Update DDO to 4th ed Dying rules immediately

[Angelus_dead]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

/Looks from one side to the other...

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.

[esoitl]

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]

/Looks from one side to the other...

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?