PDA

View Full Version : Mechanical Pet Peeves



golentan
2015-06-08, 02:37 AM
I was wondering if people hat pet peeves about their favorite system? Little details that just aggravate you, even though they're not gamebreaking. This isn't a thread about Drown to Heal or other RAW exploits, just things that bug you.

For example, one of my favorite RPGs remains Exalted. But, my personal pet peeve in that: When you're tapped out, no more juice in the tanks, brought down to mortal levels? That's usually when your Anima Banner is glowing brightest. Not when you're pushing yourself, but when you've been pushed to your limit and are on the verge of collapse.

In DnD 3.5, it always bugged me that the assumption is that murder is the best way to get XP. Any time I suggest study, practice, or training as a means of character advancement, nope. Murder. Want to research that high level spell, well get out of that library, stop all your experimentation, and go kill goblins until you get a flash of insight.

NichG
2015-06-08, 03:30 AM
My pet peeve with D&D is that so much of a character's performance is centered in the char-gen phase, which requires very long-range planning of choices and sticking to that plan, rather than in the actual gameplay at the table and dynamically responding to situations and opportunities.

I guess my other favorite system is my own homebrew one right now, so its no fault but my own if I have pet peeves with it :smallsmile:
Honestly though, I'd say my pet peeve there is that the empire-scale warfare rules are so boring compared to character-scale stuff that I actively avoid creating situations where I have to use them.

Doorhandle
2015-06-08, 04:08 AM
My peeve with dungeon world is it's combat system: it just lacks the flexibility the rest of the system has, and it's jarring or even boring because of it. Also, no combat maneuvers/equivalent.

Initiative in D&D like-games itself has started to annoy me; I generally decide what I'm doing early on, and so the length of time between turns annoys me. I haven't found a home rule fix I like for it either; granted, my experience with countdown initiative/speed factor is limited, but I find them a bit arbitrary at times. Plus, the fight-woosh effect: Combat rules are basically an entirely different game in of themselves.

pasko77
2015-06-08, 06:30 AM
d20 in stead of 3d6.
Hate the linear random.

DigoDragon
2015-06-08, 06:44 AM
I love Shadowrun 4e, but the way hacking works bugs me all the time. You don't need stats to be a good hacker, it's all skill and a quality computer. So often I see players create these hackers with 1-2s in all stats and 5-6s in skills and then spend the rest of their build points on a perfect computer set up. :smalltongue: It's funny to think what a hacker convention looks like in this game world.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-08, 07:36 AM
In pretty much any 'modern day' rpg, the fact that the combat rules assume firearms are available. In near-future games like Shadowrun I can handwave that more dangerous streets made civilians campaign for the legalisation of privately owned pistols, but otherwise normally half of the combat chapter is completely useless to me.

Oh, I also hate games with high numbers of hit points but no penalty until you're only a handful away from death.

AxeAlex
2015-06-08, 08:00 AM
Scaling Hit Points.

If you are unarmored and get a sword through the chest, it should almost kill you, whatever your level.

Now i'm not against the fact that a high level character should dodge that sword easily, or even ignore the pain and continue to be functionnal with a sword through the chest, but he should be almost dead in all cases.

It's especially bad in D&D where most 1rst level characters are even MORE fragile than someone in real life, but get absurdly tough as their levels get higher.

Segev
2015-06-08, 08:07 AM
Scaling Hit Points.

If you are unarmored and get a sword through the chest, it should almost kill you, whatever your level.

Now i'm not against the fact that a high level character should dodge that sword easily, or even ignore the pain and continue to be functionnal with a sword through the chest, but he should be almost dead in all cases.

It's especially bad in D&D where most 1rst level characters are even MORE fragile than someone in real life, but get absurdly tough as their levels get higher.

The "more fragile" bit is a bug, definitely, but I think it is more related to certain things doing far more damage than they should. Cats, honestly, should not be able to do hp damage to a human.

The reason behind higher-level people taking more hp damage to die, however, isn't about them being able to survive a sword through the chest. The majority of your hp represent your ability to turn fatal blows into near misses or glancing injuries. A combination of luck and stamina. It's that last hp, the difference between 1 and 0, that is your fatal (or at least crippling) blow. (At least, in D&D.)

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-08, 08:15 AM
The "more fragile" bit is a bug, definitely, but I think it is more related to certain things doing far more damage than they should. Cats, honestly, should not be able to do hp damage to a human.

Unless nomming on the mini. :smalltongue: Otherwise, yeah, pixie fighters should not be able to threaten the realm by flying a mile up and dropping pebbles.

Although that gives me an idea for a adventure. :smallamused:


The reason behind higher-level people taking more hp damage to die, however, isn't about them being able to survive a sword through the chest. The majority of your hp represent your ability to turn fatal blows into near misses or glancing injuries. A combination of luck and stamina. It's that last hp, the difference between 1 and 0, that is your fatal (or at least crippling) blow. (At least, in D&D.)

This is why I think HP should be replaced with a vitality/wounds mechanic (either wound points or 'conditions'). Once your Vitality reaches 0 you've become exhausted from dodging and bruises, and so take a small penalty and any damage now goes to your (very small) wounds pool. Although I really advocated easily increased active defences, so that a character who wants to be a dodge monkey feels different to one playing a hunk of meat.

AxeAlex
2015-06-08, 08:28 AM
The "more fragile" bit is a bug, definitely, but I think it is more related to certain things doing far more damage than they should. Cats, honestly, should not be able to do hp damage to a human.

The reason behind higher-level people taking more hp damage to die, however, isn't about them being able to survive a sword through the chest. The majority of your hp represent your ability to turn fatal blows into near misses or glancing injuries. A combination of luck and stamina. It's that last hp, the difference between 1 and 0, that is your fatal (or at least crippling) blow. (At least, in D&D.)

That can't apply when swimming through lava, being in a cloud of acid, being struck by lightning, of getting axed when paralyzed, asleep, etc.

Even then, "turn fatal blows into near misses or glancing injuries" imply martial competence, cunning and even dexterity and agility, which is NOT a given in all characters. I find that hit points become insanely complicated to manage if you try to explain them other than being able to survive a sword through the chest.

The easiest way to make scaling hit points works is to accept them as his, absurd durability. A sword can't even go through the chest of a high level fighter because he has steel-like skin or a shield of tangible willpower...

Myself, I prefer something more down to earth, something a little lower on the fantasy scale, that's why I hate that, but that's just ME.

And if YOU enjoy coming up with interpretation and explanations (Well even paralyzed, you have enough will power to overcome the spell for a moment and jump out of the dragon's stone-melting breath to save your life, but then the paralysis comes back!), then you are awesome! :smallwink:

Segev
2015-06-08, 08:34 AM
Note that "luck" is part of the equation.

Also, most games have a mechanic for getting around your massive hp if you're helpless (D&D calls it "coup de grace," and doubles and redoubles the damage done before making you save vs. death; if you STILL survive, then yeah, it's insane durability...which you patently have at that point).

I'm fine with silly durability, honestly, in the right sort of game and setting.

Lava rules, again, are more to blame for being able to swim in it for any length of time, than are any rules about hp. It should be far more damaging, but lava in fiction is little like lava in real life. For one thing, convection apparently doesn't exist!

AxeAlex
2015-06-08, 08:45 AM
Note that "luck" is part of the equation.

Also, most games have a mechanic for getting around your massive hp if you're helpless (D&D calls it "coup de grace," and doubles and redoubles the damage done before making you save vs. death; if you STILL survive, then yeah, it's insane durability...which you patently have at that point).

I'm fine with silly durability, honestly, in the right sort of game and setting.

Lava rules, again, are more to blame for being able to swim in it for any length of time, than are any rules about hp. It should be far more damaging, but lava in fiction is little like lava in real life. For one thing, convection apparently doesn't exist!

I get you, but IMO putting "luck" in the hit points is a bit silly. Why would a fighter be luckier than a wizard?

And of course, lava rules, cats damage, coup de grace, and some more rules could be handled better I guess. But the way I see you can change all the "faulty" rules, or just get rid of Scaling Hit Points and all the other rules are not so bad anymore.

I for myself use damage reduction for armors and shields, and a fixed number of Hit Points modified by your Constitution.

Finally, Im pretty sure you already know that, but: I'm not really trying to convince you that scaling hit points are evil (There is no wrong way to enjoy RPGs), just explaining why I hate em!

Earthwalker
2015-06-08, 08:57 AM
Shadowrun any edition of the game.

Having a difference system of advancment before and after character creation.

It just annoys me so much that you are always better off trying to get a skill up to max at the start and begin with only 4 skills as opposed to spreading your points around to be a little more rounded.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-08, 09:05 AM
Pyramid d4's in any system. They mock me when they stick to the table on their first bounce.

When I roll dice, I want to roll dice.

Segev
2015-06-08, 09:42 AM
Fair enough. As long as you understand the reasoning - even if you don't like it - that was all I was going for.

As for d4s...yeah, they're frustrating when they won't roll. There's a Kickstarter that finished a few months ago (he's still working on fulfilling obligations) for d6s and d4s printed on dodecahedrons, which is pretty interesting. I got into it specifically for the d4s for precisely this reason: dodecahedrons roll.

ngilop
2015-06-08, 01:55 PM
Fair enough. As long as you understand the reasoning - even if you don't like it - that was all I was going for.

As for d4s...yeah, they're frustrating when they won't roll. There's a Kickstarter that finished a few months ago (he's still working on fulfilling obligations) for d6s and d4s printed on dodecahedrons, which is pretty interesting. I got into it specifically for the d4s for precisely this reason: dodecahedrons roll.


I dislike how spellcasters have free reign to come up with whatever spell to overcome whatever obstacle they want.

BUT.. let the fighter come up with a new fighting style ( rea:Feat) NOPE DATS NOT ALLOWED.

basically the whole mundane hate that 3rd edition has is a mechanical pet peeve of mine.

BWR
2015-06-08, 02:20 PM
I get you, but IMO putting "luck" in the hit points is a bit silly. Why would a fighter be luckier than a wizard?

They aren't - wizards have spells, which I would count as very lucky.

Segev
2015-06-08, 03:19 PM
I dislike how spellcasters have free reign to come up with whatever spell to overcome whatever obstacle they want.

BUT.. let the fighter come up with a new fighting style ( rea:Feat) NOPE DATS NOT ALLOWED.

basically the whole mundane hate that 3rd edition has is a mechanical pet peeve of mine.

If you mean "can add to spellbook, but fighter's can't add feats except at levels," that's understandable.

If you mean, "Can't invent new ones," then... nothing prevents a fighter from inventing a new feat any more than a sorcerer couldn't invent new spells.

But you're right; wizards and clerics can just make new things up for nothing but gp.

DigoDragon
2015-06-08, 03:47 PM
GURPS Magic system, specifically some of the crazy prerequisites you need for certain spells. Prerequisites you might never use so it's like... why? :3
I get that question a lot from players. We tend to just modify Powers as spells and be done with it.

Segev
2015-06-08, 03:53 PM
GURPS Magic system, specifically some of the crazy prerequisites you need for certain spells. Prerequisites you might never use so it's like... why? :3
I get that question a lot from players. We tend to just modify Powers as spells and be done with it.

GURPS has a few that I dislike; it's largely why I avoid the system. The biggest, to me, is that it presents as a universal RP system, and yet if you build your character to fling a line of fire one way, it costs WAY more than if you build it another. And I don't just mean "take this power with this modifier instead of that one;" I mean if you build your character as a wizard able to throw fire, or build your character as a robot with a flamethrower attachment, you pay vastly different numbers of CP to get the same amount of area and damage.

TurboGhast
2015-06-08, 04:50 PM
My biggest pet peeve with a system is 4e foes having too much HP, leading to fights dragging. On top of this, the system encourages having the PCs be stuck in place. Environs in future areas I make will be much crazier and movement forcing.

DigoDragon
2015-06-08, 05:43 PM
The biggest, to me, is that it presents as a universal RP system, and yet if you build your character to fling a line of fire one way, it costs WAY more than if you build it another. And I don't just mean "take this power with this modifier instead of that one;" I mean if you build your character as a wizard able to throw fire, or build your character as a robot with a flamethrower attachment, you pay vastly different numbers of CP to get the same amount of area and damage.

Yeah, that goes well with my dislike of the magic system.

I still like GURPS, and used it all the time for modern-era "mundane" campaigns that lack magic/super powers. The inconsistent build costs were a bit more manageable then. But that kind of kicks it in the 'Universal' shin as it were. :smalltongue:

Telok
2015-06-08, 06:25 PM
Infinite linear scaling in d&d.

This is the quiet but fundamental shift from ad&d to 3e, 4e, pf, 5e. Hit points never stop going up, saves, damage, spell dc, stats. Everything goes up on a linear scale with no limit. I'm aware that 5e capped pc stats at 20, but the scale is still linear. The only things with diminishing returns are the prices of +# magic items.

In life most things are either on log or exponental scales. Both of those create diminishing returns which encourages a diversification of characters and abilities. Modern d&d rewards mailman builds, stacking caster level boosts, and +50 stat modifiers while it punishes people who want to be decent at several different things.

I'm tired of monofocused characters. I want to play a charismatic, ladies man, fighter that uses daggers again without having to make a 20 level character plan or have a spreadsheet of multiclassing and prestige classes.

Spore
2015-06-08, 06:41 PM
D&D overdoing flight: Dragons, Flight magic and air transportation should be something special. Hell, even World of Warcraft's heroes can't fly in combat. And their omnipotent and anonymous group of heroes slay any threat coming to the realm. You can't just add another layer of tactics and movement when you are not allowing all characters to participate in it.

D&D alignment system: You can't even pinpoint a single iteration of Batman under the same author in this convoluted mess of a philosophical grid. And neither should you be able to get all of human emotions and opinions into a two-dimensional grid.

Grittier system's need to destroy characters: Call of Cthulhu makes your character insane after a number of adventures. DSA's system call kill you with the strike of a well-placed dagger. Degenesis kills you either by survival challenges, by mugging your possessions (no water filter for hundreds of credits means polluted water), by combat wound or by spore infections (did I mention polluted water?). It's like Fallout, only if radiation where permanent, technology is nigh-unpayable (rocket launcher? energy weapons? nope) and due to the games' approach towards classes there are xenophobes everywhere.

And who invented broken equipment? I agree that breaking weapons mid-fight is a fun thing to do to add suspense and to force players to get creative. But there's a difference between: "I'm going to subtract hit points every time you hit something with your sword." and "He attacks your sword, breaking it."

Xuc Xac
2015-06-08, 09:14 PM
The majority of your hp represent your ability to turn fatal blows into near misses or glancing injuries. A combination of luck and stamina.

Until it's time to heal.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-09, 02:40 AM
Grittier system's need to destroy characters: Call of Cthulhu makes your character insane after a number of adventures. DSA's system call kill you with the strike of a well-placed dagger. Degenesis kills you either by survival challenges, by mugging your possessions (no water filter for hundreds of credits means polluted water), by combat wound or by spore infections (did I mention polluted water?). It's like Fallout, only if radiation where permanent, technology is nigh-unpayable (rocket launcher? energy weapons? nope) and due to the games' approach towards classes there are xenophobes everywhere.

Not to say you're wrong, but some of us like this style. I personally prefer it if the players have a 'cheat death' resource (such as fate points or edge) or characters where they have a continually worsening chance to die (like GURPS), but I like systems where a character can be taken out of combat on round 2 of 5, at least more than I like the luck and dodging are hit points (until you rest) model of combat.

Magic Myrmidon
2015-06-09, 04:52 AM
Until it's time to heal.

Eeeehhh, not really. The spell description says you "channel positive energy, healing that cures damage". It does not specify what kind of damage, or how the healing takes place. If it IS extreme durability (which I think is fair for Barbarians or the like), then sure, closing wounds. But for lucky, dodgy people, just give them back that spring in their step, take away fatigue, let positive energy restore their luck, or whatever works with the fluff you're using.

AxeAlex
2015-06-09, 08:07 AM
Eeeehhh, not really. The spell description says you "channel positive energy, healing that cures damage". It does not specify what kind of damage, or how the healing takes place. If it IS extreme durability (which I think is fair for Barbarians or the like), then sure, closing wounds. But for lucky, dodgy people, just give them back that spring in their step, take away fatigue, let positive energy restore their luck, or whatever works with the fluff you're using.

Then why does it take like 23 days to heal that fatigue, or that bruise naturally?

I guess you could come in and say that the rules for natural Healing are flawed too... But really scaling HP has alot of problems.

Segev
2015-06-09, 10:41 AM
Then why does it take like 23 days to heal that fatigue, or that bruise naturally?

I guess you could come in and say that the rules for natural Healing are flawed too... But really scaling HP has alot of problems.

This is a legitimate complaint. But if you read hp as also, as it progresses, representing pulled muscles, minor lacerations adding up, etc., then eventually you're just worn down enough that it does take time to heal. Even so, yes, healing being linear presumes that you're healing real wounds of that severity.

It might be better if it scaled more with level. One thing I like in 5e, in fact, is the ability to roll your HD once per day for personal healing. (It's a little more complicated than that, but that captures it in a nutshell.)

Lord Torath
2015-06-09, 12:08 PM
*snip lots of discussion about how hit points work/don't work in-game*
Eh, the point remains that scaling hit points is a mechanic that is one of AxeAlex's Pet Peeves. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0788.html) Which is, after all, what this thread is about.

My pet peeve is (pre 3.0 D&D) level-draining undead. I never liked it, either as a player, or a DM. Let an undead get too close to you, and, "poof!" Congratulations, you just lost 50,000 xp! Oh look! It got you again! It's as if the last 10-20 sessions never happened! Except for everyone else! And since Restoration is a 7th-level spell, good luck finding someone to cast it before you've regained the xp the hard way.

I kind of like how 3rd Ed handled it, with you gaining "negative levels" that you can pass a save to lose the next day, and any unsaved ones going away over time.

NomGarret
2015-06-09, 05:03 PM
Differing CP values before game vs in game is certainly a negative for me, especially if there isn't good in-world explanations for it. OWoD certainly had this, where it was most cost effective to have a few strong skills and then fill in the weak stuff once the game started.

7th Sea is an even worse offender, with skills 5x more expensive after the game starts, but advanced knacks costing ~1/3 as much once the game begins.

Ruslan
2015-06-09, 06:27 PM
Pet peeve with D&D 3.5, actually most D&D-related systems:

You travel from town A to town B as a 1st level party. On the road, you are ambushed by a band of Goblins.
Some time later, you make the trek back to town A, as a 3rd level party. On the road, you are ambushed by a band of Gnolls.
More time passes, you trek the same road as a 7th level party. You are ambushed by a band of Trolls this time.
Even later, you are traveling on the very same road as a 10th level party. It seems to be overrun by Hill Giants.

And so on.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-09, 06:43 PM
Pet peeve with D&D 3.5, actually most D&D-related systems:

You travel from town A to town B as a 1st level party. On the road, you are ambushed by a band of Goblins.
Some time later, you make the trek back to town A, as a 3rd level party. On the road, you are ambushed by a band of Gnolls.
More time passes, you trek the same road as a 7th level party. You are ambushed by a band of Trolls this time.
Even later, you are traveling on the very same road as a 10th level party. It seems to be overrun by Hill Giants.

And so on.

They heard there was a human infestation on the road and, being adventurers, took a job to sort it out. :smalltongue:

IntelectPaladin
2015-06-09, 06:58 PM
I seriously thought it meant a different kind of mechanical.

Dangit.



This is my first post, by the way. Nice to meet you all.

DigoDragon
2015-06-09, 07:20 PM
Even later, you are traveling on the very same road as a 10th level party. It seems to be overrun by Hill Giants.

Once in a 2e D&D game our 3rd-level party encountered two hill giants. They were busy playing a game of bowling using rounded boulders and some uprooted trees. We... quietly left them to their game and continued down the road. :smallbiggrin:

Maglubiyet
2015-06-09, 07:28 PM
Pet peeve with D&D 3.5, actually most D&D-related systems:

You travel from town A to town B as a 1st level party. On the road, you are ambushed by a band of Goblins.
Some time later, you make the trek back to town A, as a 3rd level party. On the road, you are ambushed by a band of Gnolls.
More time passes, you trek the same road as a 7th level party. You are ambushed by a band of Trolls this time.
Even later, you are traveling on the very same road as a 10th level party. It seems to be overrun by Hill Giants.

And so on.

It would be cleaner (and shorter) just to jump straight to the Hill Giants, wouldn't it?

DM: "All right, your very first adventure! You guys are walking down the road to Town B, when suddenly small boulders start raining down on you..."

Brova
2015-06-09, 07:30 PM
Special effects activating on specific numbers on a die roll. Like how 3.5 has "nat 20 is an autohit". It makes combat more complex, screws up level scaling, and isn't even applied consistently. The worst thing is the combination of critical failure and high level people acting more meaning that a master swordsman fumbles more often than a novice.

Rainbownaga
2015-06-09, 08:07 PM
Special effects activating on specific numbers on a die roll. Like how 3.5 has "nat 20 is an autohit". It makes combat more complex, screws up level scaling, and isn't even applied consistently. The worst thing is the combination of critical failure and high level people acting more meaning that a master swordsman fumbles more often than a novice.

I found 3rd edition D&D handled this best. In the other D&D's creatures that could only hit on a 20 would autocrit. At least in 3.x the confirmation roll still kept crits at a flat 5% of successful hits.

Necroticplague
2015-06-09, 08:24 PM
For several systems, most notably anything White Wolf makes: Character generation using linear costs, while character advancement uses quadratic/exponential costs. Both the mechanical aspects of what it encourages (make a character a ridiculously focused one-trick at creation, then branch out afterwards [in Exalted-speak, "XP Effeciency"]), and the implications for the world ("at some certain point before, finishing my mastery of the sword was as easy as picking up the all new skill of riding, but now, I find the former about 5 times as hard to learn as the latter").

Cluedrew
2015-06-09, 08:50 PM
Over simplicity in situational modifiers.

I like simple systems most of the time (mind you I also enjoy massively complex systems, take that as you will) but for some reason situational modifiers hit a certain "minimum complexity" much earlier than other parts of the game.

"But I'm using a machine gun now, what do you mean it isn't any easier to win a gunfight?"

OK that is equipment modifiers and other details. But that was the best line I could think of to explain how it feels sometimes. Maybe it is because situational modifiers are by definition not as common individually and so get left out more often or they are harder to encapsulate but whenever I break out a rules-light game that is the one thing I just have to get over. It's usually worth it, but still.

Brova
2015-06-09, 10:23 PM
I found 3rd edition D&D handled this best. In the other D&D's creatures that could only hit on a 20 would autocrit. At least in 3.x the confirmation roll still kept crits at a flat 5% of successful hits.

Honestly the best way to handle it is to just treat a 20 like a 20. How you do critical hits is a different matter entirely and I don't particularly care. The thing that pisses me off is the auto-success/auto-fail stuff. How crits work is a separate issue. It could be an automatic element of hitting on a 20, or a property of specific weapons, or a damn class feature.

Ultimately though, D&D has never been particularly bad about this. Even with 1s autofailing, it just meant that a master swordsman automatically missed every three rounds. The real issue is critical failure tables where a master swordsman will decapitate himself every couple of rounds, or weird stuff with dicepools where your odds of succeeding go up but your odds of critical failure also go up.

awa
2015-06-09, 11:27 PM
to be fair it depends on the fumble system some are not nearly that bad heck id even say killing yourself on a fumble is pretty rare. (personally while my games do have a fumble system it is so hard to activate i can only recall it ever happening once on a foe they were stacking luck debuffs they were very pleased when her blade broke.)

Pex
2015-06-10, 12:04 AM
Anything that punishes the character for doing what he's supposed to be doing. For example, a spellcaster who suffers a penalty for casting a spell - damage, insanity risk, inability to cast another spell for a while, vulnerability to attack, etc. A warrior who suffers penalties because he's not at least at half max hit points, rolled a 1, vulnerability to attack because he attacked, etc. These usually involve house rules in an attempt to nerf or for realism but have been part of official game rules of published game systems.

Magic Myrmidon
2015-06-10, 01:14 AM
Recently, weapon charts have become a pretty strong pet peeve of mine. I always hate having to hamstring my character to use a unique weapon that would add a lot of flavor to my character. I prefer systems that just make weapons do damage based on category, or allow you to build your own weapon with properties or whatever.

Milo v3
2015-06-10, 01:43 AM
I dislike it when all of a games are just combat focused, I like to see what non-adventurers would be like in a setting, but it's often difficult.


Pet peeve with D&D 3.5, actually most D&D-related systems:

You travel from town A to town B as a 1st level party. On the road, you are ambushed by a band of Goblins.
Some time later, you make the trek back to town A, as a 3rd level party. On the road, you are ambushed by a band of Gnolls.
More time passes, you trek the same road as a 7th level party. You are ambushed by a band of Trolls this time.
Even later, you are traveling on the very same road as a 10th level party. It seems to be overrun by Hill Giants.

And so on.

Note: Even the 3.5e DMG has it that doing that isn't the only option and instead of having things not scale is an option. So this issue is baseless to me. Not the games fault if You do the above, IMO.

TheTeaMustFlow
2015-06-10, 05:34 AM
As other people have mentioned different costs in chargen and later advancement (Damn you, White Wolf. Damn you all the way to Hull.)

In D&D (More or less any edition), the fact that it's nigh-on impossible for anything to tank (also, the term `tank`, in the game mechanics sense. 'Tis a silly thing.) or take focused fire from multiple enemies well. Particularly true in 3.5 - it's very difficult to do a reasonably-balanced single enemy boss-type encounter that doesn't either get mobbed and overwhelmed or is powerful enough to rocks fall the party, particularly if you want the fight to actually be fun.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-10, 06:44 AM
Recently, weapon charts have become a pretty strong pet peeve of mine. I always hate having to hamstring my character to use a unique weapon that would add a lot of flavor to my character. I prefer systems that just make weapons do damage based on category, or allow you to build your own weapon with properties or whatever.

I only noticed this recently, with trying to create a Chinese Scion. I wanted them to use a Jian or dao, but the only sword listed is a spatha.

EDIT:

As other people have mentioned different costs in chargen and later advancement (Damn you, White Wolf. Damn you all the way to Hull.)

Ouch, nobody deserves that, at least let them take Baator instead.

Cluedrew
2015-06-10, 07:17 AM
Anything that punishes the character for doing what he's supposed to be doing. For example, a spellcaster who suffers a penalty for casting a spell - damage, insanity risk, inability to cast another spell for a while, vulnerability to attack, etc. A warrior who suffers penalties because he's not at least at half max hit points, rolled a 1, vulnerability to attack because he attacked, etc. These usually involve house rules in an attempt to nerf or for realism but have been part of official game rules of published game systems.

But what if doing something and paying the price for it is what the character is supposed to do? Not D&D or something with those themes, but if we are talking Call of Cathulu with spell casters, magic should probably not be safe to use. Do you have an opinion on that case?

DigoDragon
2015-06-10, 07:30 AM
The lack of mechanics for job payouts in Shadowrun 4e. Doesn't even have a suggested ballpark figure for the work runners do. I remember having to eventually make up my own chart based on reasonable expenses the runners incur, length of time per run, and average sustainable living expenses... ook, it was something.

While we're at it, the abstract wealth system from d20 Modern. It works alright at character creation, but in play it can get pretty silly (and abuse-able). Thankfully some folks around the web have made various charts to convert the numbers to dollar amounts, but really that's just another step in the process now. :smalltongue:

Earthwalker
2015-06-10, 07:30 AM
But what if doing something and paying the price for it is what the character is supposed to do? Not D&D or something with those themes, but if we are talking Call of Cathulu with spell casters, magic should probably not be safe to use. Do you have an opinion on that case?

Not sure if the CoC reference is aplicable to what Pex is saying. I don't think being a spell caster is something you are suppose to do in CoC. I certainly don't think there is a spell caster career or background option. I could be (I usualy am) wrong.

Earthwalker
2015-06-10, 07:35 AM
Not really a mechanic but a general practise of game design.
I am slowly begining to hate the "Theres a feat for that" game design.

This is Pathfinder (same in DnD 3.5 I am sure, I just happen to play Pathfinder now)

As new feats and powers get written the PC then seem to lose more power or abilties becuase they don't have these new feats.
I guess its just putting feats in for things I would consider normal actions.

Oddly the only one I can think of, off the top of my head is the rogue power - Rogue Crawl.

This lets you crawl half your movement in combat or something similar. So only Rogues with the talent can crawl ?? That just seems insane.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-10, 07:59 AM
Not really a mechanic but a general practise of game design.
I am slowly begining to hate the "Theres a feat for that" game design.

This is Pathfinder (same in DnD 3.5 I am sure, I just happen to play Pathfinder now)

As new feats and powers get written the PC then seem to lose more power or abilties becuase they don't have these new feats.
I guess its just putting feats in for things I would consider normal actions.

Oddly the only one I can think of, off the top of my head is the rogue power - Rogue Crawl.

This lets you crawl half your movement in combat or something similar. So only Rogues with the talent can crawl ?? That just seems insane.

Ah, the air breathing mermaid problem*. This is why I prefer the 'it's a skill' approach (for crawling athletics, for air breathing mermaids endurance), where you don't close off options.

My favourite example is 'Eat Food' from Vampire the Masquerade. It's fine in 2e, where for 1FP/XP (basically insignificant in the long run) it significantly increases the time you can hold food down (officially from not at all, but I assumed that meant they could only hold it for a short time), actually to indefinitely, but later on it doubled in price and significantly shortened it's duration for something most groups will just forget.

* Imagine a game where you are playing mermaids/mermen and have to choose powers as you advance. Everything is going fine, your group just raided the human capital for kicks, and then the book Costal Adventures comes out with a cool new power: air breathing! But your characters had no need to take this power in order to breath air before, but they apparently have to now.

Milo v3
2015-06-10, 08:15 AM
Oddly the only one I can think of, off the top of my head is the rogue power - Rogue Crawl.

This lets you crawl half your movement in combat or something similar. So only Rogues with the talent can crawl ?? That just seems insane.

Not the best example, since you can crawl in PF without that talent. The talent just makes you better at crawling.


Crawling: You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl. A crawling character is considered prone and must take a move action to stand up, provoking an attack of opportunity.

I've found that PF does the air-breathing mermaid issue much much much less than 3.5e did. I mean... skill tricks removed so much.... :smallfrown:

Hawkstar
2015-06-10, 08:24 AM
Anything that punishes the character for doing what he's supposed to be doing. For example, a spellcaster who suffers a penalty for casting a spell - damage, insanity risk, inability to cast another spell for a while, vulnerability to attack, etc. A warrior who suffers penalties because he's not at least at half max hit points, rolled a 1, vulnerability to attack because he attacked, etc. These usually involve house rules in an attempt to nerf or for realism but have been part of official game rules of published game systems.What makes you think that is what they're supposed to do, instead of merely what they can do when **** hits the fan?

The bigger problem is when systems have these punitive mechanics, but make the actions mandatory. A 'death spiral' mechanic is supposed to dissuade people from resorting to combat as a first resort - but that breaks down when adventure design mandates 3-4 combat encounters per day, and 13 encounters per Level.


I dislike it when all of a games are just combat focused, I like to see what non-adventurers would be like in a setting, but it's often difficult.

Note: Even the 3.5e DMG has it that doing that isn't the only option and instead of having things not scale is an option. So this issue is baseless to me. Not the games fault if You do the above, IMO.It's not 'baseless', but the base it comes from is people either:
1. Using guidelines as rules.
or.
2. Not wasting game time resolving trivial encounters. The impact a CR1 band of bandits has on a level 7 party's performance isn't even worth rolling initiative for.

AxeAlex
2015-06-10, 08:45 AM
Pet peeve with D&D 3.5, actually most D&D-related systems:

You travel from town A to town B as a 1st level party. On the road, you are ambushed by a band of Goblins.
Some time later, you make the trek back to town A, as a 3rd level party. On the road, you are ambushed by a band of Gnolls.
More time passes, you trek the same road as a 7th level party. You are ambushed by a band of Trolls this time.
Even later, you are traveling on the very same road as a 10th level party. It seems to be overrun by Hill Giants.

And so on.

That is on the GM, not on the system.

It is advised to lead your adventurer party in level appropriate encounter. NOT to simply make level appropriate random encouter... Make you regions plausible, decide what creature dwells were to ensure versimilitude. If there are goblins, gnolls, trolls and giants, they ALL were always in the region. The adventurers simply won't go into giant territory before being strong enough. WHY would they? They'd get killed!

So, they get ambushed by goblins on a road at first level.

Some time later, they are more powerful and some one hire them to kill the gnolls on another road (who have been attacking for some time now a road that even the adventurer didnt take because guards blocked it, it was deemed too dangerous thanks to those gnolls)

Killing the gnolls open a new road, but unfortunately a gnoll warchief wants to even his dead brother and attacks the town.

Once the gnolls army is dealt with, the party is level 7, and they just discover that the once-gnoll blocked road led to the city's mine, but since gnolls blocked the way now trolls dwell in it, and must be destroyed if we are to resume mining.

Once the mining has resumed, the roads are safe (So they don't get ambushed anymore on these roads), the mine is safe, but then it's found that the mine is actually one of the richest and biggest mine in the world, and it gets the unwanted attentions of giants...

You have to make hooks and quests that are level appropriate. No one is gonna ask the 1rst level adventure to clear the gnoll road, even if it is there from the start.

Giants were always in the mountain, and no one in their right mine would venture on their territory. But once the giants hear that troll clans are being slaughtered, they become uneasy, and more agressive, and fear human expansion, etc...

Earthwalker
2015-06-10, 09:04 AM
Ah, the air breathing mermaid problem*. This is why I prefer the 'it's a skill' approach (for crawling athletics, for air breathing mermaids endurance), where you don't close off options.

[snip]



Ahh thank you, I knew it was discussed before, I forgot what the problem was called.


Not the best example, since you can crawl in PF without that talent. The talent just makes you better at crawling.

I've found that PF does the air-breathing mermaid issue much much much less than 3.5e did. I mean... skill tricks removed so much.... :smallfrown:

My ability to be wrong is a constant surprise. Least I know about crawling in combat for none Rogues thank you.
I do still get annoyed at the water breathing mermaid situation tho.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-10, 09:10 AM
My ability to be wrong is a constant surprise. Least I know about crawling in combat for none Rogues thank you.
I do still get annoyed at the water breathing mermaid situation tho.

But what if I have a mermaid without either the air-breathing or water-breathing powers!?:smalleek:

Has any game actually had the air-breathing mermaid problem that bad?

Segev
2015-06-10, 09:29 AM
But what if I have a mermaid without either the air-breathing or water-breathing powers!?:smalleek:

Has any game actually had the air-breathing mermaid problem that bad?

I first noticed it in a few White Wolf games, which is why the hypothetical "Mermaid: the Swimming" is the joke example used to codify it. Writers effectively decide that this idea sounds like a cool power or ability, so they go out and create a feat/spell/merit to make it possible, forgetting that they are actually making it impossible to do without the new resource-expenditure.

I actually noticed one in D&D in one of the books as a spell or feat did it to a class in the very same one, but I'm drawing a blank on what it was. Effectively, though, if you didn't read the new feat, you could read the class and think you had an ability to do something. Then you get to the feat and it says, "Unlike normally, when you [have this limitation mentioned nowhere else], you [do not have this limitation]."

I'd say maybe 5% of feats, particularly in fighter-focused books, have this problem, because they codify a fighting style that didn't require codification.

AxeAlex
2015-06-10, 10:07 AM
I first noticed it in a few White Wolf games, which is why the hypothetical "Mermaid: the Swimming" is the joke example used to codify it. Writers effectively decide that this idea sounds like a cool power or ability, so they go out and create a feat/spell/merit to make it possible, forgetting that they are actually making it impossible to do without the new resource-expenditure.

I actually noticed one in D&D in one of the books as a spell or feat did it to a class in the very same one, but I'm drawing a blank on what it was. Effectively, though, if you didn't read the new feat, you could read the class and think you had an ability to do something. Then you get to the feat and it says, "Unlike normally, when you [have this limitation mentioned nowhere else], you [do not have this limitation]."

I'd say maybe 5% of feats, particularly in fighter-focused books, have this problem, because they codify a fighting style that didn't require codification.

An easy example is power attack.

Without the feat existing, as a GM, a I would probbly allow a player who asks me something like: Look, I want to go all-in with power, I raise my sword over my head and slam it down, without any care to accuracy" and I'd deal something like a power attack with him.

With the feat existing, if a rogue ask the DM the same thing, an unexperience GM could be tempter to answer: "Thats a power-attack... Just rolll and hope for high damage!"

Even an experienced DM will have to give him a less powerful option if the feat exists... "Ok, look you will lose 6 to your attack to gain 3 damage."

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-10, 10:12 AM
I first noticed it in a few White Wolf games, which is why the hypothetical "Mermaid: the Swimming" is the joke example used to codify it. Writers effectively decide that this idea sounds like a cool power or ability, so they go out and create a feat/spell/merit to make it possible, forgetting that they are actually making it impossible to do without the new resource-expenditure.

I actually noticed one in D&D in one of the books as a spell or feat did it to a class in the very same one, but I'm drawing a blank on what it was. Effectively, though, if you didn't read the new feat, you could read the class and think you had an ability to do something. Then you get to the feat and it says, "Unlike normally, when you [have this limitation mentioned nowhere else], you [do not have this limitation]."

I'd say maybe 5% of feats, particularly in fighter-focused books, have this problem, because they codify a fighting style that didn't require codification.

I meant powers appearing where they shut off enough abilities that you have to take one to survive.

And this is the 'the players guide made a mansion cost two more freebie points' problem with white wolf, where they take an implicit part of 'thing' and turn it into a separate thing (although it has the hilarious implication that you can earn resources by running your business, but to expand my business to include a nightclub I have to take part in a story. Or even better, I dominate a bunch of shareholders to make me CEO of a company, and then have to go and stop a Sabbat invasion before the universe realises this). The silliest one is that having an ally on the council quadrupled in price after the players guide came out.

Segev
2015-06-10, 10:24 AM
An easy example is power attack.

Without the feat existing, as a GM, a I would probbly allow a player who asks me something like: Look, I want to go all-in with power, I raise my sword over my head and slam it down, without any care to accuracy" and deal something like a power attack with him.

With the feat existing, a rogue asking me for the same thing i'd say "Thats a power-attack..."

Eh... not QUITE the same thing.

The rules provide no provision for "reckless attacks" outside of the Barbarian's rage class feature, at least not without power attack.

The Air-Breathing Mermaid problem isn't about when the DM could make something up to permit it (though it's definitely related); it's about when the rules were silent on something which would not obviously require a DM call to make up mechanics for. Mermaids in fiction often surface and even move about for extended periods on the shore; there's nothing inherent to the "mermaid" condition from standard myth to suggest they can't breathe air. So much so that fictional works wherein they cannot usually have to take some measure to illustrate the fact to the audience. Thus, without the original rules spelling out that mermaids can't breathe air, the introduction of the "Air-Breathing" merit actually reduces the capabilities of existsing characters who do not immediately spend points on it.

It would be closer if Power Attack were a feat that said, "You can use two-handed weapons, unlike those without this feat who are not powerful enough to do so." Outside of that feat, nothing suggests you need a feat to wield the two-handed weapons listed in the book.

It can be a fine distinction. Especially if you're used to making up mechanics on the fly for things not spelled out explicitly in the game. The big dividing line, to me, is whether it's something that you'd even have to stop and think, "how would we represent that in the mechanics?" or not.

The Air Breathing Mermaid, prior to the merit coming out, would not require mechanical adjudication just to make it work. She surfaces, breathes just fine, and nothing special happens. The "reckless attack" would require deciding how to represent it (AC penalty? attack roll penalty?) and how much bonus damage to give (1:1? 1:2? 2:1?), because it's clearly not provided for in the mechanics but has interaction directly with existing ones.

Another way to approach it would be to ask if it would be equally well-represented as a flaw.

The splatbook that introduced the "Air-Breathing Mermaid Merit" could just as easily have introduced the flaw, "Cannot Breathe Air." Mechanically, they're similar; one's a CP tax for those who play games where air-filled environments are common, while the other is free points for those who play in games where they are not.

Introducing a "flaw" that restricts the ability to power attack would be very difficult without already having the rules in place that permit power attack. It would have to codify a set of rules for "power attacking" before it could take them away.

NichG
2015-06-10, 10:51 AM
With the mermaid thing though, the system is trying to take something nebulous from mythology and media and create a specific instantiation - their own take on it. So if they decide that in general mermaids can't breathe air, that's fine. So there I think it has to do with ordering and priority - if mermaids can't breathe air, you shouldn't have to read an obscure feat in a splatbook to know that, it should be right there where 'mermaids' are first specified.

On the other hand, you really can have something where something really general is accidentally restricted by thoughtless rules codification. It may even be because the author didn't realize that the thing could be done already a different way, but then they accidentally shut off that different way with the specific wording they choose. For example, something like Spell Thematics. Lots of DMs would let players refluff spells (after all, you get some number of spells per level from your own studies, and if you're researching a spell from scratch it'd make sense that you could put your own spin on it), but the Spell Thematics feat creates an indirect implication that perhaps you can't actually do that without the feat. The author probably thought 'hey, it'd be cool if people could refluff their spells, I'm going to enable them to do that!' but actually ended up doing the opposite in many cases.

Knaight
2015-06-10, 10:56 AM
Coming back to minor pet peeves, I really dislike exploding dice systems that operate to leave holes in the numbers you can roll. For instance, a 1d6 exploding system can roll 1-5, and can roll 7-11, but it can't roll either 6 or 12 because those explode. It's a really minor thing, but it annoys me to no end.

AxeAlex
2015-06-10, 11:09 AM
Eh... not QUITE the same thing.

The rules provide no provision for "reckless attacks" outside of the Barbarian's rage class feature, at least not without power attack.

The Air-Breathing Mermaid problem isn't about when the DM could make something up to permit it (though it's definitely related); it's about when the rules were silent on something which would not obviously require a DM call to make up mechanics for. Mermaids in fiction often surface and even move about for extended periods on the shore; there's nothing inherent to the "mermaid" condition from standard myth to suggest they can't breathe air. So much so that fictional works wherein they cannot usually have to take some measure to illustrate the fact to the audience. Thus, without the original rules spelling out that mermaids can't breathe air, the introduction of the "Air-Breathing" merit actually reduces the capabilities of existsing characters who do not immediately spend points on it.

It would be closer if Power Attack were a feat that said, "You can use two-handed weapons, unlike those without this feat who are not powerful enough to do so." Outside of that feat, nothing suggests you need a feat to wield the two-handed weapons listed in the book.

It can be a fine distinction. Especially if you're used to making up mechanics on the fly for things not spelled out explicitly in the game. The big dividing line, to me, is whether it's something that you'd even have to stop and think, "how would we represent that in the mechanics?" or not.

The Air Breathing Mermaid, prior to the merit coming out, would not require mechanical adjudication just to make it work. She surfaces, breathes just fine, and nothing special happens. The "reckless attack" would require deciding how to represent it (AC penalty? attack roll penalty?) and how much bonus damage to give (1:1? 1:2? 2:1?), because it's clearly not provided for in the mechanics but has interaction directly with existing ones.

Another way to approach it would be to ask if it would be equally well-represented as a flaw.

The splatbook that introduced the "Air-Breathing Mermaid Merit" could just as easily have introduced the flaw, "Cannot Breathe Air." Mechanically, they're similar; one's a CP tax for those who play games where air-filled environments are common, while the other is free points for those who play in games where they are not.

Introducing a "flaw" that restricts the ability to power attack would be very difficult without already having the rules in place that permit power attack. It would have to codify a set of rules for "power attacking" before it could take them away.

Oh, I get the distinction. But then do anybody HAS an actual example of this?

Hawkstar
2015-06-10, 11:16 AM
Oh, I get the distinction. But then do anybody HAS an actual example of this?
The "Fling Enemy" and "Fling Ally" feats from 3.5 come to mind. Creatures already have carry capacities, grapple rules, and improvised weapon rules.

Of course, even then, I'm not sure if they're actually a case. The big problem is the 3.5 mentality of "You can only do what a feat or skill says you can do." Most systems are far more open with what can be done with skills and abilities.

Surprisingly, it was not as big a problem in 3.0, until Splat Books started rolling out. In fact, my 3.0 copies of the Player's Handbook, DMG, and Monster Manual have lots of commentary and discussion about arbitrating tasks not covered by the rules (conspicuously absent in the revised edition) and shuffling around/borrowing class features.

Telok
2015-06-10, 01:49 PM
Oh, I get the distinction. But then do anybody HAS an actual example of this?
Short Haft
Spell Thematics
The epic tumble check to stand from prone without an aoo.

Segev
2015-06-10, 01:59 PM
I think it has to do with ordering and priority - if mermaids can't breathe air, you shouldn't have to read an obscure feat in a splatbook to know that, it should be right there where 'mermaids' are first specified.That's another way to put it, yes.

More to the point, the original version had "Air Breathing Mermaid" come out in a later supplement; you couldn't find it anywhere in the hypothetical original book. But having to find the forbiddance in the very feat/merit which gives you a waiver for it is the essence of the "Air Breathing Mermaid" problem.



One thing that I tend NOT to categorize as a problem is when existing mechanics and resource-investments are given new things they can do and new rules to do them. Adding the high-DC epic skill uses is not an "air breathing mermaid" thing; those skills existed and players who were likely to want to do the things they now permitted already were taking them. It isn't competing with old material for space on your character page, the way a new feat is; it's just giving you a new thing your existing resources can do.

A lot of splat books would be more valuable, I think, with more things along those lines. Things which, instead of being "new feats" or "new classes," were instead new ways to apply existing feats, skills, and other mechanics.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-10, 02:15 PM
A lot of splat books would be more valuable, I think, with more things along those lines. Things which, instead of being "new feats" or "new classes," were instead new ways to apply existing feats, skills, and other mechanics.

This. I'd kill for a Vampire the Masquerade book that was a 'Guide to the Social Game', with both simple and in-depth discussions on vampire politics, a clarification on if I can have multiple instances of a background (allowing three hundred year old characters to have more than five allies), and new uses for backgrounds, especially if I use them together (Status, Resources, and Allies should synergize). I don't need another book featuring 'elder powers XYZ' or 'new abilities ABC', but rather guidelines on using finance 4, resources 5 and criminal ties to bring my rival to financial ruin (I like Ventrue, my favourite clan).

neonchameleon
2015-06-10, 05:14 PM
Any game where playing smart means playing the opposite of the intended playstyle.

Jay R
2015-06-10, 06:42 PM
Almost any game copy written by Gary Gygax:

Long, turgid, unconvincing attempts to justify game mechanics as realistic, rather than simply admitting that the mechanics are an over-simplification of reality.

Cluedrew
2015-06-10, 09:42 PM
I love just how detailed and well known the completely fictional Mermaid RPG is.


Long, turgid, unconvincing attempts to justify game mechanics as realistic, rather than simply admitting that the mechanics are an over-simplification of reality.But is that a mechanical issue?

Also I have another small one. It doesn't bother me a lot but I have always wondered about role-playing awards. I mean isn't the role-playing its own reward? At least for those who want to do it.

Segev
2015-06-10, 10:57 PM
I love just how detailed and well known the completely fictional Mermaid RPG is.Isn't it fun? Maybe we should design it. Though that would make us have to decide if it HAD the late-introduced "merit" or not. :/


Also I have another small one. It doesn't bother me a lot but I have always wondered about role-playing awards. I mean isn't the role-playing its own reward? At least for those who want to do it.

It is, but it's also a way to award XP for desired behavior, thus encouraging more, as well as to let those who are not in it for the combat (or whatever "normal" other reward criteria there are) get XP.

Pex
2015-06-10, 11:43 PM
Critical fumbles.

They're just a big sucks to be you to warriors, more so to two-weapon users, and hurt players a lot while the DM not at all adding nothing to the game except for the lulz. As much as I like Pathfinder they're the worst offender I've ever witnessed from anyone's house rules. Their Critical Fumble deck is atrocious in screwing over player characters. It's bad enough for a warrior to drop his weapon, but you can do ability score damage to yourself, stun yourself for a round or two, even critically hit yourself.

harlokin
2015-06-11, 03:27 AM
I'm very interested in medieval and renaissance arms and armour, and I’m fine with RPGs having broad/generic weapon types.

It really gets under my skin however when RPGs attempt to model specific historical weapons types, but give them incongruous attributes; World of Darkness’ armour piercing rapiers immediately spring to mind.

Vitruviansquid
2015-06-11, 03:48 AM
One thing that always bugs me is when a system features rampant hybridization.

DnD 3.5 is especially insane with this. You can't find a single class that does its own thing without a handful of other classes poking their noses into it. You've got your cleric that communes with the divine, and fights in armor, but that's not good enough. They gotta add in paladins poking their noses into this schtick, then favored souls, divine minds, cloistered clerics, adepts, what-have-yous. At this rate, you might as well make "able to cast divine spells" one of many items on your menu in a class-less, point buy system. If you can describe your class with "like (other class), but with (feature from a different class)" you've got too many classes in your system.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-11, 04:46 AM
One thing that always bugs me is when a system features rampant hybridization.

DnD 3.5 is especially insane with this. You can't find a single class that does its own thing without a handful of other classes poking their noses into it. You've got your cleric that communes with the divine, and fights in armor, but that's not good enough. They gotta add in paladins poking their noses into this schtick, then favored souls, divine minds, cloistered clerics, adepts, what-have-yous. At this rate, you might as well make "able to cast divine spells" one of many items on your menu in a class-less, point buy system. If you can describe your class with "like (other class), but with (feature from a different class)" you've got too many classes in your system.

Don't forget that a fighter is a commoner with the proficiencies and hit dice of a paladin, the attack progression of a ranger, the fort save of a monk...

In all seriousness, paladin is the worst example, druid would be far better, as it can be represented fairly easily with cleric or wizard mechanics-wise, whereas a paladin either needs multi-classing or separation of fluff and crunch to represent with a character, and the implication in core being that I should take a class to 20 levels unless my concept requires multiclassing.

Too many classes is another of my pet peeves, if I have a fighter, do I need a knight class, barbarian class, samurai class, martial artist class, etc. When a knight is a fighter, a paladin a LG fighter/cleric, a bard a rogue/mage, do I really need more classes?

Ashtagon
2015-06-11, 05:10 AM
I love just how detailed and well known the completely fictional Mermaid RPG is.

Completely?

http://thirdeyegames.net/mermaid-adventures/

Vitruviansquid
2015-06-11, 05:16 AM
Don't forget that a fighter is a commoner with the proficiencies and hit dice of a paladin, the attack progression of a ranger, the fort save of a monk...

In all seriousness, paladin is the worst example, druid would be far better, as it can be represented fairly easily with cleric or wizard mechanics-wise, whereas a paladin either needs multi-classing or separation of fluff and crunch to represent with a character, and the implication in core being that I should take a class to 20 levels unless my concept requires multiclassing.

Too many classes is another of my pet peeves, if I have a fighter, do I need a knight class, barbarian class, samurai class, martial artist class, etc. When a knight is a fighter, a paladin a LG fighter/cleric, a bard a rogue/mage, do I really need more classes?

I'm talking about the themes, the major features that gives a class its identity.

I don't care about the trivial, unavoidable stuff that classes can't help but share, like hit dice or attack progression or saves.

Kinda silly to jump in and say you have a better way to argue my point when you're not really grasping it in the first place.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-11, 05:56 AM
I'm talking about the themes, the major features that gives a class its identity.

I don't care about the trivial, unavoidable stuff that classes can't help but share, like hit dice or attack progression or saves.

Kinda silly to jump in and say you have a better way to argue my point when you're not really grasping it in the first place.

Oh, I got it, I was being silly. Maybe I should use giant pink text with a note at the end just in case people don't get it, like:
Insert silliness here [I was being silly, just so you know]

Part of the thing was I just didn't think Paladin deserved to be in the list, partially because concept-wise it takes more from the fighter. (EDIT: especially going by the concept the mechanics support)

Vitruviansquid
2015-06-11, 06:12 AM
Oh alright, if we've established that you're just being silly, I'd appreciate it if you acted silly in some other way than obfuscating the message I'm trying to send.

Milo v3
2015-06-11, 06:18 AM
Oh alright, if we've established that you're just being silly, I'd appreciate it if you acted silly in some other way than obfuscating the message I'm trying to send.

There is no reason to be rude.

Either way, I agree with him. You picked a bad example. Paladin is iconic with it's powers like being powered by good rather than worshipping gods, smiting evil, always being LG, detecting evil, healing with a touch, and it's mystical mount. No other classes fit the same theme.

Sorcerer would be the example I would've used (in 3.5e) since it's Arcane Caster Class but Different from this other Arcane Caster Class rather than having distinct themes and abilities.

Vitruviansquid
2015-06-11, 06:38 AM
*sigh*

I ask him nicely to stop doing this thing that he himself said is "silliness," and now I'm the rude one here?

And it's not rude to come in and tell me what how my post should've been written, even when we all seem to understand what the overall message is?

This thread was made for a particular purpose, and discussing the examples I've chosen to give for "rampart hybridization" is not it, so I'm not going to talk about this any more. You know what I mean, I know what I mean, let's move on.

Cluedrew
2015-06-11, 06:41 AM
Completely?

http://thirdeyegames.net/mermaid-adventures/

Not even surprised. Does it has a second book with "Air breathing" in it?

Ashtagon
2015-06-11, 07:03 AM
Not even surprised. Does it has a second book with "Air breathing" in it?

No, but there is a colouring book.

Seriously, don't knock it. It's aimed at the pre-teen girl market as an introductory system to RPGs.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-11, 07:26 AM
No, but there is a colouring book.

Seriously, don't knock it. It's aimed at the pre-teen girl market as an introductory system to RPGs.

Speaking as someone who read First Fable and was surprised at the decent system hidden under the style, I expect it would be fun to play if people were willing to try.

harlokin
2015-06-11, 07:28 AM
I have hated 'weapon finesse' in all the RPGs that I have encountered it.

As a concept it gets under my skin both from a rules perspective (encouraging Strength dumping), and that it seems to be trying to simulate something that makes no sense to me.

golentan
2015-06-11, 10:14 AM
I have hated 'weapon finesse' in all the RPGs that I have encountered it.

As a concept it gets under my skin both from a rules perspective (encouraging Strength dumping), and that it seems to be trying to simulate something that makes no sense to me.

Having studied fencing, my objection to weapon finesse is that you need a feat for it. Speed and accuracy is more important than power with a blade, because the blade gives you mechanical advantage and people are fairly fragile. Now, rapier vs full-plate, that's not going to be true, but rapier vs flesh or leather armor...

AxeAlex
2015-06-11, 10:30 AM
Having studied fencing, my objection to weapon finesse is that you need a feat for it. Speed and accuracy is more important than power with a blade, because the blade gives you mechanical advantage and people are fairly fragile. Now, rapier vs full-plate, that's not going to be true, but rapier vs flesh or leather armor...

Since "hurting through armor" and "hitting your opponent" are gathered in the same roll in D&D, there are little anomalies like that. Weapon finess should not work on heavy armor, and strenght modifier shouldn't help against the armor class given by dexterity, but all-in-all I personally think it's easy enough to forgive for the sake of simplicity.

golentan
2015-06-11, 10:33 AM
Since "hurting through armor" and "hitting your opponent" are gathered in the same roll in D&D, there are little anomalies like that. Weapon finess should not work on heavy armor, and strenght modifier shouldn't help against the armor class given by dexterity, but all-in-all I personally think it's easy enough to forgive for the sake of simplicity.

It's why I prefer systems where any weapon is potentially deadly to an unarmored foe, armor actually makes you easier to hit, and armor acts as damage reduction these days.

hymer
2015-06-11, 10:55 AM
Speed and accuracy is more important than power with a blade, because the blade gives you mechanical advantage and people are fairly fragile.

Never the less, elite fencers have upper arms like Popeye. In real life, dexterity and strength are not so clearly different from each other.

harlokin
2015-06-11, 11:15 AM
Never the less, elite fencers have upper arms like Popeye. In real life, dexterity and strength are not so clearly different from each other.

Very true, it is because, in reality, being strong enables you to manoeuvre a weapon more quickly.

A rapier was quite heavy weapon, and requires a fair amount of forearm strength to wield effectively.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-11, 11:42 AM
Never the less, elite fencers have upper arms like Popeye. In real life, dexterity and strength are not so clearly different from each other.

This is why I prefer games to use breakdowns like Body (strength+endurance+agility) and reaction (reaction speed and a bit of dexterity), or just a physique stat, as long as I can take a dyspraxia flaw or the like.

Ruslan
2015-06-11, 12:44 PM
Completely?

http://thirdeyegames.net/mermaid-adventures/

Rule 35: If it exists, there is an RPG of it. Or at the very least, should be.

Hawkstar
2015-06-11, 01:35 PM
Sorcerer would be the example I would've used (in 3.5e) since it's Arcane Caster Class but Different from this other Arcane Caster Class rather than having distinct themes and abilities.
I can almost get behind this, but the sorcerer, as a Charisma-based spontaneous caster definitely is a niche worth filling (Especially when flexible/mutable spells are thrown in), even though I feel that ball has been dropped in every edition (Closest that comes to mind is 3.5's psionics, but that's saddled with Psionics fluff, and Psions were stuck as INT casters and Wilders were given atrociously few spells).

And of course, drama will flare in this thread because some people's pet peeves are other's beloved features.

VoxRationis
2015-06-11, 02:00 PM
Ooh! How about how going into a blind rage (3.5 barbarian) that inhibits your defense and prevents you from doing anything that requires concentration somehow makes you more spot-on accurate?

Necroticplague
2015-06-11, 03:34 PM
Ooh! How about how going into a blind rage (3.5 barbarian) that inhibits your defense and prevents you from doing anything that requires concentration somehow makes you more spot-on accurate?

Think of it the other way: It's harder to move out of the way of a man rapidly swinging his weapon at unpredictable angles because he's in a frenzy. Or, you know, you can't concentrate on other things because you're concentrating on attacking.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-12, 07:49 AM
Oh, I get the distinction. But then do anybody HAS an actual example of this?

I would put something like Ancestral Knowledge in this group. Before it came out you could rule that, as a dwarf, the PC is a member of a long-lived race with a keen awareness of their own history. As DM I could funnel relevant tidbits of lore through the character because "as a dwarf he would know this".

When I read that Feat it sort of sucked some of the wind out of my sail. Now a dwarf character has to pay to have racial knowledge that I was previously taking for granted?

Silus
2015-06-12, 12:33 PM
Rolemaster. Just...all of Rolemaster.

goto124
2015-06-12, 08:49 PM
Rollmaster*

dafrca
2015-06-12, 10:52 PM
I have two pet peeves.

#1) When a game adds a new class when an old class could have handled the concept just fine.

#2) When a game tries to be "super realistic" when in fact it is just a game and not a real life simulation.

Knaight
2015-06-12, 11:58 PM
Think of it the other way: It's harder to move out of the way of a man rapidly swinging his weapon at unpredictable angles because he's in a frenzy. Or, you know, you can't concentrate on other things because you're concentrating on attacking.

Or it's just harder to defend against someone who is totally willing to get hit in the process of hitting you, and who will flat out ignore plenty of defensive maneuvers. Stabbing at people to get them to step back (and thus not hit you) is a tried and true defensive technique, and it works much more poorly when they decide that sure, you can stab them, as long as they hit you as well.

SimonMoon6
2015-06-12, 11:59 PM
For me, I'll just bring up D&D's scaling HPs again.

Now, I can accept the idea of HPs representing a vague nebulous "luck and skill and stuff" rather than actual "I have fifteen arrows through the heart but I'm still okay" moments.

My problem is that the *rest* of the game doesn't seem to realize that HPs are just vague nebulous "luck and skill and stuff". In particular, healing spells like Cure Light Wounds etc.

Take two people who have each taken 8 hp of damage. One person is a commoner who is now slowly bleeding to death, while the other is a 20th level fighter who hasn't actually suffered *any* injury, but instead has just lost a little "luck and skill and stuff" but it's such a small amount of "luck and skill and stuff" that he's lost that he probably doesn't even notice.

Suppose they each get exactly the same CLW spell cast on them, healing each of them for 8 points. The commoner is brought back from near death. The fighter barely notices that anything has changed. However, were the fighter to be near death, the CLW spell curing 9 hps would have nowhere near the effect that it has on the commoner.

So, two things bug me:

(1) The spell doesn't work as well on the higher level character.
(2) There is a spell that can heal "luck and skill and stuff".

Segev
2015-06-13, 12:03 AM
Take two people who have each taken 8 hp of damage. One person is a commoner who is now slowly bleeding to death, while the other is a 20th level fighter who hasn't actually taken *any* damage, but instead has just lost a little "luck and skill and stuff" but it's such a small amount of "luck and skill and stuff" that he's lost that he probably doesn't even notice.

Suppose the each get exactly the same CLW spell cast on them, healing each of them for 8 points. The commoner is brought back from near death. The fighter barely notices that anything has changed. However, were the fighter to be near death, the CLW spell curing 9 hps would have nowhere near the effect that it has on the commoner.

So, two things bug me:

(1) The spell doesn't work as well on the higher level character.
(2) There is a spell that can heal "luck and skill and stuff".
Eh, that actually makes sense, to me. The spell is infusing you with positive energy. That includes both "luck and skill stuff" and your vital force and (through that vital force) your physical integrity. The peasant and the fighter, in the range of hp from -9 to 1, really DO feel about the same pick-me-up from the CLW spell: it restores their vital force enough to heal the worst of their physical wounds. The thing is, the fighter has so much more "luck and skill stuff" that he can KEEP benefitting form more positive energy. In fact, it's that the peasant "caps" much sooner that makes it SEEM the fighter "barely notices." In truth, he and the peasant feel just as healthy and lucky when they're at the same hp total. But the fighter is used to feeling much MORE healthy. The peasant isn't. So the fighter might characterize himself as "really beat up" even though he's just as capable and vital as the "fully healed" peasant.

awa
2015-06-13, 08:31 AM
a third way to see hp beyond high level character's take have superhuman bodies and the fatigue/luck system. Is that a low level character takes 8 dam and collapse in pain the high level one takes 8 dam and fights on but at the end of the day both guy got stabbed in the shoulder not the heart.

personally I prefer a mix of all three at low level its all about pain tolerance and skill but by high level your preternatural capable of more then human acts of athletics, able to shrug of strong poisons with ease ect and thus I personally have no problem with you being able to deflect a with your abs leaving only a superficial cut where a lesser man would be ripped open

Sindeloke
2015-06-13, 09:04 AM
The trouble with hit points is less with healing, IMO, and more with on-hit effects and other various "only makes sense if blood was shed" riders. If your 12 hp swing hit my armor and left me a little bruised and cost me a smidge of luck, but I don't even feel it right now because I'm just that Van Damme about it with my 97 remaining hp, why exactly am I rolling a save vs the poison on your blade?

Maglubiyet
2015-06-13, 09:06 AM
a third way to see hp beyond high level character's take have superhuman bodies and the fatigue/luck system. Is that a low level character takes 8 dam and collapse in pain the high level one takes 8 dam and fights on but at the end of the day both guy got stabbed in the shoulder not the heart.

personally I prefer a mix of all three at low level its all about pain tolerance and skill but by high level your preternatural capable of more then human acts of athletics, able to shrug of strong poisons with ease ect and thus I personally have no problem with you being able to deflect a with your abs leaving only a superficial cut where a lesser man would be ripped open

The thing that bugs me about this is that the real world has heroes who didn't know it until they were tested. Housewives and grocery clerks who survive being buried in rubble for eight days, live through plane crashes, or get shot three times and then drag themselves five miles through a swamp to get help. So did it turn out that they were 20th-level commoners all along?

And on the flip side, there are people trained to survive harsh conditions, military veterans and police officers, who die from a bee sting or falling in the bathtub.

Real life injuries don't work anything like hit points.

hymer
2015-06-13, 09:10 AM
The trouble with hit points is less with healing, IMO, and more with on-hit effects and other various "only makes sense if blood was shed" riders. If your 12 hp swing hit my armor and left me a little bruised and cost me a smidge of luck, but I don't even feel it right now because I'm just that Van Damme about it with my 97 remaining hp, why exactly am I rolling a save vs the poison on your blade?

If you want a narrative explanation, it need only be cooked up after the event. Make your save, well, obviously no poison got through. Your narrative stands. Miss your save, then you got nicked, so you need to change that description.
Personally, I think HP is one of those concepts you don't get much out of thinking about beyond understanding the mechanical aspects. Unless, of course, you enjoy pointing out that van Damme should be all bruised and battered by the time he goes up against Chun Li. Then milk HP for all it's worth, by all means. :smallsmile:

Arbane
2015-06-13, 01:25 PM
Real life injuries don't work anything like hit points.

The whole problem in a nutshell. I'm usually okay with it, because a fight that begins with my character losing initiative and spending the rest of it face-down with a sucking chest wound is Not Fun(tm), and I prefer fun over whatever this 'Realism' stuff is supposed to be.

The single least ridiculous explanation I've heard for D&D hit points is 'ablative Plot Armor', which kinda works for me. Now, if someone would just explain why there's NOTHING similar to plot-armor against save-or-die spells....

Segev
2015-06-13, 04:24 PM
If you take hp damage, you can say that you actually ARE damaged...even if it's just superficial. That "luck and dodging energy" explanation still says that you turned a lethal blow into a knick, scratch, or glancing bruise, not that you necessarily were missed entirely. So if you got poisoned, clearly the poisoned blade did knick your flesh and get poison to your blood. "All it takes is a scratch," and all that, for a lot of hollywood poisons (which is what gaming runs on, let's be honest).

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-13, 05:23 PM
The single least ridiculous explanation I've heard for D&D hit points is 'ablative Plot Armor', which kinda works for me. Now, if someone would just explain why there's NOTHING similar to plot-armor against save-or-die spells....

Every time someone develops better armour someone makes a better weapon. Save or Dies are like anti-plot missiles.

dafrca
2015-06-13, 07:29 PM
When it comes to HPs I just accept it is a game mechanic and can't be "explained" by any real world explanation at all. It is just there to help the game and not to simulate any real world damage. Once I quit trying to wrap HPs in some real world model, it was all better and I had more fun with the game. Course that is just me, others have to do what works for them. :smallsmile:

Susano-wo
2015-06-13, 08:52 PM
I have to chime in at the absurdity of HP at high levels, no matter what the explanation given. (and that the rest of the system does not operate consistently according to those explanations.) Though the big monkey wrench for me is things that could not be ablated by luck, etc. at least not without making that luck supernatural. Things like environmental damage/falling. Fighter 10 falls from X height, using acrobatics to minimize damage(unlikely but possible), but somehow, due to HP, they survive the fall, whereas Fighter 1, or even Fighter 5 does not. :smallconfused:

Similarly, getting crushed by a boulder. same situation. doesn't make sense.

Its why I like systems with wounds and saves against such, or systems with a small pool of wound points, (or whatever you want to call them), and a growing pool of HP, etc. Though with the latter system, I would want things such as falls and crits to specifically damage (in whole or in part, or even using different damage rules than normal) directly to wound points

And I'll add/second making interesting maneuvers in combat (trip, disarm, etc) such terrible options that they are normally non-options without special feats (yes i mean 3E :smallamused:). It makes combat much more boring than it needs to.

Susano-wo
2015-06-13, 08:54 PM
When it comes to HPs I just accept it is a game mechanic and can't be "explained" by any real world explanation at all. It is just there to help the game and not to simulate any real world damage. Once I quit trying to wrap HPs in some real world model, it was all better and I had more fun with the game. Course that is just me, others have to do what works for them. :smallsmile:

Yeah, I can't. Well, ok, mostly I can, its just in those cases where it just Doesn't. Make. Sense. that it breaks my brain and makes me /facepalm

Banjoman42
2015-06-13, 09:10 PM
I always hate the underwhelming effects of natural hazards in 3.5. Fire is 1d6 per round, so a fighter of 3rd level can just stroll through a burning building. A high level barbarian in rage can swim through lava while in rage with only a scratch on his HP. I think epic level Martials should be able to pretty cool thinks, but they shouldn't swim through lava or take leisurely walks through burning buildings. Heck, there's no penalty for sleep, so that pretty much puts coffee Brewers out of business. All I'm asking for is some semblance of danger in the world other than the guy currently trying to kill you :smalltongue:

Susano-wo
2015-06-14, 01:44 AM
Yeah, natural hazards in general are underwhelming, especially fire. Fire is always 1d6, NO MATTER WHAT! always bugs me. Campfire? 1d6. Torch in the eye? 1d6?
Raging house fire, consuming the entire structure?1d6!!!!:smallfurious:

Though there is a penalty for sleep, they just didn't bother coding in when the DM ought to inflict the fatigued condition :smallamused: Maybe they should have, but I'm not too worried about that one

Jay R
2015-06-14, 07:35 AM
Almost any game copy written by Gary Gygax:

Long, turgid, unconvincing attempts to justify game mechanics as realistic, rather than simply admitting that the mechanics are an over-simplification of reality.But is that a mechanical issue?

A good point. Let me substitute a related mechanical issue.

Later editions that don't fix mechanical problems, but merely supply long, turgid, unconvincing attempts to justify keeping bad game mechanics.


Also I have another small one. It doesn't bother me a lot but I have always wondered about role-playing awards. I mean isn't the role-playing its own reward? At least for those who want to do it.

The problem with this argument is that you can apply it to anything. How about awards for defeating monsters. Isn't the victory its own reward. Completing the quest - isn't saving the world its own reward?

Yes, the real reward for playing role-playing games is the joy of playing, and the real reward for characters is to do the things they are doing. Nonetheless, gaming rewards should exist, for anything the DM wishes to encourage.

Necroticplague
2015-06-14, 08:20 AM
Um, fire isn't that damaging to people in real life either, thanks to us being mostly water. You die of lack of oxygen or carbon monoxide poisoning long before the actual thermal decomposition starts to hit anything important.

Cluedrew
2015-06-14, 08:31 AM
I'll buy "holding onto bad mechanics because of tradition". On the other hand I feel that was at least part of the reason people didn't like D&D 4e, although I'm not saying that there aren't other reasons.

And thank you for the counter argument, I think I figured out what really bothered me. Its not the source of the XP, it is the fact only one player is getting it and, in some systems, making sure all the players have the same amount of XP is rather important. So you are left with a contradiction of sorts.

Elbeyon
2015-06-14, 09:27 AM
Also I have another small one. It doesn't bother me a lot but I have always wondered about role-playing awards. I mean isn't the role-playing its own reward? At least for those who want to do it.
The problem with this argument is that you can apply it to anything. How about awards for defeating monsters. Isn't the victory its own reward. Completing the quest - isn't saving the world its own reward?

Yes, the real reward for playing role-playing games is the joy of playing, and the real reward for characters is to do the things they are doing. Nonetheless, gaming rewards should exist, for anything the DM wishes to encourage.It really depends on how its handled. If the game has mechanics for rewarding xp for roleplaying (and they're good) I don't have an issue usually. However, if their is no system and the DM is just making things up the frequency and the amount then I'll probably have issues with what's happening. A system should have reward mechanics around the core features of the game so that everyone can understand them, use them, and the action that being reward is encouraged. Codified rewards encourage behaviors and playstyles. Does the game hard code xp for killing monsters, but not roleplaying? The game encourages killing monsters over roleplaying. Does the game ask questions and reward xp for fulfilling those questions? The game encourages trying to answer those questions whatever they may be (whether it's learning a new thing about the world or building a new building in town). Does the game give xp for when a player dramatically fails a roll? The game is encouraging trying things that the players can fail at.

goto124
2015-06-14, 09:53 AM
But if dramatically failing rolls leads to horrible consequences such as dying or earning the wrath of a powerful king or such... why would XP do anything to encourage the players to fail?

Elbeyon
2015-06-14, 10:18 AM
It'll depend on the game system, the person running it, and the people playing. Earning the wrath of a powerful king could be a lot of fun if handled correctly. When I say dramatic I mean from a story telling perspective. If creating tension is a goal, can be measured mechanically in some way (such as failing a dice roll), then it can be rewarded. Some people love the drama of the difficult situation, trying to make things better, and want to continue to be challenged all along the way. Loss of character never even has to enter the equation (though it could).

It could go the other way too. Maybe the game is a silly/wacky and dying is encouraged. Awesome deaths add to a players pool of experience.

Just examples. If dramatically failing isn't meant to be encouraged don't give xp for that. Rewards should be made to fit what the game & group want.

goto124
2015-06-14, 10:29 AM
I've heard somewhere that for this sort of thing, you need a good group who doesn't get angry at you for following character instead of taking a highly non-optimal course of action.

Not sure how true it is, but it sounds like a fair bit of trust is required for this.

Elbeyon
2015-06-14, 10:42 AM
It could require a fair bit of trust. I don't think it has to be set up that way though.

Never roll for trivial things and only roll when something dramatic could come from it. Rolling could involve persuading someone who has little reason to listen to the players to do something that could be beneficial to the players. For example: Trying to convince an empowered mobster to let your friend go in exchange for something. Failure has obvious dramatic consequences and a roll might just be necessary. These types of things come up all the time in games it is just no one gets xp from them (probably).

Lord Torath
2015-06-14, 02:35 PM
Oh, I get the distinction. But then do anybody HAS an actual example of this?I've got another example: In Shadowrun, the Reflex Trigger. In the Plus ca Change story (2E Rulebook), the street samurai has control over how much he "juices" his wired reflexes. Then in Cybertechnology, they introduce the Reflex Trigger, which lets you turn off and on your wired reflexes. And you can only install it at the same time your reaction-enhancing cyberware is installed; you can't add it later, and you now can't turn off your wired reflexes without it.

Susano-wo
2015-06-14, 02:51 PM
Um, fire isn't that damaging to people in real life either, thanks to us being mostly water. You die of lack of oxygen or carbon monoxide poisoning long before the actual thermal decomposition starts to hit anything important.

I'd argue that physical contact with fire is pretty freaking damaging, smoke inhalation and carbon monoxide poisoning not withstanding (most people do die of smoke inhalation in a fire situation, but that's because it reaches where the fire does not yet reach, and fire saps oxygen even if you aren't in the fire's actual area), but that's not even my main point. Its that it does 1d6, never greater, no matter how hot the freaking fire is, no matter how long you are exposed to it in a round.

Segev
2015-06-14, 02:53 PM
I'd argue that physical contact with fire is pretty freaking damaging, smoke inhalation and carbon monoxide poisoning not withstanding (most people do die of smoke inhalation in a fire situation, but that's because it reaches where the fire does not yet reach, and fire saps oxygen even if you aren't in the fire's actual area), but that's not even my main point. Its that it does 1d6, never greater, no matter how hot the freaking fire is, no matter how long you are exposed to it in a round.

Fire is only ever a uniform temperature, of course! Unless it's magic, in which case it'd hotter the higher-level the caster of the fireball is, up to a maximum possible temperature at 10 CL.

goto124
2015-06-14, 09:10 PM
Its that it does 1d6, never greater, no matter how hot the freaking fire is, no matter how long you are exposed to it in a round.

How would you model that, without going into overly nitty-gritty detail?

Banjoman42
2015-06-14, 09:43 PM
How would you model that, without going into overly nitty-gritty detail?

By amount of contact of the fire with the thing it is damaging? AKA the size of the burning object, to a maximum depending on the damaged creature's size.

awa
2015-06-14, 10:50 PM
fire actually can do more damage then d6 a forest fire for example first deals d6 fire dam if your on fire then another d6 even if your not and then you need to make fort saves every 5rnds or take subdual dam. and if your wearing metal armor you take even more dam.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#forestFiresCr6

NomGarret
2015-06-16, 09:33 AM
I have one more: When the mechanical complexity and learning curve of a class or archetype is tied to character concept. Namely, the "new players should play fighters" problem.

Necroticplague
2015-06-16, 01:50 PM
I have one more: When the mechanical complexity and learning curve of a class or archetype. Don't forget the sub-problem of tying the strength to the mechanical complexity. So you end up with 'new players should play fighters, and play second fiddle to the wizards (which are a pain to play).'. I get rewarding being skilled at the game, but there's no reason that should be restricted to certain classes.

Sith_Happens
2015-06-19, 12:49 PM
In pretty much any 'modern day' rpg, the fact that the combat rules assume firearms are available. In near-future games like Shadowrun I can handwave that more dangerous streets made civilians campaign for the legalisation of privately owned pistols, but otherwise normally half of the combat chapter is completely useless to me.

That's probably a product of most RPGs being made in a country where that assumption holds in real life.


For several systems, most notably anything White Wolf makes: Character generation using linear costs, while character advancement uses quadratic/exponential costs. Both the mechanical aspects of what it encourages (make a character a ridiculously focused one-trick at creation, then branch out afterwards ), and the implications for the world ("at some certain point before, finishing my mastery of the sword was as easy as picking up the all new skill of riding, but now, I find the former about 5 times as hard to learn as the latter").

nWoD 2e finally fixed this and it's wonderful.


And this is the 'the players guide made a mansion cost two more freebie points' problem with white wolf, where they take an implicit part of 'thing' and turn it into a separate thing (although it has the hilarious implication that you can earn resources by running your business, but to expand my business to include a nightclub I have to take part in a story. Or even better, I dominate a bunch of shareholders to make me CEO of a company, and then have to go and stop a Sabbat invasion before the universe realises this). The silliest one is that having an ally on the council quadrupled in price after the players guide came out.

I already forget if 1e already did so and have no idea if oWoD does, but in nWoD 2e it's relatively clear that the difference between paying points for something and earning it entirely through gameplay is as such:

1. The former doesn't depend on the whims of the ST and/or the circumstances of the story; if you buy Allies, for example, you immediately get to justify how you gained those allies even if you didn't previously lay any groundwork for it "onscreen."

2. Paying points for something ensures that it's replaceable if the ST decides to throw you a curveball by taking it away.


The big problem is the 3.5 mentality of "You can only do what a feat or skill says you can do." Most systems are [i]far more open with what can be done with skills and abilities.

Are you referring to the designers or the players? Because I think the two feed into and reinforce each other.


I'll buy "holding onto bad mechanics because of tradition". On the other hand I feel that was at least part of the reason people didn't like D&D 4e, although I'm not saying that there aren't other reasons.

Yet at the same time it kept AC entirely for legacy reasons (Star Wars SAGA, the other "attacker is always the one rolling" d20 system, folded the function of AC into Reflex Defense because it makes almost perfect sense to do so).


But if dramatically failing rolls leads to horrible consequences such as dying or earning the wrath of a powerful king or such... why would XP do anything to encourage the players to fail?

Because sometimes earning the wrath of a powerful king makes for a better game, and any player trying to milk failure XP out of a task that could directly kill them deserves what they get.:smalltongue:

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-19, 01:08 PM
That's probably a product of most RPGs being made in a country where that assumption holds in real life.

I get WHY it happens, and I'm fine if the rules take up minimal space, but I've seen things such as grappling get left out for it.


I already forget if 1e already did so and have no idea if oWoD does, but in nWoD 2e it's relatively clear that the difference between paying points for something and earning it entirely through gameplay is as such:

1. The former doesn't depend on the whims of the ST and/or the circumstances of the story; if you buy Allies, for example, you immediately get to justify how you gained those allies even if you didn't previously lay any groundwork for it "onscreen."

2. Paying points for something ensures that it's replaceable if the ST decides to throw you a curveball by taking it away.

This was oWoD, so backgrounds were never explicitly safe just because you paid for them, but if I had Resources 5, with the 2e codebook I could reasonably own a mansion and a nightclub, but after the players guide they cost 2 freebie points each.

Plus I love the image of a Ventrue bashing heads to get a new company.

Doorhandle
2015-06-20, 05:09 AM
I seriously thought it meant a different kind of mechanical.

Dangit.



This is my first post, by the way. Nice to meet you all.

Good to see you too.

You could probably make a thread about the other peeves in mad science/grumpy technology if you would like.

Aasimar
2015-06-20, 06:52 AM
Somehow, the aibo (http://www.sony-aibo.com/aibo-models/) always got on my nerves

Callak
2015-06-20, 09:47 AM
D&D alignment system: You can't even pinpoint a single iteration of Batman under the same author in this convoluted mess of a philosophical grid. And neither should you be able to get all of human emotions and opinions into a two-dimensional grid.

Batman is Lawful Neutral. Just because you might not know how alignment represents a person doesn't mean the system is broken

Brova
2015-06-20, 11:00 AM
Batman is Lawful Neutral. Just because you might not know how alignment represents a person doesn't mean the system is broken

There is literally a chart explaining how Batman falls under every single alignment. It's right here (https://writingiseasier.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/batman-alignment-chart.jpg). The alignment system is an incoherent mess because it uses two terms that are not consistently defined (good and evil) and two more terms that are not meaningfully opposed as used (law and chaos).

Lurkmoar
2015-06-20, 11:38 AM
There is literally a chart explaining how Batman falls under every single alignment. It's right here (https://writingiseasier.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/batman-alignment-chart.jpg). The alignment system is an incoherent mess because it uses two terms that are not consistently defined (good and evil) and two more terms that are not meaningfully opposed as used (law and chaos).

Batman has been around since what? The 1930s 40s? How many writers do you think have put their spin on him? That chart is good for a laugh, I'll grant you, but do you honestly consider ASBAR to be decently written Batman story?

If Batman was handled by one writer, he would be more consistent. But he hasn't. He's been played multiple ways, and a lot of those pictures and quotes have to be considered in the context of the stories they came from.

And I strongly disagree that Batman is Lawful Neutral, he's more interested in doing 'good' then enforcing the law. Dredd is Lawful Neutral.

Callak
2015-06-20, 01:02 PM
There is literally a chart explaining how Batman falls under every single alignment. The alignment system is an incoherent mess because it uses two terms that are not consistently defined (good and evil) and two more terms that are not meaningfully opposed as used (law and chaos).

A pretty chart with cheesy quotes doesn't change who batman is at his core which is Lawful Neutral. All the depictions of batman doing extremely uncharacteristic things still fall into the realm of his original character alignment. A character is not limited in their actions by their alignment. A Lawful Good and a Chaotic evil character could both murder an infant in cold blood the only difference is how that death affects the character. CE is equally likely to walk away as burst into tears. The LG would be a complete wreck. My point is to many people put alignment as a limitation to action. When it should be a opportunity to roleplay

Arbane
2015-06-20, 01:08 PM
Oh, I just thought of one of my pet peeves: Any system where XP are also used as emergency Luck Points - So you get directly penalized in XP for needing to not die. Especially annoying in games like 7th Sea, where you're SUPPOSED to do high-risk derring-do.

Segev
2015-06-21, 09:03 AM
Oh, I just thought of one of my pet peeves: Any system where XP are also used as emergency Luck Points - So you get directly penalized in XP for needing to not die. Especially annoying in games like 7th Sea, where you're SUPPOSED to do high-risk derring-do.

While on the subject of 7th Sea: having one particular stat also be your pool of luck dice/XP, so it's so painfully obviously the optimal stat to max out if you want to live and grow fastest.

VincentTakeda
2015-06-21, 02:07 PM
If anything that chart just proves that batman is broken, not the alignment system. But we all already knew that Batman was broken.

Callak
2015-06-21, 03:52 PM
My biggest pet peeve is above 1st lvl character creation of the wizard class in 3.5 at least there is no instance in which the possibility of discovered spell books is factored in. Raw you can buy spells scrolls at market value which leads a wizard for the most part to spend 50+%. Of there gold on scrolls. But if you find a spell book you get a dozen or so spells at half market value. Plus an additional spellbook which you can sell to recoup the cost of spells. But above lvl 1 classes never adventured they just sprang out of holes in the ground

Elbeyon
2015-06-21, 04:00 PM
They should have just payed the fee to copy spells out of another spellsbook. That saves so much money.

NomGarret
2015-06-21, 08:01 PM
While on the subject of 7th Sea: having one particular stat also be your pool of luck dice/XP, so it's so painfully obviously the optimal stat to max out if you want to live and grow fastest.

Actually Drama Dice are based on the lowest stat, so no dumping. There is a stat that governs how many actions you get in a turn, however, so there's that.

Segev
2015-06-21, 10:18 PM
Then there's a Swordsman school or something that makes Drama Dice dependent on Panache; it's been years since I looked at the system, and I don't own the books. Maybe I'm misremembering the trick used by another player in the last game I played.

Ashtagon
2015-06-22, 09:03 AM
My biggest pet peeve is above 1st lvl character creation of the wizard class in 3.5 at least there is no instance in which the possibility of discovered spell books is factored in. Raw you can buy spells scrolls at market value which leads a wizard for the most part to spend 50+%. Of there gold on scrolls. But if you find a spell book you get a dozen or so spells at half market value. Plus an additional spellbook which you can sell to recoup the cost of spells. But above lvl 1 classes never adventured they just sprang out of holes in the ground

By RAW, the DM is advised to factor the value of spellbooks into the total value of treasure found by the group. So there is no such thing as getting free spells from finding them in treasure; those "free" spells should have reduced the amount of treasure found in other forms.

Callak
2015-06-22, 12:49 PM
By RAW, the DM is advised to factor the value of spellbooks into the total value of treasure found by the group. So there is no such thing as getting free spells from finding them in treasure; those "free" spells should have reduced the amount of treasure found in other forms.

I never said free there is always a cost but the. Cost of copying from a discovered spellbook saves that individual character money. Eg. Party finds a spell book wizard copies the whole tome which costs X bases on number of spells and spell level. Which is less than Y which is the market price. The wizard keeps the difference and the party sells the spell book to recoup that reduced amount of treasure.

Hawkstar
2015-06-23, 12:54 PM
Oh, I just thought of one of my pet peeves: Any system where XP are also used as emergency Luck Points - So you get directly penalized in XP for needing to not die. Especially annoying in games like 7th Sea, where you're SUPPOSED to do high-risk derring-do.Well, it certainly beats the massive XP penalty (And story, and other losses) of not managing to Not Die.

... I wonder if those systems would be improved if there was a way to lose advancement points. I think the idea is a variation on how you influence the story - you can influence the story by becoming individually more powerful, or by forsaking future power, you can influence the story directly. But some people tend to ignore the story in favor of the Snapshot of the character frozen in the sheet.

dream
2015-06-23, 06:28 PM
I was wondering if people hat pet peeves about their favorite system? Little details that just aggravate you, even though they're not gamebreaking. This isn't a thread about Drown to Heal or other RAW exploits, just things that bug you.

For example, one of my favorite RPGs remains Exalted. But, my personal pet peeve in that: When you're tapped out, no more juice in the tanks, brought down to mortal levels? That's usually when your Anima Banner is glowing brightest. Not when you're pushing yourself, but when you've been pushed to your limit and are on the verge of collapse.

In DnD 3.5, it always bugged me that the assumption is that murder is the best way to get XP. Any time I suggest study, practice, or training as a means of character advancement, nope. Murder. Want to research that high level spell, well get out of that library, stop all your experimentation, and go kill goblins until you get a flash of insight.
That's a great feature of the game: kill things, take their stuff & level-up :smallbiggrin:

Mine: Armor Class.

They cleaned-up THAC0, but left combat as a cleaned-up amorphous thing. With the shift to 3.0, armor should have gone to a system of damage reduction. Across the board: A PC or monster has such & such AC, okay now when they/it takes a hit, X-amount of points are deducted from the inflicted damage. Nice & easy. The current usage of DR is largely damage Immunity, rather than resistance, and it's translated as a special ability (in most cases).

New AC (with DR) example:
AC 10 = 0 DR
AC 11 = -1 damage
AC 12 = -2 damage
and so on & so on & so on

Plus, the DEX bonus works fine with it (material protection + exceptional reaction time).

So what "it changes how combat would work":smallfurious:! Some change is gooder.

Guess I'm just stunned that this Lich (AC) still wanders the realm.

Anonymouswizard
2015-06-24, 01:29 AM
That's a great feature of the game: kill things, take their stuff & level-up :smallbiggrin:

Mine: Armor Class.

They cleaned-up THAC0, but left combat as a cleaned-up amorphous thing. With the shift to 3.0, armor should have gone to a system of damage reduction. Across the board: A PC or monster has such & such AC, okay now when they/it takes a hit, X-amount of points are deducted from the inflicted damage. Nice & easy. The current usage of DR is largely damage Immunity, rather than resistance, and it's translated as a special ability (in most cases).

New AC (with DR) example:
AC 10 = 0 DR
AC 11 = -1 damage
AC 12 = -2 damage
and so on & so on & so on

Plus, the DEX bonus works fine with it (material protection + exceptional reaction time).

So what "it changes how combat would work":smallfurious:! Some change is gooder.

Guess I'm just stunned that this Lich (AC) still wanders the realm.

AC makes some sense, you do fight armour by attacking where it isn't most of the time.

SimonMoon6
2015-06-24, 09:08 AM
Ideally, armor would work this way:

If you hit someone well enough to bypass their armor, you do full damage to them (because you didn't hit them in the armor).

If your weapon hits someone on their armor instead, then the armor reduces the damage you deal to them.

But people would probably complain that that's too complicated.

And then you'd get into issues of: Okay, I hit the man in full plate armor with my poisoned spiked mace. My mace bounced off the armor, but I still hit him hard enough that he felt the blow (took some damage, changed from piercing to blunt). Does he get poisoned or not?

Segev
2015-06-24, 12:44 PM
Ideally, armor would work this way:

If you hit someone well enough to bypass their armor, you do full damage to them (because you didn't hit them in the armor).

If your weapon hits someone on their armor instead, then the armor reduces the damage you deal to them.

But people would probably complain that that's too complicated.

And then you'd get into issues of: Okay, I hit the man in full plate armor with my poisoned spiked mace. My mace bounced off the armor, but I still hit him hard enough that he felt the blow (took some damage, changed from piercing to blunt). Does he get poisoned or not?

This is why AC remains what it does in D&D, aside from "legacy." It's an abstraction, but it works.

There are numerous systems which treat armor as DR instead of increased miss chance. Those usually either have called shot rules to try to ignore the armor (which, incidentally, bring us right back to "armor as miss chance" because the harder-to-make strike has a decreased chance to hit), or just assume armor is always providing its protection. I've seen systems where the armor is not just damage reduction, but damage prevention in the form of, essentially, bonus hp (Palladium, particularly when mega-damage comes in, plays it this way).

Sharing this hear because it occurred to me while writing the above: If you accept the premise that hp include "turning a hit into a near miss or glancing blow," then armor-as-miss-chance makes even more sense. Hit points are lost when a blow that would have been deadly is made into a glancing blow by expenditure of energy or skill or luck. Armor would turn blows into glancing, harmless blows without need for that expenditure.

dream
2015-06-24, 01:43 PM
AC makes some sense, you do fight armour by attacking where it isn't most of the time.
Tactics plays a great role, yes. Which can bring Called-Shot rules to bear, possibly.


Ideally, armor would work this way:

If you hit someone well enough to bypass their armor, you do full damage to them (because you didn't hit them in the armor).

If your weapon hits someone on their armor instead, then the armor reduces the damage you deal to them.

But people would probably complain that that's too complicated.

And then you'd get into issues of: Okay, I hit the man in full plate armor with my poisoned spiked mace. My mace bounced off the armor, but I still hit him hard enough that he felt the blow (took some damage, changed from piercing to blunt). Does he get poisoned or not?
Right! Great question & I'd think if damage was dealt, yes, the poison gets through in most situations.


This is why AC remains what it does in D&D, aside from "legacy." It's an abstraction, but it works.

There are numerous systems which treat armor as DR instead of increased miss chance. Those usually either have called shot rules to try to ignore the armor (which, incidentally, bring us right back to "armor as miss chance" because the harder-to-make strike has a decreased chance to hit), or just assume armor is always providing its protection. I've seen systems where the armor is not just damage reduction, but damage prevention in the form of, essentially, bonus hp (Palladium, particularly when mega-damage comes in, plays it this way).

Sharing this hear because it occurred to me while writing the above: If you accept the premise that hp include "turning a hit into a near miss or glancing blow," then armor-as-miss-chance makes even more sense. Hit points are lost when a blow that would have been deadly is made into a glancing blow by expenditure of energy or skill or luck. Armor would turn blows into glancing, harmless blows without need for that expenditure.
Excellent points on the AC "abstraction". Maybe the greater Pet Peeve for me is Hit Points?

Hawkstar
2015-06-24, 01:51 PM
Excellent points on the AC "abstraction". Maybe the greater Pet Peeve for me is Hit Points?
Which stick around because there really isn't a better simple way to give momentum to a battle, provide a feeling of progress (Systems that have 'hits are lethal but supposed to be rare', such as Savage World's, feel unrewarding on that front), and give a decent answer to "How long can Combatant A hold out in a fight against Combatant(s) X (Y and Z)?"

VincentTakeda
2015-06-24, 01:58 PM
In sdc palladium systems like heroes unlimited and ninjas and superspies armor as an armor rating.
By writ it functions like an armor class, so while armor is ablative, you must make an attack roll above the armor rating to do any damage at all.
Instead I run it as both both ablative and damage reduction, so while the attack roll no longer has to beat the armor rating in order to do damage, the armor rating serves to resist damage outright, and the armor is ablative.

For example: a bullet proof vest with an AR:10 and 50 Sdc would first reduce the damage coming in by 10, then absorb the remaining damage up until its 50 sdc are depleted, fundamentally destroying the structure of the vest. Against low damage 2d6 type pistols, it can be shot a fantastic amount of times before wearing out, but a high roll on a critical strike from a 6d6 desert eagle could punch right through it in one shot. No system is perfect, but its pretty good for my purposes.

dream
2015-06-24, 02:13 PM
Which stick around because there really isn't a better simple way to give momentum to a battle, provide a feeling of progress (Systems that have 'hits are lethal but supposed to be rare', such as Savage World's, feel unrewarding on that front), and give a decent answer to "How long can Combatant A hold out in a fight against Combatant(s) X (Y and Z)?"
True. I've tinkered with Wound-Level systems (e.g., Mutants & Masterminds) and considered a combined system of HP & Wounds. WIP.


In sdc palladium systems like heroes unlimited and ninjas and superspies armor as an armor rating.
By writ it functions like an armor class, so while armor is ablative, you must make an attack roll above the armor rating to do any damage at all.
Instead I run it as both both ablative and damage reduction, so while the attack roll no longer has to beat the armor rating in order to do damage, the armor rating serves to resist damage outright, and the armor is ablative.

For example: a bullet proof vest with an AR:10 and 50 Sdc would first reduce the damage coming in by 10, then absorb the remaining damage up until its 50 sdc are depleted, fundamentally destroying the structure of the vest. Against low damage 2d6 type pistols, it can be shot a fantastic amount of times before wearing out, but a high roll on a critical strike from a 6d6 desert eagle could punch right through it in one shot. No system is perfect, but its pretty good for my purposes.
*sigh* Palladium. I really really want to like this system. When I did run it, I dropped S.D.C. values 90% in order to make non-Mega Damage attacks effective. RAW, unless the PC had Supernatural-level STR, breaking down a door became something of a fiasco :smalltongue: But as you posted, there are no perfect systems.

Segev
2015-06-24, 04:02 PM
Palladium has...flaws. Some rather deep ones. It has some neat things, too, but in all honesty its greatest strength is in its writers' creativity for designing settings. Their IDEAS for some races and character classes are really neat, too. The trouble starts with the fact that Palladium is very clearly adapted from 1e or 2e AD&D, and likely started as Siembeida's personal house rules of that system. It has a lot that was highly innovative for that era: skills (which sometimes double as what 3e would call feats) are a major focus of many classes; spells really ARE significantly weaker (at least in Rifts) than many other options for damage and long-distance effects; the combat system really tries hard to be in depth.

That last sadly is so complicated in some ways - particularly initiative and action order - that no two GMs I've ever met run it quite the same way. The rules are not quite precise enough to run it without interpretation and interpolation, and there are multiple valid ways to fill those little gaps.

It's also not even trying, in any real sense, to be balanced. Some RCCs or OCCs are just plain better than others, and the writers tout this as a feature, noting that playing weak characters is a challenge to be embraced.

The Rifts game I'm in, however, is an interesting experience. At least as this GM runs it, my full-fledged adult dragon is mechanically a powerhouse that would be difficult for the party to put down if he turned on them...but is considered a liability as an ally because of setting elements that make knowledge that there's a 60 foot fire-breathing psychic magic-using lizard out there likely to draw very, VERY bad attention. He's highly effective when he cuts loose, but the need for secrecy is real, and very frequently makes the non-magical members of the party far more useful. (It's a game that's political and social as much as military or combat-oriented, so...)

Like I said, the strength of the system lies more in the associated settings. While Rifts works with the system better than with others I've seen people try to adapt to it - it was built around the Palladium system, after all - a lot of settings that are owned by Palladium really don't adapt well to the D&D-esq level-based approach. Robotech, for instance, feels extremely clunky in it.

Doug Lampert
2015-06-24, 04:37 PM
The trouble with hit points is less with healing, IMO, and more with on-hit effects and other various "only makes sense if blood was shed" riders. If your 12 hp swing hit my armor and left me a little bruised and cost me a smidge of luck, but I don't even feel it right now because I'm just that Van Damme about it with my 97 remaining hp, why exactly am I rolling a save vs the poison on your blade?

How much poison actually got in your body? Maybe none, or maybe some slipped in when the blade barely scratched you.

We could add a roll that scaled pretty well with total HP, and that told if you were actually poisoned significantly or not.

We could allow Con mod to add to the roll since HP scale with Con, and we could give big bonuses for lots of levels in high HP classes, we could even call this roll a "Fortitude Save".

It's a shame some of you are playing a game that doesn't have this mechanism for wound poisons.

Seriously, this is so trivial to fluff that I don't see it as a problem for anyone not deliberately looking for problems.


I have to chime in at the absurdity of HP at high levels, no matter what the explanation given. (and that the rest of the system does not operate consistently according to those explanations.) Though the big monkey wrench for me is things that could not be ablated by luck, etc. at least not without making that luck supernatural. Things like environmental damage/falling. Fighter 10 falls from X height, using acrobatics to minimize damage(unlikely but possible), but somehow, due to HP, they survive the fall, whereas Fighter 1, or even Fighter 5 does not. :smallconfused:

Something like five people have survived 10,000'+ falls in real life (out of an airplane with no chute). Seriously.

At least two of them got up, and started walking to look for help immediately after the fall. And there haven't really been all that many people EJECTED at that altitude in the first place.

Thus your premise that such survival is only possible due to HP is flawed.

Luck can save you from a fall from any reasonable distance, it's all in what you hit at the bottom (trees with lots of easily broken branches are good), D&D HP include defensive luck, the Fighter 10 has lots of defensive luck the fighter 1 or 5 has a lot less. Guess which one lives through the fall.

VoxRationis
2015-06-24, 05:02 PM
How much poison actually got in your body? Maybe none, or maybe some slipped in when the blade barely scratched you.

We could add a roll that scaled pretty well with total HP, and that told if you were actually poisoned significantly or not.

We could allow Con mod to add to the roll since HP scale with Con, and we could give big bonuses for lots of levels in high HP classes, we could even call this roll a "Fortitude Save".

It's a shame some of you are playing a game that doesn't have this mechanism for wound poisons.

Seriously, this is so trivial to fluff that I don't see it as a problem for anyone not deliberately looking for problems.



Something like five people have survived 10,000'+ falls in real life (out of an airplane with no chute). Seriously.

At least two of them got up, and started walking to look for help immediately after the fall. And there haven't really been all that many people EJECTED at that altitude in the first place.

Thus your premise that such survival is only possible due to HP is flawed.

Luck can save you from a fall from any reasonable distance, it's all in what you hit at the bottom (trees with lots of easily broken branches are good), D&D HP include defensive luck, the Fighter 10 has lots of defensive luck the fighter 1 or 5 has a lot less. Guess which one lives through the fall.
Yeah, I doubt all five of those people were level 10 fighters. An occasional freak survival by people who wouldn't even qualify for the defenses we're debating does not help lend credulity to the defenses. And with enough HP, you can consistently survive falls from 10,000 feet, which is something no one with a human's terminal velocity can do.

The "defensive luck" theory doesn't apply to things which aren't physical blows (and frankly applies but poorly to physical blows). HP applies to things like being in a roaring inferno and other situations in which there is no practical way to mitigate damage. It applies to spells which specifically act on a person's body and metabolism if successful, even when those spells are successful. As mentioned above, it applies when some rider effect that could only work on an actual confirmed hit takes effect. It applies even to a guillotine or getting stabbed in the chest while tied down (coup de grace rules sometimes apply, based on the system, but rarely make that sort of thing the automatic death it should be). The same HP system is often applied to objects which have no luck or defensive capability of any sort. Put simply, HP are intrinsically linked to taking damage, but surviving it.

Doug Lampert
2015-06-24, 09:12 PM
Yeah, I doubt all five of those people were level 10 fighters. An occasional freak survival by people who wouldn't even qualify for the defenses we're debating does not help lend credulity to the defenses. And with enough HP, you can consistently survive falls from 10,000 feet, which is something no one with a human's terminal velocity can do.

The "defensive luck" theory doesn't apply to things which aren't physical blows (and frankly applies but poorly to physical blows). HP applies to things like being in a roaring inferno and other situations in which there is no practical way to mitigate damage. It applies to spells which specifically act on a person's body and metabolism if successful, even when those spells are successful. As mentioned above, it applies when some rider effect that could only work on an actual confirmed hit takes effect. It applies even to a guillotine or getting stabbed in the chest while tied down (coup de grace rules sometimes apply, based on the system, but rarely make that sort of thing the automatic death it should be). The same HP system is often applied to objects which have no luck or defensive capability of any sort. Put simply, HP are intrinsically linked to taking damage, but surviving it.

Why doesn't defensive luck apply to things which aren't physical blows? How do you know this?

And people in OUR WORLD don't have consistent luck, those in D&D land do. That's fairly obvious from feats, spells, clerical domains, racial features, and lots of other things that represent being consistently lucky. Thus while a non-negligible number of people in our world survive long falls by luck, the same is true in D&D land, but in D&D land WHICH ONES are determined by die rolls which are modified by characters abilities.