Playing the Same Game

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by Username17 »

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1152831149[/unixtime]]I thought the point of the CR wasn't that it beat someone at that level, but that it consumed resources of a certain amount at that level?

-Crissa
Well, at CR = Character level for a one man party (or CR = Character level +4 for a 4 man party) that percentage is 100%.

So on average, you should win having used up all of your resources, which is impractical because you can't use up all your resources, it's not even possible.

So really what that means is that roughly half the time you lose and the rest of the time you win and have resources left.

So if there are monsters who get repeatedly smacked by one style of character, then either they should smack other character archetypes down, or they have inflated CRs (like the Orcwort).

---

Those of you familiar with SAME will note that I personally like it when the answer to a Wizard is a dude with a spear. After all, if the only answer to spellcaster is spellcasters, then spellcasters are always the correct choice against all opposition and characters of other styles can go suck it.

-Username17
Neeek
Knight-Baron
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by Neeek »

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1152833363[/unixtime]]

Those of you familiar with SAME will note that I personally like it when the answer to a Wizard is a dude with a spear. After all, if the only answer to spellcaster is spellcasters, then spellcasters are always the correct choice against all opposition and characters of other styles can go suck it.


I dunno. If the answer to a wizard is a dude with a spear, then what is the wizard an answer for and what is the answer to the dude with a spear?

The issue shouldn't be so much that spear-guy can beat wizards so much as spear-dude beats blaster-mage but loses to summoner-guy who, in turn loses to blaster-mage.
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by PhoneLobster »

I remain not so keen on the whole rock-paper-scissors school of character utility.

I'd rather everyone be pretty much effective pretty much all the time rather than taking turns at hiding behind each other.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by RandomCasualty »

PhoneLobster at [unixtime wrote:1152843378[/unixtime]]I remain not so keen on the whole rock-paper-scissors school of character utility.

I'd rather everyone be pretty much effective pretty much all the time rather than taking turns at hiding behind each other.


It's hard to get away from RPS school when you've got wizards with absolute binary win/loss abilities like greater invisiblity and flight. Such abilities must be countered or the battle is automatically over. And that right there is paper covering rock. Now you just can't have scissors = paper. Otherwise everyone is going to be playing paper and nobody is going to playing rock.

The fact that wizards can get auto-wins on things pretty much means that something has to dominate wizards in that fashion, since if wizards can hold their own against everything, then everyone might as well be a wizard.

Now, we could always try to strip away absolute win/loss abilities to balance things out, but that would greatly change the game dynamic.
User avatar
Desdan_Mervolam
Knight-Baron
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by Desdan_Mervolam »

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1152847968[/unixtime]]
The fact that wizards can get auto-wins on things pretty much means that something has to dominate wizards in that fashion, since if wizards can hold their own against everything, then everyone might as well be a wizard.


I think that just means that casters are overpowered and overgeneralized.

First off, Save-Or-Die spells should not exist. Noone who is supposed to be on an equal power level should go down like a punk in the first round to the wizard just because the wizard has a spell called "You go down like a punk". All those places in stories where wizards killed someone with a glance? That's supposed to mean that the wizard was so much more hardcore than them. Let's make direct damage respectable and then quit pretending the "I shot you, you're dead! Nyah Nyah" paradigm is any fun.

(And yes, I realize this is amusing with my avatar. We're moving on here.)

Secondly, spells should not be allowed to step on toes without serious restriction. I'm looking at you, Divine Power. Let's get rid of spells that let you fill someone else's niche for the sole reason that you slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and make the spells that step on toes that we simply can't do without have reasons why we might actually not want to use them.

-Desdan
Don't bother trying to impress gamers. They're too busy trying to impress you to care.
DP
1st Level
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by DP »

Save or die is a rotten mechanic. I really think it makes the game much less fun. I tried an experiment of giving characters hit points and soul points. Everything got soul points just the same as hit points but with different dice and charisma instead of con as a bonus. Some spells like dominate or hold or most death effects wouldn't work unless the target had sufficiently few soul points. Some spells took away soul points.

I don't know it seemed like a good idea but was kind of a mess. It changed too much and left too much work to do. I kind of feel like it would work pretty well if the system was built around it. My ideal would be a system where fighting types deal some souldamage and hit point damage and spell types initially facillitate that with buffs and debuffs and then once the target is weak throw out a save or die.

Kind of like if the D&D only had buffs and power word spells.
dbb
Knight
Posts: 347
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by dbb »

No need for such complications. Just make all spells do hit point damage. If your "Stone to Flesh" spell reduces someone to zero hit points, he turns into a statue. Et cetera. This is essentially how Power Word Kill already works, except that if it doesn't take you to zero hit points it has no effect at all. Wouldn't it make more sense if fighting off the Word of Death made you weak and shaky and an easier target for the fighter? Of course it would. The current system, where it has no synergy with the fighter at all, is ass.

--d.
DP
1st Level
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by DP »

That's cool for lots of effects but what about spells like dominate. I'm sure it's somthing I could get past but there is something odd about having to beat somthing to death in order to take control of its mind. Maybe they could do subdual damage? I don't know.
User avatar
Josh_Kablack
King
Posts: 5318
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Online. duh

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by Josh_Kablack »

Conceptually, save-or-dies are fine.

Any optimization problem can be rewritten as a yes/no decision problem with for a specific finite value. That is to say that any significantly large direct damage attack which allows a save, can be a save or die in the right circumstances. A 6d6 Fireball is a save or die for anyone under 10 *current* hit points, and is superior to a spell which just kills outright anybody in single digit hitpoints on a failed save.

The whole point of moving from the Chainmail matrices to a hit point system was to increase the survivalibility of characters and give players a longer timeframe to bond with their characters. However there is no reason why that can't be accomplished equally well by otherwise reducing the lethality rate, such as adjusting target numbers or allowing plentiful resurrections. Cripes, you can have a game where nobody ever dies, they just get a "KO" status until the next fight or somebody hits them with appropriate healing (Phoenix Down anyone?)

Now D&D is all sorts of crazy-go nuts when it comes to mixing and matching spell effects and in what defenses apply when, where and how against those effects. In D&D, damage is usually cumulative, save-or-dies are usually not, and there are other spells which can improve the effectiveness of either or both types of attacks, and those other spells frequently have effects of their own. This combines to make a complex, opaque system that rewards player knowledge and punishes new players, especially if they want to play spellcasters. This also punishes veteran players who wish to play non-casters, since they have both fewer options and less to do with those options.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
PhoneLobster
King
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by PhoneLobster »

Now save or dies may be bad or good (I'll side with annoying).

But...
RC wrote:The fact that wizards can get auto-wins on things pretty much means that something has to dominate wizards in that fashion, since if wizards can hold their own against everything, then everyone might as well be a wizard.


Replace the word wizard with character and I therefore fail to see RC's point.

I still would rather the characters were basically on an equal power level without these dumb niche ideas.

No more round robin for who dominates the next hour of game play.

The only round robin should be for who's turn it is to act, not who happens to specialize against whatever it is the GM's whim favours today.

I'm endlessly annoyed when I come to a game wanting to play something like an enchanter or rogue only to be sat out for vast swathes of game because I'm stuck fighting my niche groups invulnerable nemesis like undead or constructs.

After all isn't that the whole point of this fighter class revamp. Bringing everyone up to par?

Well up to par means not having to go sit in the corner wearing a dunces cap and twiddle your thumbs for extended periods of time.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by RandomCasualty »

Desdan_Mervolam at [unixtime wrote:1152851557[/unixtime]]
I think that just means that casters are overpowered and overgeneralized.

Yeah, the overgeneralized part really makes it tough to place any kind of real counter system. Casters should really be subdivided into smaller specializations, like summoner, blaster, and so on. We already have the beguiler, perhaps we should follow that pattern and create some other casting specialties.


First off, Save-Or-Die spells should not exist. Noone who is supposed to be on an equal power level should go down like a punk in the first round to the wizard just because the wizard has a spell called "You go down like a punk". All those places in stories where wizards killed someone with a glance? That's supposed to mean that the wizard was so much more hardcore than them. Let's make direct damage respectable and then quit pretending the "I shot you, you're dead! Nyah Nyah" paradigm is any fun.

Well, we need some save-or-die mechanics or at the very least save-or-be-screwed-over. We can set hit dice caps and such, much like sleep or color spray. We can turn instant death spells like baleful poly and flesh to stone into something similar to power word kill.

I'm not sure if it would make the game that much better though, since as written, combat tends to be fast and deadly. A fighter can kill a wizard in pretty much 1-2 rounds, so the wizard really needs something he can do back to compete.


Secondly, spells should not be allowed to step on toes without serious restriction. I'm looking at you, Divine Power. Let's get rid of spells that let you fill someone else's niche for the sole reason that you slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and make the spells that step on toes that we simply can't do without have reasons why we might actually not want to use them.


Yeah, stealing someone else's schtick is a dangerous game mechanic. The main key to balancing combat buff spells is simple:

-All of them are 1 minute fixed duration. They can't be extended, made persistent or whatever. 1 minute, period.
-When you cast a buff you're surrounded by some white halo of light and produce some sound, instantly alerting everyone that you're there, even if you're invisible.
-Buffs automatically go away if you teleport or change planes with them active.

Balancing noncombat character replacement spells, like knock, detect traps, spider climb, fly, etc. are a bit more difficult. Doing so would likely force us to move to a mechanic that is better than D&Ds slot mechanics. Ideally your number of slots should remain fixed and shouldn't go up as you gain levels. Merely what spells you put in those slots should increase, and you should have abilities you can use "at will" like a warlock's incantations. And a lot of abilities should eventually become free like that.

Certain other effects, like rogue replacing knock spells and such, should probably never become free. Divinations and similarly general useful spells should remain in this category as well.
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by RandomCasualty »

PhoneLobster at [unixtime wrote:1152885730[/unixtime]]
I'm endlessly annoyed when I come to a game wanting to play something like an enchanter or rogue only to be sat out for vast swathes of game because I'm stuck fighting my niche groups invulnerable nemesis like undead or constructs.


It's very difficult to make everyone "equal" so to speak, at least not without making them boring. I mean if we wanted to, we could go to mechanics that deal nothing but hp damage, and use the same attack mechanics and so on, such that a fireball is mechanically identical in every way to a sword strike. But that'd be pretty boring to play if everyone had the same mechanics and we just called it flavor.

A little RPS is unavoidable. If you play a guy who targets people's minds, like a beguiler, he's going to be better against people with low will saves, and he should be. That's just natural and logical.

But RPS can get out of hand, and it does with certain absolute abilities like flying, death wards, and improved invisibility. It's bad when a creature or character can't do *anything* to someone unless they have ability X.

As for other situations, it's okay if your character is at 25-50% usefulness for the fight. It's okay if he's not quite as good against constructs as he might be against human mercenaries. But he shouldn't be totally useless. This is just a matter of having some versatility to classes. Rogues already can pull out wands and UMD them to somewhat compensate. Wizards have an array of spells that they can use in case a monster is immune to their specialized schtick. So I don't really view it as that big of a deal.
dbb
Knight
Posts: 347
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by dbb »

I really don't know why we have to have Undead and Constructs be immune to sneak attack or enchantment in the first place. Does anyone really think that merely being undead means you have no weak points? Haven't there been like hundreds of zombie movies where you can destroy them most effectively by taking off their heads? Isn't the whole notion of putting a stake in a vampire's heart a rebuke to the idea that there's no part of their bodies that's more vulnerable?

So yeah. I think Rogues should get to sneak attack undead, and constructs too for that matter. Nor is there any reason why all undead should be immune to Enchantment spells. If it has an intelligence score at all, you probably ought to be able to Charm it.

Mind you, this isn't to say I don't think there should be things immune to sneak attack or charm. There totally can be, but it needs to be a lot more specific than it is now.

--d.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by Username17 »

dbb wrote:I really don't know why we have to have Undead and Constructs be immune to sneak attack or enchantment in the first place


For some it makes sense. But for most it makes no sense. For those of you familiar with the Tome of Necromancy, you'll note that those rules impose sneak attacks and enchantments on many iconic undead. The Book of Gears will do the same thing for constructs.

Frankly, the only constructs for whom the entire line of immunities granted to constructs makes sense is Illusionary constructs. Simulacrums, Shadow Duplicates, that sort of thing. And in the basic rules, they aren't even constructs.

Because yeah, clockwork monsters need to be rewound (sleep), machines can stall (stun) when they receive sudden impacts or weird stimuli, and the classic golem has a weak point that can completely disable him if damaged.

The over generalization of type immunities is major bullshit.

-Username17
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

I myself always wondered why Golems just didn't have the mindless trait and a fairly high hardness?

That would have the effect of being immune to any sort of mind affecting spell, make them highly resistant to energy damage and attacks, and if the hardness is less than 20, make them vulnerable to adamantine weapons.

Same general effect, less bullshit and confusion.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by RandomCasualty »

Well I can see why incorporeals would have critical immunity, though I have trouble seeing why skeletons and zombies would. Perhaps they could hav esomething like "half damage from sneak attacks" since they lack real vital organs to stab, but they'd still have some weak points, like joints and stuff.

Constructs might be the same way.

Also if you want to simulate construct hardness it may not be a terrible idea to say that any attack that fails to penetrate construct DR with base damage can't benefit from sneak attack dice.
User avatar
Josh_Kablack
King
Posts: 5318
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Online. duh

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by Josh_Kablack »

Count_Arioch_the_28th at [unixtime wrote:1152912860[/unixtime]]I myself always wondered why Golems just didn't have the mindless trait and a fairly high hardness?


2 reasons:
1: the Legacy of Gygaxian pc-hosery
2: The Mindless Ones from the Dr. Strange comic book.

That's pretty much it.

I mean, neither Rabbi Lowe's original clay golem nor Mary Shelley's flesh golem never even faced a magical attack, so making them immune to magic makes about as much sense as making D&D minotaurs immune to renaissance firearms.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
User avatar
Essence
Knight-Baron
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by Essence »

They were made immune to magic because some writer looked at it and said "wow...it's slow and stupid. This is going to get pwnz0red by the first spellcaster that happens across it."

So, he took the hammer approach.
TarlSS
1st Level
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Playing the Same Game

Post by TarlSS »

I think the PHB II had it the right way when they introduced the 'hardcore' fighter-only feats that amped damage and created crazy effects at like 14th level.

I think a feasible way to rebalance non-casters is to introduce feats with interesting high prerequisites like a certain level/BAB/hitdie/HP that can function as crazy class abilities. Always on Freedom of Movement, Flight, ability to negate dimension door, or whatever.

No reason that such effects should be relegated to magical items, and since they're feat choices with ridiculous prerequisites, no reason they should be strictly magical. The problem with fighters and their ilk is that feat choices putter our around 10th level, because most feats are designed for the low level player in mind to allow them to be accessible.

Wizards don't have this. They have feats that work at high levels (Metamagic) that essentially scale with the character. Melee classes could use class-specific feats that duplicated the same thing -instead of old tactical bags of tricks, they should have access to new fancy magical bags of tricks.
Post Reply