|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 2:30AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Sure but how often are you going to think you will get attacked but then not actually end up getting attacked? Unless your DM is being deliberately mean, not often in my experience.
And this is no different than any other defensive action. You might use the dodge action because you are very injured; if you don't get attacked would you cry foul? You might cast a defensive spell (an even more precious resource); if you don't get attacked would you cry foul?
It's not about balance or numbers, it's about psychology. Rolling martial dice is fun. If the game is set up in such a way that I might have to choose to not roll them (or spend them in some other way that gives me a concrete benefit per die used up), that's less fun than a system that lets me make essentially the same decision at a different time-point but roll more dice. The actual numerical impact between the two different schemes is probably pretty minimal.
Edit: Ignore that last part, I misread the post.
<Ioun> they're apparently making a MolIsCool pp
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 1:32PM
#22
|
|
|
I'd add that fighters have plenty of options for fun and intelligent play without having to decide whether to "hold" dice back for a potential parry. Hate it in White Wolf's games, hate it here. The combat maneuvers allow them to again do the battlefield control actions they could 2 packets ago (which I'm very thankful for). I can bull rush, or shove away (more my style), or disarm, or trip--and since I'm a fighter with a maneuver I don't have to waste my action doing nothing but my maneuver. Every turn I can make interesting choices (and those were merely a few). The issue isn't one of intelligent tactical play, it is one of pre-planning. Some people want to play simple fighters that aren't in need of pre-planning, and some of us would like to play intelligent battlefield control fighters who also aren't in need of defensive pre-planning of that kind.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 21, 2012 - 5:56PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I will try this on Sunday with my group. My gut feeling is that "beginning of turn" might elicit some grumbles, and then we'll house-rule and do "end of turn", and see how combat feels either way. I'll give feedback. This needs to be play-tested to be sure.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 12:23PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Feb 28, 2008
|
Thank you for posting that tweet and clearing this up for everyone! It was a stumbling block in the lastest packet for my group!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 3:26PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Nov 15, 2008
|
You're welcome everyone.
My playtest duties have been fulfilled.
Viva La "what ever version of D&D you are playing right now!"
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 7:23PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2012
|
It shifts where the meat of the tactics lies.
When they refresh at the end you have the benefit of using parry anytime it gets dangerous. So when you dont' get attacked, you are more deadly! (tactics is more in the monsters court than the players, in the sense that if a monster leaves the player alone, that player is definitely going to be deadly)
When they refresh at the beginning, if you 'miss' you have them ALL for parry, which is interesting. Either way, players can use tactics to intentionally be defensive or to do damage. (tactics is more in the players court to decide if they want to be more deadly or not)
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 26, 2012 - 2:32PM
#27
|
|
|
However, a player can choose with more knowledge when it refreshes at the end. If hit, they have a choice to either soak damage or hold those dice to attempt to hit harder, at the cost of definitely taking more damage.
I like what you pointed about the effect it has on the monster--which kind of gives the fighter that "defender" effect. "You had better hit me, or I will hit you *hard*!"
I think you also can make a more informed choice about how many dice to use for defense if it refreshes at the end. You spend what you need, and then have all the rest to attack with.
There is still *some* speculative planning, as you have to decide if and how much you want to soak, based on how much you want for your attack, but I find it's an easier choice and doesn't require as much mental book-keeping.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 26, 2012 - 3:13PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2012
|
I definitely agree that at the end becomes an easier choice. I find the book-keeping to be the same for me.
We're playing it as refreshing at the beginning for this packet. Because monsters rarely hit the fighters, it really doesn't come into play very often. And with that same fact, refreshing at the beginning may not really be 'fair' as parry will basically never be the option to choose until near death or something.
It would be interesting to allow it to be player choice upon gaining the dice, but I think for simplicity it is better if the system 'decides' and then put in a module/caveat that the player can choose if the DM allows.
Currently running a playtest, weekly, online D&D Next Session using a virtual table system called roll20.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 26, 2012 - 3:29PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
technically they dont recharge because you odnt use them up. they just cant be used twice in the same turn
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 29, 2012 - 9:21AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Nov 10, 2011
|
Beh, I really wish this was more clear cut. Just to muddy the waters a bit Mearls posted this tweet ... twitter.com/mikemearls/status/2847537704... So now we have conflicting tweets about when/how you get to use your damage dice.
|
|
|
