|
6 years ago ::
Oct 13, 2007 - 7:15AM
#171
|
|
|
My only problem with it is, in many cases it's either all or nothing. Now when a player aims a fireball at a large group of people, it either hits them all with full effect or hits them all with a partial effect if they are all the same unit. Which means if it hits with the full effect and that's enough to kill them, but the partial was not, there's no longer a chance for stragglers, and if it hits with partial effect they're all still standing.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 13, 2007 - 3:24PM
#172
|
Date Joined:
Apr 20, 2006
|
If you don't want natural 20s to be auto-crits, there's a simple house-rule for that: If the character's attack bonus + natural 20 + 10 (Or whatever number you feel is fair) isn't higher than the target's AC, it only does normal damage (but still auto-hits). Fair and simple, and doesn't take an extra roll.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 13, 2007 - 5:41PM
#173
|
Date Joined:
Nov 20, 2005
|
If you don't want natural 20s to be auto-crits, there's a simple house-rule for that: If the character's attack bonus + natural 20 + 10 (Or whatever number you feel is fair) isn't higher than the target's AC, it only does normal damage (but still auto-hits). Fair and simple, and doesn't take an extra roll.
This is very similar to what Stogoe already pointed out above. The problem with this approach is, 20 + the character's attack bonus should hit practically any appropriately CRed enemy anyways (if you added 10 to all that like you suggest, it should definitely hit). Almost every 20 is going to be a crit regardless with this system in place, so it will rarely mitigate anything.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 13, 2007 - 6:17PM
#174
|
Date Joined:
Apr 20, 2006
|
Hence why I said 'whatever number you feel is fair'. The whole point, as far as I can tell, is so that characters with obscenely high ACs actually derive a benefit from it (so a character who is obviously too low-level to ever hit the AC on a consistent basis never does double damage on a crit). You could just replace the '10' with a '5' or just say 'natural 20s also have to be able to hit the AC, or else they're just a regular hit'.
I, personally, don't have a problem with the crit rules as they stand, so it's a moot point for me.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 14, 2007 - 10:43AM
#175
|
Date Joined:
Nov 25, 2003
|
some how they need to make so that reflex is never higher then AC otherwise people would just want to use reflex to dodge an attack rather than to use AC. Is it easier in some cases to dodge a touch attack then a sword swing?
making AC be reflex+armor bonus would solve this problem. or maybe AC provide DR.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 14, 2007 - 12:39PM
#176
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2006
|
Actually, if AC = 1/2 level +armor and Reflex Defense = 1/2 elvel + dex mod, it can still work. As long as maximum Dex for armor applies to Reflex Defense. If the Max Dex for armor doesn't apply to Reflex Defense (as the current 3.x illogical max dex), then you are correct - eventually Reflex Defense can be higher than AC.
If Armor's maximum Dexterity applies to Reflex Defense adjustments, this is no longer an issue.
Why it doesn't apply to reflex saves and attack modifiers in 3.x has always astounded me. So, IMO, here is how it should break down:
Armor Class: 10 + 1/2 level + Armor/Natural Bonus (no stacking please!)
Fortitude Defense 10 + 1/2 level + Con Mod
Reflex Defense: 10 + 1/2 level + Dex Mod
Will Defense: 10 + 1/2 level + Wis Mod
Now, say we take a look at a 4th level Ranger in 4e. Normally wears Studded leather (+3 AC, +5(20) Max Dex), with a Dexterity of 18. His numbers would look like this:
AC: 15 (+2 level, +3 armor)
Fort: 12
Ref: 16
Will: 12
It's higher right? Yeah, that kind of sucks. Now, let's look at the same character in Scale (+4 bonus, +3(16) Max Dex)
AC: 16 (+2 level, +4 armor)
Fort: 12
Ref: 15 (+2 level, +3 dex)
Will: 12
Suddenly it is more balanced! I think the larger issue is going to be if you stack bonuses like you can nowadays. Say, natural armor (+1), shield (+2), dex, and studded leather to AC.
AC: 22 (+2 level, +3 armor, +4 dex, +1 NA, +2 shield)
Fort: 12
Ref: 16
Will: 12
With Scale instead:
AC: 22 (+2 level, +4 armor, +1 natural, +3 dex, +2 shield)
Fort: 12
Ref: 15
Will: 12
Granting a strength of 18 for the opponent, even a 1/1 BAB fighter (+8 to hit), has to role a 14+ for an equal level. Even with weapon focus and masterwork, you are still only looking at a +10 for the fighter. Food for thought.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 15, 2007 - 4:57AM
#177
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2006
|
It's just a die roll. Statistically it doesn't matter who rolls it. But it makes a whole lot more sense that the active party always roll the die. My players actually have a problem with remembering who's supposed to roll in 3.5e.[/quote]
I know it doesn't matter mechanically who rolls. I am saying that players will feel like they have less control over their character's fates regardless as to whether that is true or not. That is what is important to me. I want my players, and myself when I play, to feel like they have a modicum of control over their character's destiny.
I understand the "ease of play" idea here but it is rubbing me the wrong way. Just like the mages that use all rays because they are ranged touch attacks and don't allow saves.
The horrible truth - "Their new marketing strategy (Evergreen Essentials) pretty much requires that anything new that sees print refer back almost exclusively to Essentials." Tony Vargas
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 15, 2007 - 6:47AM
#178
|
Date Joined:
Jul 14, 2006
|
Armor Class: 10 + 1/2 level + Armor/Natural Bonus (no stacking please!)
Fortitude Defense 10 + 1/2 level + Con Mod
Reflex Defense: 10 + 1/2 level + Dex Mod
Will Defense: 10 + 1/2 level + Wis Mod
What about Magic and Misc. modifiers?
Fortitude Defense 10 + 1/2 level + Con Mod + Magic Mod + Misc Mod
Reflex Defense: 10 + 1/2 level + Dex Mod + Magic Mod + Misc Mod
Will Defense: 10 + 1/2 level + Wis Mod + Magic Mod + Misc Mod
Armor Class: Reflex + Armor + Shield
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 15, 2007 - 8:12AM
#179
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
It's just a die roll. Statistically it doesn't matter who rolls it.
Was it ever proved?  I mean really.  I teach statistic and when I roll series of dice to demonstrate some test it comes about right even tough sample size is small. But there is no luck involved in those rolls, they are rolling for rolling shake.
On the other hand, in Battletech games there are people that are plain luckier or less luckier than others. There should be a real test for these sometimes.
But it makes a whole lot more sense that the active party always roll the die. My players actually have a problem with remembering who's supposed to roll in 3.5e.
Or the players should roll as much as possible. Meaning that there is a saving throw for PCs and save as NF for monsters.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 15, 2007 - 3:45PM
#180
|
Date Joined:
Oct 30, 2006
|
I am definately glad to see an article that talks about mechanics and not fluff for once. I hated what it said though. I agree with previous posters that taking saves (in general anyway) out of the players hands would make them feel even more powerless than they might already feel.
Why are people so negative? You're not taking saves out of the player's hand, you are taking saves out of the defender's hand. That means they don't roll when they are magically attacked, but they do roll when they magically attack (well look at that, isn't that how regular attacks work, and we haven't had any complains about them).
This way, they are actually making the game more fun. I don't know about you, but I hated being a caster at lower levels because the opponents got to roll all the dice. If they failed or succeeded, it always felt like their merit, never mine, and all I did during my turn was say: "I cast X, on Y".
In my particular play group our DM rolls a lot of 18+ rolls. He does it in front of us and with different dice, he just seems to be lucky. If he now gets to basically roll to see if we avoid the dragon's breath then we might as well stop playing.
I am not a fan of anything in the swse so I think I am going to really dislike 4th. Ugh.
Ok, when someone talks like that, it sounds more like they want to dislike what's coming.
But anyway, I am under the impression that you are saying that a certain mechanic is bad because your DM is lucky. Have I misunderstood you?
|
|
|
