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
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Older Editions
4E - What Rules Need Fixing?
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="JustinA" data-source="post: 3713497" data-attributes="member: 51618"><p>This is already handled by the rules. Heavier armor makes you harder to DAMAGE, but much easier to TOUCH -- as represented by the effect that armor's bonus has on your AC (which determines how difficult it is to damage you) and the effect that armor's Dex penalty has on your touch AC (which determines how difficult it is to touch you).</p><p></p><p>Could it be more realistic? Yes. But only by adding a layer of complexity to the game which, frankly, doesn't render enough utility to justify the extra hassle in gameplay.</p><p></p><p>For example, adding a relatively simple mechanic in which the effectiveness of armor in preventing damage is rated as DR means that you now have to subtract a number from damage dealt every single time someone hits. Plus, you've increased the number of attacks that hit -- which means that you've got more attacks that need to have damage rolled for them. Let's be conservative and estimate that this means the average time it takes to resolve an attack increases by only 10 seconds.</p><p></p><p>That might seem like a small number, but it adds up. After just 6 attacks, you've extended the length of combat by a full minute. By 5th level I'm regularly running combats with 8 or more participants (including the PCs). That can easily translate into 6 attacks every round. Which means that you've added a full minute of gameplay to every single round of combat. At high levels that same combat can involve 12-18 attacks every round.</p><p></p><p>And you're proposing an even more complex system, in which the type of attack must be compared to the type of the armor. Is all this extra time you're spending resolving these marginally more realistic attacks really making the game more fun for you?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Racial HD are sloppy. Equating CR to HD limits the flexibility of creature design to a degree I think unwarranted.</p><p></p><p>What they should do is make each TYPE of monster into a class. These classes should be balanced against the PC classes. (In other words, 8 levels of Aberration should be equivalent to 8 levels of Fighter or Wizard or Rogue.)</p><p></p><p>This gives you a basic foundation on which to build your creature. Once you've got that basic foundation, however, you can add other special abilities. These special abilities don't create a LEVEL adjustment, however. They create a WEALTH adjustment.</p><p></p><p>So when you want to play a PC version of a monster you've got:</p><p></p><p>(1) A level associated with the creature's type-class (and these levels are balanced with equivalent PC levels).</p><p></p><p>(2) A wealth adjustment based on the value of the creature's special abilities (including size, HD, powerful ability scores, bonus feats, etc.).</p><p></p><p>Basically, you just think of the creature's extra special abilities (above and beyond their racial abilities as a member of a particular creature type) as intrinsic magic items. You price them the same way as magic items and you count them against the wealth-by-level guidelines when determining how much power the group has.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>AoOS really split into two categories:</p><p></p><p>(1) Movement-based AoOs; and</p><p>(2) Action-based AoOS.</p><p></p><p>Movement-based AoOs are extremely easy to use, necessary for eliminating many of the oddities created by turn-based combat, and shouldn't be eliminated.</p><p></p><p>Action-based AoOs, however, are more difficult to use because they lead to long lists of allowed and disallowed actions which must be memorized. I think a strong case can be made that these should either be eliminated or the list of actions which provoke AoOs reduced to no more than a handful. For example, you could limit the list to just spellcasting and touch attacks.</p><p></p><p>(It's also notable that eliminating action-based AoOs entirely greatly simplifies the grappling rules right out of the starting gate.)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's a definite YMMV thing. I have lots of masterwork items in my campaigns that aren't magical.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That already IS the way the rules work.</p><p></p><p>Justin Alexander</p><p><a href="http://www.thealexandrian.net" target="_blank">http://www.thealexandrian.net</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JustinA, post: 3713497, member: 51618"] This is already handled by the rules. Heavier armor makes you harder to DAMAGE, but much easier to TOUCH -- as represented by the effect that armor's bonus has on your AC (which determines how difficult it is to damage you) and the effect that armor's Dex penalty has on your touch AC (which determines how difficult it is to touch you). Could it be more realistic? Yes. But only by adding a layer of complexity to the game which, frankly, doesn't render enough utility to justify the extra hassle in gameplay. For example, adding a relatively simple mechanic in which the effectiveness of armor in preventing damage is rated as DR means that you now have to subtract a number from damage dealt every single time someone hits. Plus, you've increased the number of attacks that hit -- which means that you've got more attacks that need to have damage rolled for them. Let's be conservative and estimate that this means the average time it takes to resolve an attack increases by only 10 seconds. That might seem like a small number, but it adds up. After just 6 attacks, you've extended the length of combat by a full minute. By 5th level I'm regularly running combats with 8 or more participants (including the PCs). That can easily translate into 6 attacks every round. Which means that you've added a full minute of gameplay to every single round of combat. At high levels that same combat can involve 12-18 attacks every round. And you're proposing an even more complex system, in which the type of attack must be compared to the type of the armor. Is all this extra time you're spending resolving these marginally more realistic attacks really making the game more fun for you? Racial HD are sloppy. Equating CR to HD limits the flexibility of creature design to a degree I think unwarranted. What they should do is make each TYPE of monster into a class. These classes should be balanced against the PC classes. (In other words, 8 levels of Aberration should be equivalent to 8 levels of Fighter or Wizard or Rogue.) This gives you a basic foundation on which to build your creature. Once you've got that basic foundation, however, you can add other special abilities. These special abilities don't create a LEVEL adjustment, however. They create a WEALTH adjustment. So when you want to play a PC version of a monster you've got: (1) A level associated with the creature's type-class (and these levels are balanced with equivalent PC levels). (2) A wealth adjustment based on the value of the creature's special abilities (including size, HD, powerful ability scores, bonus feats, etc.). Basically, you just think of the creature's extra special abilities (above and beyond their racial abilities as a member of a particular creature type) as intrinsic magic items. You price them the same way as magic items and you count them against the wealth-by-level guidelines when determining how much power the group has. AoOS really split into two categories: (1) Movement-based AoOs; and (2) Action-based AoOS. Movement-based AoOs are extremely easy to use, necessary for eliminating many of the oddities created by turn-based combat, and shouldn't be eliminated. Action-based AoOs, however, are more difficult to use because they lead to long lists of allowed and disallowed actions which must be memorized. I think a strong case can be made that these should either be eliminated or the list of actions which provoke AoOs reduced to no more than a handful. For example, you could limit the list to just spellcasting and touch attacks. (It's also notable that eliminating action-based AoOs entirely greatly simplifies the grappling rules right out of the starting gate.) That's a definite YMMV thing. I have lots of masterwork items in my campaigns that aren't magical. That already IS the way the rules work. Justin Alexander [url]http://www.thealexandrian.net[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Older Editions
4E - What Rules Need Fixing?
Top