|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 7:44AM
#1
|
|
|
In my experience, what makes a battle exciting or fast paced isn't how fast the round goes. It's how often you roll a dice or make a decision. Decisions slow down the battle for the others, and are handled well by the existing limit of actions per turn. The action and tension of a battle can be turned up with every important dice roll though.
I reccomend a system where every attack has both an offensive and defensive roll. Defensive rolls add a little more depth to combat as well as making it so both the attacker and the attacked have more involvement. A lousy attack can hit, or a great attack can be parried depending on the defensive roll.
Most systems like this are tacked on, and feel that way, but it could be great if written into a core mechanic set.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 8:09AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
I'm a fan of reactive rolls for combat, but it changes the feel of the game entirely, and I'm afraid it is not D&D (except for perhaps saving throws). If every attack is countered by a defensive roll, I think the system would need an entirely new wound system. Having hit points with a reactive combat system would not feel right, and it would also change the AC mechanic (two elements that basically define D&D).
In a reactive combat system, if a PC or creature fails to parry or dodge, he or she should take a substantial hit. WEG d6 did this very well...applying conditions based on the amount of damage caused by a successful blow (stunned, wounded, wounded x2, severely wounded, incapacitated, mortally wounded).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 8:10AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2007
|
I totally disagree with having two rolls per action when only one roll suffices. Mathematically there is almost no difference between making a single d20 roll versus a passive number that is 10+ some modifier versus and rolling a d20 versus another d20+ the same modifer. Rolling twice when you could instead roll once for the same effect means you are basically almost doubling the time you spend resolving dice rolls with no noticable benefit to the game.
So I strongly recommend most actions be resolved using a single d20 roll, not two rolls. They can always include a brief optional rule for replacing passive 10+ difficulty numbers with d20+ for any DM who likes opposed rolls for some reason, but I definitely recomend not making opposed rolls the default system. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 8:17AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
From what little has been described of saving throws, this is exactly what will happen for every spell cast on an unwilling enemy.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 8:25AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2007
|
From what little has been described of saving throws, this is exactly what will happen for every spell cast on an unwilling enemy.
Actually the defender would be rolling a defensive saving throw but the attacker normally wouldn't be rolling an attack roll. Even in earlier editions it was rare for a spell to require both an attack roll and a saving throw, it was almost always one or the other but not both.
Personally on an aesthetic level I like 4e's philosophy of the attacker always being the one who rolls the dice. I think it's easier to understand and remember; you don't have to look up an individual spell description every time a spell is cast to know who is rolling, for instance. But assuming DDNext goes back to the defender sometimes being the one who rolls the dice I definitely recommend that in those cases the attacker not also roll the dice. One or the other rolls, not both, should be the rule.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 8:25AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
My experience is apparently very different from yours. In my experience, watching other people roll dice that don't effect you does not make combat feel exciting or fast paced. It makes you bored of waiting for your turn to come up again.
In my experience, what makes battles exciting is meaningful consequences to your decisions and your rolls, so that you never know what's going to happen next or how it's going to end, so that every hit against a monster is a great success that dramatically increases your chances of ultimate victory and every hit against a player is a harrowing moment that dramatically increases your chances of ultimate defeat. Opposed rolls only confuse the excitement of dice rolling, because you have to do a bit of math before you have a fair idea of who won. It's not the mechanical action of tossing the dice that's exciting, it's the realized hopes and fears of your number coming up, and defensive rolls add nothing to that. What you need is more impact on each dice roll, not more dice rolls on each impact.
In my experience, what makes a battle fast paced is fast pacing. As in no long waits between turns, and the battle is over quickly. Adding extra rolls and extra math is not conducive to faster play. By the way, action economy did a terrible job limiting decisions, because you can still spend an inordinate amount of time picking from the 10 standard action attack powers, the 7 utilities, the gods-knows-how many item powers, and the infinite movement possibilities (and that's assuming you don't have an action point to consider spending).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 8:33AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
From what little has been described of saving throws, this is exactly what will happen for every spell cast on an unwilling enemy.
Actually the defender would be rolling a defensive saving throw but the attacker normally wouldn't be rolling an attack roll. Even in earlier editions it was rare for a spell to require both an attack roll and a saving throw, it was almost always one or the other but not both.
Personally on an aesthetic level I like 4e's philosophy of the attacker always being the one who rolls the dice. I think it's easier to understand and remember; you don't have to look up an individual spell description every time a spell is cast to know who is rolling, for instance. But assuming DDNext goes back to the defender sometimes being the one who rolls the dice I definitely recommend that in those cases the attacker not also roll the dice. One or the other rolls, not both, should be the rule.
Huh? I've misinterpreted things.
I agree on prefering 4e style of the attacker rolls against a static defense. Layered on top of this base, I would like for the defender to be able to choose options that allow them some type of defensive roll.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 8:56AM
#8
|
|
|
If no resource is being used and no decision is being made, I'd prefer the fastest possible resolution. Touching dice more often is a way to pretend you're actually making a decision when you really aren't. The DM could just as easily make the defense roll for me while I take a nap or play Mario Kart, so this really adds nothing but more d20s and more arithmetic. If I have to decide on a defense for each attack based on some combat matrix, that's probably worse.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 8:56AM
#9
|
|
|
Yes, I would agree my experiences have been different than some of yours. With more than one or two monsters half the battle (or often more) becomes the players waiting for the DM to be done with the monsters turns with nothing to do. I've played in games where players will get up and leave the table when it's not their turn because there's no reason to just sit watching the DM roll dice for five minutes in a large battle.
Attacks of opportunity or any other reactive roll get the players back involved, especially in battles against large mobs. Also, the tension tends to build with every roll with the question of whether it will hit or not.
Also, in my experience, for battle to be dramatic every hit should be a big deal. Magical healing aside, that is a spear sticking out of your leg, that should be a big deal.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 22, 2012 - 9:24AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
I think players are involved when they're being attacked whether they're rolling a reactive defense or not. If a hit matters, they're going to care about the roll result regardless of who is rolling it. Unless you have a dice-rolling fetish and just really love the feel of dice rolling around in your hand, it shouldn't matter one bit. Whereas everyone else has that much more time to get up and leave the table while it's not their turn, because the monsters' turns and their fellow player's turns will take longer due to the extra rolling and math. Even if it successfully got you more involved in the (generously estimated) 15 seconds a monster spends attacking you, it's adding about 40 seconds (5 extra seconds per attack, assuming a 5v5 fight that's 4 PCs other than you making attacks and 4 monsters attacking PCs other than you) to a combat round in which you have no involvement. Not a net benefit.
|
|
|
