Quote from: MGuy;558678You've got me scratching my head here. There are two things you can be suggesting that Unholy Aura does. It either A: Gives you a penalty equal to the bonus you get with Bless or B: Makes it so that you can't get a bonus from Bless at all.

If A applies you're worse off without the bonus.

If B applies then you just don't have the bonus at all and may get another bonus in its place.

Except you wouldn't really be eligible for another bonus according to your previous post.  If you can have five bonuses, two of them 'locked in', there are only three slots left.  Let's call one a bonus from a magic weapon, another some kind of class feature bonus, and the last one is the bless spell but it gets negated; you have a slot filled until the spell runs out meaning the player not only loses the bonus, they can't replace it with another one.  

The same is true of the skill/feat bonus, of course, but that is a somewhat separate issue, although it still limits the number of 'free slots' available for other uses, perhaps temporary boosts or buffs.  And if there is something that negates that bonus, the player is really stuck, because they really shouldn't be replacing that on the fly, unless you plan on using something like stances or kata.  Those can be switched out from round to round, presumably, and add to tactical options in a dynamic fashion.

But you still have the problem where penalties can outstrip bonuses, even if the GM isn't a dick.  Goblins inflict a penalty of -2 because they flank everyone due to size, they use nets/ropes/tanglefoot bags and impose another -2, plus the terrain is rough and covered in loose stones for another -2.  Not unreasonable penalties, and there are only three of them.  The Champion has a +1 from an Attribute, +1 from swording Skill, +1 from bless, +1 magic weapon, +1 from Champion's Precision or whatever.  The Champion is done with bonuses, and they can only really swap out the magic weapon by their own volition.  The bless spell just has to run out on its own, and presumably they can't stop using the feat, the Attribute or the Skill.  So the Goblins already have this character at a -1, and they can only go up from there.

I am not saying the players must always have a bonus, but the penalties keep racking up while the bonuses are capped.  It's like the AC discussion a while back; if you allow AC to increase without limits, you have to do the same with attack bonuses, or creatures will simply be immune to being hit, no matter what the players do.  If the AC is 45, the players should reasonably have some way to get at least +25 from various sources.  Not at 1st level, certainly, but by the time they are facing off against creatures with a 45 AC.  This leads to another problem, where the numbers escalate to the point where the randomizer is pointless, but that is a separate issue you may never run into.

 

QuoteRules always shape the way people play the game. I haven't presented a "right" way to play the game I'm presenting a set of rules for things that generally come up during play. Various rules encourage/discourage certain styles of game play whether intentional or not. I'm aiming to make it so that as many play styles may be covered by my rules as possible so that DMs don't have to do as much houseruling.

Rules can guide the way people play the game.  As much by their disuse as their use.  Many groups don't use spell components, so you can't say the rules are affecting the way they play.  It's a dynamic system.  They players have as much agency to craft the game as the original designers.  Outside of your own group, I will guarantee almost no one will use the rules you present in toto.  The rules don't always shape they way people play, because most of the time, there is a certain volume of rules that simply won't be used.

This is designing the game to be played the 'right' way:

Quote from: MGuy;558571If I can keep the numbers under control I won't have  to worry about people finding ways to screw them.

Quote from: MGuy;558390I'm also building this section to codify exactly how much your GM can "mess" with your stuff.

If that is what you are worried about, you should take a step back before writing a game for public consumption.  These are absolutely not thigns you should be trying to code into the rules, because it will blow up in your face utterly without fail.  The GM can always pretty much do what they want.  Your rules won't stop them.  And players in general will always find ways to screw with your numbers.  You can't stop that either.  Don't try.  I promise you, it will fail every time.

QuoteFighters in earlier editions of the game on up to 3rd edition are concentrated on fighting. Thus when people play a fighter they expect to be able to fight the best and expect that some other class doesn't show up with a sword and fight better than they do.

And in earlier editions, that was more or less absolutely true.

QuoteThat is why people don't like the Cleric Archer.

That isn't entirely why people don't like the Cleric Archer.

QuoteChampions are the best at defending people but as I mentioned, they can hold their own in a straight up fight. Why? Because they get a mix of abilities that allow them to pump up their own defenses along with abilities that allow them to take damage for others.

These should be tactical choices any player can make, not hardcoded on the character sheet.  If my Cleric jumps between the Fighter and the spear trap (or whatever), the Cleric will take damage for the Fighter.

This is why designing for the 'role' instead of the 'archetype' will lead you astray.  You are already pretty deep into assigning abilities and powers that will allow a specific class to fill a specific 'role', essentially blending the two.  You don't need both.  Also, you are on the threshold of re-creating 4e if you continue along that path.  Well, maybe some of the worst excesses of 3.x and Prestige Classes.

QuoteSo if a player wants to be a solo Champion, going off to brave dungeons on his own, he can choose an ability set that just makes him more indestructible and make it on his own.

Then why have other players at all?  Niche protection makes sure one class fulfils its 'function', but more importantly, it makes sure no class fulfils every function.  That's the critical part, the 'negative space' that you can't see, but is every bit as important to art or engineering.

QuoteYou read role protection but not "theme" protection. I want the Champion to be a good choice for a defender because that fits the theme of the chivalrous knight and the bodyguard.

Sure.  For you.  Presumably, you are making this game for people who are not you.  For them, a good choice for the 'theme' of a chivalrous knight and bodyguard is a person who is chivalrous, attains knighthood, and guards people.  They don't necessarily want or need a Champion with hardcoded rules to fit the 'role' of defender.  Again, 4e already did this.

QuoteSo I made him able to actively force enemies to damage him. The Barbarian can likewise fill the gap except that he does so by yanking opposition to him or charging his way to them, making sure to be a general nuisance not likely to be ignored. He however can't force enemies to target him instead of another making him the not the optimal choice for the job. He's a solid choice but not the optimal one.

The solid choice is the one the players decide on and pursue, not the one you hardcode into the class abilities.

QuoteI have read a bunch of game theory stuff. I've read and played a bunch of different systems. I've asked friends about what they liked/disliked about various game experiences. I have a good idea about what I want out of my game and the feel I'm going for.

So, this brings up the most important question in the thread.  Are you designing this for you and your friends, or the general public?

Quote from: Marleycat;558674@Stormbringer, I told you I know between jack and shit about game theory and making a game but you explained my worry about the asystemetrics of the bonus/penalty thing better than myself. It just seems off in a way I can't explain.

:hatsoff:

Quote@Mguy, he is giving you good advice with no snark and that sir was the point of my request.  By the way, I'm flattered you took it. This thread is without snark and that was my goal because you're a gamer like myself right.

And again...
:hatsoff:

Quote from: Marleycat;558713Since I don't care and bored which avatar would you rather see? Garbage or No Doubt?  It's up to you guys.

Garbage.  No Doubt is to music what the Back Street Boys are to music.

Quote from: StormBringer;558719Garbage.  No Doubt is to music what the Back Street Boys are to music.

But Gwen isn't.  Just sayin'.  I should make a poll. "Girl or Cat".They are both female so whichever is cool.

Quote from: StormBringer;558714Except you wouldn't really be eligible for another bonus according to your previous post.  If you can have five bonuses, two of them 'locked in', there are only three slots left.  Let's call one a bonus from a magic weapon, another some kind of class feature bonus, and the last one is the bless spell but it gets negated; you have a slot filled until the spell runs out meaning the player not only loses the bonus, they can't replace it with another one.  

If its negated it no longer exists. That's If you have bless on you, and its dispelled, you no longer benefit from "bless" thus there is no longer a bonus taking up the bonus spot that bless took up because bless is no longer active.

QuoteThe same is true of the skill/feat bonus, of course, but that is a somewhat separate issue, although it still limits the number of 'free slots' available for other uses, perhaps temporary boosts or buffs.  And if there is something that negates that bonus, the player is really stuck, because they really shouldn't be replacing that on the fly, unless you plan on using something like stances or kata.  Those can be switched out from round to round, presumably, and add to tactical options in a dynamic fashion.

Again, if a bonus is "negated" then it ceases being a bonus. If by negation you mean that the bonus the ability gives is taken away. If you mean "negated" such that there is a penalty that overshadows it then you'd just be worse off if you don't have the bonus reducing the effectiveness of the bonus.

QuoteBut you still have the problem where penalties can outstrip bonuses, even if the GM isn't a dick.  Goblins inflict a penalty of -2 because they flank everyone due to size, they use nets/ropes/tanglefoot bags and impose another -2, plus the terrain is rough and covered in loose stones for another -2.  Not unreasonable penalties, and there are only three of them.  The Champion has a +1 from an Attribute, +1 from swording Skill, +1 from bless, +1 magic weapon, +1 from Champion's Precision or whatever.  The Champion is done with bonuses, and they can only really swap out the magic weapon by their own volition.  The bless spell just has to run out on its own, and presumably they can't stop using the feat, the Attribute or the Skill.  So the Goblins already have this character at a -1, and they can only go up from there.

Yes, the penalties can outstrip the bonuses. However the penalties they've wracked up are well earned and I wouldn't want combat to go any other way where the PCs are caught in a tight spot. The fact that the goblins have to do all this (catch the PCs in bad terrain, net them, and out number them) just to get a -1 means that I, as the DM can ambush the pcs, put them on horrible footing, and not have the battle be hopeless (just as planned). Now if the goblins have to then spend combat rounds not attacking but improving their advantage somehow then that means that it was worth using deeper tactics to do so (which is also good).

QuoteI am not saying the players must always have a bonus, but the penalties keep racking up while the bonuses are capped.  It's like the AC discussion a while back; if you allow AC to increase without limits, you have to do the same with attack bonuses, or creatures will simply be immune to being hit, no matter what the players do.  If the AC is 45, the players should reasonably have some way to get at least +25 from various sources.  Not at 1st level, certainly, but by the time they are facing off against creatures with a 45 AC.  This leads to another problem, where the numbers escalate to the point where the randomizer is pointless, but that is a separate issue you may never run into.

Getting bonuses is a different monster than inflicting penalties. Bonuses you can slap on yourself then go into battle with them. Even in battle nothing can stop you from buffing yourself (most of the time). However inflicting a penalty is harder to do. Take the penalties you listed:

Flanking = Requires tactical movement by the enemies, not a guarantee, not something you can necessarily set up before battle.

Net = Requires you to catch the PCs inside. In my system they'd get a Dodge [Reflex] attempt to avoid it.

Rough Terrain = Can be moved out of or avoided all together.
 

QuoteRules can guide the way people play the game.  As much by their disuse as their use.  Many groups don't use spell components, so you can't say the rules are affecting the way they play.  It's a dynamic system.  They players have as much agency to craft the game as the original designers.  Outside of your own group, I will guarantee almost no one will use the rules you present in toto.  The rules don't always shape they way people play, because most of the time, there is a certain volume of rules that simply won't be used.

Indeed there are times that players won't like the rules and they will skip them. I ignore spell components because they are too tedious to have to monitor. However, I do the same with ammo as its too minute to have to worry about. This doesn't mean people don't want rules for buying heaps of arrows, just that to remember all of it is tedious. I'm sure that no matter what the ruleset people will change rules for their table. I'm not going to worry about that though. I am only going to concentrate on making rules that, if used as a whole, work. If people want to cherry pick from there, well that's their choice. Its neither unexpected nor unwarranted.

QuoteThis is designing the game to be played the 'right' way:

If that is what you are worried about, you should take a step back before writing a game for public consumption.  These are absolutely not thigns you should be trying to code into the rules, because it will blow up in your face utterly without fail.  The GM can always pretty much do what they want.  Your rules won't stop them.  And players in general will always find ways to screw with your numbers.  You can't stop that either.  Don't try.  I promise you, it will fail every time.[/quote] There's no reason to not try to keep the numbers under control. Letting them fly all over the place invites problems.

As for the DM thing, yes any DM can do whatever they want at the table. However, this is not an argument for ot making rules and guidelines. If I were to follow this idea to its logical conclusion I might as well not make rules at all since the DM at the end can determine what happens. I can say that I do know that people generally use the CR system as a guideline for what people fight. I'd hope that they'd use my plot device system in much the same manner.

QuoteThese should be tactical choices any player can make, not hardcoded on the character sheet.  If my Cleric jumps between the Fighter and the spear trap (or whatever), the Cleric will take damage for the Fighter.

There are no rules in 2e, 3e, or 4e that cover how you can jump in front of somebody to take damage. That is in or out of a given class. If you want cool, dynamic stuff like being able to jump in front of somebody to take damage that's fine. I could even make something like that for my rules set, but if I do I'd specifically make it so that the Champion could do it at a distance (Call it Dive or something) so that he is still the best at it. Again,taking your argument to its logical conclusion that same cleric should be able to pick up a sword and train with it until he is as good at using it as the fighter. He can't though because swinging a sword the best is hard coded onto the fighter's character sheet.

QuoteThis is why designing for the 'role' instead of the 'archetype' will lead you astray.  You are already pretty deep into assigning abilities and powers that will allow a specific class to fill a specific 'role', essentially blending the two.  You don't need both.  Also, you are on the threshold of re-creating 4e if you continue along that path.  Well, maybe some of the worst excesses of 3.x and Prestige Classes.

QuoteThen why have other players at all?  Niche protection makes sure one class fulfils its 'function', but more importantly, it makes sure no class fulfils every function.  That's the critical part, the 'negative space' that you can't see, but is every bit as important to art or engineering.

You are saying one thing then say the opposite in the very next paragraph. You don't want people to have a "role" that's protected but you want their "niche" protected.

QuoteSure.  For you.  Presumably, you are making this game for people who are not you.  For them, a good choice for the 'theme' of a chivalrous knight and bodyguard is a person who is chivalrous, attains knighthood, and guards people.  They don't necessarily want or need a Champion with hardcoded rules to fit the 'role' of defender.  Again, 4e already did this.
The solid choice is the one the players decide on and pursue, not the one you hardcode into the class abilities.

You're being incoherent again. You acknowledge that people will want the theme of a chivalrous knight and bodyguard but that there shouldn't be a class with features that fit that theme? Why do you like to have fighters around then? Some people want to be awesome swordsmen, why have a fighter class with hard coded rules on being that?

QuoteSo, this brings up the most important question in the thread.  Are you designing this for you and your friends, or the general public?

I'm designing this for me. I'm not getting paid to do this. Its a pet project that I took up. I find the thought exercise and my vision of the final product to be both stimulating and comforting.

Quote from: MGuy;558710I can easily conceive of a guy who's plan is to save other people from getting hurt. When you play a Champion your plan isn't to make sure you break a leg for today. Your plan is to make sure no one on your team breaks any legs.

You specifically give the Champion a power to take other people's damage onto himself. That is NOT the same as preventing other people from taking damage.  In fact almost everything you mentioned about the Champion pretty much involved 'taking damage'. Not preventing it, not avoiding it... taking it.

I got a better name for the class than "Champion"... Masochist.

And not being entirely snarky, the name IS misleading. The average schmuck reading 'Champion' isn't going to picture the dude magically channeling someone elses pain onto himself, he's gonna picture the guy that steps out in front of an army prepared to whup another guy's ass, or some dude standing on an Olympic Pedestal getting a medal for being awesome.

 

QuoteWhy do you think movie depictions of secret service agents have them pile on the POTUS the instant a gunshot is fired or an explosion occurs? I'm actually not sure how you find it hard to believe that there's a person who specifically guards everyone else

when that's the generic assumption when you think of front-line fighters protecting squishy wizards in DnD.[/quote]

Um... because they do that in real life, not just movies?

Also: no one becomes a bodyguard or secret service agent expecting to actually get shot. Thats sort of a worst case, you've already failed at your job, moment in protection duties.

Quotewhen that's the generic assumption when you think of front-line fighters protecting squishy wizards in DnD.

I happen to think that is a bad assumption that formed post facto from the dual facts that fighters get hit less often (due to high AC) and tend to be in melee with bad guys anyway.  The only people that actually think of fighters that way are 'old hands' who have absorbed the D&D culture. New players think of fighters as dudes that kill shit by swording it to the face. Likewise, the game designers (at least prior to 4E) apparently thought the same thing, as evidenced by an utter lack of actual protective abilities as even optional feats.

I'll be honest: I strongly doubt anyone would jump at the chance to play your champion. More likely, extrapolating a popular game with attendant culture, you'd see groups demanding a sacrifice from the weakest players to play a class that they don't actually like 'for the good of the group'... meaning, of course, the players who are actually playing what they like.  And that is toxic, a poison pill.

Sure, its a stretch to suggest your game would ever grow big enough for it to matter, but by that logic you might as well store your drinking water in lead containers.

QuoteAS for bonuses/penalties: 5 bonuses are all you get and at least 2 of the 5 will be on your character sheet before you even "do" anything to find others. Then there are specific weapon/armor bonuses. If you have that it will be on your character sheet as well and be 3 out of 5. Situation bonuses already have you looking for the largest out of them because situation bonuses don't stack. So that leaves players with basically looking for maybe 2 more bonuses.

At worst the penalty stacking could get ridiculous at higher levels. That's a big maybe but still a legitimate danger. If I find penalties to be getting out of hand I'll shackle a limit onto them but, in theory, I don't expect it to be an issue.

I'm too big a fan of the KISS principle.  Your system sounds too complex and fiddly, too prone to 'gaming' the subsystem, rules lawyering essentially, for too little benefit... not to mention that it seems entirely based on metagame assumptions.

I'm pretty sure I've never played any RPG that EXPECTED you to collect and track five bonuses, or rather more than five bonuses (arranging the ones you want into a 'hand' from a 'Deck'?), much less expected you to collect a potentially unlimited number of penalties.

Some of it may be definitional, of course, but that still sounds like way too many modifiers to be practical.

Quote from: MGuy;558733If its negated it no longer exists. That's If you have bless on you, and its dispelled, you no longer benefit from "bless" thus there is no longer a bonus taking up the bonus spot that bless took up because bless is no longer active.

Not dispelled, negated.  The spell does not stop, it simply isn't providing the bonus because of an effect that negates the bonus while in it's field of effect.  A suit of +1 chain-mail negates the bonus from a +1 sword.  That doesn't mean the sword is now non-magical.

QuoteYes, the penalties can outstrip the bonuses. However the penalties they've wracked up are well earned and I wouldn't want combat to go any other way where the PCs are caught in a tight spot. The fact that the goblins have to do all this (catch the PCs in bad terrain, net them, and out number them) just to get a -1 means that I, as the DM can ambush the pcs, put them on horrible footing, and not have the battle be hopeless (just as planned). Now if the goblins have to then spend combat rounds not attacking but improving their advantage somehow then that means that it was worth using deeper tactics to do so (which is also good).

Ok, that is a game preference, and it sounds like it will work out pretty well for your group.

QuoteThere are no rules in 2e, 3e, or 4e that cover how you can jump in front of somebody to take damage. That is in or out of a given class. If you want cool, dynamic stuff like being able to jump in front of somebody to take damage that's fine.

2nd Edition is close enough to 1st that for both it is a simple declaration of an action.  Depending on the DM, it could be a Dexterity check, a Strength check, maybe even a saving throw.  Or, they could just play along and tell the player that their character just got a spear in the chest without rolling anything.  Even in 3.x, you don't really need rules to tell you how to do that, but I guess I can understand why a good portion of the players think you should.

QuoteI could even make something like that for my rules set, but if I do I'd specifically make it so that the Champion could do it at a distance (Call it Dive or something) so that he is still the best at it.

What kind of distance?

QuoteAgain,taking your argument to its logical conclusion that same cleric should be able to pick up a sword and train with it until he is as good at using it as the fighter. He can't though because swinging a sword the best is hard coded onto the fighter's character sheet.

That isn't taking it to its logical conclusion.

QuoteYou are saying one thing then say the opposite in the very next paragraph. You don't want people to have a "role" that's protected but you want their "niche" protected.

A 'niche' is not the same thing as a 'role'.  

 

QuoteYou're being incoherent again. You acknowledge that people will want the theme of a chivalrous knight and bodyguard but that there shouldn't be a class with features that fit that theme?

No, what I am saying is that it doesn't absolutely follow that a chivalrous knight and bodyguard must be a class or have rules to fit that.  A 'theme' is something you do for characterization, outside the rules.  Despite how WotC wants to use it now.

QuoteWhy do you like to have fighters around then? Some people want to be awesome swordsmen, why have a fighter class with hard coded rules on being that?

Because that is an 'archetype'.  Also, some people need to be eased into the game with a easily playable character like the Fighter rather than have 200pgs of spells dropped in front of them.

QuoteI'm designing this for me. I'm not getting paid to do this. Its a pet project that I took up. I find the thought exercise and my vision of the final product to be both stimulating and comforting.

Ah, well, then design it how you want it.  I am not being spiteful, but I have a feeling I have little to add that you would find useful, so I will cease active participation.

Mguy,  what is being said is not criticism it's feedback. First lesson a game designer must learn is have a thick skin.  Between not having that and not caring about the intractsies of the math behind the game makes me a horrible designer.  But I do know what I like and can understand and see good ideas when I see them.  This thread so far is full of them.

Quote from: Marleycat;558754Mguy,  what is being said is not criticism it's feedback. First lesson a game designer must learn is have a thick skin.  Between not having that and not caring about the intractsies of the math behind the game makes me a horrible designer.  But I do know what I like and can understand and see good ideas when I see them.  This thread so far is full of them.

I'm not taking any of this as criticism. Just because I am defending my design decisions doesn't mean that I am taking people questioning them as criticism.

Quote from: Spike;558740You specifically give the Champion a power to take other people's damage onto himself. That is NOT the same as preventing other people from taking damage.  In fact almost everything you mentioned about the Champion pretty much involved 'taking damage'. Not preventing it, not avoiding it... taking it.

If the Champion hops in the way of the bullet aimed for the mage who is taking the damage? Since the bullet was heading for the mage and the Champion forced the Mage out of the way he prevented the mage from taking the damage. Unless you have some weird definition of "prevents damage toward others" that has a specific clause in it that says he can't get damaged instead I think that qualifies as preventing others from taking damage. This is especially true considering he has more defense abilities and can thus mitigate THAT damage.

QuoteAnd not being entirely snarky, the name IS misleading. The average schmuck reading 'Champion' isn't going to picture the dude magically channeling someone elses pain onto himself, he's gonna picture the guy that steps out in front of an army prepared to whup another guy's ass, or some dude standing on an Olympic Pedestal getting a medal for being awesome.

Ignoring the fact that he CAN whup someone's ass on his own, citing the name as misleading is a bit odd. By name I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard. When I first heard monk I thought it was a ball headed priest that spent his time studying, reciting, and copying down scriptures. Nothing about Bard tells me that he's able to hypnotize people. Luckily I can add a little blurb that crystallizes exactly what people can expect a Champion to be able to do.

QuoteUm... because they do that in real life, not just movies?

Also: no one becomes a bodyguard or secret service agent expecting to actually get shot. Thats sort of a worst case, you've already failed at your job, moment in protection duties.

Now you're being incoherent. You're saying that bodyguards and secret service members are depicted as hopping on their VIP or hoping in the way of gunfire because that's what happens in real life but say then that that's not expected? You realize we're talking about a fantasy game where people willfully go into the lair of ancient beasts right? Danger is of course expected (not wanted but expected) and when the mage is about to be lit on fire its better that he hop in the way since he's wearing the damage reducing armor and wielding the damage reducing shield, whilst having damage reducing abilities in order to take the bullet for the mage.

QuoteI happen to think that is a bad assumption that formed post facto from the dual facts that fighters get hit less often (due to high AC) and tend to be in melee with bad guys anyway.  The only people that actually think of fighters that way are 'old hands' who have absorbed the D&D culture. New players think of fighters as dudes that kill shit by swording it to the face. Likewise, the game designers (at least prior to 4E) apparently thought the same thing, as evidenced by an utter lack of actual protective abilities as even optional feats.

So you're going to tell me that the presumption that the fighter being sturdy fights on the frontline so that the squishies in the back don't take damage is something that only "old hands" believe and was invented in retrospect because it just so happened to be that it seemed like that with how fights broke down? How could that presumption have just been retrofitted and old when, not only did it survive through older editions of DnD up to and including low level 3rd edition, but is something built into modern rpgs? You see it far too often in modern times (MMOs especially) for you to be able to think that. You admitted yourself you know people who play tanks in MMOs.

QuoteI'll be honest: I strongly doubt anyone would jump at the chance to play your champion. More likely, extrapolating a popular game with attendant culture, you'd see groups demanding a sacrifice from the weakest players to play a class that they don't actually like 'for the good of the group'... meaning, of course, the players who are actually playing what they like.  And that is toxic, a poison pill.

You have your prediction and I'm not going to argue with it.

QuoteI'm too big a fan of the KISS principle.  Your system sounds too complex and fiddly, too prone to 'gaming' the subsystem, rules lawyering essentially, for too little benefit... not to mention that it seems entirely based on metagame assumptions.

I'm fairly sure I haven't explained enough of what my system even does to make it sound all that complicated. I'd take it you like a Rules-Lite approach based on your statements. Thing is, I don't. If I can make my game about as complicated as core 3rd without going over that would satisfy me.

QuoteI'm pretty sure I've never played any RPG that EXPECTED you to collect and track five bonuses, or rather more than five bonuses (arranging the ones you want into a 'hand' from a 'Deck'?), much less expected you to collect a potentially unlimited number of penalties.

Some of it may be definitional, of course, but that still sounds like way too many modifiers to be practical.

I take it you have never played 3rd edition. You also haven't played 4th either. The Fighter in 3rd edition is suppose to get and track bonuses from, weapon focus, weapon specialization, flanking, power attack, attribute bonus, magic weapon bonus, charging vs not charging and THEN start worrying about if someone buffed him. This is what it looks like at 4th level and doesn't even get started on various debuffs. I've heard that in earlier editions there was a friggin' weapon vs armor chart that you were to reference to figure things out.

S, yes, given DnD's history I'd reasonably expect someone to be able to at least be able to keep track of 5 bonuses (especially since up to three of them are arranged on your character sheet and don't need to be excessively fiddled with). As for penalties, yes they "may" or "may not" get heavy. If I find that they do, and it causes issues, I will slap a limit on them as well. I don't think that they will but I could be wrong and if they do I'd reasonably would expect people to at least be able to keep track of up to 5 penalties.

Quote from: StormBringer;558743Not dispelled, negated.  The spell does not stop, it simply isn't providing the bonus because of an effect that negates the bonus while in it's field of effect.  A suit of +1 chain-mail negates the bonus from a +1 sword.  That doesn't mean the sword is now non-magical.

Once again you've got me scratching my head. You say that the spell "bless" is negated such that it doesn't provide a bonus but the spell is still going on so a bonus exists. I'm telling you it cannot be both. If the bonus isn't being given it does not "count" as a bonus. The system is set up such that you can receive 5 bonuses. If something occurs that takes one of the bonuses away then that opens up the slot that bonus was in. And how the hell does a +1 suit of chainmail which provides an armor bonus to your armor negate the +1 from a sword that gives a bonus to attack/damage?

QuoteWhat kind of distance?

They're move speed. Upon looking at my document I actually already have that as an ability that they get so kudos for me.

QuoteThat isn't taking it to its logical conclusion.

In a game when you have an ability that does something explicit [take damage for someone else] you implicitly suggest other people without that ability can't do it. The champion has an ability where he can force an attacker to target him with an attack instead of someone else as long as that someone else is within his reach. So implicitly no one else can do that, nor should someone else be able to do that. The Champion has an explicit ability that forces attackers to target him at the drop of a hat and it says so on his character sheet and that's important as I'm about to explain.

In your spear trap scenario I'd assume the Cleric was off guard and thus shouldn't be able to react and maneuver fast enough to take the spears for anyone (logically). So the argument could be made by the DM that the cleric can't get a roll. Now you can argue about this or that or complain about the DM's call whatever, fact of the matter is the argument can be made and the decision thus maintained. However, if the cleric instead had an ability on his character sheet that gave him a "supernatural sense for danger" then the DM could not argue that because it says right there on his character sheet that he's not flatfooted when danger is about. That's the difference between having such a rule exist and not.

QuoteA 'niche' is not the same thing as a 'role'.  

Details please.

 

QuoteNo, what I am saying is that it doesn't absolutely follow that a chivalrous knight and bodyguard must be a class or have rules to fit that.  A 'theme' is something you do for characterization, outside the rules.  Despite how WotC wants to use it now.

So... How does the Champion, as I've described it so far, not live up to a theme? They want to be chilvarous and a bodyguard. The class gives you abilities that fit that theme. What about the Champion, as described, is any more limiting than say being a paladin?

QuoteBecause that is an 'archetype'.  Also, some people need to be eased into the game with a easily playable character like the Fighter rather than have 200pgs of spells dropped in front of them.

None of the classes I've listed has "spell list" as a class ability. The one who gets closest is the "mage" class and because of the slow rate of spell acquisition (one spell per feat), simplicity of basic spells, etc that it'll be quite so intimidating. What's more is the Champion isn't a class that encourages spell slinging either.

QuoteAh, well, then design it how you want it.  I am not being spiteful, but I have a feeling I have little to add that you would find useful, so I will cease active participation.

While I'm not sure if you're being spiteful this is almost tautological. I'm the only designer designing my system. I've no choice but to design it how I want. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Quote from: MGuy;558766If the Champion hops in the way of the bullet aimed for the mage who is taking the damage? Since the bullet was heading for the mage and the Champion forced the Mage out of the way he prevented the mage from taking the damage. Unless you have some weird definition of "prevents damage toward others" that has a specific clause in it that says he can't get damaged instead I think that qualifies as preventing others from taking damage. This is especially true considering he has more defense abilities and can thus mitigate THAT damage.

Presuming that if he hopped in front of the bullet for the mage that his AC could bounce the bullet? Yeah, that's fine. Your description, however, was that the mage takes actual damage and the Champion then sees the bloody bullet hole, gets his pain-boner on and steals the injury for himself.  

QuoteIgnoring the fact that he CAN whup someone's ass on his own, citing the name as misleading is a bit odd. By name I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard. When I first heard monk I thought it was a ball headed priest that spent his time studying, reciting, and copying down scriptures. Nothing about Bard tells me that he's able to hypnotize people. Luckily I can add a little blurb that crystallizes exactly what people can expect a Champion to be able to do.

Well, your little blurb in this thread was all about what a great punching bag the Champion is.  By your own measure of 'balance' he has to trade away at least some portion of his ability to 'ass whup' in order to be good at 'taking damage' or you risk him being 'cooler' than the other classes because he's got too many abilities.... or at least that is the assumption I make based on your general posting about balance and spotlight time and so forth.

QuoteNow you're being incoherent. You're saying that bodyguards and secret service members are depicted as hopping on their VIP or hoping in the way of gunfire because that's what happens in real life but say then that that's not expected?

Do you WANT me to mock your reading comprehension? I commented specifically on your charactization of this as a cinematic convention, then pointed out the difference between 'risking' being shot and actually pulling the trigger on yourself, though admittedly less succinctly than I just did.  

Your description of the Champion that started all of this back and forth was of a guy that literally takes actual injuries onto himself in mid-fight. he doesn't 'risk' them, he doesn't defend, he actively choses to carve holes in his flesh so someone else can magically heal.

Not that there isn't a precedent for such an ability, but this is the first I'm aware of it in a front line combatant type, and with no mention of (that I recall off hand) increased self-healing that normally accompanies 'wound swapping'.

QuoteYou realize we're talking about a fantasy game where people willfully go into the lair of ancient beasts right? Danger is of course expected (not wanted but expected) and when the mage is about to be lit on fire its better that he hop in the way since he's wearing the damage reducing armor and wielding the damage reducing shield, whilst having damage reducing abilities in order to take the bullet for the mage.

Getting in a knife fight (exploring dungeons, since you seem to have trouble with reading comp) is dangerous. Stabbing yourself (Taking a hit retroactively from another character) is masochism.

I notice however that you keep adding details on the class without actually detailing how they work in game.  I'll happily concede that your knowledge of your own system is obviously greater than mine. I can only point out how silly the class sounds from a limited blurb, as I've got no grasp of how you intend for these various mechanics to interact.  

Let me see: The Mage (AC 14) gets hit by a goblin for 13 points of damage (Hits an AC 15).  The Champion (AC 22) sees this and activates his super-awesome power of 'taking the hit'.  Presumably as a standard action (negating his ability to whup ass for this round).  Is the entire hit now negated because his AC is higher than the goblin's hit roll?  That seems... a bit over the top and demanding certain types of abuse (or, potentially its meant that way... meaning the Champion tends to only steal hits that won't affect him anyways... whatever).  But lets say it doesn't work that way, and the hit is a hit, so the Champion takes 13 points of damage that, had it been targetted to him would have been ignored? If he has DR 2 does that mean he takes 11 points? What if hte DR is from his Adamantium Chainmail?

Now, you may already have answered all this to your own satisfaction, and if so bully for you.  If not, then the class is already flawed by too many interacting subsystems and can/should be able to do the same sort of thing, only simpler and easier to understand.

QuoteSo you're going to tell me that the presumption that the fighter being sturdy fights on the frontline so that the squishies in the back don't take damage is something that only "old hands" believe and was invented in retrospect because it just so happened to be that it seemed like that with how fights broke down? How could that presumption have just been retrofitted and old when, not only did it survive through older editions of DnD up to and including low level 3rd edition, but is something built into modern rpgs? You see it far too often in modern times (MMOs especially) for you to be able to think that. You admitted yourself you know people who play tanks in MMOs.

I'm telling you that fighters were designed to kill shit and stand on the front line.

It follows from that that softer, rear ranks characters tended to use the fighters as a tactical defense, by actively avoiding melee combat (innate) and eventually convincing fighters to position themselves to keep enemy melee from reaching them.

This, however, was not reflected in any edition of D&D at the design phase until 4E at all, and is not mechanically reflected prior to that edition in the design of the fighter beyond its role as 'melee guy'.  

The rise of MMOs, with limited computer AIs to control monsters, and the MMO similar 3E Rogue as theoretically superior melee 'DPS' lead to fighters 'role' shifting to 'tank' which is pretty much unsupportable outside of video games, and even Table Top games without extremely meta-game mechanics to pull it off.

I'm sorry you can't grasp this simple idea, that 'tanking warriors' is a relatively recent, and silly, idea and has very little, if any, value to a table-top RPG.

I'm REALLY sorry I have to break it down into easily digestible chunks for you, since you appear unable to grasp it in any other way (and I doubt your ability to grasp it this way).


 

QuoteYou have your prediction and I'm not going to argue with it.

That is a very passive agressive way of saying you disagree.  

Out of curiosity:  Do you disagree because you think I am actually wrong about people gaming the system?

Do you disagree that it is a poison pill?

Do you agree that people will game the system, that it is toxic, but disagree that it is in anyway a problem?

I may be a bit slow today, but I don't really see any other grounds for disagreement, and I don't see your statement as being read any other way. There is just too much subtext in the phrasing.

QuoteI'm fairly sure I haven't explained enough of what my system even does to make it sound all that complicated. I'd take it you like a Rules-Lite approach based on your statements. Thing is, I don't. If I can make my game about as complicated as core 3rd without going over that would satisfy me.

I'm fine with more complex rules systems.  What I dislike is vast bodies of metagame rules, odd exceptionalism and so on.  When I play D&D, I want to be Spike the Fighter whacking a dude with his sword, not Spike the Accountant checking his bonus columns for the best advantage, and measuring mathematical probilities against a risk-assesment matrix devised entirely by the rule-set and not at all by... and I hate to invoke this word for the shitstorm that inevitably follows... immersion.  

The fact that I can almost predict your response to this word for word makes me weep for the educational system in general and you in specific.

QuoteI take it you have never played 3rd edition. You also haven't played 4th either. The Fighter in 3rd edition is suppose to get and track bonuses from, weapon focus, weapon specialization, flanking, power attack, attribute bonus, magic weapon bonus, charging vs not charging and THEN start worrying about if someone buffed him. This is what it looks like at 4th level and doesn't even get started on various debuffs. I've heard that in earlier editions there was a friggin' weapon vs armor chart that you were to reference to figure things out.

I have played 3E, I've GM'd 3E. That doesn't mean I think porting over the bonus system and making it worse (or more whatever you think it needs to be) is a good idea. Its actually bad, and leads to shit like Pun-Pun.

You would have to pay me (a lot) to play 4e. Taking the WORST parts of video games and trying to recreate those on a tabletop, and turning it into a shitty version of the wargames it supposedly evolved from? No thank you.  

As far as your cute aside about looking up a reference chart: Based on what I can tell, you'd like to improve chart references by imposing a limit on how many charts you can look up a day, possibly by a random die roll compared to yet another chart, which will give you an appendix broken down by class and level, with a sub-chart for race.

Which would not measurably improve game play but would assuredly slow down game play when it wasn't out right ignored or abused.

Quote from: Spike;558777Presuming that if he hopped in front of the bullet for the mage that his AC could bounce the bullet? Yeah, that's fine. Your description, however, was that the mage takes actual damage and the Champion then sees the bloody bullet hole, gets his pain-boner on and steals the injury for himself.  

I'm not sure how you read it that way.

QuoteWell, your little blurb in this thread was all about what a great punching bag the Champion is.  By your own measure of 'balance' he has to trade away at least some portion of his ability to 'ass whup' in order to be good at 'taking damage' or you risk him being 'cooler' than the other classes because he's got too many abilities.... or at least that is the assumption I make based on your general posting about balance and spotlight time and so forth.

My little blurb gave a short description of highlights from various classes. You got stuck on his ability to take damage for other people and seemed to miss the portion where I said he can up his defenses. As for you making assumptions based on my posting I can't even begin to fathom how exactly you see my ideas so I can't make any comments on that front. I believe I've been pretty clear when I've said that all classes participate in combat to some degree. As long as everybody is engaged "Mission Accomplished".
 

QuoteDo you WANT me to mock your reading comprehension? I commented specifically on your charactization of this as a cinematic convention, then pointed out the difference between 'risking' being shot and actually pulling the trigger on yourself, though admittedly less succinctly than I just did.  Your description of the Champion that started all of this back and forth was of a guy that literally takes actual injuries onto himself in mid-fight. he doesn't 'risk' them, he doesn't defend, he actively choses to carve holes in his flesh so someone else can magically heal.

Not that there isn't a precedent for such an ability, but this is the first I'm aware of it in a front line combatant type, and with no mention of (that I recall off hand) increased self-healing that normally accompanies 'wound swapping'.

You can mock me for reading what you said and stating how it was confusing though I don't see why you would since all I did was lay out how you made it sound. Again I don't know how you read the Champion's ability to take damage for other people as him not preventing that damage from occurring, I also don't know why you're holding me to that convention even when I have laid out that that isn't the case. Also, yes there is an ability like that, a spell at least called "Shield Other". Lastly, even if that "was" the case characters do not suffer critical existence failure until they reach 0 HP. So if the Champion knows this (and he would) then it isn't surprising, crazy, or masochistic that he would do such a thing considering he has more HPs and can mitigate the damage with his own abilities.

QuoteGetting in a knife fight (exploring dungeons, since you seem to have trouble with reading comp) is dangerous. Stabbing yourself (Taking a hit retroactively from another character) is masochism.

Again, he has more hp and damage mitigating abilities. Its not nearly as dangerous for him as you make it out to be. Your argument on this "stab yourself" point would make more sense if it weren't being made in a conversation about a game that is going to be imitating DnD where HP is a thing.

QuoteI notice however that you keep adding details on the class without actually detailing how they work in game.  I'll happily concede that your knowledge of your own system is obviously greater than mine. I can only point out how silly the class sounds from a limited blurb, as I've got no grasp of how you intend for these various mechanics to interact.  

Then perhaps you should ask how it works instead of making assumptions based on an odd reading/utter distaste for the concepts I've laid out then arguing with those assumptions in mind in rather odd and incoherent ways.

QuoteLet me see: The Mage (AC 14) gets hit by a goblin for 13 points of damage (Hits an AC 15).  The Champion (AC 22) sees this and activates his super-awesome power of 'taking the hit'.  Presumably as a standard action (negating his ability to whup ass for this round).  Is the entire hit now negated because his AC is higher than the goblin's hit roll?  That seems... a bit over the top and demanding certain types of abuse (or, potentially its meant that way... meaning the Champion tends to only steal hits that won't affect him anyways... whatever).  But lets say it doesn't work that way, and the hit is a hit, so the Champion takes 13 points of damage that, had it been targetted to him would have been ignored? If he has DR 2 does that mean he takes 11 points? What if hte DR is from his Adamantium Chainmail?

Now, you may already have answered all this to your own satisfaction, and if so bully for you.  If not, then the class is already flawed by too many interacting subsystems and can/should be able to do the same sort of thing, only simpler and easier to understand.

I'll just have to take this as you actually asking "What happens when a goblin is about to hit a mage and a Champion activates his ability?" Well I can answer that.

In this situation goblin announces attack vs Mage. This provokes the Champion who can use his Attack of Opportunity to then redirect the attack at himself (moving to and taking the place of the Mage to do so). The goblin then makes his attack. Since the Champions dodge is actually only lower than the wizard's* he takes the hit. The goblin rolls 13 so the total is 14 (his size, being small, is the only bonus he gets on this attack) vs the Champion's Dodge of 6 (10 + 2 Dodge - 6 Armor Penalty) so goblin gets + 4 precision damage on the damage roll. The goblin is small so he only does 1d3 (dagger but smaller) damage + -1 strength (also from small size) + 4 precision damage. So he deals about 5.5 damage on average. We'll round up to 6. Champion takes it. He has a slightly higher "Con" score at 12 so he has +1 DR to start off and he's wearing heavy armor which, despite bringing his dodge bonus down to the dismal level its at he gets +3 DR putting his DR at 4. So he takes about 2 damage (maybe 1 more or one less). No big deal. He has about 12 HP at first level. He's down about 2 HP but the mage is now out of melee range the Champion is in melee range, and  the mage can freely cast his spells (No default 5ft step in my game) on his next turn or move to flank. This would be 4 damage if the goblin charged but that's not in this scenario.

Had the mage taken it he would've had a dodge of 10 (10 no dodge bonus no armor). So the goblin would still hit on a 14 with his 1d3 damage. dealing about 3.5 damage to the mage. We're going to round that up to 4. He has no "con" bonus and no armor so he doesn't get any DR. So he takes 4 damage out of his probably 10 hp and now he's in melee. He would do 6 damage had he charged but that is not this scenario.

 *Armor provides DR in my game. Shields still increase dodge but only when he makes an active defense  which he can't do since he used his attack of opportunity to do this in the first place.

QuoteI'm telling you that fighters were designed to kill shit and stand on the front line.

It follows from that that softer, rear ranks characters tended to use the fighters as a tactical defense, by actively avoiding melee combat (innate) and eventually convincing fighters to position themselves to keep enemy melee from reaching them.

This, however, was not reflected in any edition of D&D at the design phase until 4E at all, and is not mechanically reflected prior to that edition in the design of the fighter beyond its role as 'melee guy'.  

The rise of MMOs, with limited computer AIs to control monsters, and the MMO similar 3E Rogue as theoretically superior melee 'DPS' lead to fighters 'role' shifting to 'tank' which is pretty much unsupportable outside of video games, and even Table Top games without extremely meta-game mechanics to pull it off.

I'm sorry you can't grasp this simple idea, that 'tanking warriors' is a relatively recent, and silly, idea and has very little, if any, value to a table-top RPG.

You're the one who said "old hands" were the ones who held on to the belief that the fighters tank. And they did. Squishies inherently sat back and let the melee dude take the damage. And it WORKED OUT. Not too many people lost their shit about this set up. Why are you arguing the role as if it were a bad thing? Is pointing out their actual use somehow causing you distress? The Champion doesn't "have" to sit back and hold hands with the mage. If he rushes into melee he'll be taking damage ANYWAY so he can actually do his melee fighting thing that way. I gave him abilities that allow him to alternatively help others. God forbid someone actually want to tank.

QuoteI'm REALLY sorry I have to break it down into easily digestible chunks for you, since you appear unable to grasp it in any other way (and I doubt your ability to grasp it this way).

I'm really sorry that you think dumbing your already dumb points down makes them any less inane. I mean half of your argument is based off of you misunderstanding what the class did even after I already responded to your punching bad accusation prior to this post. What's more is that even WITH your misunderstanding there is nothing wrong with a class that can suck up other people's damage. The fact that its not an idea YOU like isn't something that you can build an argument for. I acknowledge that YOU don't like tanking that YOU cannot be fucked with actually spending combat time reducing incoming hit point damage but that is in no way going to effect my decision to put the option into my game.

QuoteThat is a very passive agressive way of saying you disagree.  

Out of curiosity:  Do you disagree because you think I am actually wrong about people gaming the system?

Do you disagree that it is a poison pill?

Do you agree that people will game the system, that it is toxic, but disagree that it is in anyway a problem?
I may be a bit slow today, but I don't really see any other grounds for disagreement, and I don't see your statement as being read any other way. There is just too much subtext in the phrasing.

You predict that it will be poison to the game because people will use the rules to try and make things they want to happen happen. I don't disagree with the fact that people will try to use the rules to their advantage. However, I not only fully expect this to be the case but I frankly don't give a rat's ass as long as none of the rules I make promote game disruption. People will ALWAYS try to game the system no matter how many rules it has/doesn't have. The BEST I can do is make it so that the damage is minimal. What's more is whatever people need to do to have their "fun" with my system or any other is none of my concern. If there are groups out there who want to use my rules but use them in the most disruptive ways they can I do not care. Monty Haul games aren't something I'm particularly against.If If a major loophole/exploit is pointed out to me and it bothers me at all I'll work to close it. Otherwise people are free to have their make believe in anyway they see fit.

QuoteI'm fine with more complex rules systems.  What I dislike is vast bodies of metagame rules, odd exceptionalism and so on.  When I play D&D, I want to be Spike the Fighter whacking a dude with his sword, not Spike the Accountant checking his bonus columns for the best advantage, and measuring mathematical probabilities against a risk-assesment matrix devised entirely by the rule-set and not at all by... and I hate to invoke this word for the shitstorm that inevitably follows... immersion.  

The fact that I can almost predict your response to this word for word makes me weep for the educational system in general and you in specific.

Again that's a personal issue. If you don't want to assess risks don't. No one is forcing you to do math. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself by having to add4 or 5 numbers together.

QuoteI have played 3E, I've GM'd 3E. That doesn't mean I think porting over the bonus system and making it worse (or more whatever you think it needs to be) is a good idea. Its actually bad, and leads to shit like Pun-Pun.

You would have to pay me (a lot) to play 4e. Taking the WORST parts of video games and trying to recreate those on a tabletop, and turning it into a shitty version of the wargames it supposedly evolved from? No thank you.  

As far as your cute aside about looking up a reference chart: Based on what I can tell, you'd like to improve chart references by imposing a limit on how many charts you can look up a day, possibly by a random die roll compared to yet another chart, which will give you an appendix broken down by class and level, with a sub-chart for race.

Which would not measurably improve game play but would assuredly slow down game play when it wasn't out right ignored or abused.

This is all just gibberish so I'm going to explicitly discard it.

Quote from: MGuy;558772Once again you've got me scratching my head. You say that the spell "bless" is negated such that it doesn't provide a bonus but the spell is still going on so a bonus exists. I'm telling you it cannot be both.

It's really not that difficult.  Turn a flashlight on.  Drop it in a box and close the lid.  Does the flashlight go off?

QuoteIf the bonus isn't being given it does not "count" as a bonus. The system is set up such that you can receive 5 bonuses. If something occurs that takes one of the bonuses away then that opens up the slot that bonus was in.

Unless the bonus is only temporarily negated but not 'shut off'.

QuoteAnd how the hell does a +1 suit of chainmail which provides an armor bonus to your armor negate the +1 from a sword that gives a bonus to attack/damage?

And this is what makes me think you don't have nearly the experience with game theory, other RPGs or basic math you pretend you do.

 In a game when you have an ability that does something explicit [take damage for someone else] you implicitly suggest other people without that ability can't do it.

[/quote]In your spear trap scenario I'd assume the Cleric was off guard and thus shouldn't be able to react and maneuver fast enough to take the spears for anyone (logically).[/quote]
So, the Champion would also be off guard?  In other words, his abilities would or would not be useful out of combat?

 

QuoteDetails please.

This is some pretty basic stuff.  Going with later edition terminology, a 'role' is what a character does in combat.  A 'niche' is the character's general profession and the attendant abilities that go with that; the archetype.

 

QuoteSo... How does the Champion, as I've described it so far, not live up to a theme? They want to be chilvarous and a bodyguard. The class gives you abilities that fit that theme. What about the Champion, as described, is any more limiting than say being a paladin?

Because the Paladin can do what the Champion does or they can protect the Magic-User while performing auxiliary healing duties or they can stride out in the front of the party to smite the enemies of Good and Law or they can preach about the horrors of war and the need for peace, only raising a weapon in self defence or any one of a million other things that don't depend on narrow skills that rigidly define their 'role' and don't permit any other interpretation.

QuoteWhile I'm not sure if you're being spiteful this is almost tautological. I'm the only designer designing my system. I've no choice but to design it how I want. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Then why are you here?  I understand your original post mentioned the request by Marleycat, but you could have PMd her the rules.  If you don't want public discussion of your rules, don't display them publicly.  This is absolutely not the place for warm fuzzies and unconditional encouragement.

Quote from: MGuy;558932People will ALWAYS try to game the system no matter how many rules it has/doesn't have. The BEST I can do is make it so that the damage is minimal.

You really can't even do that.  It is a false design goal that will always make your game worse; viz anything from the Forge, or 4e.  Some would say I repeat myself.