Community

Nov 3, 2012 -- 12:44PM, Qmark wrote:

Just get rid of the "to hit" modifier entirely.

I'm into it. It just does more damage when you hit.

In dumb game terms it's explained by saying, your chance to hit is guided more by you experience and your knowledge of your skillset and how to use it. Damage is affected by your raw power or accuracy when that experience pays off.

I like it in theory. Simpler, lessons the focus of getting 18s and being "optimal" and makes the moath more predictable.... and thus combat more fun to design.
Meanwhile, stats aren't useless (checks, saves, damage and such) and you could stilll give fighters +3 and clerics +2 and so on if you'd like to reflect how different classes excel when they operate in martial combat vs magical. 

I know people would rage against it, but the idea appeals to me. 

Nov 3, 2012 -- 11:42PM, Staccat0 wrote:

Nov 3, 2012 -- 12:44PM, Qmark wrote:

Just get rid of the "to hit" modifier entirely.

I'm into it. It just does more damage when you hit.

In dumb game terms it's explained by saying, your chance to hit is guided more by you experience and your knowledge of your skillset and how to use it. Damage is affected by your raw power or accuracy when that experience pays off.

I like it in theory. Simpler, lessons the focus of getting 18s and being "optimal" and makes the moath more predictable.... and thus combat more fun to design.
Meanwhile, stats aren't useless (checks, saves, damage and such) and you could stilll give fighters +3 and clerics +2 and so on if you'd like to reflect how different classes excel when they operate in martial combat vs magical. 

I know people would rage against it, but the idea appeals to me. 

You could eliminate the ability mods altogether and use the scores directly for almost everything if you change D&D from a roll-over to a roll-under system.

But this applies:

Nov 3, 2012 -- 11:42PM, Staccat0 wrote:

I know people would rage against it, but the idea appeals to me.

What about getting rid of the link between attributes and accuracy/damage?

What if your damage bonus is equal to your weapon proficiency bonus? (I.E. fighters get +3 damage with weapons, everyone else +2, and it scales as you level up)

Then attributes are purely for skill checks and saving throws. It would really help out with bounded accuracy and make it so people don't feel obligated to max out one attribute and ignore the others.

I know it seems strange to get rid of it, but after spending hours on charop for 4e I think it would be a welcome change. Once they decided that each class could use its primary attribute for attack/damage it drags down the system in my opinion.

Nov 3, 2012 -- 11:02PM, Staccat0 wrote:

I miss roll-under checks. They did that in 2e right?

Either way, my homebrew d10 system (4th grade was a crazy time in my life) was roll under and I always thought quite elegant and easy to explain. That said, rolling under isn't "as fun" for reasons I can't fully grasp.

You know, it's been so long since I played 2E, I don't really recall.  I know in older editions sometimes you'd need to roll low and sometimes roll high, so it was there in one way or another up until 3E, maybe not on attack rolls or saving throws though, idk.
As to the reason roll-under isn't as fun, psychologically bigger numbers are better, I suppose.

Nov 3, 2012 -- 11:34PM, NicolBolas wrote:

What about getting rid of the link between attributes and accuracy/damage?

What if your damage bonus is equal to your weapon proficiency bonus? (I.E. fighters get +3 damage with weapons, everyone else +2, and it scales as you level up)

Then attributes are purely for skill checks and saving throws. It would really help out with bounded accuracy and make it so people don't feel obligated to max out one attribute and ignore the others.

I know it seems strange to get rid of it, but after spending hours on charop for 4e I think it would be a welcome change. Once they decided that each class could use its primary attribute for attack/damage it drags down the system in my opinion.

Why do you need a damage bonus at all?  Fighters certainly don't now with ED.  If ED stays with Rogues, then I can see there not needing to be any damage bonus for any class.  It might seem weird that STR doesn't add to damage at all anymore though.

Nov 4, 2012 -- 1:44AM, ShadeRaven wrote:

PS: Anyone else miss actually having racial penalties?  More frail elves, weak halflings, or homely dwarves for example.  Not sure why, but I do.

PSS: Also, +2 on a stat for humans, after a lot of testing, is too much.  I wouldn't care if they got an extra +1, but the +2/+1 boost on stat charts that are so heavily determining of balance, has too much effect.

Yes, the return of racial penalties would be welcome.  It doesn't have to balance out like it used to (if you get a +4 somewhere you've got to have a total of -4 elsewhere), but sometimes it just plain makes sense.  For example, why should a race that's 2' shorter than humans have the same strength as humans?  Halflings, I'm looking at you.

As for the Humans in Next - yeah, that's a total (and bad) joke, what the designers have done there.  I've repeatedly asked for a redesign of that in the survey results, make humans have racial traits just like every other race.

I like the system the way it is.  If the dm of a given game feels that a proliferation of extremely high abiity scores will cause a problem then it's up to him/her to use a ability score generation method that fixes it, only allowing a really high score once in a while.  I don't believe the solution is to actually nerf the high scores themselves...if there isn't much difference between a average score and a high one then why have ability scores at all?  Of course if you use a array or point buy system (which I don't, at least not as is) then everyone has the same opportunity to have those high scores anyway, nice & even, so what difference does it make?

Here's what I do: 

Low array-- 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, 6

Assign this array as desired--these are the MINIMUM each score can be.   Then roll (4d6 drop lowest) for each score, IN ORDER.  If you roll higher than the score indicated by the array you get to keep the higher score.  Then apply modifiers.

So really high scores will not be common while still being possible, and at least on the scores that matter you will not have scores that are too low.  It's a semi-random system, works really well & completely eliminates the need for re-rolls.  I didn't like any of the existing methods so I thought about it until I came up with one I did like.  My players like it too.