This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Cyclotron

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
1
Good point, Bagpuss.  Although in this instance, I don't think it penalizes low-Fort save classes as much as it benefits everybody (and just benefits high-Fort save classes A LOT).

Anyway, this is another instance in which the possible problem for D&D isn't really a problem for IH...  All saving throws in IH are simply Character level + relevant modifier (Con, Dex or Wis).

2
I had another suggestion from someone to include self-stabilization checks with the Fort save itself...  Instead of having a flat 10% chance to self-stabilize every turn, have a character stabilize if they succeed at the Fortitude save by 10 or more.

On average, it would make it easier for characters to self-stabilize.  How easy it would be to stabilize would depend on the severity of the wound, the character's level and the the character's Con mod.  It means, for higher level characters, there would be a very small range in which you would automatically stabilize, but it also means that there is an upper threshold beyoind which you cannot possibly self-stabilize, and only a trained medical professional could help you.

To use our 15th level example above (with a +17 fort save)...  This character would automatically stabilize at 0 to -8 hit points.  But has no chance to self-stabilize at -28 hit points or lower.

I'm not sure of that's better or worse (I'm kind of leaning toward it), but it would certainly eliminate an extra dice roll.

3
Quote from: blakkie
But that asides I think Name Lips is on the right track.

Okay, I know there are those other sorts of options... I've used some of them before, and they work to a degree. Right now, that's not what I'm looking for. Right now, this is just a thought exercise to see if we can make this particular house rule work, or if it's a completely worthless idea.

Iron Heroes already uses almost this exact same idea for characters that have fallen to -10 hps or lower. The idea was to first, extend the rule all the way up to 0 hps, and then drop the death penalty to the save DC -10 to include unconsciousness on a failure of -9 or less. (Incidentally, I made a typo to the rule above: The DC should be negative hit point total, not negative hit point total plus ten... I'll fix that.)

Running this past my wife, it has a few ramifications, if you are using this in IH...

The first chance you have of going unconscious is when your negative hit points are equal to your character level + Constitution modifier + 2 (or your Fort save bonus + 2). Once you reach negative hit points equal to your character level + Constitution modifier + 20 (or your Fort save bonus + 20), you can only stay conscious on a roll of a natural 20. Between those two, the chance slowly increases.

The first chance you have of dying is when your negative hit points are equal to your character level + Constitution modifier + 12 (or your Fort save bonus + 12). Once you reach negative hit points equal to your character level + Constitution modifier + 30 (or your Fort save bonus + 30), you can only stay alive on a roll of a natural 20. Between those two, the chance slowly increases.

Plus, stabilizing someone using the Heal action is a standard action... Feasibly, a character who is still conscious, but not yet stabilized could try to stabilize themselves with a DC 15 Heal check (in addition to the 10% chance every round).

So a 5th level IH character with a Constitution of 14 (Fort save of +7) would be disabled from 0 to -8 hit points, would have an increasingly difficult chance of staying conscious from -9 to -27 hit points, and an increasingly difficult chance of staying alive from -19 to -37 hit points. All along, they'd be losing 1 hit point per turn, unless they stabilized.

That character, assuming they never stabilize, could feasibly take up to 4 minutes to die from a mortal wound.

And a 15th level IH character with a Constitution of 14 (Fort save of +17) would be disabled from 0 to -18 hit points, would have an increasingly difficult chance of staying conscious from -19 to -37 hit points, and an increasingly difficult chance of staying alive from -29 to -47 hit points. All along, they'd be losing 1 hit point per turn, unless they stabilized.

The one down side I can see, especially with IH characters, is that higher level characters could become exceptionally difficult to kill... Though near death experiences would be a bit more common, the characters would have lots of time, relatively, to bring themselves back from the brink of death.

4
Quote from: Hastur T. Fannon
Unless you have a masterwork potion belt or a HHH.  And who doesn't?

 Not every DM allows for MW potion belts, and errataed HHH's still take a ME action to retrieve something (though you don't invoke an AoO).

Quote from: Name Lips
You could make the "dying" range be a number from 0 to negative (character's level) or something. And "unconscious and bleeding" the next 10 points beyond that.

I thought about that...  But I wanted to try something a little bit different.

I like the fact that the house rule is pretty much a single rule for having negative hit points, rather than one rule for 0 hitpoints, another rule -1 to -9 hit points, and a third rule for -10 and fewer hit points.

On top of that, I like the idea that someone who is lucky, or very tough, can potentially hold off unconsciousness or death for a long time.

Quote from: blakkie
Doesn't VP/WP do something like this?  Provide a range of disabled but not unconcious?

Yes, but in a different way that's a little more complicated, and would be quite a bit more invasive to the basic D20 rules.

The house rule as written, I believe, could be dropped into D&D, for example, without any other changes to the game.  Even the Diehard feat could be used as-is, though it would certainly be less useful than normal.


So is this idea worth persuing?

5
Quote from: deree
Is an interesting idea which i quite like (mainly cos i hate dying), but hands up anyone who's first action wouldn't be to take a potion of healing or some such.

The only problem is that retrieving a stored item is a Move Equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.  Unless you've got the potion already in hand, it's going to take you two rounds to drink that potion -- one ME action to retrieve it, and one Standard action to drink, both of which provoke attacks of opportunity.

I think the typical action would be to make a single move action to exit melee combat, if possible, and get as close as possible to the party Cleric.


As Bagpuss said, my intent is to use this for an IH game...  I'm less certain how well it would work in D&D.

6
One thing that's always bugged me about the D20 dying rules, is how difficult it is to fall into that "disabled" category. Either you're fully capable, or your unconscious, or your dead. Very rarely, do you have that "mortally wounded, but struggling on to accomplish something, before dying tragically in a friend's arms" sort of scenario. Even when you do, the wounded character is going from 0 hps to -1, and is by no means in immediate mortal danger... Haven't died yet, and so long as you don't sit there moping over them for the next minute, they'll likely recover.

Blah.

While Iron Hero's Death's Door rules help out a bit, it still doesn't satify me. The rule did gave me an idea, however. Tell me what you think...

Quote
DEATH'S DOOR:

At 0 hit points or lower, you're disabled, and dying.

Each round, when dying, your character loses 1 hit point, and then makes Fortitude saving throw with a Difficulty Class equal to your negative hit point total. If this save fails by 9 or less, you fall unconscious and can take no actions, but you survive for a short while longer. If this save fails by 10 or more, you die. If it succeeds, you remain disabled, and survive for a short while longer. This continues until the character dies or becomes stable.

While disabled, you can take only a single move or standard action each round, but not both. If you are stabilized, you can take move actions without further injuring yourself, but performing any standard action (or other strenuous activity) makes your character dying. Immediately after performing the standard action, you lose 1 hit point, and must make a Fortitude save as if you were dying.

Healing that raises the dying character’s hit points to 1 or more makes him fully functional again, just as if he’d never been reduced to 0 or lower.

Stabilizing rules would work as normal... 10% chance per round of stabilizing on your own, or a friend can stabilize you with an action.

What do you think?

7
Quote from: Thjalfi
aaah, I see.

Cyclotron, you mean to say that you didn't pull and choose the fun stuff from the setting, and thought that the silly ass shit was the setting.

No, I mean to say that my DM didn't pull and choose the fun stuff from the setting, and thought that the silly ass shit was the fun stuff.  We were 12 geeks.  We didn't know any better.


Honestly though, I recently thought that running a pseudo-spelljammer game in conjunction with Green Ronin's Skull & Bones pirate supplement (ala the movie Treasure Planet) would be pretty cool.

8
Quote from: Cynosure
Pirates and swashbucklers in outer space is always cool.

Yeah...  Too bad Spelljammer wasn't pirates and swashbucklers in outer space.  It was elves in giant butterflies, imperial british hippo-men, "tinker" gnomes, and unending silly jokes (Miniature Giant Space Hamsters, indeed!) in space.

:headache:

Sorry, it was one of those setting that could have been really cool, but just ended up being pretty dopey after the novelty wore off.  Spelljammer always reminds me of Piers Anthony and his Xanth novels...  Really funny and cool  back when you we were in junior high school, but pretty lame now that we've grown up.

9
Design, Development, and Gameplay / D&D Jousting Rules
« on: July 21, 2006, 03:58:17 pm »
Quote from: ergeheilalt
That is fucking idiotic. Yes, women may have slightly lower center of gravity, but a man having his CG at his shoulders? That's just laugh worthy.

Especially since the 40 or 50 pounds of plate armor (which was normally even thicker and heavier for jousting tournaments to prevent accidents) will really screw up your center of gravity.

10
Design, Development, and Gameplay / [d20 Modern Feats] Burst Fire
« on: July 20, 2006, 04:35:01 pm »
Quote from: T-Willard
I've been thinking.

Why is Burst Fire its own feat?

If you've ever been trained on an assault rifle or other automatic weapon, you get training in burst fire (Which takes about 10 minutes) and most modern assault rifles have a built in burst setting.

So why wasn't the burst fire option just folded into the Advanced Firearms Profecency? You're already learning how to use automatic fire (which is pretty goddamn useless as written) with assault rifles, why not Burst Fire?

I'm rather fond of the way Spycraft 2.0 handles it...

Burst and Autofire are just ordinary attack actions.  Auto Fire is a full-round action on its own, and Burst Fire is a free action "trick" that you use to modify a normal attack.

For Burst, your recoil penalties are doubled (which amounts to nothing, if you're careful about your Str score and using both hands to shoot your gun), you use two additional bullets and the error range of your gun for this shot is temporarily increased by +1.  If you hit the target, you deal damage as normal.  If hit the target's defense by +5 or more, you deal two bullets worth of damage, and if you beat the defense by +10 or more, all three bullets hit and deal damage.

Autofire is similar, except that you get to decide the number of bullets in your volley and the penalties are a little bit heftier.  If you hit, one bullet hits, plus one for every +4 you exceed the target's Defense, up to the number of bullets in your volley.

A weapon with the gatling quality steps it up another notch...

Quote
Gatling (GAT): This machine gun uses multiple rotating barrels to produce a high rate of fire.  It may only be fired in Full Auto mode, regardless of character options and other effects that might permit attacks in Single-Shot or Burst mode.
 
When this weapon is used to take an Autofire action, each volley uses 25 shots instead of the standard 3 (and again, no character option or effect may reduce this amount). Each target loses his dodge bonus to Defense against this attack, and 1 additional shot hits the target for every 2 which the attack result exceeds the target's Defense, rather than the standard 4.

11
Quote from: Xavier Lang
I see this as a problem with the person running the game not taking things to there logical conclusion.  If I want players to choose role playing over numbers, then encourage that by not having them fight opponents with a CR appropriate to there level when tweaked for combat.

But more than that...  It's not so much making combats less important, as making the RP-based skills, feats and abilities more important.

What's the point of taking ranks in a skill, or choosing a feat based on your character's background, if you never get the chance to use it in play?  The GM, of course, should provide the occassional opportunity to highlight these abilities to encourage those choices.  But at the same time, the player can't let the GM do all the work.  He has to look around, and make his own opportunities to use those skills...  And then the GM should let him.

Quote from: Xavier Lang
If you have level 12 characters with sub optimal builds, feats used on role playing aspects instead of combat...

I think this the crux of a problem of perception we have in the game...  

The fact that anything that makes your character less than perfectly effective in combat is considered "sub-optimal", and that any choice that's based on the character's background, personality or roleplaying must be "sub-optimal".

A lot of people on both sides of fence believe that.

And it's utter bull shit.

12
Quote from: Svartalf
Radu, I see your point and beg to continue disagreeing. a full blown optimisation will too often take the character into character and advancement choices he would not normally consider, especially when it requires combinations of skills and feats that are not logical, or intuitive, or that imply knowledge of game mechanics that he would not necessarily have.

Svart, you apparently fail to realize that Radu specifically condems this sort of behavior as well.  Read it again...

Quote from: Radu the Wanderer
What frustrates me so much is when people will sabotage one in favor of the other-- IN EITHER DIRECTION. A paper filled with stats is no fun to play, but neither is a paper tiger that's impressive as hell in concept but a pushover in actual play. You need a balance of both for an enjoyable game.

This isn't an attack on roleplayers, it's a refutation of Power Gamers and Drama Queens. Power Gamers need to add some life to their stat blocks, and Drama Queens need to give their avatars some backbone.

13
Quote from: Radu the Wanderer
This isn't an attack on roleplayers, it's a refutation of Power Gamers and Drama Queens.  Power Gamers need to add some life to their stat blocks, and Drama Queens need to give their avatars some backbone.

My daughter, Kate, agrees...  :heh:

14
Quote from: Radu the Wanderer
...as the idea that you can't optimize and rp at the same time is a complete and utter fallacy.

Quoted. For. Truth.

15
Design, Development, and Gameplay / Rethinking BAB
« on: July 16, 2006, 08:54:38 am »
Quote from: Thjalfi
Honestly, on some levels I feel that 2nd edition had it right. don't tie the number of attacks you get per round to your bonuses, but to your class levels. only high level members of the warrior group got in 2 attacks / round, and it never went beyond that.

I think that multiple attacks per round should be a class perk, somewhat like weapon specilization. I also feel like significantly reducing the effectiveness of two-weapon fighting by dropping it back down to only one off-hand attack per round, period, is a good idea. I feel like a 20th level fighter should be very happy if he manages to get four attacks in one round. perhaps making multiple attacks linked to a feat that requires a certain base attack bonus in order to get.

Have you ever played Spycraft?  It works almost exactly that way...

In Spycraft, they got rid of the difference between standard action and move actions...  There's only half actions and full actions.

Attacking is a half action, there is no such thing as a full-attack, and you never get more attacks from high BAB.

So anyone can take two attacks in a turn, if they are willing to use up two half actions to do so and not move more than 5 feet.  However, if you want more attacks than that, you need to collect feats and class features to do so.  Seeing a Spycraft character who can deal out more than 3 or 4 attacks in a round is pretty rare.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18