More uses for ability scores?

I like the lower numbers instead, but that is simply personal preference. You can achieve the same thing by:

"So for example
PC with AC 16 and +6 attack roll and spell DC 12 vs Orc with AC 18, an attack bonus of +7 and a save bonus of +1."

Orc attacks and has Threat Class (TC?) of 12 + bonus, or 19 (if you want the PC to win all ties, make it 11 + bonus). The PC resists with d20 + Armor Class bonus (calculated as AC -10), in this example d20 +6.

This -10 shift on 5ekyu's numbers keeps things within the same levels as normal DCs. If an orc attacked someone, a DC 19 (or TC, whatever) makes sense, but a 29 is way high compared to other things that have a DC 29-type level.

Either way works. I'm going to recommend trying it with our group tomorrow... at least to playtest. We'll probably go with the PC wins all ties and use 11, not 12, just to give the heroes a slight edge.

dnd4vr said:

I like the lower numbers instead, but that is simply personal preference. You can achieve the same thing by:

"So for example
PC with AC 16 and +6 attack roll and spell DC 12 vs Orc with AC 18, an attack bonus of +7 and a save bonus of +1."

Orc attacks and has Threat Class (TC?) of 12 + bonus, or 19 (if you want the PC to win all ties, make it 11 + bonus). The PC resists with d20 + Armor Class bonus (calculated as AC -10), in this example d20 +6.

This -10 shift on 5ekyu's numbers keeps things within the same levels as normal DCs. If an orc attacked someone, a DC 19 (or TC, whatever) makes sense, but a 29 is way high compared to other things that have a DC 29-type level.

Either way works. I'm going to recommend trying it with our group tomorrow... at least to playtest. We'll probably go with the PC wins all ties and use 11, not 12, just to give the heroes a slight edge.

Click to expand...

The reason I chose to use the full numbers is for ease of player-side. Especially for online systems and most character sheets, things like AC are prominently displayed. DC for dpells as well. So the only place that 22 vs 12 hits is on my side as GM and that's fine.

But yeah, if you arent using any pre- gen stuff for sheets and such, you could go any way and work fine. But I wanted to make it as easy as possible for the players.

My ability scores make excellent bookends. Especially Charisma.

How about this: your score is your new critical roll? That gives PCs with low scores something to look forward to.

vincegetorix said:

Would you mind giving us the method you use to calculate the Threat DC of a creature? Is a very interesting idea.

Click to expand...

I think this is a complete system. I think I got all the numbers right so it works with the exact same probabilities as the present rules.

Normal player rolls (no change)
Attack Roll: Normal
Spell Casting Attack Roll against AC: Normal
Resist Spell Roll by Save: Normal
Resist Trap/Effect by Save: Normal

Players now rolling against the opponents' threat or spell attack, to impose their spell effect on target, or to impose their trap/effect on target:

Defense Roll. When the player is attacked by an opponent. DC equals 12 + attack bonus. Player’s bonus equals AC – 10. A natural 1 is a critical hit.
Spell Defense Roll by AC: When the player is attacked by an opponent's spell. DC = 12 + spellcasting modifier. Player's bonus equals AC -10. A natural 1 is a critical hit.
Spell Casting Effect Roll: When the player tries to impose a spell effect on a target. DC = 12 + save bonus. Player rolls d20 + (spellcasting modifier -2).
Trap/Effect Roll: When the player tries to impose a trap or other effect on a target. DC = 12 + save bonus. Player rolls d20 + (trap/effect DC - 10).

The last roll for Trap/Effect is for things like if a character uses a poisoned blade against a target. Instead of the target (e.g. the DM) rolling a saving throw against the poison's DC 15, the player would roll the poison's effectiveness/strength (DC 15 - 10 = +5) against the target's save DC (12 + save bonus). So, it the target has Con save +4, the DC for the player's roll would be 16. The player would roll d20 +5 with a total of 16 or better indicating the target is affected by the poison.

I'm sure if I missed anything, someone will tell me.

dnd4vr said:

Here's an idea: let the players make all rolls. If they are casting, allow them to attack, if they are the target, let them save. This way they are always more engaged. You could do the same thing for attacks. If they are attacking, they roll to hit. If they are being attacked, they roll to defend. If you want to give the players the edge, let them win all ties regardless of which side (attack/defend) they are on.

Click to expand...

That occurred to me shortly after my first look at 4e.

It seems like a fine idea, there's nothing wrong with It mathematically...

.... but I never did get around to trying it.

Tony Vargas said:

That occurred to me shortly after my first look at 4e.

It seems like a fine idea, there's nothing wrong with It mathematically...

.... but I never did get around to trying it.

Click to expand...

The only thing I don't like is how spells are separated into two groups: attack spells and affecting spells, one versus AC and the other gets saves. I would prefer to retool spells so they are save only, reserving AC for combat only. Since spells are usually light of sight, you focus the spell energy at the target and the save represents the target avoiding (or lessening) the effect.

I am writing house-rules for AC and to remove armor from AC, granting it damage reduction instead. But this is already getting away from the OP and I don't want to derail it farther.

dnd4vr said:

The only thing I don't like is how spells are separated into two groups: attack spells and affecting spells, one versus AC and the other gets saves. I would prefer to retool spells so they are save only, reserving AC for combat only. Since spells are usually light of sight, you focus the spell energy at the target and the save represents the target avoiding (or lessening) the effect.

I am writing house-rules for AC and to remove armor from AC, granting it damage reduction instead. But this is already getting away from the OP and I don't want to derail it farther.

Click to expand...

Only thing I would wonder is are you also removing the non-AC features for martial classes - the ones that produce saves or ability checks- so that each class is basically opposing one type of "defense"?

Removing the choices from the mage thst give them "vs AC" really limits them and also makes certain types of creature exceedingly potent foes.

That some RPS dedign would seem equally "good" for the other classes too, right?

Something I've been toying with is using the Constitution score to handle "out of combat" knocking out situations. Reducing a guard to 0 HP just to knock them out doesn't fit my vision of how sneaking PCs can take them out (without killing them).

Instead I have the PC make a Strength ability check (with advantage if they have a cudgel or something) against the creatures Constitution score (disadvantage if the creature has some kind of helmet). The relative sizes of the creatures also play a part of course.

On success the creature is knocked out for a minute.

robus said:

Something I've been toying with is using the Constitution score to handle "out of combat" knocking out situations. Reducing a guard to 0 HP just to knock them out doesn't fit my vision of how sneaking PCs can take them out (without killing them).

Instead I have the PC make a Strength ability check (with advantage if they have a cudgel or something) against the creatures Constitution score (disadvantage if the creature has some kind of helmet). The relative sizes of the creatures also play a part of course.

On success the creature is knocked out for a minute.

Click to expand...

I like this.

I will also steal something from 4e and use the Con score to calculate the PCs starting HP. Something like Con score + class HD average. My players are really casual players and have difficulties with playing efficiently (while being reckless in their move), so a little more HP at low level will help them survive a little more.