|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 6:59PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
Mathematically it's an elegant system.
I've considered those exact rules myself (they're actually more or less the SWSaga system).
HOWEVER... one aspect of that is what made me never actually want to implement that sort of thing.
Imagine the hypothetical situation: A monster casts a hold person on a player (whether Hold Person should be higher level or not doesn't really matter for the example).
The traditional way
DM: "Ok, so the monster speaks strange words and moves his fingers. You realize he's casting a spell on you. Make a will/wisdom save!"
*Tension grows*
*Everyone at the table stare at the targeted player expectantly*
*The player takes a deep breath and throws the d20*
*He rolls a 3*
Player: "Damn! What crappy luck!"
DM: "Well, you suddenly can't move or act anymore."
The proposed way
DM: "Well you realize the monster has cast a spell and now you can't move or act."
Player: "Wait... what? ..........................................."
See what I mean?
;P
How is this any different from:
DM: "The terrifying ogre rushes towards you, swining its massive club."
Player: "Oh crap. I'm already badly wounded. This could be the end of me!"
*Tension grows.*
*Everyone at the table stare at the DM expectantly.*
*DM rolls a die to hit the player's AC.*
*He rolls a 20, critting the poor player's character.*
DM: You take 30 points of damage. You die.
Why is that a terrible system for things like hold person or other spells, but not for attack rolls which can be every bit as deadly?
Imagine if players didn't roll to attack, instead monsters rolled their AC to see if they were hit by the players' attacks. Players would complain that the suspense and fun of rolling the dice to see if they hit, crit, fumble, etc. was taken away. Either way, the player is getting to roll in some situations, and the DM is in others.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 7:21PM
#52
|
|
|
I'd rather have the chance to rolls crits with all my spells and have special effects go off than to have the DM roll and take all the fun away.
But is that really worth also having the spells critically fail on 1s?
A spell that goes awry can be alot of fun for the story (if not fun for the spellcaster). There can be wild effects when magic goes wrong.
Critting and fumbling with spells could be awesome.
A spell that Charms but Dominates on crit sounds fun.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 7:30PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2005
|
I'd rather have the chance to rolls crits with all my spells and have special effects go off than to have the DM roll and take all the fun away.
But is that really worth also having the spells critically fail on 1s?
i guess if they added critial fails to melee attacks, it would make sense for spells too...
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 7:34PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2005
|
A spell that Charms but Dominates on crit sounds fun.
A fun aspect of 4e was that spells could crit and add special effects. They didn't do enough with various cool things that could activate in that circumstance, IMO, and there is a lot of design room left untouched. Going back to some things targeting a defense and some requiring the target to save is a step backwards that i don't want to see because it takes this design space away and takes the active role (and roll) out of the spellcaster player's hands.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 8:33PM
#55
|
|
|
Mathematically it's an elegant system.
I've considered those exact rules myself (they're actually more or less the SWSaga system).
HOWEVER... one aspect of that is what made me never actually want to implement that sort of thing.
Imagine the hypothetical situation: A monster casts a hold person on a player (whether Hold Person should be higher level or not doesn't really matter for the example).
The traditional way
DM: "Ok, so the monster speaks strange words and moves his fingers. You realize he's casting a spell on you. Make a will/wisdom save!"
*Tension grows*
*Everyone at the table stare at the targeted player expectantly*
*The player takes a deep breath and throws the d20*
*He rolls a 3*
Player: "Damn! What crappy luck!"
DM: "Well, you suddenly can't move or act anymore."
The proposed way
DM: "Well you realize the monster has cast a spell and now you can't move or act."
Player: "Wait... what? ..........................................."
See what I mean?
;P
How is this any different from:
DM: "The terrifying ogre rushes towards you, swining its massive club."
Player: "Oh crap. I'm already badly wounded. This could be the end of me!"
*Tension grows.*
*Everyone at the table stare at the DM expectantly.*
*DM rolls a die to hit the player's AC.*
*He rolls a 20, critting the poor player's character.*
DM: You take 30 points of damage. You die.
Why is that a terrible system for things like hold person or other spells, but not for attack rolls which can be every bit as deadly?
Imagine if players didn't roll to attack, instead monsters rolled their AC to see if they were hit by the players' attacks. Players would complain that the suspense and fun of rolling the dice to see if they hit, crit, fumble, etc. was taken away. Either way, the player is getting to roll in some situations, and the DM is in others.
The most logical way is for both sides to roll..attacked and defender
The easiest way is to have your attack mod + d20 vs. their defense (ie. reflex) + d20...simple quick and effective anything more will bog down the game
As for the defenses themselves why change them Str/Con = fort, Dex/Int = Reflex, Wis/Cha = Will..really the only change I could suggest it switching Wis and Int as Wisdom is more about your innate perceptions (ie. Instinctual reflexes) whislt Int is brain power (aka Willpower) so make more sense but I'd be fine without the change....as for the people insisting on a str+con/2 type save mechanic..thats stupid it will make everyones stats look like this 14/14/14/14/14/14 or have a pointless save that you may as well not roll...it defeats the purpose of defenses mst players should have a strong defense a medium defense and a weak defense which is what the 4e version did...I know you all hate 4e but it got some things right so stop trying to change it for the wrong reasons.
Anyways on the note of crit success/crit fail I would LOVE tro see a new deck released for that...it's a PITA to find a copy of the old one and I'd like to see on related to 5e mechanics
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 23, 2013 - 8:40PM
#56
|
|
|
A spell that Charms but Dominates on crit sounds fun.
A fun aspect of 4e was that spells could crit and add special effects. They didn't do enough with various cool things that could activate in that circumstance, IMO, and there is a lot of design room left untouched. Going back to some things targeting a defense and some requiring the target to save is a step backwards that i don't want to see because it takes this design space away and takes the active role (and roll) out of the spellcaster player's hands.
Yeah, the 4e-style “defense” is a much more powerful mechanic. You can do so much more mechanically, when both melee and spells use the same attack system.
Also, even in melee, there are physical attacks that make armor irrelevant. For example, throwing a net over someone, it is irrelevant whether the target is wearing armor or not. It would be much more helpful to attack the Dexterity, rather than attack the AC.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 3:44AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2013
|
I would love if they went back to the defenses. In fact I would love it more if they just used your stats for all defenses. Instead of having AC at all, just let your ability scores be your defense. For physical attacks let the player choose dexterity or constitution (dodge vs. just taking it). For mental attacks let the player pick intelligence or charisma (cleverness vs. willpower). For other attacks let them pick between wisdom and strength (use experience or confront). Then you would really have a good time. Players would try to justify why they are using charisma to block that hold person spell, or they would try to justify why they are using strength to block the blade trap.
I would love that. Each attack could give 2 or 3 choices of defenses that the player can use. Armor would give bonuses to defenses of different ability scores. Plate might give better constitution defense. Studded Leather might give better dexterity defense. Then you could have magic charms that give better intelligence defense. Stylish accessories that give better charisma defense. "The duke tries to use charm person on you, but is distracted by your stylish silk sash and fails."
|
|
|
