Search results

I think the idea here is that in some implementations of this (I want to say some early CoC, but that might not be right, or possibly some 2e NWPs) do not take the difficulty of the task into account - this might not even be text, just culture of play (So for CoC all the example checks in a...

Sure, but mechanically all a miss means is that you didn't reach the target number on the die - you can absolutely shuffle who rolls and what bonuses apply to what target to make the 3e+ save system into an attack vs defence system that has misses in it. At which point, save for half becomes...

Right, which is I think why we did see early attempts to make what the mechanics represented fictionally more transparent (We can disagree about how effective they were, but it's a commonly stated influence for the development of RM and so on) My general point is that the split we saw on this...

You claimed that there was a difference between Save for Half and Damage on a Miss based on the fiction. I demonstrated that this wasn't true based on the Fireball example - the only difference was whose hand the die left and a reshuffling of the bonuses and target numbers - the fictional...

Sorry, should have clarified, the detail of this analysis is really only relevant from 3e onwards where both the attacker and defenders stats matter for spell saves. You could extend it to 1/2e style by making the caster roll against a save target with no bonuses though. Essentially, the idea...

Absolutely - I certainly agree it's something that people can find feeling awkward after being used to something one way. It's certainly not a matter of better or worse, it's just that as I hope I've demonstrated, it's purely administrative in terms of the impact on the fiction. This really...

Sure, but as I note above, the difference between a making a save and missing an attack is purely administrative. You can even invert it the other way and make the defender roll to defend against a sword swing (or even make one or both an opposed roll) - constructing this so that the final...

No, not at all. You can trivially change who rolls and produce identical results and identical fiction. The only difference is a rules widget. -Edit To expand, if we take a 3.5 Fireball with a DC of 16 against a target with a Reflex Save of +5, we get a 50% chance of saving and doing 50%...

I think this is pretty common - Save for Half is, essentially, identical to Damage on a Miss - the only difference is who rolls the dice

I'll not speak for @Hussar here, but I think the point here is that there are many circumstances whereby, in D&D (let's use 3.5 for this, as it's probably where the effect is most pronounced) if you want to succeed at a task, you are better off using a spell rather than a skill. The simplest...

Isn't "eeking out any way to improve the mechanical position of their PCs" exactly what players in a trad game is meant to be doing? Looking beyond their character sheets, engaging with the fiction, attempting to get successes without having to roll by making clever action declarations?

I'm interested how you determine how many checks you need for this more granular style - we all know that the more checks are made, the lower probability of success is. Consider a simpler example - let's assume 5.14 and the character attempting to sneak up on a target at the end of a long city...

If you want to be ever so slightly charitable, the failure caused the guard to harass our singer. I highly doubt that anyone narrates all NPCs in a city scene at all times, so the failure means that a guard who could plausibly be passing, un-noticed (and un-narrated and not introduced directly...

The argument, I think, would be that experimentation with resource systems might lead the designers to find one that they really liked and them deciding to apply that universally to see how that worked.

Grand, does that have any impact on the concept that we can analyse whether or not the changes did or did not have precedent based on reading the rules text? You can certainly disagree about whether you like the changes made, but whether or not they had precedent should be pretty objective...

I don't think that's relevant - the text is the text and we can see if the things being held up as new feature are actually new or not. Unless you think it's just impossible to objectively review the rules text of games?

For 3e? The stat blocks in the relevant monster manuals. Mobs are described here : Template - Mobs - sorry, don't have the original text handy but I know they popped up in later Monster Manuals If I am a GM and I am creating an encounter with a large number of (say) bats in it, I can chose to...

It's something that we can determine fairly straighforwardly by looking at the text. There's very little mechanically in there that doesn't have precedent elsewhere. At Will spells have precedent in 3e Reserve feats. Non-AC Defenses are described almost exactly in Unearthed Arcana (under...

In precisely the same way as you might treat a creature as a different weight class in 4e. Whenever the GM decided it was more sensible for you to do so, largely for administrative reasons or to make a creature more challenging over a larger level range.

Right, but the fact is, they existed. The concept that a creature could have different stats depending on who it was fighting and who it was accompanying was established pre-4e - that you didn't like them, or didn't use them, or rationalised them away doesn't stop them existing. As I said...