PDA

View Full Version : [D&D any] Making every point of AC count the same



Yitzi
2011-10-01, 11:01 PM
I mentioned a bit back that I had an idea to do this, so here it is. Note that this is not balanced; in particular, effects that boost attack bonus by 10 or more (e.g. True Strike) or allow one to attack vs. touch AC become far more powerful and need nerfing (I'd reduce True Strike to a +8 bonus, and make touch-AC attacks not be affected by this), and a few always-hit monsters (most notably the Tarrasque) become far far more dangerous. There are undoubtedly more balance issues that would need dealing with.

The other disadvantage of the variant is that it ends up potentially requiring a large number of d10 rolls (possibly with the order mattering), which is ok in play-by-post games (or when one has access to a script designed to make large numbers of rolls like that), but can slow things down in other situations.

The advantage, of course, is that AC is no longer irrelevant. Furthermore, attack bonus and AC are uniformly relevant regardless of target or attacker: Each point of attack bonus is equivalent to a +10% increase to damage, and each point of AC is equivalent to decreasing damage by one-eleventh.

And now for the actual variant:


1. Remove the natural-20-always-hits rule and criticals; this variant replaces them both. Natural 1 still always misses. (This also makes critical ranges and multipliers irrelevant, which can be rebalanced or not, as you choose.)
2. Base AC is 18, rather than 10. So everyone's AC goes up by 8.
3. If you roll a result less than your opponent's AC, you don't automatically miss. Instead, roll a d10 for each point you're "under". If any of the rolls comes up 1, you missed. Otherwise, you hit.
4. If you roll a result more than your opponent's AC, you have a chance to crit. Roll a d10 for each point you're over, and the order does matter. Each time you get a 10 or higher, double the damage, including bonus damage dice (as usual, two doublings equals a tripling and so on), and also get a +1 bonus to all future "critical dice" for this attack. With enough dice and a high enough bonus, you might get a 20 or higher; if so, double the damage and get a +1 bonus on future dice for each full 10 points of the die.

Mulletmanalive
2011-10-02, 08:26 AM
Yep...

That's not D&D in the slightest anymore. Balanced? Dunno, don't care.

Slow, clunky and i'd never use it.

The Underlord
2011-10-02, 08:49 AM
I dont think it will help. Why? becaause most characters wont have enough ac to make mosters miss often, instead the monster crit them signifcantly more often. edit, sorry for the triple post, kept getting 500 errors.

Grod_The_Giant
2011-10-02, 09:30 AM
I wouldn't argue with you if you said there was a problem with AC at higher levels, where bonuses to hit rapidly outstrip defense.

But as for your variant, it looks like you're still going to hit a lot, critical hits are going to be more common-- possibly, those rules are kind of hard to understand-- but most importantly, as Mulletman pointed out, this variant is clunky. You're vastly increasing the amount of die-rolling necessary for each attack. I mean, it might be ok for one hit, but what about high levels, when a two-weapon fighter might have more than half a dozen attacks a turn?

Seerow
2011-10-02, 10:30 AM
Wow a 1/10 crit chance minimum on any hit? With that increasing the higher you roll? This may make AC more valuable, but it makes to-hit bonuses WAY more valuable. And to-hit bonuses are easier to get.

Ziegander
2011-10-02, 11:43 AM
A far, far simpler method for this would be something along the lines of:

When your attack roll exceeds your target's AC you are said to have hit; however, the damage dealt is dependent on the difference between your attack your and the target's AC. Record that difference and then subtract it from your target's AC. The resultant value, if more than 0, is subtracted from your damage roll. If the resultant value is 0 or less, your attack deals double damage.

And there you have each point of AC mattering, you have critical multiplier and range irrelevancy, and you have DR all in one. I kind of like it and wouldn't mind trying it out sometime.

Lateral
2011-10-02, 11:50 AM
When your attack roll exceeds your target's AC you are said to have hit; however, the damage dealt is dependent on the difference between your attack your and the target's AC. Record that difference and then subtract it from your target's AC. The resultant value, if more than 0, is subtracted from your damage roll. If the resultant value is 0 or less, your attack deals double damage.

Let's say you're fighting a Stone Giant. They have 25 AC; to do normal damage, you'd need to have an attack roll of 50. At 8th level. That's just a little ridiculous.

Ziegander
2011-10-02, 12:29 PM
Let's say you're fighting a Stone Giant. They have 25 AC; to do normal damage, you'd need to have an attack roll of 50. At 8th level. That's just a little ridiculous.

Well, sure, it's something I wrote in 30 seconds, but it's still much, much better than Yitzi's system. So, let's tweak the idea. Spend another couple minutes on it.

Replacing Damage Reduction is a value called Damage Soak, which is equal to Armor Bonus to AC (but not shield bonus) + Natural Armor Bonus to AC + Deflection Bonus + Luck Bonus + Size Bonus (reverse the value applied to AC). Then, instead of subtracting the difference between your attack roll and their AC from their AC, you subtract it from their Soak, and you crit only for values less than 0.

For example, a Stone Giant would have a Damage Soak of 15 (+11 NA, +3 Armor, +1 Size). An attack roll of 25 would hit the Giant but the damage would be reduced by 15. An attack roll of 30 would be reduced by 10, an attack roll of 40 would deal damage normally. You would score a critical hit only on a roll of 41 or higher.

A Human Knight 8, with Dex 13, +1 Full Plate, +1 Lg Shield, +2 ring of protection, and a +2 amulet of natural armor would have an Armor Class of 27 and Damage Soak of 13 (+2 NA, +9 Armor, +2 Deflection).

Special materials would have more innate rules attached to them. For example, Cold Iron would eliminate the Natural Armor bonus to Damage Soak for Fey and Demons. Silver would eliminate NA bonuses to Damage Soak for Lycanthropes and Devils. Adamantine would eliminate up to 20 of any creature's NA bonus to Damage Soak as well as all Armor bonuses to Damage Soak from non-adamantine armors. That sort of thing.

Steward
2011-10-02, 01:30 PM
That works better from a gameplay standpoint. The main problem that I (and I think everyone else too?) had with the OP's system was that it seems to requires you to roll a lot of dice. This makes playing a Fighter or another class that makes a lot of attack rolls frustrating since they could end up rolling dozens of d10s. I can see that sort of mechanic bogging down combat if you have multiple attacks or if the opponent has a high AC.

Yitzi
2011-10-02, 04:16 PM
Yep...

That's not D&D in the slightest anymore. Balanced? Dunno, don't care.

Slow, clunky and i'd never use it.

That is the disadvantage of the system; of course, in online play (or play with a computer available) it's nothing that can't be dealt with by some very basic scripting.


I dont think it will help. Why? becaause most characters wont have enough ac to make mosters miss often, instead the monster crit them signifcantly more often.

It is extremely feasible to get enough AC that most monsters (as I said, there are a few exceptions like the Tarrasque) will not hit all that often. Of course, if you're going for a Shock Trooper ubercharger build or some other low-AC build you're in trouble, but this variant is specifically for those who want extremely-low-AC builds to be a bad idea.


I wouldn't argue with you if you said there was a problem with AC at higher levels, where bonuses to hit rapidly outstrip defense.

That's the thing; the problem isn't that bonuses to hit rapidly outstrip defense due to the system (in fact, you can boost AC at roughly 1/2 to 1/3 the cost to boost attack), but rather that low-defense builds are too powerful because once the enemy automatically hits (barring miss chances) it doesn't matter how low they are. With this variant, you'd see people investing in AC, and bonuses to hit would not outstrip defense unless someone chooses to play a glass cannon.


But as for your variant, it looks like you're still going to hit a lot, critical hits are going to be more common-- possibly, those rules are kind of hard to understand

They're a bit less common for "even" attacks (attack bonus=AC bonuses), but more common and more powerful for high-attack or low-AC builds.


but most importantly, as Mulletman pointed out, this variant is clunky. You're vastly increasing the amount of die-rolling necessary for each attack. I mean, it might be ok for one hit, but what about high levels, when a two-weapon fighter might have more than half a dozen attacks a turn?

I did note that flaw in the OP, and noted the possible ways to deal with it. There simply isn't any way to make each point of AC not become either more important or less important against high-attack enemies without a more complicated system than usual D&D. Whether it's worth it is very much dependent on the game.


Wow a 1/10 crit chance minimum on any hit?

Not if you roll exactly the enemy's AC, and not if you roll lower (far more common due to the +8 to AC) and then hit anyway due to not getting any 1s.


And to-hit bonuses are easier to get.

Not at all. For the cost of 86,000 gp, you can get +8 to-hit (a +5 weapon for 50k and +6 enhancement to STR or DEX for 36k), or +16 AC (+5 armor enhancement, a +3 dancing heavy shield, a +3 amulet of natural armor, and a +3 ring of protection). And that's assuming you've maxed out your DEX bonus to AC.


A far, far simpler method for this would be something along the lines of:

When your attack roll exceeds your target's AC you are said to have hit; however, the damage dealt is dependent on the difference between your attack your and the target's AC. Record that difference and then subtract it from your target's AC. The resultant value, if more than 0, is subtracted from your damage roll. If the resultant value is 0 or less, your attack deals double damage.

It might be simpler, but it wouldn't make every point count exactly the same. It also makes AC count twice, which is far more imbalancing than anything I suggested (in particular, it means that if your damage doesn't scale strongly with level, you become useless at high levels.)


That works better from a gameplay standpoint. The main problem that I (and I think everyone else too?) had with the OP's system was that it seems to requires you to roll a lot of dice. This makes playing a Fighter or another class that makes a lot of attack rolls frustrating since they could end up rolling dozens of d10s. I can see that sort of mechanic bogging down combat if you have multiple attacks or if the opponent has a high AC.

Definitely a problem. But I don't really see any way to achieve the goal without a lot of dice; hence the warning that that's a downside.

That said, there is a variant of this which will work just as well which decreases the dice-rolling issue a bit (since it allows you to roll all the dice together): When rolling for a crit, a "successful" die does not give a bonus to future rolls, but two doublings equal a quadrupling, and so on. (Gameplay-wise, this will make for weaker crits most of the time, but increase the chance for truly earthshattering crits.)


The biggest complaint seems to be the die-rolling (I suspected it might be); I'll see if I can get a post up with a script that will do it for you (then you just need access to a computer for the game.)

Hanuman
2011-10-02, 05:55 PM
System requires you know the AC of the monster you're fighting, through simple math and how many die the dm tells you to roll, unless the dm is rolling your attacks for you.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with mulletmanalive, it might work as a good alternative system but it requires multiple references and several more rolls for each attack, we're talking 4 hours for a new group level 10 encounter with totemists here, 6 if aerial.

Mulletmanalive
2011-10-02, 06:18 PM
Actually, I never said it was a good alternate system either. It bears an eerie similarity to the nigh unplayable system used in Fading Suns.

All of your other proposals have actually still been recognisable as D&D, Yitzi. Now that you're proposing something that makes 4e feel like AD&D, i wouldn't expect to gain much traction.

Steward
2011-10-02, 07:22 PM
That is the disadvantage of the system; of course, in online play (or play with a computer available) it's nothing that can't be dealt with by some very basic scripting.

I think you might be inadvertently minimizing a very serious problem. If you have to have a computer handy to play what's allegedly a pen-and-paper game, it's going to turn a lot of people off right away. There's nothing inherently wrong with that aspect but, speaking for myself only, I would never play a pen-and-paper game that requires me to do even 'very basic' scripting (mainly because I can't!) I don't think I'm alone in this; your system creates extra work for Fighters, Paladins, and other characters that rely on attack rolls and breaching Armor Class.

I'm not going to condemn the whole idea though since you're already putting in the extra effort of making a script and that changes the equation a bit. I just wanted to make sure that needing extra equipment can be seen as burdensome. Not much of a problem for a pbp or another kind of game, but annoying if you're playing the stereotypical pen-and-paper version of the game.

Yitzi
2011-10-02, 07:31 PM
System requires you know the AC of the monster you're fighting, through simple math and how many die the dm tells you to roll, unless the dm is rolling your attacks for you.

Yes, that is an issue (unless you roll the attack roll, and then the DM rolls the additional d10s)


I have to agree wholeheartedly with mulletmanalive, it might work as a good alternative system but it requires multiple references and several more rolls for each attack, we're talking 4 hours for a new group level 10 encounter with totemists here, 6 if aerial.

Yes, that's an issue. Fortunately, I have written the necessary javascript script to do it automatically. Unfortunately (for this purpose), gitp doesn't allow direct embedding of scripts, but paste the following script into any html page (w3schools has customizable pages such as here (http://www.w3schools.com/jsref/tryit.asp?filename=tryjsref_sort), or you can paste it into notepad, save it as an html, and open it with your web browser) and it should run fine:

<html>
<head>
<script type="text/javascript">
function calc()
{
AC=document.getElementById("AC").value
Atk=document.getElementById("attack").value
Diff=Atk-AC
if (Diff<0)
{
CheckUnder(-Diff)
}
else if (Diff>0)
{
CheckOver(Diff)
}
else if (Diff==0)
{
text="Hit (no critical)"
alert (text)
}
else
{
alert ("Please enter numbers")
}
}
function CheckUnder(diff)
{
text="Hit (no critical)"
for (a=1;a<=diff;a=a+1)
{
b=Math.random()
if (b<.1)
{text="Miss"}
}
alert (text)
}
function CheckOver (diff)
{d=0
for (a=1;a<=diff;a=a+1)
{
b=Math.ceil(Math.random()*10)
c=Math.floor((b+d)/10)
d=d+c
}
m=d+1
if (m==1)
{text="Hit (no critical)"}
else
{text="Crit for X"+m+" damage"}
alert (text)
}

</script>
</head>
<body>

AC:
<input type="text" id="AC"> <br />

Attack result: <input type="text" id="attack"> <br />

<button type="button" onclick="calc()">Calculate</button>

</body>
</html>



Actually, I never said it was a good alternate system either. It bears an eerie similarity to the nigh unplayable system used in Fading Suns.

All of your other proposals have actually still been recognisable as D&D, Yitzi. Now that you're proposing something that makes 4e feel like AD&D, i wouldn't expect to gain much traction.

Unlike the others, this isn't meant to be a simple fix for a broad problem, but rather a manner to achieve a very specific goal, namely making it so that your AC does not change in value depending on how much you have.

Hanuman
2011-10-02, 09:37 PM
Yes, that is an issue (unless you roll the attack roll, and then the DM rolls the additional d10s)
I thought the d10's were the attack roll?

Yitzi
2011-10-03, 04:28 AM
No...first you make the attack roll with a d20 as usual. Then if it's under the opponent's AC you apply rule 3, and if it's over you apply rule 4 (if it's equal, it just hits with no chance for a crit.)

BlackestOfMages
2011-10-03, 08:41 AM
as said, this is very, very clunky and not all that effective. it's also not fun.

and a note on realism: it's much, much easier to hit someone than it is for them to dodge. the person attacking has all the impudice and force because they're going forward, and they're the one to act so you're not only lacking propultion your about 1/3 second behind them - so yeah, by the time you're good at it, you should be making some form of contact 90% of the time. now you see how at higher levels when AC becomes mostly useless things have other defences. that's the balancing point, not nerfing to hit or dice

Tyndmyr
2011-10-03, 08:54 AM
Yep...

That's not D&D in the slightest anymore. Balanced? Dunno, don't care.

Slow, clunky and i'd never use it.

It's not really balanced either. 1 always fails, but 20 doesn't always hit? That's biased in favor of heavy duty armor.

Classes without great armor or attack bonuses, like rogue, kind of suck badly in this world.

Magical classes can buff armor heavily with magic. So...yeah. Goodbye balance.

Also, you now have to change EVERY spell or ability that interfaces with attack bonuses. That is...kind of ludicrous.

Hanuman
2011-10-03, 04:01 PM
as said, this is very, very clunky and not all that effective. it's also not fun.

and a note on realism: it's much, much easier to hit someone than it is for them to dodge. the person attacking has all the impudice and force because they're going forward, and they're the one to act so you're not only lacking propultion your about 1/3 second behind them - so yeah, by the time you're good at it, you should be making some form of contact 90% of the time. now you see how at higher levels when AC becomes mostly useless things have other defences. that's the balancing point, not nerfing to hit or dice
I think he was going for more of an auto-fight-defensively on both sides feel in terms of realism.

137ben
2011-10-03, 04:35 PM
Unlike the others, this isn't meant to be a simple fix for a broad problem, but rather a manner to achieve a very specific goal, namely making it so that your AC does not change in value depending on how much you have.
...
And unlike the other ideas you have, this seems to change the game mechanics MORE, despite being intended to do less.

gkathellar
2011-10-03, 05:15 PM
Well, sure, it's something I wrote in 30 seconds, but it's still much, much better than Yitzi's system. So, let's tweak the idea. Spend another couple minutes on it.

Replacing Damage Reduction is a value called Damage Soak, which is equal to Armor Bonus to AC (but not shield bonus) + Natural Armor Bonus to AC + Deflection Bonus + Luck Bonus + Size Bonus (reverse the value applied to AC). Then, instead of subtracting the difference between your attack roll and their AC from their AC, you subtract it from their Soak, and you crit only for values less than 0.

For example, a Stone Giant would have a Damage Soak of 15 (+11 NA, +3 Armor, +1 Size). An attack roll of 25 would hit the Giant but the damage would be reduced by 15. An attack roll of 30 would be reduced by 10, an attack roll of 40 would deal damage normally. You would score a critical hit only on a roll of 41 or higher.

A Human Knight 8, with Dex 13, +1 Full Plate, +1 Lg Shield, +2 ring of protection, and a +2 amulet of natural armor would have an Armor Class of 27 and Damage Soak of 13 (+2 NA, +9 Armor, +2 Deflection).

Special materials would have more innate rules attached to them. For example, Cold Iron would eliminate the Natural Armor bonus to Damage Soak for Fey and Demons. Silver would eliminate NA bonuses to Damage Soak for Lycanthropes and Devils. Adamantine would eliminate up to 20 of any creature's NA bonus to Damage Soak as well as all Armor bonuses to Damage Soak from non-adamantine armors. That sort of thing.

Oh, this is a pretty cool houserule. Consider it yoinked.

Yitzi
2011-10-03, 07:53 PM
as said, this is very, very clunky and not all that effective. it's also not fun.

You don't have to play with it if you don't want to; I mentioned the project in another thread, someone expressed interest, so I posted it.


and a note on realism: it's much, much easier to hit someone than it is for them to dodge. the person attacking has all the impudice and force because they're going forward, and they're the one to act so you're not only lacking propultion your about 1/3 second behind them - so yeah, by the time you're good at it, you should be making some form of contact 90% of the time.

If anything, I think this slightly increases the probability that you'll make contact.

And AC isn't just how hard it is to make contact, but also how hard it is to do damage. It doesn't matter so much if they can't dodge, if they've got enchanted armor and an enchanted shield and a magical deflection bonus.


now you see how at higher levels when AC becomes mostly useless things have other defences.

Such as?

Also, why are there high-level ways to boost AC, if AC is supposed to be useless?


It's not really balanced either. 1 always fails, but 20 doesn't always hit? That's biased in favor of heavy duty armor.

Not really; the reason 20 doesn't always hit is that even without the "20 always hits" rule you have a chance to hit an opponent with even the heaviest of armor, through the "rolling under AC doesn't automatically miss" rule.

Of course, the higher the target's AC, the more you'll be under by and the more d10s you'll have to roll, but heavy-duty armor is still a probabilistic, rather than absolute, defense.


Classes without great armor or attack bonuses, like rogue, kind of suck badly in this world.

Not at all. The rogue's low AC will cause him some issues in taking more damage (until he can pump his DEX enough to mostly compensate), but his low attack is actually less of a hindrance this way, because he doesn't have to hit the opponent's AC, just get close. (He will have extreme difficulty getting crits, but that's what sneak attack is for.)

A rogue that would have a 25% chance to hit under the normal system will have a roughly 31% chance to hit under this system. And the lower his to-hit, the more he benefits (up until he'd only be hitting on a 20 anyway, although it's another 16 to 17 points after that until he actually has a lower hit chance under this system.)


Magical classes can buff armor heavily with magic.

So can nonmagical classes. They just need either support from magical classes (and turning magical classes into mainly support is probably needed anyway), or else magic items.

Also, this actually weakens the extremely-high-AC builds; in the old system, having AC bonuses greater than your opponent's attack bonuses by 11 would mean you'd get hit only 5% of the time. Now you'll get hit roughly 20% of the time.


Also, you now have to change EVERY spell or ability that interfaces with attack bonuses.

Not really; I picked the numbers so that for small bonuses the effect is pretty much the same. It's only for large numbers (like +20 from True Strike) that it's a problem. And those spells are somewhat rare.

Hanuman
2011-10-04, 12:53 PM
to hit an opponent with even the heaviest of armor
That supports his comment.


So can nonmagical classes.
Nonmagical classes can't use magic.


Not really; I picked the numbers so that for small bonuses the effect is pretty much the same. It's only for large numbers (like +20 from True Strike) that it's a problem. And those spells are somewhat rare.
There's a lot of spells. I'd be more worried about a cluster**** of debuffs with a system biased towards tin cans.

CarpeGuitarrem
2011-10-04, 03:31 PM
You know, this does set forth some interesting ideas for a core mechanic, for a non-d20 game. If, for instance, you were to change attack to a pre-determined number, and maybe incorporate a "defense roll" to modify AC, this would become a lot simpler. For instance...

Attack Bonus of 20
Defender has an AC of 8, and adds a Defense Roll of 2d6 (for this roll, let's say the defender rolls a "10", for a total Defense of 18)

In this example, the attacker would exceed the defender by 2, so the attacker rolls 2d10, and it goes on as above.

A bit less clunky, and I think there's something cool about rolling a die for the margin of success.

Yitzi
2011-10-04, 04:37 PM
That supports his comment.

How so? The reason I removed the "20 always hits" rule is that it is no longer needed.


Nonmagical classes can't use magic.

But they can benefit from it when party members use it.


There's a lot of spells. I'd be more worried about a cluster**** of debuffs with a system biased towards tin cans.

There's a lot of spells, but two bonuses or penalties of the same type don't stack, so that'll keep it under control somewhat. So will time limitations.

More to the point, in the old system stacking on numerous AC-lowering debuffs is a waste, as once your fighter ally is hitting on a 5 it's not worth that much to lower the enemy's AC by 2. This system does nothing more than cancel out that effect, so that an AC-reducing debuff is just as useful on a low-AC enemy as a high-AC one.

Hanuman
2011-10-04, 04:54 PM
lower the enemy's AC by 2. This system does nothing more than cancel out that effect, so that an AC-reducing debuff is just as useful on a low-AC enemy as a high-AC one.
Well that's the first sense I've heard.

An AC system that instead of making it impossible to hit someone with ridiculous AC makes it scalingly improbable.

If a system like that came out that was sleek and fast we might jump on it.

In terms of defense rolls, you could implement a houserule to roll both defense and attack, or choose to take 10 (base 10).

Yitzi
2011-10-04, 05:33 PM
Well that's the first sense I've heard.

An AC system that instead of making it impossible to hit someone with ridiculous AC makes it scalingly improbable.

That was half the whole idea behind this.


If a system like that came out that was sleek and fast we might jump on it.

The problem is that "scalingly improbable" requires by its very nature that there be numerous rolls for high differences, and that necessarily slows things down. That said, the following reduced version makes things somewhat faster (you still roll multiple d10s, but you can roll them all at once) while still acheiving that goal (it doesn't help make AC useful for low-AC characters like the earlier one does, though):


1. Remove the natural-20-always-hits rule. Natural 1 still always misses, and criticals are unchanged.
2. Base AC is 18, rather than 10. So everyone's AC goes up by 8.
3. If you roll a result less than your opponent's AC, you don't automatically miss. Instead, roll a d10 for each point you're "under". If any of the rolls comes up 1, you missed. Otherwise, you hit.

Hanuman
2011-10-05, 01:28 AM
The problem is that "scalingly improbable" requires by its very nature that there be numerous rolls for high differences, and that necessarily slows things down.
If there was an easy way to make an elegant solution its already done, I think I'll stick with an elegant system over a perfect flavor until the next world changing mod comes out.


What you're doing is really ballsy, saying "ok, forget your old armor system, THIS one is more precise", but 3.5 is already considered by almost all to be incredibly slow already, and most DM's would only have you fight as special occasions with that system =S

Yitzi
2011-10-05, 01:11 PM
If there was an easy way to make an elegant solution its already done, I think I'll stick with an elegant system over a perfect flavor until the next world changing mod comes out.


What you're doing is really ballsy, saying "ok, forget your old armor system, THIS one is more precise", but 3.5 is already considered by almost all to be incredibly slow already, and most DM's would only have you fight as special occasions with that system =S

Ok, that's your (and apparently most people's) position; those who'd rather have the more precise one (perhaps because they're playing PbP or using scripts) now have it available.

DracoDei
2011-10-06, 12:44 PM
I don't mind the idea of using a computer at a gaming table. As long as the GM can over-ride anything he needs to, having the computer automatically doing all the math is great... in fact, that is why I like MapTool etc.

Ziegander
2011-10-06, 03:38 PM
Even if you get past the concept of using a computer and the concept that if your attack roll doesn't beat their AC you still might, maybe hit, you still have to deal with the fact that sometimes you, and not the enemies, will be crit for x10 or x15 damage (because it's the PCs that have to struggle to get attack bonuses that will hit enemy ACs and never the other way around). Which is totally ****ed.

Yitzi
2011-10-07, 02:56 PM
Even if you get past the concept of using a computer and the concept that if your attack roll doesn't beat their AC you still might, maybe hit, you still have to deal with the fact that sometimes you, and not the enemies, will be crit for x10 or x15 damage (because it's the PCs that have to struggle to get attack bonuses that will hit enemy ACs and never the other way around). Which is totally ****ed.

If the PCs aren't stupid enough to use builds based on the idea that a low AC doesn't hurt more than getting hit twice as often as with an "even" AC, then the enemies won't find it easy to hit their AC, particularly not by enough for a high crit modifier (with a few exceptions like the Tarrasque, which needs to be adjusted with this.)

Yes, this concept totally trashes many existing successful builds. Most major changes, and nearly all fixes, do.