Incoming System: Risk of impaired corpse upon death.

[LadyDragn]

I've been reluctant to respond myself, as I'm not sure how I feel about the system personally other than...

From what I've seen from most of the Con posts, is, that this isn't implementing an IC fear but rather an ooc one, causing "Players" not PCs to forgo roleplay aspects of the character to make them more stronger ooc to survive.

And yes, I can see how if someone just spend 5000 to be raised, only to come back as undead, then have to have another 5000 with risk to come back "again" as undead could be discouraging and frustrating. The coin is less in dungeoning, so it gives the feel of "no achievement" if even just one party member dies and is impaired and everything they managed to scrape up goes to reviving that member.

I think this system has good intention, I think it's just not a good match with the lowering of incoming coin that was tweaked cause like someone said... everyone is going to go mink-mad to make coin as opposed to dungeoning for ooc fear of dying and becoming impaired and unable to afford being revived.



Just my perspective.

[Avatar6666]

I've been reluctant to respond myself, as I'm not sure how I feel about the system personally other than...

From what I've seen from most of the Con posts, is, that this isn't implementing an IC fear but rather an ooc one, causing "Players" not PCs to forgo roleplay aspects of the character to make them more stronger ooc to survive.

And yes, I can see how if someone just spend 5000 to be raised, only to come back as undead, then have to have another 5000 with risk to come back "again" as undead could be discouraging and frustrating. The coin is less in dungeoning, so it gives the feel of "no achievement" if even just one party member dies and is impaired and everything they managed to scrape up goes to reviving that member.

I think this system has good intention, I think it's just not a good match with the lowering of incoming coin that was tweaked cause like someone said... everyone is going to go mink-mad to make coin as opposed to dungeoning for ooc fear of dying and becoming impaired and unable to afford being revived.



Just my perspective.

Agreed.

[Bad_Bud]

I just think the DC is too high.  Right now it's very commonplace.  A level 1 rogue could be at -9 and take a hit for 5, roll a 1 on fortitude and end up badly impaired.  From a dagger?  That doesn't make too much sense.  Perhaps the bar for starting the DC's growth should be more around -30.  We're talking about extreme damage, not normal hits, and thus I think it should be limited to damages that can only be reached by critical hits and such.

[Anarcoplayba]

I just think the DC is too high.  Right now it's very commonplace.  A level 1 rogue could be at -9 and take a hit for 5, roll a 1 on fortitude and end up badly impaired.  From a dagger?  That doesn't make too much sense.  Perhaps the bar for starting the DC's growth should be more around -30.  We're talking about extreme damage, not normal hits, and thus I think it should be limited to damages that can only be reached by critical hits and such.

Personaly, I'd go for a DC of "anything more than enough to kill ya" halved.

If you die of simply failing the DC checks agains bleeding, ok, you have a nice and clean corpse.

took a hit that put you on -20 (a damage of at least 21, admitting you had 1 HP) the DC check would be (20-10)/2 = 5.

And come on: a Fortitude save of five is at least 25% of chance of ANYONE passing.

[Bad_Bud]

It's an extreme, but think about it.  Could someone become seriously impaired (we're talking mauled, disfigured, grotesque) from being stabbed in the neck by a paperclip?  It's extreme but it's still possible, and it will happen.

A scenario like that is more silly than anything, and would make people take the system (and probably death) less seriously.

[Anarcoplayba]

It's an extreme, but think about it.  Could someone become seriously impaired (we're talking mauled, disfigured, grotesque) from being stabbed in the neck by a paperclip?  It's extreme but it's still possible, and it will happen.

A scenario like that is more silly than anything, and would make people take the system (and probably death) less seriously.

Sorry, Bad_Bud, but to me you're exagerating teh facts to defend your point.

Let's think in the damage of a paper clip (1) or de damage of a dagger 1d4 (max = 4).

If you reach -10, you're dead, then there's no risk of impairement og being attacked with a dagger or a paperclip at level 10.

-9 then. Get attacked by a paperclip, no impairement. By a dagger: -3.

Let's imagine a level 1 wizard with 10 con: it's an 85% of succeding.

There's a chance of someone being at -9 attacked by a dagger becoming impaired, if it is the lowest class with the lowes Con.

Yes, there is.

But also there is a 5% chance that your level 20 fighter with weapon specialization attacks a mink and miss.

And I'm not even calculating my suggestion of damage beyond -10 being halved.

Of course this is a development team decision, my argument is simply: putting the trigger to the damage at -20 will turn the new system pointless.

A level 2 character hardly should think in fighting anything that gives damage enough to kill him twice.

[HellsPanda]

if your going to look at damage for a paperclip in DnD, it would most likely be used by a rogue, say level 10... with an average str say 12

then that 1 damage becomes 1+1[str]+5d6[sneak]

if its your average warrior lets say 16 str.. its 1+3[from str]+2[weapon specilisation paperclip]

these are ofcourse completely insane ideas

[Anarcoplayba]

if your going to look at damage for a paperclip in DnD, it would most likely be used by a rogue, say level 10... with an average str say 12

then that 1 damage becomes 1+1[str]+5d6[sneak]

if its your average warrior lets say 16 str.. its 1+3[from str]+2[weapon specilisation paperclip]

these are ofcourse completely insane ideas

Yep, specifically because if he hit you with his bare hands he would cause more damage then, if you gave me a clip, I'd probably hold it and punch you.

[mayvind]

 

[Bad_Bud]

My character could easily punch a wizard or rogue into being badly impaired probably more than half the time.  I think there should just be a greater range before the DC builds.

[mayvind]

Why don't we wait till next update S�ren said he will tweak it and then we can see how it goes. As for more gold coins it seem treasure chest now give more coins per loot now so coins is coming in.

But i still think ressurection cost still too high specially the frequence incress.

[Aahz]

It's an extreme, but think about it.  Could someone become seriously impaired (we're talking mauled, disfigured, grotesque) from being stabbed in the neck by a paperclip?  It's extreme but it's still possible, and it will happen.

A scenario like that is more silly than anything, and would make people take the system (and probably death) less seriously.

Sorry, Bad_Bud, but to me you're exagerating teh facts to defend your point.

Let's think in the damage of a paper clip (1) or de damage of a dagger 1d4 (max = 4).

If you reach -10, you're dead, then there's no risk of impairement og being attacked with a dagger or a paperclip at level 10.

-9 then. Get attacked by a paperclip, no impairement. By a dagger: -3.

Let's imagine a level 1 wizard with 10 con: it's an 85% of succeding.

There's a chance of someone being at -9 attacked by a dagger becoming impaired, if it is the lowest class with the lowes Con.

Yes, there is.

But also there is a 5% chance that your level 20 fighter with weapon specialization attacks a mink and miss.

And I'm not even calculating my suggestion of damage beyond -10 being halved.

Of course this is a development team decision, my argument is simply: putting the trigger to the damage at -20 will turn the new system pointless.

A level 2 character hardly should think in fighting anything that gives damage enough to kill him twice.

Again I'll try to make my point here.... is this conversation more about Atmosphere and setting or game mechanics? you decide. The chance for being raised as zombie thread is all full of "what kind of undead" "what do the undead look like" "can they be controlled by evil PCs."  Compare and contrast that with what is going on here.

[marlewebber]

Perhaps this whole system could be tweaked for "Massive Damage," So that if you take 50+ damage you make a save or die instantly.  That's from PnP... (And doesn't change the principle uses of Raise vs. Ressurection)

[ThAnswr]

Hmmmm, looks like opportunity knocks for a high level cleric.   

[Emomina]

Yes, exactly.

Unfortunately, despite how many consider them overpowered, there are not nearly enough of them around to support systems such as this one being implemented.

Its the irony.

[Avatar6666]

yep one of the many reasons i dont play here much anymore.

[melzaren]

If you want to make death less trivial, you need to make it less common. 

Systems like the one proposed here are really neat and interesting, and entertaining, but they don't solve problems.  That doesn't mean they're not good things, it just means we should recognize them for what they are.

Death on this server is WAY out of hand, it's COMMON PLACE, and THAT'S what makes it trivial, and it will ALWAYS be trivial until this problem is solved.

[ThAnswr]

Yes, exactly.

Unfortunately, despite how many consider them overpowered, there are not nearly enough of them around to support systems such as this one being implemented.

Its the irony.

Deliciously ironic.   

[Soren / Zarathustra217]

It's an extreme, but think about it.  Could someone become seriously impaired (we're talking mauled, disfigured, grotesque) from being stabbed in the neck by a paperclip?  It's extreme but it's still possible, and it will happen.

A scenario like that is more silly than anything, and would make people take the system (and probably death) less seriously.

DnD is unfortunately full of compromises toward realism. Is it realistic that someone level 8 can never be brought down in one hit with a greatsword from an averagely strong guy, no matter how precise he hits you? You have to at some point accept some compromises, and with HP in particular, because it does make very little sense.

If it's a frequent occurrence that people's corpses become badly impaired by minimal damage, we could implement a minimum damage taken in last hit before it applies - though I suspect that it would be in the rare cases that it kicked in, since it's usually the big damage that brings you there. Considering how forward it is to implement though, I'll just go ahead and do it - perhaps a minimum of 10 damage?

[Gorasin]

I do agree that the minimum damage done before being impaired should be a set number. On the other hand I tend to come from a save or die play style. I am used to that kind of play. My greyhawk roots always were kind of save or die situations and even when I was playing the realms with people. The DM's tended toward the save or die aspect because it taught many valuable lessons. Harsh sadistic evil lessons but lessons non the less. Seems some here don't want to take the most important lessons I had to relearn.
1. If you can't hurt it, Run.
2. If you think you cannot hurt it, Run.
3. If it hurts you more than you hurt it, Run.
4. If you suspect that it has buddies who will beat you as you hurt it, Run.
5. If you think it can stop you from running, Run.
6. If it can kill you in one blow, Run.
7. If it can put you in a state of Fear, Run.
8. If it can hit you more than you hit it, Run.
...etc etc....the whole point is survival.That is what this is about. Horror has always had an edge of surviving.I was not a winner of the Falkovnina/Invidian attack. I was a survivor. I lived barely and others died.I was a survivor of plague attacks, the dead treant attack, headless horseman attack....Never a winner because to win you have to have a clear advantage.I was never certain I would live. Why bother taking a challenge all the way? Test the waters if you see your getting slammed....run. If you lose over half hp in two combat rounds even if the creature is weaker than you.....run and heal.Don't play going to fight it to the end, because it may be your end. Use your wits and you won't die as often. Heck I been critically hit by random minks for 5 damage. You see me bothering the minks no.Never know when they going to walk up and crit me again......damn evil minks.

[melzaren]

I do agree that the minimum damage done before being impaired should be a set number. On the other hand I tend to come from a save or die play style. I am used to that kind of play. My greyhawk roots always were kind of save or die situations and even when I was playing the realms with people. The DM's tended toward the save or die aspect because it taught many valuable lessons. Harsh sadistic evil lessons but lessons non the less. Seems some here don't want to take the most important lessons I had to relearn.
1. If you can't hurt it, Run.
2. If you think you cannot hurt it, Run.
3. If it hurts you more than you hurt it, Run.
4. If you suspect that it has buddies who will beat you as you hurt it, Run.
5. If you think it can stop you from running, Run.
6. If it can kill you in one blow, Run.
7. If it can put you in a state of Fear, Run.
8. If it can hit you more than you hit it, Run.
...etc etc....the whole point is survival.That is what this is about. Horror has always had an edge of surviving.I was not a winner of the Falkovnina/Invidian attack. I was a survivor. I lived barely and others died.I was a survivor of plague attacks, the dead treant attack, headless horseman attack....Never a winner because to win you have to have a clear advantage.I was never certain I would live. Why bother taking a challenge all the way? Test the waters if you see your getting slammed....run. If you lose over half hp in two combat rounds even if the creature is weaker than you.....run and heal.Don't play going to fight it to the end, because it may be your end. Use your wits and you won't die as often. Heck I been critically hit by random minks for 5 damage. You see me bothering the minks no.Never know when they going to walk up and crit me again......damn evil minks.

You can't compare fleeing in NWN to fleeing in Greyhawk or pen-and-paper because everything happens SO quickly here and there are things you can't do in NWN that you can do in pen and paper, like climb a tree, or jump in the water, or find a hiding spot, or create a diversion,  and on and on.  

Here, the creatures just stick to you and follow you wherever you go, magically "gaining ground" on you through transitions.

Second of all, in a pen-and-paper campaign, and indeed in most other games, it is expected that your encounters will be proportionate to your party and it's abilities. 

This idea is thrown out the window at Ravenloft, where you just wander around and bump in to whatever you bump in to, with no knowledge of if it's appropriate for you to be fighting it or not.   This is a HUGE problem.  HUGE, to which I see no solution in sight, or even being CONSIDERED by anyone.

Essentially what happens is

1) People don't explore
2) People metagame everything.

There's also a PLETHORA of meta-gaming when it comes to rescuing dead people, a dirty little secret nobody really wants to discuss.

Perhaps the biggest unasked question is, "Is having to flee from everything fun?  And what deserves priority, fun, or "realism"?  

This is the run-away train I see at Ravenloft, where fun has HUGELY taken a back-seat to the pursuit of realism at ANY cost.

On 80% of my adventures, me or one of my comrads have ended up a corpse.  This includes travels with "veteran" players who are leading and know what they're doing.

 Once again, death is treated as trivial here because it IS.   There's only so many times you and your friends can die before the "oh, what happened?  oh, I'm alive, yay" roleplay becomes trivial.

[MadMage99]

So, just had my first experience with this, and I'd say it needs some major re-tweaking. my fort dc against impairing... 74. and the baddie only hit me for 72 anyway.... somthing doesn't add up.

[Soren / Zarathustra217]

...

Once again, death is treated as trivial here because it IS.   There's only so many times you and your friends can die before the "oh, what happened?  oh, I'm alive, yay" roleplay becomes trivial.

If you die overly frequently when adventuring, perhaps it's a sign that you have to change your tactics? If you don't know what you are up against, see if you can lure a single of them away, try to attack them from distance and see if the arrows bite them. And have spellcasters generally focus their spells on buffing up fighters, have healers ready to heal them, move slowly through dungeons, look for advantageous places to defend etc. etc.

When I observe people adventuring, there's certainly a vast difference in how they approach danger.

So, just had my first experience with this, and I'd say it needs some major re-tweaking. my fort dc against impairing... 74. and the baddie only hit me for 72 anyway.... somthing doesn't add up.

Were you polymorphed?

[melzaren]

If you die overly frequently when adventuring, perhaps it's a sign that you have to change your tactics? If you don't know what you are up against, see if you can lure a single of them away, try to attack them from distance and see if the arrows bite them. And have spellcasters generally focus their spells on buffing up fighters, have healers ready to heal them, move slowly through dungeons, look for advantageous places to defend etc. etc.

I've played this game (NWN) on MANY servers for MANY years and have never encountered the kinds of problems I've encountered here, nor am I the only one to encounter them them here, nor am I the only person to express this opinion on the forums.  In fact, it's been expressed again and again, in a variety of different ways, by a variety of different players.  Whenever anyone takes a critical analytical viewpoint of things here it's trumped up to "a problem with that person".

Here's a list of quotes speaking to the idea that the difficulty here is out of control, some of which are quotations from a member of your community council.

it is not about powerfull char or not, your character simply cant advance anymore, without taking very very high risks.
and this is especially true for mid-lowbies like level 7-10 you basicly have to to places where you have no chance of survival...

Dungeoneering is at the moment either boring or deadly - with almost nothing in between.

Death by chest compounded by needing resurrection.  Sad  server difficulty just goes up and up and up.

Please tell me your joking right? Who says death on this server is too Trivial? Because I can assure you I have NEVER thought of Death on this server as trivial.

Yeah, got to love punishing everyone for the actions of a few... Can't possibly enjoy your yourself because someone else is not conforming to your standards. I definitely see a pattern here.

It does not only punish the ones that die frequently. It demotivates others from taking risks because they do not want to be hassled by the new system.

totally agree....

I call them as I see them, based on effects I have seen in game. I know you arn't stupid but I do believe that you sometimes do not see or appreciate the detrimental effects to the gaming experience that some changes have... and "just get used to them" is an aswer that only goes so far.

To put it bluntly, many players, me included, experience zero satisfaction when it comes to the current xp and spawn
system implemented on the server

Presented with all the IFs, most just hit the first meager and manageable spawn they come across, to at least have some form of gain. The problem exacerbates and perpetuates unto itself in this way. A lion king circle of life sort of thing.

The above are all quotes from threads from within the last week.  But hey... It must just be a problem with me.


I don't understand why you prompted us to "discuss" this implementation if you shut down everyone who takes a contrary view-point to you on the matter.

On 80% of my adventures, me or one of my comrads have ended up a corpse.  This includes travels with "veteran" players who are leading and know what they're doing.

I thought I might reiterate the above point since it seems to have been overlooked.

[Soren / Zarathustra217]

First of all, I'm not shutting down anyone. I think you are reading way to much into what's being said here (by me and others), and there's no reason to be so agitated. You yourself advocate being open to a contrary view-point but don't seem to take hearing it very openly.

In fact, I was only trying to assess the argument you are making: that death is too frequent. It's not directly related to this system, but it has relevance to it, so I see a point in bringing it forth here. But what do you consider as a solution to the problem, beside my suggestion of changing tactics and being much more careful? Why is staying alive more difficult here?

And secondly, though other express the same concern, making broad assumptions is all too easy. The open polls made not too long ago has shown that. Now the difficulty level of combat is a very subjective thing, which I doubt would ever satisfy all at once, but we could bring forth an open poll to evaluate if the combat difficulty generally feels too hard, even when grouping.