Good premise.Basically, I'd be looking at establishing other win/loss conditions for an encouter besides "slaughter everyone". Once the win or loss condition is met, the encounter resolves and we move on.
Wait, what? Are you saying that my chance of victory is a minimum 25% on an encounter I'm expected to be able to win?Elennsar wrote:Presumably, any encounter that you are expected to be able to win has a chance of victory of somewhere around 25% at a minimum.
Please elaborate on the bolded part, I'm not sure what you mean. A PC should have the same number of level-appropriate encounters from level 10 to 11 as he does from level 1 to 2. Higher level PCs can have more encounters but, if those are significantly lower level, they won't contribute much to level progress.One thing that I think would need to die an excruciatingly painful death is that the number/difficulty of encounters you face has to do with how capable you are (both in terms of "more xp for fighting more" and "higher level people have more Stormtroopers magically appear", but mostly the former.).
No, it doesn't. So read what I wrote more carefully.Wait, what? Are you saying that my chance of victory is a minimum 25% on an encounter I'm expected to be able to win?
That doesn't make any sense. A 25% success rate is not something I would term likely, let alone expected.
If we want this:Please elaborate on the bolded part, I'm not sure what you mean. A PC should have the same number of level-appropriate encounters from level 10 to 11 as he does from level 1 to 2. Higher level PCs can have more encounters but, if those are significantly lower level, they won't contribute much to level progress.
Right. But getting to Leia (A New Hope) is a CR 7 or so encounter. Period. That may be "CR+4" for our brave heroes or equal CR or whatever.As far as more Stormtroopers for higher level people, it makes sense to me that the Empire would send more troops to round up Luke and Han than they would to nab a couple of no-name rebel troops.
If you have a chance to win, then you have a chance to win. If you don't have a chance to win, then you don't have a chance to win. For example, if you have a 20% chance of winning, then you have a 20% chance of winning. Similarly, if you don't have a chance to win, then you have a 0% chance of winning.Elennsar wrote:25% is the minimum chance of winning for "You have a chance to win". ... If you have less than a 25% chance of victory, I would consider it a "victory is not going to happen whatever we do, what's the second best thing we can get?" scenario.
If you feel confident in rolling 16+ an amount of the time that actually relates to mathmatical probability, you have better crafted dice than I've ever used.For example, if you have a 20% chance of winning, then you have a 20% chance of winning.
The idea is that rested parties are about as good at running away as parties who have already killed some fools today. However, they normally don't run away, because it's easier and better to smite the opposition and achieve victory.Elennsar wrote:You have a better chance of running away when worn out then when fully rested?
Just finding that rather weird, don't take this too seriously.
Ah, that makes sense. Just the idea that you're better off running when wounded was too amusing not to jest about it.The idea is that rested parties are about as good at running away as parties who have already killed some fools today. However, they normally don't run away, because it's easier and better to smite the opposition and achieve victory.
Something like that would work.So, somehow making action points particularly effective for running away (perhaps they grant move or minor actions, but not standard actions?).
I was going to say, "Fuck your presumptions about my reading comprehension and write what you mean more carefully." However, I realize that we're arguing connotations here.Elennsar wrote:No, it doesn't. So read what I wrote more carefully.Presumably, any encounter that you are expected to be able to win has a chance of victory of somewhere around 25% at a minimum.
25% is the minimum chance of winning for "You have a chance to win".
You are able to win there. Unlikely? Definately!
Pretty much. Less than 25% is telling me that it is a situation where the only question is how badly you will be defeated, and 25% is something I can face without wanting to throw dice and pencils.I was going to say, "Fuck your presumptions about my reading comprehension and write what you mean more carefully." However, I realize that we're arguing connotations here.
For you, as I am understanding what you have written, a 25% chance of success is the minimum that is acceptable to you. It's not the ideal, but you'll go into that situation if you have to and feel that you're being treated fairly.
I am not sure on that. (The agreement, that is). Depends on what you mean by rewards.Gaming is a lot like gambling in my mind. As such, when the chances for success go down significantly, then the rewards have to increase significantly, the personal risk has to decrease, or some combination of the two.
I don't think we have any significant disagreement on the second subject.