|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 2, 2016 15:55:24 GMT -5
If you think about it, I'll bet you can see that that's not, truly, the case. Let me expand upon this claim. Characters rise in levels, and they get better at performing certain class actions: spell casting, turning undead, combat, thiefy things. Monsters (in the traditional/generic sense), don't. I'll bet you allow all bugbears, ogres, giants, etc., to fight using the same To Hit column (leaders with more HD, aside), don't you? Why? Surely some, if not many, of them are combat veterans, having taken part in many battles and campaigns over the course of time... So why would you not allow those to have better combat odds? more on par with a human fighter of equal experience? Characters get better. It's built into the game's philosophy. Monsters (especially non-humanoid types), do not progress. (Note: there are some individual exceptions that need not confuse the issue.) So, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, individual style and preference is, let's be honest, the only real explanation of either accepting or rejecting the introduction/or removal of new tinkerings into the game as we know it. And as always, ymmv Aside from the monsters leaders - I do have monsters that effectively rise in levels. For instance my dragons have a full write up some of which is published down in my campaign thread where during one stage of a dragons life they proceed to go from levels 1 to 12 and then enter the next stage of life where they become even more powerful. I implemented that so a player could take a dragon as a PC. Although a lot is not written down, I do a similar thing for other monsters. Another instance is beholders - which I love btw - players may encounter a young inexperienced beholder all the way up to an old wily battle-hardened beholder - essentially from a level one up to a level 12-14 monster. I do that with a lot of monsters and my players know that any given monster may have more hit dice that the standard. My ogres for instance may have up to 80 hit points. I often play trolls as growing in power for as long as they live and they start out as only mindless eating machines but as they age and grow larger they also grow in intelligence, the bigger the troll the smarter it is. etc. So many of my monsters do progress. |
|
|
|
Post by captaincrumbcake on May 2, 2016 16:02:39 GMT -5
PD--sounds like the I-K table should fit in well for both players and monsters.
As I have not begun play-testing the mechanic, I cannot comment with any authority whether it works or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 2, 2016 16:09:50 GMT -5
PD--sounds like the I-K table should fit in well for both players and monsters. As I have not begun play-testing the mechanic, I cannot comment with any authority whether it works or not. Well  have fun testing it, I hope you do have someone to test it with, and tweak if needed and let us know how it goes. Again it does not matter what anyone thinks, all that matters is do you and you players have fun with it. I change things every so often, it helps keep the game fresh. I just let the players know that I have made a change and then we give it try and see how it works. Not everything does and it gets discarded. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 2, 2016 16:43:30 GMT -5
If you think about it, I'll bet you can see that that's not, truly, the case. Let me expand upon this claim. Characters rise in levels, and they get better at performing certain class actions: spell casting, turning undead, combat, thiefy things. Monsters (in the traditional/generic sense), don't. I'll bet you allow all bugbears, ogres, giants, etc., to fight using the same To Hit column (leaders with more HD, aside), don't you? Why? Surely some, if not many, of them are combat veterans, having taken part in many battles and campaigns over the course of time... So why would you not allow those to have better combat odds? more on par with a human fighter of equal experience? Characters get better. It's built into the game's philosophy. Monsters (especially non-humanoid types), do not progress. (Note: there are some individual exceptions that need not confuse the issue.) So, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, individual style and preference is, let's be honest, the only real explanation of either accepting or rejecting the introduction/or removal of new tinkerings into the game as we know it. And as always, ymmv Aside from the monsters leaders - I do have monsters that effectively rise in levels. For instance my dragons have a full write up some of which is published down in my campaign thread where during one stage of a dragons life they proceed to go from levels 1 to 12 and then enter the next stage of life where they become even more powerful. I implemented that so a player could take a dragon as a PC. Although a lot is not written down, I do a similar thing for other monsters. Another instance is beholders - which I love btw - players may encounter a young inexperienced beholder all the way up to an old wily battle-hardened beholder - essentially from a level one up to a level 12-14 monster. I do that with a lot of monsters and my players know that any given monster may have more hit dice that the standard. My ogres for instance may have up to 80 hit points. I often play trolls as growing in power for as long as they live and they start out as only mindless eating machines but as they age and grow larger they also grow in intelligence, the bigger the troll the smarter it is. etc. So many of my monsters do progress. I've always had a level range for monsters, if only to keep the players off guard. This started with Robilar's orc, Quij, being promoted to a orc hero during the playtests and then just carried forward. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on May 2, 2016 16:59:29 GMT -5
Orcs today, with their levels and their classes...
|
|
|
|
Post by Von on May 8, 2016 1:09:35 GMT -5
Agreed. Plus, of course, we have the people who need a rule for EVERYTHING. I don't care what level Big Badguy is; if you find him sound asleep, and you have a two handed axe, and you don't fumble, and you hit him in the head with a two handed axe while he is asleep, HE IS DEAD NO MATTER WHAT LEVEL HE IS. I don't need a "coupe de grace" or "helpless opponent" rule. I understand the way OD&D combat works, and I know when as referee to make a ruling. Of course, my IQ is larger than my shoe size, which helps. I like the cut of your jib, sir. I might even Exalt you for sheer defiance in the face of stupidity. On the matter of "all hits kill" - I have used this as a fiat from time to time when high-level characters are cleaving their way through low-HD opponents. A little power fantasy now and then never killed anyone (except the zombies). In the most memorable case, the peril in the situation came not from the adversaries but from the delay they posed in getting off a narrow and crumbling mountain path in which rocks could have fallen and everyone died at any moment. The mechanical tension was provided by rolls for jumping, climbing, hanging on and suchlike during combat (and I've always used a fumble rule; if anyone had botched an attack in that situation, things would have been very interesting). |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 4, 2016 15:20:52 GMT -5
I've allowed fighting-men to roll their hit dice for damage on a critical hit. So a third-level fighting-man, on a natural roll of '20', would roll three dice. This scales nicely given the abstract nature of hit points.
|
|
have fun testing it, I hope you do have someone to test it with, and tweak if needed and let us know how it goes. Again it does not matter what anyone thinks, all that matters is do you and you players have fun with it. 
