Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
10 or better to hit period
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 5098176" data-attributes="member: 14506"><p>Thank you for your spot on excellent comments!</p><p></p><p>Well I was going for an approach of changing as little as possible. Do you have some better suggestions as to what to do? Because I would like the '+3' weapons to be good but I am in favor of changing as little as possible. (Honestly, I think there is a lot that could get changed in the weapons but I will defer to the RAW as much as humanly possible here)</p><p></p><p></p><p>You are absolutely right, shields are not right. My first thought was that light shields can act as cover and heavy shields can act as superior cover. But then I thought, superior cover would be too good. So then I thought, I could make them both cover, but then what is the point of a heavy shield and then I thought, well perhaps total defense action could benefit. You are right though, why give total 'd' a benefit? It is nearly never used. What about my initial thought, was I right that -5 would be too powerful?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>And I also was thinking about this, I want to use the 5 levels of armor they have developed and not go with just light and heavy (even though the more coarse gradation would be better). I was thinking if the first feat gets you 2 HP per tier and then all the others basically add +1 per tier that is a lame feat. I thought of increasing them to +2, so the five types would give 2/4/6/8/10 which could be over-kill. Plate armor at +10 per tier definitely kicks butt.</p><p></p><p>I think to implement this idea correctly armor has to be HP bonus or Resist "damage". Since hitting chance is static, the only thing that offsets your ability to defend is the ability to take more damage in combat- not how well you hit. So, it is the right idea I think.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is very true also, like I said spot on. I ask though was it supposed to be that way? When they sat down did they intend every attack to virtually be the same chances to hit? If that is true then *all* attacks should hit on a 10+ which would further streamline and make the system that much more elegant. </p><p></p><p>I only ask about the designer intent vs. the actual implementation because my gut hunch is that other defense attacks were meant to be easier to hit than AC. Most monsters have a low other defense and this assumes you are targeting a lower defense to take advantage of their weaknesses. So, the 8+ sort of takes the, "Hey, maybe they hit their low defense" and makes that way all the time. Perhaps this makes the attack other defense powers more powerful than initially conceived, I don't know. Opinion?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sadrik, post: 5098176, member: 14506"] Thank you for your spot on excellent comments! Well I was going for an approach of changing as little as possible. Do you have some better suggestions as to what to do? Because I would like the '+3' weapons to be good but I am in favor of changing as little as possible. (Honestly, I think there is a lot that could get changed in the weapons but I will defer to the RAW as much as humanly possible here) You are absolutely right, shields are not right. My first thought was that light shields can act as cover and heavy shields can act as superior cover. But then I thought, superior cover would be too good. So then I thought, I could make them both cover, but then what is the point of a heavy shield and then I thought, well perhaps total defense action could benefit. You are right though, why give total 'd' a benefit? It is nearly never used. What about my initial thought, was I right that -5 would be too powerful? And I also was thinking about this, I want to use the 5 levels of armor they have developed and not go with just light and heavy (even though the more coarse gradation would be better). I was thinking if the first feat gets you 2 HP per tier and then all the others basically add +1 per tier that is a lame feat. I thought of increasing them to +2, so the five types would give 2/4/6/8/10 which could be over-kill. Plate armor at +10 per tier definitely kicks butt. I think to implement this idea correctly armor has to be HP bonus or Resist "damage". Since hitting chance is static, the only thing that offsets your ability to defend is the ability to take more damage in combat- not how well you hit. So, it is the right idea I think. This is very true also, like I said spot on. I ask though was it supposed to be that way? When they sat down did they intend every attack to virtually be the same chances to hit? If that is true then *all* attacks should hit on a 10+ which would further streamline and make the system that much more elegant. I only ask about the designer intent vs. the actual implementation because my gut hunch is that other defense attacks were meant to be easier to hit than AC. Most monsters have a low other defense and this assumes you are targeting a lower defense to take advantage of their weaknesses. So, the 8+ sort of takes the, "Hey, maybe they hit their low defense" and makes that way all the time. Perhaps this makes the attack other defense powers more powerful than initially conceived, I don't know. Opinion? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
10 or better to hit period
Top