|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 12:54PM
#51
|
|
|
I personally would like to see multiple attacks as combo maneuvers. A fighting character makes a single attack but rolls multiple d20s. Each success beyond the first does 1W extra damage and multiple successes allows for special maneuvers, ie trade 2 successes for a whirlwind attack, one for a trip, etc.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 1:07PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2009
|
Browsing this, I was reflecting on the idea that multiple attacks slow the game down. On the other hand, I think it's important for a melee character to be able to hit multiple targets. What if the exchange went like this:
Setup, there are 3 goblins adjacent to the fighter, we'll creatively call the goblins A B and C.
The fighter rolls her attack and damage, to see the general effectiveness. She rolls an 18 vs AC, for 10 points of damage.
The DM responds: "Ok, an 18 beats the AC of Goblins A and B, but not C, describe your attack"
The fighter says: "I feint a large strike at C, catching A and B off guard. Using that moment of hesitation, I concentrate the full attack on A, dealing all 10 damage to him."
Alternatively, the fighter says: "I stab at A and catch him in the arm, then as I bring my sword back, I swipe at B's face, nicking it. 6 damage to A, 4 to B".
The number of different enemies that you could split up the damage against would vary with level: A level 1 fighter can only hit 1 enemy at a time, but at level 5 (perhaps the same level where they get a nice bonus to their damage?) they can divide their damage against 2 targets, and then level 10 they get 3 targets, etc.
It's fast in the sense that it's just one die roll, and it's also fast in a tactical sense, I just decide what targets I want to try to hit.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 1:17PM
#53
|
|
|
If we assume a 50% desired hit rate, I'd say the fighter should have a 55-60% with his +3 bonus figured in.
If we assume a 50% hit rate, a +3 makes it 65% (and that's before attribute modifier gets worked in).
I said if we assume a 50% desired hit rate. The class that hits the best (fighter) should exceed this rate, and the class that hits the worst (wizard) should fall beneath it. The middling classes should equal it. If we assume the wizard's +0 results in a 45%, the +1 classes result in a 50%, the +2 classes result in a 55%, and the +3 classes result in a 60%
I'm starting to really like the idea of the fighter being pretty much guaranteed at least one hit out of four attack rolls, with the natural option to make that one epic swing count.
Maybe the math would work better at "-2 to each attack, for each attack" option, so the fighter could theoretically make ten attacks at -20 if he really felt like it or had a pile of tiny mooks to murder.
That's basically what my system does, each attack gets reduced by -1 for for each additional attack. It just limits it based on your class to hit bonus so you don't have to deal with characters trying cartloads of attacks every round.
I don't like accuracy nor irrative attacks as class features, period.
If all of the attacks have the same modifiers, we save a pile of time by just rolling them all at once, then rolling damage for the attacks that did something.
Yeah, I don't really see the need to roll for each attack when all the attacks have the same bonus. I don't even see the need to roll damage for individual attacks. Just toss a single d20 for all your attacks, and throw your damage dice at the same time. Whatever hits, hits for what you rolled. What ever doesn't hit, misses.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 1:26PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Browsing this, I was reflecting on the idea that multiple attacks slow the game down
[...]
The DM responds: "Ok, an 18 beats the AC of Goblins A and B, but not C, describe your attack"
So, slowing the game is bad, but stopping the action dead to insist someone spit out a paragraph is somehow good?
If we assume a 50% desired hit rate, I'd say the fighter should have a 55-60% with his +3 bonus figured in.
If we assume a 50% hit rate, a +3 makes it 65% (and that's before attribute modifier gets worked in).
I said if we assume a 50% desired hit rate. The class that hits the best (fighter) should exceed this rate, and the class that hits the worst (wizard) should fall beneath it. The middling classes should equal it. If we assume the wizard's +0 results in a 45%, the +1 classes result in a 50%, the +2 classes result in a 55%, and the +3 classes result in a 60%
This works if the 'normal' AC is 12.
I'm starting to really like the idea of the fighter being pretty much guaranteed at least one hit out of four attack rolls, with the natural option to make that one epic swing count.
Maybe the math would work better at "-2 to each attack, for each attack" option, so the fighter could theoretically make ten attacks at -20 if he really felt like it or had a pile of tiny mooks to murder.
That's basically what my system does, each attack gets reduced by -1 for for each additional attack. It just limits it based on your class to hit bonus so you don't have to deal with characters trying cartloads of attacks every round.
This makes sense if the number of swings a fighter can make goes up with level (or every few levels).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 1:33PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2009
|
I'm not sure what you're taking offense to in my post. I guess I just assumed that players generally describe attacks. Here shifting the description until after the die roll makes more sense to me. It'd be silly to narrate an attack against goblin C when you realize that you instead are going to split the damage across A and B.
Of course, if you don't want to describe your attacks, you can just state the damage and let your notion of the action continue...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 6:46PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Feb 28, 2012
|
Scale all damage to level (similar to how wizard spells scale damage with level). Allow multiple attacks for all (but fighters either get more of them or get them sooner). The higher your level, the better your chance to hit.
That way, fighters get the ability to hurt more than one target as they get higher in level (just as mages can). The higher the level of the PC, the more damage they do (all PCs). The higher in level, the easier it is to hit the monsters (or it allows them to hit monsters that lower PCs couldn't hit like dragons).
Put in a mechanic to describe how to resolve grappling, bashing, tackling, grabbing, sniping, charging, etc.
Player describes what they want their PC to do, then everyone uses the appropriate mechanic to see if they succeed (after rolling some dice).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 7:44PM
#57
|
|
|
I'm starting to really like the idea of the fighter being pretty much guaranteed at least one hit out of four attack rolls, with the natural option to make that one epic swing count.
Maybe the math would work better at "-2 to each attack, for each attack" option, so the fighter could theoretically make ten attacks at -20 if he really felt like it or had a pile of tiny mooks to murder.
That's basically what my system does, each attack gets reduced by -1 for for each additional attack. It just limits it based on your class to hit bonus so you don't have to deal with characters trying cartloads of attacks every round.
This makes sense if the number of swings a fighter can make goes up with level (or every few levels).
Yes. I already mentioned how I'd handle that in a pervious post.
As long as it's not locked behind a feat, like SWSE did.
No. I'm for unlocking the ability to make additional attacks by levelling. Assuming a 20-level career, I'd say 1 attack for levels 1-4, 2 for lvls 5-9, 3 for lvls 10-14, and 4 for lvls 15-20. Classes that only get a +2 attack bonus would then cap out at 3 attacks from lvls 10-20 (or maybe they should get them at different rates).
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 9:51PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Isn't reading awesome?!!
Seriously though, a fixed attack bonus with multiple attacks essentially being the 'new BAB' seems like a great idea.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 01, 2012 - 7:20AM
#59
|
|
|
I'm for the one d20 roll with level dependant amount of damage dice.
We stopped rolling individual attacks with Bursts and Blasts in 4e and there was no drop off, you hit various monsters with your roll and missed the other ones.
I think a high level fighter should roll a d20 for his attack doing lots of [W] equiv damage along with some bonus damage (like a flaming war pick or somesuch) dice and then apply it to multiple adjacent targets. One roll, one damage, spell or sword, at every level.
Throw in the high level fighters Combat Maneuver where the trips anyone he hits.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 01, 2012 - 11:37AM
#60
|
|
|
I'm for the one d20 roll with level dependant amount of damage dice.
We stopped rolling individual attacks with Bursts and Blasts in 4e and there was no drop off, you hit various monsters with your roll and missed the other ones.
What happens on a crit?
I think a high level fighter should roll a d20 for his attack doing lots of [W] equiv damage along with some bonus damage (like a flaming war pick or somesuch) dice and then apply it to multiple adjacent targets. One roll, one damage, spell or sword, at every level.
Throw in the high level fighters Combat Maneuver where the trips anyone he hits.
I can see the appeal of both sides. You know what the best argument is? Make it so both arguments are possible in the same system. Those that want to go have one massive strike can, and those that want more chances to hit have that option as well.
One of the main design goals of DDN is to allow different playstyles at the same table. I'd be damn happy to see two fighters at the same table with these two different mechanics working together.
And of course, if you as a DM prefer one over the other, you ahve the right to allow one module and not the other.
|
|
|
