Couple ideas-[Hero] subtype and limit caps

[oslecamo]

So, been thinking of ways to simplify 3.X.

Problem 1:
Characters and villains dying in one roll, or botching an important roll. Kinda self-explanatory.

Solution 1:
[Hero] subtype-Characters and main NPCs get the [Hero] subtype, that grants them some version of action points, probably. Also some sort of "plot shield" that makes ganking them with sheer numbers really innefective, like nat 20s from non-heroes don't automatically hit them. Also, they're the only ones on the setting who can level up  by gaining levels for quests/killing. Everybody else has to work for years/decades.

Fluff Reasoning: Characters and main NPCs are touched by fate or something like that.

Problem 2:
Numbers getting out of scale. One of the main problems I've witnessed in my years of 3.X, many times it's extremely easy to just stack different bonus from several sources to get out of the RNG completely. It also produces a somewhat boring minigame where people are trying to get every little bonus they can get their hands on and

Solution 2:
Cap the limits. A character of level X cannot have DCs higher than Y, saves higher than Z, bonus to attack rolls/AC higher than K, miss chances higher than N, etc. You can use whatever source you want to reach the limit, but you can't go over it unless you level up. Perhaps [heroes] can pick a certain characteristic where they can go overboard, so someone has exceptional attack bonus, and somebody else has exceptional fortitude, and so on. An artifact item's special ability may be to allow you to break such limits as well.

Fluff Reasoning: There's just how much you can pimp that spell or sharpen that blade before diminishing returns and saturation of energies start to kick in.

Just brainstorming for now. Would like to hear some opinions.

[Raineh Daze]

Given the aim of 3.5, the first one makes perfect sense. What good is heroic fantasy where the heroes keep dying due to horrible luck?

Problem 2, however... well, asided from making combat much swingier, it'll also cause things to be a lot more same-ish as focus isn't rewarded, so people go for breadth instead.

Also you'd end up limiting miss chance due to concealment or the other character being blinded, which is weird.

[oslecamo]

Problem 2, however... well, asided from making combat much swingier, it'll also cause things to be a lot more same-ish as focus isn't rewarded, so people go for breadth instead.

That's why I said [heroes] could choose one category where they can go over their limit, which can be further expanded with items, perhaps feats.

Also you'd end up limiting miss chance due to concealment or the other character being blinded, which is weird.

Is it weird that you're not further penalized by your opponent being displaced behind a bush when you can't see them in the first place?

[Raineh Daze]

Concealment is a 50% miss chance, right? Thus, if you know they're there, you can see them. Adding magical miss chances on top of that does make sense: you then start trying to attack something with a crazy outline who also has the advantage of being rather hard to hit because there is stuff hiding them. And blink stacking with concealment makes sense.

[oslecamo]

Concealment is a 50% miss chance, right? Thus, if you know they're there, you can see them

You can know they're there by hearing/scent/blindsense, or just guessing the square where they are because you're in a tight tunnel and you just got stabbed from a certain direction. 50% concealment is that you can't see them, but know the square where they are in by indirect means.

Adding magical miss chances on top of that does make sense: you then start trying to attack something with a crazy outline who also has the advantage of being rather hard to hit because there is stuff hiding them. And blink stacking with concealment makes sense.

Sigh, that's the thing. Magic does not make sense in the first place. It's freaking magic. Thus basically a law of saturation, where there's just so much magic you can put in a certain thing before it stops having an effect. Got the idea from the dominions series, where it used precisely to avoid same-kind buff stacking abuse to great effect.

[Raineh Daze]

Concealment is a 50% miss chance, right? Thus, if you know they're there, you can see them

You can know they're there by hearing/scent/blindsense, or just guessing the square where they are because you're in a tight tunnel and you just got stabbed from a certain direction. 50% concealment is that you can't see them, but know the square where they are in by indirect means.

Okay, stacking displacement with 'I can't see them' doesn't make sense. Other sources of miss chances, though...

Adding magical miss chances on top of that does make sense: you then start trying to attack something with a crazy outline who also has the advantage of being rather hard to hit because there is stuff hiding them. And blink stacking with concealment makes sense.

Sigh, that's the thing. Magic does not make sense in the first place. It's freaking magic. Thus basically a law of saturation, where there's just so much magic you can put in a certain thing before it stops having an effect. Got the idea from the dominions series, where it used precisely to avoid same-kind buff stacking abuse to great effect.

It also sounds fiddly to get right. And irritating to keep track of.

[oslecamo]

How would it be irritating to keep track? There's a table with Y values. If X is higher than Y in a certain category, it is reduced to Y until you level up, unless you choose it as your limit-break category at character creation.

What is really irritating is for a DM to have players where there's a 20 point divergence (or more) between each other's defenses, meaning that attacks that one player shruggs off without trouble are highly lethal to another player.

[Raineh Daze]

A table which you need to cross-reference every time any sort of buff is applied to check whether it does anything, or whether it's capped. The game hardly needs more table checking.

I can imagine it would be, though less so if the fragile character is supposed to be that (i.e., what wizards and sorcerers are meant to be rather than impregnable fortresses of DOOM).

Though there might be a few problems--for instance, if you cap AC bonuses at X, and you include all sources, then armour becomes even less useful. :/

[oslecamo]

A table which you need to cross-reference every time any sort of buff is applied to check whether it does anything, or whether it's capped. The game hardly needs more table checking.

Actually, it would reduce table checking. Once you hit your Fort save limit, you don't need to keep checking every other Fort buff that may be thrown your way.

I can imagine it would be, though less so if the fragile character is supposed to be that (i.e., what wizards and sorcerers are meant to be rather than impregnable fortresses of DOOM).

"Dies easily" shouldn't really be a character trait in D&D.

Though there might be a few problems--for instance, if you cap AC bonuses at X, and you include all sources, then armour becomes even less useful. :/

But you'll get more chest-naked warriors, and less "well may as well pick some mythral chain shirt on top of my deflection and natural armor bonus since it has zero skill penalty".

[Raineh Daze]

I can imagine it would be, though less so if the fragile character is supposed to be that (i.e., what wizards and sorcerers are meant to be rather than impregnable fortresses of DOOM).

"Dies easily" shouldn't really be a character trait in D&D.

Well, it has been for decades, so...

And the knight in shining armour will be more dead than it already is. I consider this a net loss.

[oslecamo]

Actually, I was considering using my Pure Metal progression as a base for AC cap, so full Bab with +1 Dex bonus and pure iron heavy armor and tower shield. So knight in shining armor without a bazillion trinkets and buffs becomes viable.

[Raineh Daze]

So King Arthur isn't viable? :O

[oslecamo]

Depending on which version of King Artur you go with, either he picked AC as his basic limit break or the respective feat or is one of the benefits of Excalibur's scabbard.

Altough at the end of the day, after facing dragons and magic and whatnot, he still died of pointy stick stabbing. So his AC may have been his weakest point.

[Raineh Daze]

The scabbard was stolen because he ignored Merlin's (I think) advice that it's more important than the sword.

[ketaro]

On the original topic, looking at the destiny feats for humans, Heroic Destiny & Fearless Destiny, they'd probably be pretty good to roll into something like this. After enhancing them a bit probably.

In regards to the [Hero] Subtype that is.

[DavidWL]

So, been thinking of ways to simplify 3.X.

Problem 1:
Characters and villains dying in one roll, or botching an important roll. Kinda self-explanatory.

Solution 1:
[Hero] subtype-Characters and main NPCs get the [Hero] subtype, that grants them some version of action points, probably. Also some sort of "plot shield" that makes ganking them with sheer numbers really innefective, like nat 20s from non-heroes don't automatically hit them. Also, they're the only ones on the setting who can level up  by gaining levels for quests/killing. Everybody else has to work for years/decades.

Fluff Reasoning: Characters and main NPCs are touched by fate or something like that.

Problem 2:
Numbers getting out of scale. One of the main problems I've witnessed in my years of 3.X, many times it's extremely easy to just stack different bonus from several sources to get out of the RNG completely. It also produces a somewhat boring minigame where people are trying to get every little bonus they can get their hands on and

Solution 2:
Cap the limits. A character of level X cannot have DCs higher than Y, saves higher than Z, bonus to attack rolls/AC higher than K, miss chances higher than N, etc. You can use whatever source you want to reach the limit, but you can't go over it unless you level up. Perhaps [heroes] can pick a certain characteristic where they can go overboard, so someone has exceptional attack bonus, and somebody else has exceptional fortitude, and so on. An artifact item's special ability may be to allow you to break such limits as well.

Fluff Reasoning: There's just how much you can pimp that spell or sharpen that blade before diminishing returns and saturation of energies start to kick in.

Just brainstorming for now. Would like to hear some opinions.

Thread Resurrection, but there is a game which does this - it's called Mutants and Masterminds

Actually, a very elegant system.

Best,
David

[Chemus]

Hmm. I hadn't read this previously.

Re: 1, one-shot kill is a thing in real life, so in (simulation) gaming it is often presented. Make this an option for Heroic versus Gritty.

Re 2, The fact that there won't be a Damage Specialist, Caster Level Looper, Tank, etc aren't bad things. There might even be a way that this could allow mundanes more opportunities to shine. E6 does something like this, but without the hard numbers. AD&D and 2e did this with AC (-10 was the cap, though my group tended to ignore it)

That said, I agree that having to memorize a table or algorithm would be a pain. The algorithm should be the way; (example only) no bonuses greater than 10+(level x 2). 22 AC at 1st, 30 AC at 5th, etc.

[ketaro]

10+(Lvl x 2) is 12, hehe. You probably wanted (10+Lvl)*2

[Chemus]

AC == 10 + Bonus. I was suggesting an example of a Bonus limit, possibly a universal one.

[Amechra]

The easiest cap would be to make all bonuses overlap, rather than stacking.

But that'd be unsatisfying.