|
6 years ago ::
Oct 11, 2007 - 3:11AM
#391
|
|
|
A certain subset of people - who may be very very bad at math or keeping papers organized.
Including many role players, actors, artists, and creative types who are very important in the D&D community.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 12, 2007 - 2:52PM
#392
|
Date Joined:
Mar 23, 2005
|
To all those debating the reflex/AC merge. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071005>The standard defenses remain (AC, Fortitude, Reflex, and Will) but now they all work more like AC.< AC remains seperate from reflex.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 12, 2007 - 3:56PM
#393
|
|
|
To all those debating the reflex/AC merge.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071005
>The standard defenses remain (AC, Fortitude, Reflex, and Will) but now they all work more like AC.<
AC remains seperate from reflex.
We figured that out weeks ago. And really, from the looks of it, your Reflex Defense in 4E will just be the equivalent of your Touch AC from 3.x
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 18, 2007 - 10:12AM
#394
|
|
|
In other words, it will make the game easier for a certain subset of people -- who may be very very bad at math or keeping papers organized but awesome players in other respects -- without actually changing the balance of the game in any way. All it does is take an annoying little piece of bookkeeping away from the players and give it to the DM, where it's centralized and easier to manage.
Actually, I was being facetious. Those people are still screwed: If you can't be bothered to calculate your saving throw bonus before play starts, it doesn't matter whether you're adding 10 or 1d20 to the bonus, you've still gotta do the math on the fly every single time.
Similarly, if you're having trouble with the impossible math of rolling 1d20 and adding a single number to the result, then you're still screwed if you're ever the one casting the spells (or swinging a weapon for that matter).
Now this latter problem can certainly be removed: Simply remove dice from the game entirely. Saving throw? Take 10. Attack? Take 10. AC? Take 10. Skill check? Take 10.
Now you've taken a big chunk out of the game's math and you've made sure that all those people who can't handle the basic arithmetic of adding two small numbers together aren't discriminated out of the game...
... assuming they can get someone to prep their character sheets for them.
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2007 - 1:43AM
#395
|
|
|
Actually, I was being facetious. Those people are still screwed: If you can't be bothered to calculate your saving throw bonus before play starts, it doesn't matter whether you're adding 10 or 1d20 to the bonus, you've still gotta do the math on the fly every single time.
Similarly, if you're having trouble with the impossible math of rolling 1d20 and adding a single number to the result, then you're still screwed if you're ever the one casting the spells (or swinging a weapon for that matter).
However, moving things around so that the attacker makes one roll instead of each of the defenders rolling for themselves does make things *slightly* easier -- and more consistent -- at no cost to the numerical balance of the game.
So why not do it, instead of being a jerk and mocking people who have any trouble with the math of D&D at all and insinuating they don't deserve to play?
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2007 - 9:31AM
#396
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Changing saves to defenses is the same math except when AoE are concerned unless you make one attack roll per target than the math is the same for AoE as well. But the fact that it will hopefully default to one attack roll against all defenses for an AoE I see as a benefit not a detriment.
It means the rogue will save versus fireball when his buddies fail. And it means if the rogue is hit by the fireball so is everyone else. But that's what makes sense from a game balance perspective. The rogue is balanced to dodge the fireballs when others do not.
The current 3.x rules that has everyone save hurts that balance not helps it purely because it allows the fighter to max a roll when the rogue tanks his. Also it means that the "math curves" that define how well an AoE works is greatly altered based upon how many characters are saving. Those curves changing means it is much harder to define if a spell is the correct power level against a specific level party because there is too much variation. The single attack roll makes the variation well defined regardless.
The single attack roll hopefully means they are taking the next step to making spells better balanced. Better damages for spells. Nobody complains about the horrible statistics of pre-4th Ed 10d6 for fireballs yet it has so much variation that the saves are almost irrelevant by comparison. 10d6 means that one can barely knock out a 1st level (no CON) fighter at the low end of the damage rolled but knock out a 10th level fighter (no CON) on the high end of the damage rolled.
And people are so worried that if a spell hits everyone in the AoE one will get a TPK when they should be worried about someone rolling max damage on a spell when the current balance possible accounted for the average (10d6 fireball = 35).
And yes before the math nazis jump on me, I know that if one uses the auto-hit on a 20 that one has a 5% chance of hitting but maxing 10d6 is a tiny tiny percentage chance. I think the point is still valid though. Those same math guys should be able to crunch the mess of a curve with everyone making their own saves and how hard that is to then decide on the best damage to match character levels.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2007 - 11:18AM
#397
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2002
|
The DM still has to make the same kind of calculations, only flipped on the attacker's side. Still require the same time.
Furthermore, it's not actually ALWAYS a nice thing to remove rolls to speed up play. You must focus on removing unnecessary things. Now just because the designers have teached you (correctly) that simplifying is good, that doesn't equal to remove everything
Otherwise what's the next step? Remove combat to speed up the game, toss a coin to decide who wins because it's faster and easier?  Rolling saving throws is a fun part of the game!
I want to play in your magical world where all the players constantly pay attention, know where everything is at all times, keep track of every effect on them, and are fully competent at the math on their sheet and in adding a number between 1-20 to it. It sounds as a fantastic place that doesn't involve me ever going to the fridge and wondering why some of my friends can't do these things.
There are a few main reasons I became the DM, and I've found these reasons usually contribute to other DMs as well. I can make a good story & pay attention, I spend the time to prepare, and I can do simple math. Most players however, they show up doing next to nothing all week and still can't handle one characters sheet.
So please, if you know where this magical world of on the ball players is, please do tell where.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2007 - 11:19AM
#398
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2007
|
Im not into getting rid of the saving throws either, however I am willing to give it a try. The d20 system is the best combat system, but it worries me that maybe they intend to dumb down the game to much, in hopes of making it run smother.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 20, 2007 - 2:47PM
#399
|
Date Joined:
Aug 24, 2007
|
You guys are assuming there won't be a Saving Throw.
There won't be a *routine* saving throw, as in past editions, but the Action Point/Fate/Whatever mechanism may allow characters to make a roll to avoid an especially brutal hit or spell effect. (at the cost of a fate point or whatnot.)
This would allow characters to in effect roll their "saving throw" when it's *literally* (or almost literally) a true saving throw, really saving your ass from a dire effect.
This would be a dramatic roll (obviously) and "fate would be in your own hands." (Or at least the illusion thereof.)
But eliminating a lot of the penny-ante saves would speed the game up.
A true saving throw (say cha bonus + 1/2 level + d20 vs. either a DC of 15 or some formula taking into account the power of the guy whose attack you're trying to avoid) would be, to me, a great compromise for those who want to roll their own saves (and defenses!); you would be rolling, but only when there was something *serious* on the line.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Oct 20, 2007 - 11:18PM
#400
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2007
|
The d20 system is the best combat system, but it worries me that maybe they intend to dumb down the game to much, in hopes of making it run smother.
What others have you tried? Since I actually kind of like combat systems which feature blocking a little more prominently (since hitting an expert swordsman with +20 BAB but only 10 dex and no armor is the same difficulty as hitting someone who has no idea what they are doing with 10 dex and no armor. Anyone who has actually tried hitting someone who's holding a stick, with a stick knows that that isn't true). FUDGE has a good combat system, although it is pretty granular, and needed modification. It is a good combat system for people who like it as complicated as it is featuring what it does, but it isn't the best. It is just the best for certain people. Some people like others.
|
|
|
