RollPlay -- D&D Campaign Show - Page 42

Argh, without bothering to read all that or getting involved, that sounds like exactly the wrong mentality. People who put sod all effort into making sure they read things properly shouldn't be criticising the people who make long posts to try to make sure they are being clear.
TL:DR = Too lazy, don't have a right to speak on the matter, claiming it's your fault for writing more than I can be bothered with.
At a glance at the explanation though, it sounded like I would disagree by saying Abigaël has every right o make whatever decisions and all characters are actually 'disobeying' group plas from time to time (Tudagub dropping the crystal ball clearly wasn't in their intentions, Vincent with the decapitation attempt etc.

On a different note, the level drain of the wraith seems to be the same as in 3rd edition in that it affectively applies 'negative levels', which is the same as losing the level except that it can be magically restored by cleric Restoration or type spells or a Miracle spell (although in 3rd Edition you might no lose the experience, just the bonuses until restored).
If the players aren't meant to know it can be restored, it's probably fine that they don't know that it's a possibility, but if they do get an opportunity to find out that it can be restored, say through asking Dalamar or another about the effects of "a Wraith's touch", I hope they'll find out, so that one day Bregor can hopefully find a high level cleric or as a favour from a higher level Tudagub and have the two levels restored.

Hi Neal, thanks for responding!

1 - I know you've already stated some do weaker damage, but it makes certain weapons stand out as pointlessly strong weapons against things that are meant to be tough and the characters that were already most likely to have a significantly larger effect on battle have an even greater one while they hydra heads deal fairly low damage each. Even if the bites would deal more against large targets, they won't as all of the characters are medium, unless Tudagub is actually large enough to be considered Large. I just don't understand why you want to use a system that heavily rewards people for choosing 'the right weapon' to own things that are otherwise meant to be more of a challenge than average creatures.
Managing to "connect a really solid blow" is rolling a 10 or more on 2d6, not scoring a critical hit. No wonder Blizzard went with such an overpowered and illogical crit system in Diablo 3 when other people don't see what's wrong with the idea of "critical damage/hits" to things that lack any areas to deal extra damage to.
"Powerful hits" are just normal hits with good rolls. If you drive the blade further through a body, it might have dealt more damage from simply being a high damage roll without being a critical hit, or it dealt a critical hit because it punctured kidneys, shattered bones or something else critical like that. I don't disagree that "heavy hits" can be critical hits, but they do it through hitting critical areas. It's possible they only got through to the vital areas from heavy force (shattering bones, going through enough flesh etc.) but you couldn't do things like that to things that didn't have those vital areas.
"My spear went RIGHT THROUGH ALL OF THE WISPY DARKNESS OF THE WRAITH! WOAH!"...isn't a critical hit, as a blade going all the way through smoke doesn't mean much more to the thing than the blade going across the face of it.

2 - In 3rd edition it's Sneak Attack, not specifically Back-stab, so at least there you don't need to be able to reach its back specifically, but perhaps it's just a back-stab ability only in 2nd edition/your house ruled version. ¯\_(シ)_/¯
As I say, the whole "you can crit any creature" doesn't make any sense. You can go with the rule for fun if you like (but I don't think it's good for balance or realism), sure, but "high damage hits" from powerful attacks are meant to be delivered through better damage rolls and weaker hits are worse rolls, but how exactly do you think a character managed to deal 2, 3, 4 and on "quadruple crits" 5× damage without hitting a vital area?
Tore through the mouth maybe? Oh yes, that's because it has a mouth to tear through, unlike some creatures, so it was a critical hit, because you managed to stick the sword in a weak point. Can't do that to something undead, let alone incorporeal. I find the "character wouldn't know a hydra's weak points" line a bit silly because it's just like most things, the typical vital areas are obvious, the heads, the mouths, key arteries especially, just thinking of human anatomy and transferring to the rough size. Now if the creature were an aberration, its internal anatomy might be very different, so your natural guesses could easily be wrong, but magical beasts of the Material Plane and similar things tend to have similar bodily uhh...setup.

3 - You can't judge Alignment simply based on intent, otherwise nut-case genocidal Nazis can consider themselves Good of some sort if they think it it 'right'. *Throws up*
He's too willing to kill people who haven't clearly done truly terrible things to be Good. That doesn't mean it was wrong for him to start out as good, but if you believe in changing their alignments for them if appropriate, he's certainly not far off a switch from good to neutral. Individual actions may lie outside the appropriate alignment for them to consider themselves as being, but they should be considered based on either the average or the sum of their actions. which in Vincent's case really isn't Good any more, because many Neutrals will mean good and even do good but not stick to it strongly enough to merit being called Good.
In my opinion, a better example of when someone can be considered Good but make questionable decisions would be something like two well-meaning Good Kingdoms at war over very different beliefs while otherwise doing good, just having specific biases due to historical differences or something like that, so that both sides feel the other has wronged them while being generally peaceful, wishing no harm to neutrals and generally willing to help unknown people who seem innocent enough (typically, unless the place is especially suspicious of outsiders [not talking about the supernatural kind]).

Oh and I'm not saying you force them to stick to whatever alignment they initially call themselves either. It's more that whatever seems most appropriate to call them based on their reactions is what extremely strongly good or evil (Paladins, Celestials, Demons etc) will count them as when doing things like "Detect Good", where I would currently rule that a "Detect Good" spell would not detect Vincent's Aura based on how he is playing and possibly "Detect Evil" wouldn't pick of Tudagub (I'd probably leave him as Evil right now unless he keeps up this generally neutral behaviour, but he doesn't seem to particularly enjoy causing suffering to anyone, apart from in arguments, kekeke).
I'm also talking about how other cities, settlements and other people might view them if they might have heard of their reputation without knowing the specific events, or if they had heard about ALL of the events (but not just the best or just the worst). I would say that unbiased places would see them as fairly neutral people that can cause trouble and would not deem Vincent to be 'Good'. I think you're making them act as if he's more neutral anyway, it's just that in my mind, that means Vincent ISN'T Good, but it's fine for him to still mean well, have his own sense of honour, what is right etc, but that of course doesn't make NPCs think "oh well he says he's Good and means well so I'll just take that as fact!".

So as an example, Lawful Neutral people often follow their own moral guidelines but objectively, from a fairly neutral point of view, they aren't only doing good deeds, can (not always) lack consideration about the differences others have or why others might not adhere to the LN person's rules, because the LN person bases it all on their own beliefs without worrying about whether they should avoid violent punishment to a person that maybe dishonoured them when said subject may have dishonoured them by doing something right for the majority of people by dishonouring them.
LN person think he's doing pretty good stuff and isn't too fussed that most towns around him disagree with his ways, because he has his own rules that are most important to him, though he will generally try to stick to rules and laws of other places/people that seem reasonable enough, because he prefers order and getting along.

4 - Yeah, it was just meant as a friendly tip/encouragement to Gen if she reads this, to be a bit more willing to make sure she doesn't get her speech run over by others when it can mean she misses out on action or taking part in decisions. She's a bit submissive, even when the other characters making suggestions to her aren't where she is, almost like Abigaël hears voices in her head! :Þ

5 (2 in other section of answers?) - I'd say you could possibly kill a held Hydra in one hit if, yes, you managed to pierce into its heart in one clean prepared thrust (very possible if the enemy is held), though it's understandable that you might not know the exact location of its heart, not so much because it's not human, seeing as it's only a beast so typically it would have roughly similar anatomy (still possible explanation though) but more because the thing is just much larger so knowing the area of the heart doesn't mean one thrust will be in the right place.
This is talking about measured attempts to target an area though, like Sneak Attacks/Back-stabs and a Coup de Grace, whereas critical hits CAN hit the are without you knowing exactly where the heart is, because it was through luck/chance/good rolling that you hit the area, not through needing to know where the weak point was. That doesn't change the fact that the weak point existed and that that is what you hit to score the critical damage.
I agree that plenty of things couldn't be killed in one fell swoop though, but then I come from 3rd edition, where a Coup de Grace isn't an instant kill either anyway, so your custom rule and what I'm used come from the same logic anyway!

6 - Yeah, sounds like Sneak Attacks are the same in both editions.

7 - Back attack rules make perfect sense, thanks for clearing up that you aren't treating them the same as back-stabs, because someone seemed to be mixing them up, which is understandable.

8 - Yeah, I agree about the not giving out willy nilly although paying enough gold * as a donation to the temple can definitely be used as a way of "doing a favour in return for the favour". The services of some temples can be 'bought', as long as you use the right wording, like "donation" instead of "Oi, preist, how much do I need to pay you to restore my abilities". Obviously the subject would have to not be obviously objectionable to the temple/religion!
*a lot, as in something similar to [Caster Level × Spell Level × 10 GP, + more if the spell uses an expensive material component or requires EXP expenditure to cast]

If there are any posts/replies claiming I'm "arguing rules" or trying to "tell me" that you've already said you're using a heavily house-ruled version, I'm only going to ignore them, because it shows they're not paying attention to my exact points/queries/wording and instead incorrectly assume I'm attacking and trying to flat out tell Neal what to do when he's using house rules anyway.
Neal, you know I'm only discussing which rules you're using (and trying to learn which so I understand why this or that happens this way in the game) and asking or debating why you're using certain ones because say, you might seem to be surprised that they having such an easy time with things that are meant to be hard when it's really particular rules that might be there with good intentions but just seem to be way strong than intended and making things much more favourable than intended for the party, or specific choices (i.e. making longswords IMBA, for example! XD)

Just going back a while to the conversation about the removal of the weapon speed system and how you think it's normally good to have it because "otherwise there's no reason not to choose the strongest", I wholeheartedly disagree, because you can use a shield when not using a powerful two-hander and can't when you use a two-hander and what's more, you're using a system that makes longswords (a one-hander) very good against large targets already...
so out of curiosity, do greatswords, greataxes, halberds, greatclubs and other larger two-handed weapons deal MORE, LESS or EQUAL damage to Large targets?
If any of them deal LESS to Large targets, then using a weapon speed system as well makes one-handers like longswords completely overpowered and renders "stronger" weapons completely pointless, which is quite the opposite of your idea that "there's no reason not to choose the strongest".

Finally, just to clarify,


I'm not attacking you by saying preposterous, as I believe you know, I'm just arguing the point that I think those rules are
1 - illogical
2 - badly hurt/imbalance/bias gameplay and class/creature strengths no matter how well they intend to 'reward' supposedly high level characters (one fairly low level fighter is supposedly 'high level' against a hydra, you think???)
3 - crits are not meant to be common and here we have s system where we've seen multiple "triple crits".

Also, do they players know about such (not special) battle actions (for all classes, even wizards) like the following?
- "Aid another" (+2 ally bonus to hit or -2 enemy AC for 1 round)
- "Ready an action" (delay personal initiative to that of directly before the monster, typically used so that you can hit a monster currently out of range right when it gets in range, before its attack, rather than just waiting to get hit once it gets in range and then attack afterwards, or at least saving you moving to an unsafe location while still getting to hit is first after ITS movement)
- "Full defence (no attack, only movement, avoiding attacks of opportunity))
- "Fighting defensively" (penalty to attack for a smaller bonus to AC for the round)

These actions can help when a party member might not be so useful otherwise.
e.g. If Bregor could only shoot an enemy near either Vincent or Tudagub while those two are in combat (an both incur a penalty and possibly hit either of them) while he is actually directly behind one of those two in mêlée (see below)...

MONSTER VINCENT
TUDAGUB
BREGOR

...he could "Aid" Tudagub by distracting the opponent for a round, either granting +2 to Tudagub's attack rolls that round or giving a -2 penalty to the monster's AC for that round. This would typically require Bregor to move to the left of Tudagub so that he can actually distract it/help to parry attacks.
I'm sure that sort of thing would actually be more useful than one of the players sometimes (including Tudagub), especially when Vincent and Tudagub are in opposite positions and they can help Vincent's rolls.
2nd Edition has some of these options, no?

Thanks for all your answers, Neal, you know I'm only discussing and asking with interest.