PDA

View Full Version : Update DDO to 4th ed Dying rules immediately



Angelus_dead
03-09-2008, 09:15 PM
The upcoming 4th edition of D&D will feature improved rules for a wounded character becoming incapacitated before dying. There are numerous good reasons for that, which the authors have explained in an article (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080201a&authentic=true) (You might need a subscription to read that) The key advantage of the new system is that it scales up as the character advances (instead of merely scaling down as the enemy advances). The authors have published easy rules to add the new dying system into a 3.5 edition D&D game. DDO should implement that change as soon as possible.

Here are the new rules
When reduced to under 1 hp, you fall down but are still alive if your negative hps are less than 25% of your normal hp total.
Every 10 seconds, roll a stabilization d20 check:
01-10: You bleed. If this happens three times, you die.
11-19: You lay there.
20: You make a heroic recovery effort, and immediately stand up with 25% of your normal hp total.
Any healing spell cast on you brings you to 0 hp for free, then adds the healing. (Thus casting CLW on a barb at -93 will bring him to 7 hp, not -86 hp)
Auto-stabilizing with the Diehard feat or the Warforged race prevents the negative effect of rolling 1-10 on the stabilization check.

Adaptation Notes
Due to the higher hitpoints of DDO characters, it would be reasonable to bring the hp threshold down from 25% to 12.5% or even 10%. (Consider that DDO barbs get 12/level instead of 6.5/level average)
Due to the real time nature of DDO, I suggest that the interval between stabilization checks be reduced to 3 seconds if a character is stabilized. That way, a stable character needs to wait only an average of 60 seconds to stand up, not the 3 minutes it would take otherwise.
I also suggest that Heal checks to save an incap character be given two DCs. The normal, higher DC will restore the victim to 1 hp, while the lower DC will stablize him and prevent death, but not get him immediately back in action.
The Diehard feat would be more fun if, instead of providing auto-stabilization, it instead doubled the amount of negative hitpoints you could survive. (That would make the feat less useful for soloing, but much much more useful for parties, and also give it relevance to Warforged)

Gameplay notes
The change to the negative hp threshold will make it more likely a high-level character survives an enemy attack and can be rescued by something less drastic than a Raise Dead spell, increasing the sense of cooperation and teamwork.
The increased hp threshold will make the Diehard feat much less worthless.
The chance to roll a natural 20 will make it more exciting to "play" an incapacitated character, as you'll eagerly anticipate each new chance to amazingly recover.
A typical 300 hp level 16 character would be incap when between 0 and -75 hp using the 25% threshold, or 0 to -37 hp using the 12.5% threshold. Because the chance to recover doesn't depend on how far negative you are, no incap character will face a longer delay than any other.

Spectralist
03-09-2008, 09:23 PM
I like it.

sirgog
03-09-2008, 09:30 PM
I like it too, although it increases significantly the chance of death when soloing at low level (being dropped to -1hp is something you are fairly likely to survive solo at the moment, under this system you have a roughly 25% chance of living compared to the current roughly 44%).

Another option is to do the following:

Death occurs at negative 20% of HP (or -10 for characters with 49 or less HP).
Stabilisation rolls are a % chance that scales with your Constitution (instead of 10%, just make it 15% for Con 15 etc). On a failure, players take 2 damage not 1 (due to the larger Death's Door, this is roughly equal to the current system at the levels that it matters)
Heal checks DC 15 stabilise a fallen friend, DC 25 gets them up with 1 HP, DC 40 gets them up with 25% HP (can only be used on the incapped).
Heal checks (DC 30) should also restore 1 point of stat damage when someone is incapped due to Str damage or similar.

Ducky
03-09-2008, 09:52 PM
Here I am advocating that all hp totals should be slashed to miniscule levels and you want to make staying alive even easier. Boo :p

Tenkari_Rozahas
03-09-2008, 09:58 PM
nice, but if they start adding specific 4e stuff people will start complaining that everything's not 4e and then they would have to revamp the entire game to convert everything to 4e just because people are afraid to die because it will cost them money instead of XP.

MysticTheurge
03-09-2008, 10:01 PM
There are a lot of 4E rules that I'd love to see incorporated, but most of them would require a major overhaul of the game.

This one though seems like it could be pretty seamlessly integrated into DDO as is.

Pellegro
03-09-2008, 10:23 PM
I just *barely* read the linked article to get the flavor of it, but it seems based on the premise that for higher level chars in a P&P game, death is a really really big deal. They wanted to extend out the period so that you don't necessarily die quite so often.

I guess I'm wondering .... is the same driving force present in an MMO where Rez scrolls can be bought at a vendor? Especially where death has no permanent effect.

Not sure, but it seems like the new rules may just push death off, and instead change a substantial portion of what would now be rezzes (with their somewhat substantial resource investment, plus debuff) into simple CLW wand whips.

Would that be good for the game?

Invalid_86
03-09-2008, 11:13 PM
Here are the new rules
[list] When reduced to under 1 hp, you fall down but are still alive if your negative hps are less than 25% of your normal hp total.


I don't think this would work so well with our bloated hit point totals. A 300 hp DDO character would have to be reduced to -75hp to be outright killed?


There are a lot of 4E rules that I'd love to see incorporated, but most of them would require a major overhaul of the game.

This one though seems like it could be pretty seamlessly integrated into DDO as is.

Indeed. If we are going to go 4th edition lets GO 4th edition, not half @$$ it.

JFeenstra
03-09-2008, 11:52 PM
I don't think this would work so well with our bloated hit point totals. A 300 hp DDO character would have to be reduced to -75hp to be outright killed?or in the case of my barb, -171

Samy
03-10-2008, 12:22 AM
When reduced to under 1 hp, you fall down but are still alive if your negative hps are less than 25% of your normal hp total.
Every 10 seconds, roll a stabilization d20 check:
01-10: You bleed. If this happens three times, you die.
11-19: You lay there.
20: You make a heroic recovery effort, and immediately stand up with 25% of your normal hp total.
Any healing spell cast on you brings you to 0 hp for free, then adds the healing. (Thus casting CLW on a barb at -93 will bring him to 7 hp, not -86 hp)
Auto-stabilizing with the Diehard feat or the Warforged race prevents the negative effect of rolling 1-10 on the stabilization check.
So let's say I have Diehard and 80hp max.

I'm wounded down to 8hp.

It actually benefits me to stab myself in the gut with my longsword for 9hp damage *GURK*, fall down, auto-stabilize (Diehard) and then just wait however long it takes for the natural 20, and I stand up with 20hp (more than the 8hp I had).

Man, people are going to start stabbing themselves a lot to heal themselves. Diehard's gonna be a must-have feat, and after each battle, everybody under 25% hp are going to put a longsword through themselves. Seppuku healing for everyone!

JFeenstra
03-10-2008, 12:30 AM
So let's say I have Diehard and 80hp max.

I'm wounded down to 8hp.

It actually benefits me to stab myself in the gut with my longsword for 9hp damage *GURK*, fall down, auto-stabilize (Diehard) and then just wait however long it takes for the natural 20, and I stand up with 20hp (more than the 8hp I had).

Man, people are going to start stabbing themselves a lot to heal themselves.

if you auto stabilize you don't get to roll to stabilize and will regen as normal, back to 1hp

Samy
03-10-2008, 12:36 AM
So people with Diehard will only get up to 1hp, while people without Diehard will have to roll between dying and getting to 25%hp?

But it said "Auto-stabilizing with the Diehard feat or the Warforged race prevents the negative effect of rolling 1-10 on the stabilization check."

If you're not rolling at all on Diehard, then why would it need to "prevent the negative effect"? To me the wording seems to suggest you're still rolling on Diehard, you just don't suffer the negative effects of 1-10.

JFeenstra
03-10-2008, 12:40 AM
if you are already stable, you can not re-stabilize

diehard makes you stabilize automatically on incap, therefore you can not roll

Samy
03-10-2008, 12:41 AM
But it says "Auto-stabilizing with the Diehard feat or the Warforged race prevents the negative effect of rolling"

JFeenstra
03-10-2008, 01:09 AM
But it says "Auto-stabilizing with the Diehard feat or the Warforged race prevents the negative effect of rolling"

go get incapped with the diehard feat, read your combat log, there's no die rolls for stabilization

studentx
03-10-2008, 01:26 AM
Those new 4e rules look excellent for PnP when dieing and being resurrected would/may reduce your abilities drastically. In an MMO environment not so much, not unless death came with the disadvantages it does in PnP.

Samy
03-10-2008, 03:27 AM
go get incapped with the diehard feat, read your combat log, there's no die rolls for stabilization

So DDO has already implemented the new rules the original post delineated? I didn't realize that.

Emili
03-10-2008, 04:33 AM
or in the case of my barb, -171

Aye it would seem to me it would only allow high HP characters the advantage of having an equivalent to diehard. To make it even less challenging the mob rarely use coup de gras as many a monster or player would in PnP. Obviuously fighting an animal type the animal will start to eat the PC... while an intelligent creature type would opt to make sure the deed is one and done at the end of a battle... we rarely have that here in DDO.

Lifespawn
03-10-2008, 10:06 AM
i almost always get finished off when incapped and if a friendly comes in sight of me incap body they kill me first not even with ranged weapon they just slash at me then go after the friendly.

Angelus_dead
03-10-2008, 10:10 AM
So let's say I have Diehard and 80hp max.
I'm wounded down to 8hp.
It actually benefits me to stab myself in the gut with my longsword for 9hp damage *GURK*, fall down, auto-stabilize (Diehard) and then just wait however long it takes for the natural 20, and I stand up with 20hp (more than the 8hp I had).
That is completely false.
First, wounding yourself to incap would create a significant chance you'll bleed to death, unless you had spent a feat on Diehard. Spending a feat on some minor amount of slow healing is not valuable.
Second, even if you were guaranteed not to bleed to death, the time it would take for you to recover from incap would be, on average, more than a minute. Taking multiple minutes of doing nothing just to regain twelve hitpoints more than you had is not an effective use of time.

To say "By spending a feat and minutes of time I can get the benefit of two CLW potions which only work if I'm under 25% hitpoints" is not at all overpowered. CLW pots aren't some rare and amazing thing.

Additionally, as already covered in the original post, the DDO version of these rules could easily reduce the 25% level down to 12% or 10% or something.

Angelus_dead
03-10-2008, 10:11 AM
So DDO has already implemented the new rules the original post delineated? I didn't realize that.
No, not at all. Not even close.

Angelus_dead
03-10-2008, 10:12 AM
I don't think this would work so well with our bloated hit point totals. A 300 hp DDO character would have to be reduced to -75hp to be outright killed?
That was already addressed in the original post.

esoitl
03-10-2008, 10:13 AM
sounds stupid to me

whatever happened to the 2nd ed rules that actually made sense and didn't require updating for how long???
to be honest everything past 2nd is fairly useless



was it really that hard to have more than 3 saving throws??
not to mention combat..... hmmmm subtract a couple or add up 10 to find if you hit



don't even get me started on having every class have the same XP table

*sigh*



i would hate to see anything 4th be put into DDO

Angelus_dead
03-10-2008, 10:22 AM
sounds stupid to me

whatever happened to the 2nd ed rules that actually made sense and didn't require updating for how long???
to be honest everything past 2nd is fairly useless
Nope. The 2nd edition rules were really stupid in many major ways. You can easily find lists on the internet.

It wasn't as big a problem back then, because in those days people didn't follow the rules very closely. The DM constantly used his imagination about all kinds of things, including fundamentals such as allowable actions in a combat round. Today, expectations are higher. More players want to use the RAW exactly.



was it really that hard to have more than 3 saving throws??
No, it wasn't hard... just stupid. Multiple saves for poison, death, wands, spells, rods, petrification... that's bad game design. It has NO verisimiltude at all.

The D&D 3rd edition system where you can judge "Oh, a rogue, he's probably good against fireball spells" and "Oh, a sorcerer, probably Charm Person won't work" is just enormously better than rules which give ALL spells (except death or petrification) the same save.


don't even get me started on having every class have the same XP table
The 2nd edition XP tables were bizarrely stupid, particularly if you had anyone who MULTICLASSED.

MysticTheurge
03-10-2008, 10:33 AM
...and then just wait however long it takes for the natural 20

In addition to Angelus_Dead's point here, if you look at it from the D&D perspective, it'd also be a remarkably dumb thing to do most of the time.

When you're unconscious, you're helpless. I don't know the exact rules for D&D 4E in this regard, but I can't imaging sitting around unconscious in anything even remotely like a dangerous place is a good idea.

Zuldar
03-10-2008, 10:41 AM
Nope. The 2nd edition rules were really stupid in many major ways. You can easily find lists on the internet.

It wasn't as big a problem back then, because in those days people didn't follow the rules very closely. The DM constantly used his imagination about all kinds of things, including fundamentals such as allowable actions in a combat round. Today, expectations are higher. More players want to use the RAW exactly.



No, it wasn't hard... just stupid. Multiple saves for poison, death, wands, spells, rods, petrification... that's bad game design. It has NO verisimiltude at all.

The D&D 3rd edition system where you can judge "Oh, a rogue, he's probably good against fireball spells" and "Oh, a sorcerer, probably Charm Person won't work" is just enormously better than rules which give ALL spells (except death or petrification) the same save.


The 2nd edition XP tables were bizarrely stupid, particularly if you had anyone who MULTICLASSED.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

esoitl
03-10-2008, 10:48 AM
Nope. The 2nd edition rules were really stupid in many major ways. You can easily find lists on the internet.

It wasn't as big a problem back then, because in those days people didn't follow the rules very closely. The DM constantly used his imagination about all kinds of things, including fundamentals such as allowable actions in a combat round. Today, expectations are higher. More players want to use the RAW exactly.



No, it wasn't hard... just stupid. Multiple saves for poison, death, wands, spells, rods, petrification... that's bad game design. It has NO verisimiltude at all.

The D&D 3rd edition system where you can judge "Oh, a rogue, he's probably good against fireball spells" and "Oh, a sorcerer, probably Charm Person won't work" is just enormously better than rules which give ALL spells (except death or petrification) the same save.


The 2nd edition XP tables were bizarrely stupid, particularly if you had anyone who MULTICLASSED.

hmmm.... a role playing game that actually encouraged imagination..... what a terrible thing
sure the rules were never followed to a tee at all times but if you get the core of them down and aren't breaking machanics so what if the DM or players use some creativity to stretch some things to suit the needs


multiple saves..... gee thats a terrible idea, cause you know how avoiding a fireball and a spike trap is the same thing
diversity is never a bad thing.... how hard is it to incorporate 3 extra numbers in a chart

multi-classing was NOT hard if you can follow some simple rules

XP is split between classes, which makes much more sense as a dual classed character should not advance the same as a single classed character


the rules were very easy to follow if you can read and apply some simple logic
maybe the 3rd Ed. suits you better or maybe i'm just a bit old school but to me none of those issues you raised ever caused any problems in any caimpaign i ever ran

back in the day the rule books were no more than 50 pages long, IMO the way it should be: a basic guildine to introduce some core mechanics with the rest left to your own creativity, after all it is a game based upon your own mind not a giant book to be a stickler to

esoitl
03-10-2008, 10:50 AM
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

you are wrong, give me 2nd ed. any day over 3rd

Angelus_dead
03-10-2008, 10:58 AM
multiple saves..... gee thats a terrible idea, cause you know how avoiding a fireball and a spike trap is the same thing
Uh, a fireball is a lot more like a hand grenade than like Charm Person.


back in the day the rule books were no more than 50 pages long, IMO the way it should be: a basic guildine to introduce some core mechanics with the rest left to your own creativity, after all it is a game based upon your own mind not a giant book to be a stickler to
The ability of players to get by without accurately following a rulebook says nothing good about the quality of those rules.

Hey hey- Magic Missile with a sixty second casting time!

esoitl
03-10-2008, 11:04 AM
The ability of players to get by without accurately following a rulebook says nothing good about the quality of those rules.

Hey hey- Magic Missile with a sixty second casting time!

i'll say again, use your imagination for once like the game is supposed to
sure, 60 secs is waaaay too long to be casting but if you level that for both sides whats the issue?


sorry to be getting off topic but i think 4th ed is getting ridiculous, you can only change rules so often
i've never found anything hard about 2nd ed. and it worked great IMO

MysticTheurge
03-10-2008, 11:07 AM
sure the rules were never followed to a tee at all times

multi-classing was NOT hard if you can follow some simple rules

the rules were very easy to follow if you can read and apply some simple logic

a basic guildine to introduce some core mechanics with the rest left to your own creativity

Why would you want rules where you have to fill in all the gaps?

I mean, you even contradict yourself here: "Multi-classing isn't hard if you follow the rules (that you have to make up yourself)."

I mean, everyone's going to House Rule stuff to one degree or another, but it's far better to have a core set of rules that work, make sense, and can be played without modification if people want to.

Angelus_dead
03-10-2008, 11:07 AM
sure, 60 secs is waaaay too long to be casting but if you level that for both sides whats the issue?
Oh sure, if you go ahead and change the rules, it is fine. But needing to change something is not a way to convince people they're "good rules". That's simple logic.

esoitl
03-10-2008, 11:15 AM
Why would you want rules where you have to fill in all the gaps?

I mean, you even contradict yourself here: "Multi-classing isn't hard if you follow the rules (that you have to make up yourself)."

I mean, everyone's going to House Rule stuff to one degree or another, but it's far better to have a core set of rules that work, make sense, and can be played without modification if people want to.

see now, did i ever say that you change multiclassing??


put words in my mouth and argue that against me, solid one MT and frankly i'd expect more from someone i consider a good poster here



did i ever say i change things completely from the books?? no
as i say, you use imagination and modify things that you don't see proper(like the casting time issue)

you people can have the **** that they put out nowadays and enjoy it all you want, i'll continue PnPing with whats IMO the better system

MysticTheurge
03-10-2008, 11:19 AM
did i ever say i change things completely from the books?? no

No. But you did say you have to fill in the gaps, or make up the rules as you go, or change things so they work.

How is the average person supposed to know when they're supposed to "Follow the rules" and when they're supposed to "Make them up"?

cdbd3rd
03-10-2008, 11:25 AM
/Looks from one side to the other...:confused:

Really arguing about what edition is better? /Hides his 1st edition books. Whatever works for each group to have fun, that's the only real issue.

BTW - game is back up. :o:D

esoitl
03-10-2008, 11:29 AM
No. But you did say you have to fill in the gaps, or make up the rules as you go, or change things so they work.

How is the average person supposed to know when they're supposed to "Follow the rules" and when they're supposed to "Make them up"?
this isn't even justifying responses anymore

i never said i tear the books up, you're arguing fluff and basically making up what my argument was
the multi classing(and leveling too) is more realistic than anthing in DDO and 3rd as well

i even said it made more sense and isn't hard at all - why would you try to argue that i said you just make up how it worked??


the main changes from the books we ever made were casting times and certain equip/encumberance things
it's super annoying to have all your equip and add up the weights and then check encumberance and all that junk so we used a very basic system and allowed the DM to give discretion on things like that
some encounters we never went fully by the rules and in fact hardly read some of those sections because it's a lot more fun to make up character reactions instead of rolling tables and such

it's not like we would let pally's(which, along with rangers, ought to have some basic stat req's which 3rd omitted from 2nd) run around and pillage villages in their spare time

the 'stickler' rules got altered not the core

esoitl
03-10-2008, 11:30 AM
/Looks from one side to the other...:confused:

Really arguing about what edition is better? /Hides his 1st edition books. Whatever works for each group to have fun, that's the only real issue.

BTW - game is back up. :o:D

i still have and enjoy 1st ed ;)
you have to expand beyond having elf and dwarf as a class though... thats a bit too primitive

Mad_Bombardier
03-10-2008, 12:08 PM
Additionally, as already covered in the original post, the DDO version of these rules could easily reduce the 25% level down to 12% or 10% or something.With the HP numbers we have in-game, it'd have to be 5% tops.

Heladron
03-10-2008, 01:02 PM
you are wrong, give me 2nd ed. any day over 3rd

I know it's only personal opinion here, but 3e and 3.5 makes game play so much faster. That keeps you in the story longer since the dice rules have been simplified. The spell DC formula is easy to remember and so are traps and all the other stuff. The 3e and 3.5e really keep your head in the game instead of in the rule book or DM screen.

As for the new death thing, I tend to be with some of the others. Having 600HP would give a person virtually 749HP (I'm assuming the less than 25% means something like 25% - 1) which is insane. For one it's just sick since now those monsters that could just give you a quick whack to finish you off now have to hack on you for a while to get the job done.

Some parts of the death rules are interesting from a PnP perspective, but I don't think they'd work too well in DDO. Although, incorporating more D20 rolls is always welcome to me. The more you can tie the game to the D20 the better.

Yaga_Nub
03-10-2008, 01:18 PM
hmmm.... a role playing game that actually encouraged imagination..... what a terrible thing
sure the rules were never followed to a tee at all times but if you get the core of them down and aren't breaking machanics so what if the DM or players use some creativity to stretch some things to suit the needs


you are wrong, give me 2nd ed. any day over 3rd

Agreed and agreed. 3.0 and 3.5 are way to heavy on rules for me. This has bred the "rules lawyers" and has lessened RP because of the constant need to check a rule. I tried it for a while and didn't like it. I'll try 4.0 and see if it's changed.

EDIT: I just read the post above this one and it's funny that one person sees 3.0 and 3.5 as speeding up the game and one doesn't. I have to ask this as an example - How does rolling a crit and then rolling for confirmation of that crit speed up the game compared to the old way of just rolling a crit with no confirmation?

MysticTheurge
03-10-2008, 01:21 PM
Agreed and agreed. 3.0 and 3.5 are way to heavy on rules for me. This has bred the "rules lawyers" and has lessened RP because of the constant need to check a rule. I tried it for a while and didn't like it. I'll try 4.0 and see if it's changed.

A DM who was going to make up rules to keep the game running smoothly in second edition will probably still do the same thing in third edition (unless, because the rules are simpler, he just knows what the rule is off the top of his head).

A DM who is going to spend a long time looking up rules in third edition, was going to do the same thing in second edition (only it would probably take longer since chances are there wasn't actually a rule for it and so after looking for five to ten minutes he'd end up having to make one up anyway).

If you perceive that there are more people who want to "follow the rules" in third edition that's probably largely because those people simply didn't play D&D back under the second edition rules because they were too frustrating, convoluted and hard to learn/use.

Riggs
03-10-2008, 01:36 PM
Having the death threshhold as a percentage of hp is a good idea. DDO however has a high amount of hp overall, and especially dwarf barbs say. So a lower threshold than 25% as was suggested in the OP should cover it fine.

-150 is pretty high. -30 to -50 is maybe not out of bounds. 10% of hp would give some reasonable numbers, while at the same time not forcing everyone into the same -10 slot. Also makes the prospect of getting a downed ally up much easier than just 'use some res scrolls'.

It would be a good change, and probably not too hard to implement.

Arguing about adding in every single new rule to the game is not really productive or practical.

Heladron
03-10-2008, 01:47 PM
Agreed and agreed. 3.0 and 3.5 are way to heavy on rules for me. This has bred the "rules lawyers" and has lessened RP because of the constant need to check a rule. I tried it for a while and didn't like it. I'll try 4.0 and see if it's changed.

EDIT: I just read the post above this one and it's funny that one person sees 3.0 and 3.5 as speeding up the game and one doesn't. I have to ask this as an example - How does rolling a crit and then rolling for confirmation of that crit speed up the game compared to the old way of just rolling a crit with no confirmation?

I'll elaborate a little bit about this.

I think the D20 stack for critical and instant death is pretty cool. First roll of 20 equals hit. If next roll hits then you do damage x multiplier. If that second roll is a 20 however you get to roll again for a heroic instant kill. That can be quite fun and all it requires you to do it make additional die rolls. Part of the fun of the game is the die rolls. Kids love rolling dice and so do adults. Except now, you know you hit with the 20, but now you're adding rolls for dramatic effect. Plus it buys time to create that spectacular narrative while the dice are being thrown.

Another example of how 3e simplifies things, spells having a DC based on 10 + spell level + attribute modifier. It's a simple rule of thumb that keeps your head out of the books during game play. You basically know the DC for any spell a monster or character is going to cast.

It's rules of thumb like that that make the game play faster.

The AC rules make the 3e games faster. You don't need to remember a THAC0 chart, all you have to do is remember that rolling a D20 and adding your modifiers needs to be >= the defenders AC. Very simple and makes the game faster for everyone since it can be summed up simply. Sure the THAC0 box on a character sheet was simple math too, but you had to look it up to adjust it vs. just remember a simple rule based on D20.

Leveling is easier to manage from a DM stand point. If you have certain goals for your campaign you can create the encounters to ensure that the game and characters progresses the way you intend it to a lot easier since you know every class is using the same scale.

Personally, I've found that I can pare down the rules a lot easier with 3e and higher than I could with the AD&D line.

Currently I'm teaching the game to my nieces and nephews, who range from 12-25. It's important to keep everyones attention and I've managed to incorporate a lot of story with a nice balance of dice play, without going rule crazy on all of them.

Overall I think D&D needs to start to pare down it's rule books. But that is my opinion since I simplify the game to fit my audience. We seem to have a good time together so that's what is really important. If you can do that with 2e then wonderful. The D&D game has been providing fun for me for 25 years and counting, but the past 4+ years have been a lot easier for me since I made the step to 3.5 rules.

MysticTheurge
03-10-2008, 01:49 PM
As another possibility:

HP gained from enhancements don't count for your 10% (or 25% or whatever).

Or even just make it 25% of base HPs, not con mod, not enhancements, not greater false life items. Just a quarter of your base.

MysticTheurge
03-10-2008, 01:51 PM
How does rolling a crit and then rolling for confirmation of that crit speed up the game compared to the old way of just rolling a crit with no confirmation?

It doesn't. That's why 4E is doing away with confirmations. ;)

Invalid_86
03-10-2008, 01:53 PM
That was already addressed in the original post.

Even if you dropped it from 25% to 10% of your original hps that is still alot of hps in this game.

Heladron
03-10-2008, 01:56 PM
It doesn't. That's why 4E is doing away with confirmations. ;)

Ahhhh! But now I have to come up with the gory details of a spectacular critical hit in milliseconds vs. the seconds when the players are rolling dice.

How are they going to handle the instant kill rule? Just curious.

Invalid_86
03-10-2008, 01:57 PM
Agreed and agreed. 3.0 and 3.5 are way to heavy on rules for me. This has bred the "rules lawyers" and has lessened RP because of the constant need to check a rule. I tried it for a while and didn't like it. I'll try 4.0 and see if it's changed.


Did you play 1st edition? You basically had to be a rules lawyer just to figure out how to play the game.

God rest Gygax's soul, he was a great idea man but a horribly disorganized writer. Go back and look at the 1st edition DMG again with fresh eyes- it was about as organized as a written the night before it was due term paper, while hung over and sucking down three Red Bulls.

MysticTheurge
03-10-2008, 01:58 PM
How are they going to handle the instant kill rule?

Um... I think you made that rule up.

Angelus_dead
03-10-2008, 02:03 PM
Um... I think you made that rule up.
The rule about three natural 20s producing a super-critical instant-kill is not his invention. It is a moderately widespread house rule (which happens to be bad for gameplay).

MysticTheurge
03-10-2008, 02:08 PM
The rule about three natural 20s producing a super-critical instant-kill is not his invention. It is a moderately widespread house rule.

Ah, yes. Perhaps, "I don't think that's actually part of the rules" or "I think that rule was made up by someone who did not officially write the D&D 3.5 rules" would've been more accurate than "I think you made that rule up" but neither had quite the same ring.

Heladron
03-10-2008, 02:12 PM
Um... I think you made that rule up.

I did no such thing. It's in the 3e DMs guide. Can't quote a page number for you, but I believe it's in the game play section. I thought it was an interesting rule so I've incorporated it in my games because it adds spice to an already fun situation and again buys me time to think up a descriptive critical hit without saying the same junk over and over due to lack of time.

It's when you roll a 20 on your confirm critical roll it results in instant death threat, which must then be confirmed as well. It's probably one of those rule suggestions that they throw in from time to time in the PHB and DMG. But trust me it is in the DMs guide. I've tried to find references on the web, but they don't have exact DMG quotes.

EDIT: I found the rule. It's on Page 64 of DMG 3e. It's on the right hand side of the page under Variant: Instant Kill.

Angelus_dead
03-10-2008, 02:14 PM
Ah, yes. Perhaps, "I don't think that's actually part of the rules"
Also notice that the triple-20 rule is actually close to a widely disregarded D&D 3.5 rule: Death from massive damage

When a high level fighter makes a critical hit, he's likely to inflict over 50 damage at once (a Power Attack Scythe makes it a certainty). By the official rules, that should force the victim to make a fortitude save or instantly die. The fort DC is 15, which high level monsters will pass on anything but a natural 1.

Therefore, a 5% chance of instant death following a crit is approximately the same whether it's an official rule, or a house rule. (The difference with the house rule is that 50 damage from a Cone of Cold or Harm won't also threaten instant death)

MysticTheurge
03-10-2008, 02:16 PM
It's probably one of those rule suggestions that they throw in from time to time in the PHB and DMG.

Ah, well I suppose that's possible.

Anyway, for more on 4E crits and why damage multiplication (and by extension instant-death hits) are bad, there's this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080104) at WotC.

Heladron
03-10-2008, 02:34 PM
Ah, well I suppose that's possible.

Anyway, for more on 4E crits and why damage multiplication (and by extension instant-death hits) are bad, there's this article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20080104) at WotC.

Interesting article. That is going to make game play much faster and I guess I better start creating a bunch of fill in the blank critical hit descriptions or I'm going to be slowing down the game going ummmmmmmmmmmm..."some gorey description of the death." LOL.

Dice maxing criticals is definitely a 4E rule that wouldn't go over well in DDO.