|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 8:26PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2008
|
There is one downside to MechaPilot's idea: What happens when a character has a +16? There's gotta be a cap. Sitting through every fighter taking 16 attacks is gonna get tedious.
Otherwise I like the idea. Back in the early 80's we did this in a homebrew and it worked fine at low levels, but we had to cap it at 6 attacks per round to speed things up.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 8:30PM
#42
|
|
|
As far as other people's input, I love MechaPilot's +4 vs. +0/+0/+0/+0, and the idea of a flatter curve.
I'm having trouble reconciling how I want the curve to be flattened. I like to-hit and stat advancement via leveling (at a slower pace than 4E). I also like the idea of linking one's Prime Stat to one's to-hit bonus. Those three together almost always add up to too much advancement for me when I do the math. It just ends up being "Quadratic + to Hit, Linear Saves/AC/Resist", and that seems like a problem. Any ideas?
You could have the prime stat bonus apply to a single attack, only allow the bonus to be applied when you spend a resource like an action point, require the bonus to be spread out over the character's attacks (so a +3 could be a +3 to one attack or +1 to 3 different attacks), or you could scale the stat bonus to rise more slowly (instead of +1 per 2 points over 10, you could say +1 per 3 or 4 points), or you could say that only half of the stat bonus applies to to-hit rolls (so a +1 would still be +0 to-hit, a +2 and +3 would be a +1 to-hit, a +4 would be a +2 to-hit, etc).
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 29, 2012 - 8:32PM
#43
|
|
|
There is one downside to MechaPilot's idea: What happens when a character has a +16? There's gotta be a cap. Sitting through every fighter taking 16 attacks is gonna get tedious.
Otherwise I like the idea. Back in the early 80's we did this in a homebrew and it worked fine at low levels, but we had to cap it at 6 attacks per round to speed things up.
There wouldn't be a +16. The additional attacks for trading in pluses is restricted to your class bonus. Let me use a fighter, who would have a +3 class attack bonus, but who has a +16 to hit.
+16 (+3 class bonus, and +13 from other bonuses)
+15/+15 (+2 class bonus, and +13 from other bonuses)
+14/+14/+14 (+1 class bonus, and +13 from other bonuses)
+13/+13/+13/+13 (+0 class bonus, and +13 from other bonuses)
Edit: this also means that a class with a +2 class bonus would have a maximum of 3 attacks per round, a +1 class bonus would have a max of 2 attacks per round, and a +0 class bonus would only ever have one attack per round.
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 29, 2012 - 8:35PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2008
|
There is one downside to MechaPilot's idea: What happens when a character has a +16? There's gotta be a cap. Sitting through every fighter taking 16 attacks is gonna get tedious.
Otherwise I like the idea. Back in the early 80's we did this in a homebrew and it worked fine at low levels, but we had to cap it at 6 attacks per round to speed things up.
There wouldn't be a +16. The additional attacks for trading in pluses is restricted to your class bonus. Let me use a fighter, who would have a +3 class attack bonus, but who has a +16 to hit.
+16 (+3 class bonus, and +13 from other bonuses)
+15/+15 (+2 class bonus, and +13 from other bonuses)
+14/+14/+14 (+1 class bonus, and +13 from other bonuses)
+13/+13/+13/+13 (+0 class bonus, and +13 from other bonuses)
Edit: this also means that a class with a +2 class bonus would have a maximum of 3 attacks per round, a +1 class bonus would have a max of 2 attacks per round, and a +0 class bonus would only ever have one attack per round.
Ah OK, I get it now.
Yes, I think you have a very good idea.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 8:36PM
#45
|
|
|
Ah OK, I get it now.
Yes, I think you have a very good idea.
Thank you.
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 29, 2012 - 8:48PM
#46
|
|
|
As far as other people's input, I love MechaPilot's +4 vs. +0/+0/+0/+0, and the idea of a flatter curve.
I'm having trouble reconciling how I want the curve to be flattened. I like to-hit and stat advancement via leveling (at a slower pace than 4E). I also like the idea of linking one's Prime Stat to one's to-hit bonus. Those three together almost always add up to too much advancement for me when I do the math. It just ends up being "Quadratic + to Hit, Linear Saves/AC/Resist", and that seems like a problem. Any ideas?
You could have the prime stat bonus apply to a single attack, only allow the bonus to be applied when you spend a resource like an action point, require the bonus to be spread out over the character's attacks (so a +3 could be a +3 to one attack or +1 to 3 different attacks), or you could scale the stat bonus to rise more slowly (instead of +1 per 2 points over 10, you could say +1 per 3 or 4 points), or you could say that only half of the stat bonus applies to to-hit rolls (so a +1 would still be +0 to-hit, a +2 and +3 would be a +1 to-hit, a +4 would be a +2 to-hit, etc).
I really like the idea of applying the + from the Prime Stat to the first attack, or for Wizards the first target. This would limit things to prevent a +0/+0/+0+0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0 round. By keeping Prime stat + separate from the + to hit, you limit the number of possible overall attacks.
This also increases your chances of hitting at least once in a round, so nobody feels impotent. Bad die rolls could still screw you, but between multiple attacks and a Prime Attack that is much less likely.
Edit: And you beat me to a better solution yet again. I like the way you think regarding melee parity.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 9:05PM
#47
|
|
|
As far as other people's input, I love MechaPilot's +4 vs. +0/+0/+0/+0, and the idea of a flatter curve.
I'm having trouble reconciling how I want the curve to be flattened. I like to-hit and stat advancement via leveling (at a slower pace than 4E). I also like the idea of linking one's Prime Stat to one's to-hit bonus. Those three together almost always add up to too much advancement for me when I do the math. It just ends up being "Quadratic + to Hit, Linear Saves/AC/Resist", and that seems like a problem. Any ideas?
You could have the prime stat bonus apply to a single attack, only allow the bonus to be applied when you spend a resource like an action point, require the bonus to be spread out over the character's attacks (so a +3 could be a +3 to one attack or +1 to 3 different attacks), or you could scale the stat bonus to rise more slowly (instead of +1 per 2 points over 10, you could say +1 per 3 or 4 points), or you could say that only half of the stat bonus applies to to-hit rolls (so a +1 would still be +0 to-hit, a +2 and +3 would be a +1 to-hit, a +4 would be a +2 to-hit, etc).
I really like the idea of applying the + from the Prime Stat to the first attack, or for Wizards the first target. This would limit things to prevent a +0/+0/+0+0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0/+0 round. By keeping Prime stat + separate from the + to hit, you limit the number of possible overall attacks.
This also increases your chances of hitting at least once in a round, so nobody feels impotent. Bad die rolls could still screw you, but between multiple attacks and a Prime Attack that is much less likely.
Edit: And you beat me to a better solution yet again. I like the way you think regarding melee parity.
Thank you. A static bonus that can be traded for extra attacks just seemed like the simplest way to keep a tiered array of attack bonuses and multiple attacks.
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 29, 2012 - 9:19PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
I don't like accuracy nor irrative attacks as class features, period. They're boring and unimaginative. In all effect they're just doing more of the same more often, and yet historically they always seem to be the most practical option for non-spellcasters (rivaled only by the equally repetetive MegaDeth charge strategy).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 10:07PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
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'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.
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.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 12:35PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2012
|
A vancian equivalent melee system that allows melee based characters to be able to contribute accross all levels of the game. I wouldn't mind making melee types especially a barbarian or fighter, more resistant to magical effects. I also want more than just stand and make multiple attacks reminiscent of 3.5. I want features of 4E and martial types to be used again, but with more attention paid to the effects martial abilties grant in combat.
And out of combat.
I don't like accuracy nor irrative attacks as class features, period. They're boring and unimaginative. In all effect they're just doing more of the same more often, and yet historically they always seem to be the most practical option for non-spellcasters
The most archetypal of fantastic heroes are the knight, the warrior, the duelist, the barbarian, and so forth. And, almost invariably they are given short thrift in these nerd-games. Why?
|
|
|
