Dicefreaks d20 Community

Kain Darkwind wrote:

KingCrazyGenius wrote:And if there is one circumstance I rabidly refuse to accept, it is not doing something. If the DM is running a lethal game, he damn well better let you control some NPC, or else let you have your next character jump into the action right away, or something. I don't care how contrived it has to be....but if I'm in some jerk's Doritos-encrusted basement, I damn well better be playing something and not just watching other people play something.

I disagree with the attitude behind this statement. Despite personally going out of my way to ensure dead PCs' players have something to do, I don't think that a mature human being can't find something else to do with their time during the game. If you run out of money in a game of poker with the boys, you sit out. If you lose first in Monopoly, you sit out. Sitting out isn't fun, but socializing and watching the game unfold isn't unreasonable for someone to be expected to do for a bit, even if it is the rest of the session. It certainly isn't on the DM to provide additional entertainment.

MythMage wrote: or cut through certain kinds of magic wards.

Kain Darkwind wrote:Personally, I don't agree. I'd like to be able to play a character to high level without turning him into something out of Dragonball Z.

In fact, I'd like to be able to take a campaign to high level and not be forced to deal with world hopping, planar incursions and what not. I like the idea of being able to play both global and local games, and not automatically assuming either is required for the level.

MythMage wrote:DBZ should never be inspiration for D&D... I was thinking more Chrono Trigger.

Selah wrote:I can imagine, though, a high level fighter being modelled after Lan Mandragoran, instead of DBZ-esque. Incredible skill, toughness, quickness, with a small bit of magic (through the bond and the magic cloak and... possibly a power-wrought sword?). I'm sure people could argue Ranger over Fighter, but the principle I mean is a very high level martial character that isn't dipping too far into supernatural powers.

KingCrazyGenius wrote:So Kain, if Gritty Fighter can't deflect lightning bolts with his sword, it begs the question of what he's better at than the equal level fighter who can deflect lightning bolts.

Urizen wrote:The hit point trigger is an intriguing mechanic....

For spells like finger of death especially I like the idea of using an hp threshold. If you're at 100 hp, you fall to -10. If you're below, you die. Death magic stays death magic on commoners, and lethal without simply dealing large flat amounts on PCs. You get the best of both worlds.

MythMage wrote:This gives me an idea. Would a more supernatural higher-level fighter be considered less obtrusive if he derived his power from getting incredibly good at squeezing every last ounce of potential out of his magical gear, especially weapons? <More good stuff>

Kain Darkwind wrote:

Urizen wrote:The hit point trigger is an intriguing mechanic....

For spells like finger of death especially I like the idea of using an hp threshold. If you're at 100 hp, you fall to -10. If you're below, you die. Death magic stays death magic on commoners, and lethal without simply dealing large flat amounts on PCs. You get the best of both worlds.

The other option is that the spell forces saves. For instance, let's take a 6th level spell like flesh to stone.

What if instead of rolling a single Fort save, you ended up rolling say...three, one per round over the next three rounds? And if you failed two of those three you were petrified, and if you succeeded on two of the three, you were not? Perhaps any round you failed a save, you were staggered.

It avoids making the spells only useful for spamming, avoids making them useless if the one save is passed, and heightens the feeling of needing to save the person before they petrify.

A death spell under this might bestow negative levels or something on failed saves. Powerful spells might have less of a 'countdown', or one that even the one count puts the foe under. For instance, a more powerful flesh to stone spell might paralyze its victim on failed saves rather than stagger it. A death spell might drop a foe to dying on the first failed save and dead on the second, even if the effect continues for 3 or more rounds.

That's another way to vary it. If a spell threatens you for 10 rounds, but three failures will kill/neutralize you, that's worse than a spell threatening you for five rounds and three failures killing you. And a stone to flesh effect that takes place after two failures is more threatening (slightly) than one that allows you three rounds and petrifies you at the end if you fail the majority of your three saves.

In addition, you could allow these spells to be 'concentrated' on by their casters, requiring a standard action, but perhaps inflicting some form of save penalty. A caster could fire and forget a DC 19 flesh to stone spell, or they could concentrate on that target, making the next round DC 20 and last round DC 21. (for example)

I think something like this is superior to strictly using hp.

KingCrazyGenius wrote:Ultimately, I like this a lot.

I think save or die would also benefit from a hit dice/level mechanic as well, so that the Medusa Queen is instantly turning low level PCs and NPCs into stone (if they fail their save), while PCs and NPCs closer to her level get multiple saves to resist the effect.

MythMage wrote:An alternative which also gives much stronger/weaker foes an edge is to say that margins of success or failure are more important in saves. For example, you could say that every 5 or 10 points below failure counts as an extra failure and/or every 5 or 10 points above success counts as an extra round of successes, which would naturally allow commoners to be quickly wiped out and much stronger characters to more or less ignore the threat.

KingCrazyGenius wrote:http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/03/13/save_or_die_ii:_die_and_die_again!

Looks like they are going to give hit point threashold a shot to see how it works.

Coriat wrote:Hm. I never liked the way that was implemented on the Power Word spells, and have generally avoided them when playing spellcasters for that reason. I much prefer a system where when you are over the threshold you suffer a partial effect, rather than one where you become totally immune.

KingCrazyGenius wrote:

Coriat wrote:Hm. I never liked the way that was implemented on the Power Word spells, and have generally avoided them when playing spellcasters for that reason. I much prefer a system where when you are over the threshold you suffer a partial effect, rather than one where you become totally immune.

I'm generally inclined to agree that certain thresholds of effect are the best way to implement effects, even if they take up more word count.