Power of classes (Realism vs. Filling unlimited power)

[Lephys]

^ So, basically, we need a thread about inflatable pools? o_O

 

. I jest. *Jest... jest jest*

[TrashMan]

True, it works with mount&blade... I guess that's because the player in that game has direct control over combat, which gives you the ability of not being hit at all. If every peasant had a 1 in 20 chance to ignore your parry, it would just feel unfair.

 

HP inflation is a rather important point imho, since it also leads to things like disarming traps barbarian style and tends to devalue purely damage based magic. Maybe we should split this off into another, more specific thread? This one is totally fubared after all those pages discussing aragorn or dragons, nobody will find it here =P

 

 

How my mod played was simple:

 

A high dex, light armor fighter would rarely get hit, but it would hurt.

A full plate warrior (armor did give a small dex penalty an speed reduction) would be hit more often, but for minimal damage.

 

In the above scenario, those pesants would be giving you 1-2 damage. So they could technicly still kill you in numbers, using the "death of a thousand cuts" approach.

 

 

And 20 pesants attacking you all at once and you not being able ot parry all? How is that unfair? You only got two hands and two eyes. Your sword/shield can't cover every part of your body from every angle at the same time.

[TrashMan]

@Trashman

Thanks for the information. I've actually assumed you've implemented some of hardcore system where every character gets only 20-30 HP. Might have even worked that way considering you already introduced damage-absorbing armor. 

 

 

I'm not crazy enough to go fully-realistic HP (die from 1-2 hits) in a game with multiple characters.

Such systems can work in a game where you only have 1 character to worry about or where you have direct control (for example, ARMA or Operation Flashpoint - a single bullet can kill you).

But in games where the players attention has to be divided between several character, you generally want to give the player a safety net and enough time to spot a problem and react to it. Extra HP is that net.

So instead of a character dying to one good sword strike, he might take 5. Of course, one shouldn't go too over hte top with this too, otherwise the characters start feeling like HP sponges.

 

 

Once I get back home on friday I'll check to see if I still have the old mod, but frankly I doubt it.

[general_azure]

 

True, it works with mount&blade... I guess that's because the player in that game has direct control over combat, which gives you the ability of not being hit at all. If every peasant had a 1 in 20 chance to ignore your parry, it would just feel unfair.

 

 

And 20 pesants attacking you all at once and you not being able ot parry all? How is that unfair? You only got two hands and two eyes. Your sword/shield can't cover every part of your body from every angle at the same time.

 

The difference between every peasant having a 1 in 20 chance of ignoring parries and being attacked by 20 peasants all at once is vast and in between there lie broken games.

 

Just try mount&blade and you'll see what I mean =p

[JOG]

Every P&P setting has a certain character level where the characters are supposed to retire and become NPCs. High level campaigns are supposed to be epic events that shake the whole gameworld, and as such they need to be rare, otherwise one could begin to wonder why the epic hordes of doom haven't conquered the world a couple of weeks ago when the heroes were still preparing to solve the local inkeeper's rat problem.

 

I'd rather have a slow pace like in the Realms of Arcania series or the old SSI Gold box games, than a campain where you can't play half an hour without leveling up. At some point it simply gets ridiculous. When there are half a dozen of liches, a beholder-city and a mindflayer-base all within one city, one has to wonder how that city could survive before <charname> arrived.

 

 

If your think your BG or NWN2 characters were epic, look at these

 

Ioulaum, undead elder brain (human, "died" aged 2900) the mastermind behind ancient Netheril, creator of the Alhoon, current age 4600. Level 41

 

Larloch, lich (human, "died" aged 300) the only Wizard permitted to cast 11th level spells at will. One of the few liches who survived the Spellplaque, current age 2000, Level 31

 

Elminster, human, chosen and occasionally lover of the goddess of magic. current age 1100, Level 26

 

 

Compared to the true epic characters of the setting, our 18 year old level 50 characters that travelled the world for almost half a year, are just silly.

Edited February 21, 2013 by JOG

[Iucounu]

@JFSOCC:

But in the end, it's stamina that decides how much damage you can take in a fight. So what would be the difference to mere HP inflation? Or is there something I don't get?

 

@TrashMan

Depends. If for example you wear a Full Plate Mail that grants you 10 points damage-reduction you could easily hold yourself against foes who strike for 7-12 damage/hit. Of course against a dragon who does 30 damage-points in a hit, you would be ****ed. But that's realistic, right?

Only problem I see with that is to balance it out with light-armored fighters and magic spells. But in the case of magic, I have no problem if it's overpowered. I always found it dull if I've needed 5 lighting bolts to kill an opponent. Makes magic look so unspectacular. I'd rather have the option to dodge or even parry damage-spells fully or partially, than just to let characters withstand it through hardiness. Similiar to NWN with monks and rogues.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Iucounu

[Gfted1]

@JFSOCC: But in the end, it's stamina that decides how much damage you can take in a fight. So what would be the difference to mere HP inflation? Or is there something I don't get?

Thats not entirely the case. Both your Stamina and Health will be reduced with every successful attack against you, so 95% of the time. Only Stamina regenerates and to regain Health you have to go somewhere and sleep it off. So it will be a common occurance that you will be at full Stamina and low Health, alllowing the next attack to kill you.

[TrashMan]

 

 

True, it works with mount&blade... I guess that's because the player in that game has direct control over combat, which gives you the ability of not being hit at all. If every peasant had a 1 in 20 chance to ignore your parry, it would just feel unfair.

 

 

And 20 pesants attacking you all at once and you not being able ot parry all? How is that unfair? You only got two hands and two eyes. Your sword/shield can't cover every part of your body from every angle at the same time.

 

The difference between every peasant having a 1 in 20 chance of ignoring parries and being attacked by 20 peasants all at once is vast and in between there lie broken games.

 

Just try mount&blade and you'll see what I mean =p

 

 

I know what you are aiming at (implying that you can avoid all damage from that one pesant in M&B, but here fighting agaisnt 1 and he'll still have 1/20 chance to hit you) - but I don't really see it as a problem.

Luck is always a factor in combat, and the idea that you can always parry just because the enemy is "lower level" is kinda silly. No one is that perfect.

 

[Ulquiorra]

I know what you are aiming at (implying that you can avoid all damage from that one pesant in M&B, but here fighting agaisnt 1 and he'll still have 1/20 chance to hit you) - but I don't really see it as a problem.

 

Luck is always a factor in combat, and the idea that you can always parry just because the enemy is "lower level" is kinda silly. No one is that perfect.

 

I maount&blade i remember "turnaments" or arena. There were to type of fights there first was 30 wariors everyone on everywon. and second trournaments where you have fight liki "1 on 1", "2 on 2", "3 on 3, 3 on 3 on 3" and even "12 on 12 on 12 on 12" if i remember coretly.

 

in this kind of fights you can kill bare hand 20 or more wariors (if atacking right) but then if you get surounded by 2-3 wariors an when atack you then you guard is down you can die in 4-5 blows .... that was hilarius ...

 

But this kind of system (i mean real realistic) can't be aplaied when you have dragons, magic, godlikes etc.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[TrashMan]

 

But this kind of system (i mean real realistic) can't be aplaied when you have dragons, magic, godlikes etc.

 

If you want to strangle dragons with your bare hands - no.

 

Otherwise, it can.

[Lephys]

Name: Ilandel Stormwinter.

 

Occupation: Dragon Strangler.

 

"Excuse me... did you mean to put "wrangler" here? I mean, that still seems doubtful, but...

 

"... Nope. *glaaaaarrrreee*..."

 

 

Oooh, ooh! If you're a Druid, you could do it with your bear hands.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Lephys

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Because reality is always the starting point. Unless specificly stated that X works differently, you look to the real world.

 

No it isn't. People are not the same in the PE setting as they are in the real world. They are able to call upon the power of their souls to accomplish amazing(would easily be considered supernatural in real world) feats. Something can be true in the PE world without being specifically stated, because there may be no in-setting way of stating "X works differently here than in the real world" because they will have no knowledge of the real world.

And becaue I usually don't like fantasy that is too fantastical.

 

Then you are seriously arguing for realism in the wrong game. PE is possibly even more fantastical(judging by the lore presented) than the majority of D&D settings.

And suspension of disbelief is dictated by believability. So you do have to have it. Of course, SOME people can completely shut down disbelief and can immerse themselves in everything, but that's certanly not the majority.

 

You have to put reality away to believe half the stuff that is happening in PE. Believing that someone can become harder to kill as they gain experience and master their soul is easily not the most unbelievable aspect in PE.

If that is what everyone is doing, then you got no more leg to stand on than me. I got as much right to push for my vision of a perfect game/mechanics as you have, and so far you havn't supplied a single argument as to why the mechanic can't work other than you don't like it.

You mean other than your proposal would make it hard to have balanced combat and would likely result in a) tedious low-level combat, b) unbalanced high-level combat, and/or c) reliance on resist x damage feats or items. To which you replied by stating I was incompetent at balancing and lacked imagination, but failed to show a system(with around 6-th level D&D spells) where your proposal works? 

 

Look...

I'm tired to debating with you, because it's going nowhere. You and I have different ideas what makes the core of an IE game (or should I say, the soul/spirit of it).

You seem to think that spiritual sucessor of an IE game MUST be mechanicly the same in every way (even tough the devs already made some big changes..like the magic system..that's a bigger change than what I propose).

I don't. To me, the spirit of the IE games doesn't lie soley in the mechanics...there's always room for improvement and I want it.

 

Funny, I didn't say that "a spiritual successor must be mechanically the same as the IE games" I did point out that your claim that your proposed mechanic was not that different from what was in the IE games was false. I've explained that to you several times. I've even stated that the IE games had extremely flawed mechanics.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

If it fits the lore of the setting, yes.

While in some cases it this might be interesting, familiarity is still a big factor. And because we're generally most familiar with reality, a fantasy world must always uphold a certain degree of realism if it's supposed to be appealing. The most successful fantasy settings are those with worlds where basic physical laws like gravity apply, and with humans as protagonists, not insectoids. Of course tastes may differ on how familiar a certain setting is supposed to be, and it might be possible to adapt to even the strangest scenarios after a while. But we're talking about a game that's supposed to resemble the IE games. And while there is magic in these games, there is still a world outside of magic, which is similiar to the real world. If this wouldn't be the case for PE, it would be completely different from any IE game, and practically almost every other fantasy setting. 

 

Believability has more to do with logical coherence of a setting and a story I think.

 

 

Yes, but is having HP being tied to level and class as unbelievable in a world where people can tap in to the power of their souls to accomplish amazing feats as people eating out of their noses and walking on their hands?

 

My point was that the reality of the setting is what is important in determining what is logical, not the reality of the real world.

[wpmaura]

As long as there is no japanese anime style over the top attacks I am good, and as well as there being a pure fighter class that has no magic.

[TrashMan]

 

No it isn't.

 

Yes it is.

 

 

You have to put reality away to believe half the stuff that is happening in PE. Believing that someone can become harder to kill as they gain experience and master their soul is easily not the most unbelievable aspect in PE.

 

No it isn't.

 

HP increase is not only bad mechanics, it's also bad lore.

"But it's magic" as an axcuse for everything always has and always will be bad.

 

 

 

You mean other than your proposal would make it hard to have balanced combat and would likely result in a) tedious low-level combat, b) unbalanced high-level combat, and/or c) reliance on resist x damage feats or items. To which you replied by stating I was incompetent at balancing and lacked imagination, but failed to show a system(with around 6-th level D&D spells) where your proposal works?

 

Other way around.

My proposal would make combat EASIER to balance.

You haven't proved it would suffer from any of the problems you mentioned - and you can't prove it b.t.w.

 

Funny, I didn't say that "a spiritual successor must be mechanically the same as the IE games" I did point out that your claim that your proposed mechanic was not that different from what was in the IE games was false[/qutoe]

 

And I already said that I disagreed with you, so why do you keep bringing it up?

[Lephys]

 

 

Because reality is always the starting point. Unless specificly stated that X works differently, you look to the real world.

 

No it isn't. People are not the same in the PE setting as they are in the real world. They are able to call upon the power of their souls to accomplish amazing(would easily be considered supernatural in real world) feats. Something can be true in the PE world without being specifically stated, because there may be no in-setting way of stating "X works differently here than in the real world" because they will have no knowledge of the real world.

 

 

I believe what Trashman means is that the starting basis for a fantasy world is the real world. i.e. Here's a world, with ground and sky and people who breath air, and there's physics, etc. NOW, let's add in magic and change what needs to be. Let's make some other amendments to the nature of this world. Let's add in a race that doesn't exist (but is still based on facets of real-life humanity). Etc.

 

I don't know of anyone who starts with 100% non-realistic stuff, then works backwards to tie it into our reality so that our realistic human brains can actually feel an affinity for it.

 

That's pretty much the sole reason our fantasy worlds need verisimilitude. Without it, the entire world/lore would not be at all... intuitive, for lack of a better word.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

Because reality is always the starting point. Unless specificly stated that X works differently, you look to the real world.

 

No it isn't. People are not the same in the PE setting as they are in the real world. They are able to call upon the power of their souls to accomplish amazing(would easily be considered supernatural in real world) feats. Something can be true in the PE world without being specifically stated, because there may be no in-setting way of stating "X works differently here than in the real world" because they will have no knowledge of the real world.

 

 

I believe what Trashman means is that the starting basis for a fantasy world is the real world. i.e. Here's a world, with ground and sky and people who breath air, and there's physics, etc. NOW, let's add in magic and change what needs to be. Let's make some other amendments to the nature of this world. Let's add in a race that doesn't exist (but is still based on facets of real-life humanity). Etc.

 

I don't know of anyone who starts with 100% non-realistic stuff, then works backwards to tie it into our reality so that our realistic human brains can actually feel an affinity for it.

 

That's pretty much the sole reason our fantasy worlds need verisimilitude. Without it, the entire world/lore would not be at all... intuitive, for lack of a better word.

 

 

Trashman is saying that of X isn't explicitly stated, then it is the same as the real world. Which isn't true. In the D&D settings, it isn't ever explicitly stated that people get harder to kill as they become more powerful, but it happens. In fantasy settings there are both explicit rules and implied rules that may differ from the real world.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Yes it is.

No it isn't. Real World laws do not determine how the PE universe operates, the PE universe laws do.

 

No it isn't.

So you have an easier time believing in mind control, various magical creatures, and soul powers being common place than in someone getting more powerful as they gain more power over their soul?

 

HP increase is not only bad mechanics, it's also bad lore.

Other than "I don't like it" or "It doesn't make sense using real world laws" how?

"But it's magic" as an axcuse for everything always has and always will be bad.

How is attributing supernatural abilities to supernatural power bad?

 

Other way around.

My proposal would make combat EASIER to balance.

You haven't shown any evidence to support that claim. You haven't pointed to one system(with the equivalent of 5-th level D&D spells) where it has worked. You haven't explained how your system would accommodate increasing powers of spells and soul powers and still keep level 1 foes a legitimate threat.

You haven't proved it would suffer from any of the problems you mentioned - and you can't prove it b.t.w.

 

Yes I can.

 

Unbalanced High-Level combat and reliance on resist X damage equipment/talents:

Assuming the starting HP will allow a character to survive about 5 good sword hits(the amount you said your mod allowed).

Good sword hit= 6-8 damage, HP= 30-40.

At level 10, casters would be throwing around fireballs that deal 10-60 damage. On average, the party would be killed by just two castings of the spell, or enemy attacks after the spell has been cast. Sneak attacks would deal 6-36 damage, so rogues could ambush the party and kill them before they had a chance to react. Pretty much any high-level encounter would kill the entire party within 3 actions, unless they were equipped with resit X damage items or possessed resist X damage talents.

 

Tedious low-level combat:

HP starts at higher values to avoid characters dying quickly at later levels.

Lets say about 100 HP.

Enemies take at least thirteen good hits to take down, assuming max damage would be dealt and they were unarmored. Armored(who would probably make up the majority of foes) enemies would take longer, especially if you were not dealing max damage with each blow. Taking in to account that half the hits would likely be grazes, killing one foe at low-level would take some time, group even more.

And I already said that I disagreed with you, so why do you keep bringing it up?

Because you don't get to assume what I want or put words in my mouth. Which you keep doing. Do I have to explain to you again that I don't want the mechanics to be exactly like they were in the IE games or have you finally realized that I do not want to see PE copypasta mechanics from the IE games. Edited February 24, 2013 by KaineParker

[Lephys]

Trashman is saying that of X isn't explicitly stated, then it is the same as the real world. Which isn't true. In the D&D settings, it isn't ever explicitly stated that people get harder to kill as they become more powerful, but it happens. In fantasy settings there are both explicit rules and implied rules that may differ from the real world.

I just really don't think that's what he's saying, in that one particular regard. I dunno, maybe he could come in and clarify. I think you're confused by the specifics of the word "stated," and you're thinking that nowhere does someone necessarily tell you that such things happen. However, in D&D, the ruleset "tells" you how everything works. Basically, health represents your well-being, exactly like in the real world. Only, in D&D, you gain the ability to take a greater number of sword strikes to the torso without dying, unlike in the real world.

 

So... health - based directly on reality (bleeding, unconsciousness, death, poison, abstracted forms of physiological damage, etc.).

 

Increasing amounts of health - completely fictitious amendment to reality's health "system."

 

I really believe that's all he's getting at (again, on that one particular note), and I agree with that, specifically.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Trashman is saying that of X isn't explicitly stated, then it is the same as the real world. Which isn't true. In the D&D settings, it isn't ever explicitly stated that people get harder to kill as they become more powerful, but it happens. In fantasy settings there are both explicit rules and implied rules that may differ from the real world.

I just really don't think that's what he's saying, in that one particular regard. I dunno, maybe he could come in and clarify. I think you're confused by the specifics of the word "stated," and you're thinking that nowhere does someone necessarily tell you that such things happen. However, in D&D, the ruleset "tells" you how everything works. Basically, health represents your well-being, exactly like in the real world. Only, in D&D, you gain the ability to take a greater number of sword strikes to the torso without dying, unlike in the real world.

 

So... health - based directly on reality (bleeding, unconsciousness, death, poison, abstracted forms of physiological damage, etc.).

 

Increasing amounts of health - completely fictitious amendment to reality's health "system."

 

I really believe that's all he's getting at (again, on that one particular note), and I agree with that, specifically.

 

 

To quote him directly

Because reality is always the starting point. Unless specificly stated that X works differently, you look to the real world.

That statement declares that if something is not explicitly confirmed, then it must work as it does in the real world.

 

As for D&D, yes the rules tell you, but the setting does not. No lore ever confirms that people get harder to kill as experience is gained, but it does happen. It is an implied fact, not an explicitly stated fact.

[Lephys]

To quote him directly

Because reality is always the starting point. Unless specificly stated that X works differently, you look to the real world.

That statement declares that if something is not explicitly confirmed, then it must work as it does in the real world.

 

As for D&D, yes the rules tell you, but the setting does not. No lore ever confirms that people get harder to kill as experience is gained, but it does happen. It is an implied fact, not an explicitly stated fact.

 

 

*siiigh*... I comprehend what you're saying, but you're arguing semantics. He didn't say "unless specifically stated by the setting and the lore and in no way by the ruleset..." He's talking about it being "stated" ANYWHERE within the design of a fictional RPG world, or any fictional world, for that matter. Even in some fantasy novel, the author has designed how everything mentioned in that world works, whether he tells the reader or not.

 

Also, how could people in the world NOT know that certain people were harder to kill? They hit Drizzt 17 times with a sword, and he's fine, and he punts them in the face and gleefully skips away, and they don't say "My god... some other person I attacked died in less than HALF that many sword strokes! Clearly that man is more resilient than others!"?

 

Basically, it's stated by the people who created that world, even if it's only muttered to themselves. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't happen. Nothing just happenstancically gets put into a fantasy world without the world-designer's say-so. "Oh, it turns out that, in this world I'm creating with my imagination, people get stronger with level-ups! I didn't know that. I guess I'll leave that in, since it added itself to my world, ^_^"

 

Again, if I'm wrong, and you're write, then let Trashman clarify for us. Because the meaning I'm suggesting makes perfect sense, and what you're suggesting is pretty silly and doesn't make much sense. So, if I had to assume, I'd say he meant the less-nitpicky meaning of "stated" as it makes oodles of sense, rather than the non-sensical "If people in the fantasy world don't often discuss the underlying mechanics of health-inflation and experience gain in their world over tankards of ale in the tavern, then those mechanics are obviously not stated in any way, shape, or fashion, u_u"

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

*siiigh*... I comprehend what you're saying, but you're arguing semantics. He didn't say "unless specifically stated by the setting and the lore and in no way by the ruleset..." He's talking about it being "stated" ANYWHERE within the design of a fictional RPG world, or any fictional world, for that matter. Even in some fantasy novel, the author has designed how everything mentioned in that world works, whether he tells the reader or not.

No he said SPECIFICALLY. Which means explicitly, free of ambiguity, distinctive, etc. If he meant something else, he should have been more clear, because when using "specifically stated" it has to be stated without a doubt that X is true.

Also, how could people in the world NOT know that certain people were harder to kill? They hit Drizzt 17 times with a sword, and he's fine, and he punts them in the face and gleefully skips away, and they don't say "My god... some other person I attacked died in less than HALF that many sword strokes! Clearly that man is more resilient than others!"?

They couldn't. But how could they know that level, an abstract concept that they have no way of accurately measuring, is what determines how resilient each person is?

Again, if I'm wrong, and you're write, then let Trashman clarify for us. Because the meaning I'm suggesting makes perfect sense, and what you're suggesting is pretty silly and doesn't make much sense. So, if I had to assume, I'd say he meant the less-nitpicky meaning of "stated" as it makes oodles of sense, rather than the non-sensical "If people in the fantasy world don't often discuss the underlying mechanics of health-inflation and experience gain in their world over tankards of ale in the tavern, then those mechanics are obviously not stated in any way, shape, or fashion, u_u"

He didn't just say "stated", he said "specifically stated". Which greatly narrows the scope of "stated".

[Iucounu]

Unbalanced High-Level combat and reliance on resist X damage equipment/talents:

Assuming the starting HP will allow a character to survive about 5 good sword hits(the amount you said your mod allowed).

Good sword hit= 6-8 damage, HP= 30-40.

 

You can set the base HP higher and still limit HP inflation. 

Besides, good hits mustn't be something that happens in every strike, unless your opponent is far more skilled. You can always, parry, block, interrupt and whatnot. 

 

And what's so bad about resist damage items? I've always preferred it in a game when armor, or equipment in general, was more important than HP.

 

At level 10, casters would be throwing around fireballs that deal 10-60 damage. On average, the party would be killed by just two castings of the spell, or enemy attacks after the spell has been cast

Maybe some characters could have the ability to absorb a certain amount of damage through the power of their souls (probably with tradeoffs), as you proposed. Others would have to dodge, parry, block, feint, using magical defenses, teleportation, illusions, counter spells, equipment, resistances, killing or disturbing or otherwise disable the caster, or well, just do nothing and die or get seriously wounded.

 

Sneak attacks would deal 6-36 damage, so rogues could ambush the party and kill them before they had a chance to react.

Spotting, divination, traps, magical defense, armor?

 

Enemies take at least thirteen good hits to take down, assuming max damage would be dealt and they were unarmored. Armored(who would probably make up the majority of foes) enemies would take longer, especially if you were not dealing max damage with each blow. Taking in to account that half the hits would likely be grazes, killing one foe at low-level would take some time, group even more.

There are certainly ways to deal with that. Like offensive stances, that are inefficient or suicide against high level opponents, but effective against low level ones. Feints that only work consistently on unskilled fighters, and cause tremendous damage. Counterattacks on critical and not so critical misses, that instakill an opponent without the necessary feats and skills. Just examples, I think there are lots of great ideas in this forum that show that combat is more than just damage vs HP. Besides, low-level opponents are unlikely to wear the best magical armor and equipment. So that's something that could be a great advantage too. 

 

BTW, I have nothing against a bit of HP inflation if it's necessary. But for me that's the last thing to do, when you just have no better ideas anymore. 

Edited February 24, 2013 by Iucounu

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

You can set the base HP higher and still limit HP inflation. 

Besides, good hits mustn't be something that happens in every strike, unless your opponent is far more skilled. You can always, parry, block, interrupt and whatnot.

 

I was trying to establish what a figure for the static HP system Trashman wants, so I used what would be 5 god hits as the level. I know that you can defend against good hits. 

 

 

And what's so bad about resist damage items? I've always preferred it in a game when armor, or equipment in general, was more important than HP.

 

Nothing is wrong with them, but if the game requires you to use them, it is bad. Even worse is when you require resist X damage talents, because that replaces HP increasing with another stat that essentially does the same thing(makes you harder to kill).

 

>

Mayb

e some characters could have the ability to absorb a certain amount of damage through the power of their souls (probably with tradeoffs), as you proposed. Others would have to dodge, parry, block, feint, using magical defenses, teleportation, illusions, counter spells, equipment, resistances, killing or disturbing or otherwise disable the caster, or well, just do nothing and die or get seriously wounded.

 

Yes, but if one caster gets off one successful spell then the whole party is dead.

 

Spotting, divination, traps, magical defense, armor?

 

Those are ways to prevent an ambush. I'm talking about getting killed for just getting caught in one. The party should be grievously wounded and/or at a big disadvantage, but they shouldn't be slain out right.

 

There are certainly ways to deal with that. Like offensive stances, that are inefficient or suicide against high level opponents, but effective against low level ones. Feints that only work consistently on unskilled fighters, and cause tremendous damage. Counterattacks on critical and not so critical misses, that instakill an opponent without the necessary feats and skills. Just examples, I think there are lots of great ideas in this forum that show that combat is more than just damage vs HP. Besides, low-level opponents are unlikely to wear the best magical armor and equipment. So that's something that could be a great advantage too.

 

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "low-level combat". I meant combat at low-levels, not combat with lower-level foes. 

 

BTW, I have nothing against a bit of HP inflation if it's necessary. But for me that's the last thing to do, when you just have no better ideas anymore.

 

So a system where characters gain about 6 HP(modified by CON) per level and start at 10 HP(+CON Modifier)sounds good to you? Because that would be my ideal system.

Edited February 24, 2013 by KaineParker

[JFSOCC]

Yes it is.

No it isn't.

/thread.