Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5755405" data-attributes="member: 92511">Well, as much as I would like to make a min/maxer free game, people who like to play that way will find a way to play that way. you are correct, though, that we should attempt to minimize any loopholes for them to exploit.I really like Hassasin's breakdown of Abilty score bonuses/penalties. Basically, it means taking Ability modifiers out of AC entirely. Which I don't really have a problem with. It'll just make starting ACs even lower, again, which I have no problem with. There could always be "Skills" for each class created that would allow a PC to apply a certain ability bonus to their AC, separately. But nothing standard/acrosst he board. I think that could work pretty well.This was something Hassassin suggested a bit ago and, while I understand 3e players will enjoy this, for me it seems unnecessarily complicated...too much [unnecessary] math! Maybe it's not and it's just my general ignorance of the system.I dunno. I think someone who has an 18 SHOULD be different than someone with a 13. And, I think a maxing bonus of +4 makes sense, for this lil' theory/exercise/method of "All Fours". Which, for better or worse makes the lowest bonuses stop at 15.In theory, I suppose I should make the penalties begin at 10 then (keeping things in increments of 4). But that strikes me as just too high, too mean. So, 8 down to 4 works for penalties and 9 through 14 are just "average" (in the safe zone of no penalties but no bonuses either). Seems to me, one can have a perfectly awesome character with no bonuses whatsoever. Do you acquire skills or hit as hard as some other people? No. You don't/won't. But that doesn't make the character "bad" or "unplayable".A Fightr with a 13 Strength can be every bit as interesting a character as one with 16. Yes, he might hit less often (bonuses or no bonuses, that's really up to the dice except for a few specific numbers- 1 thru 4 of them- each time). No, he won't do as much damage. So, maybe he takes on a position as a "back up" fighter? Chooses to specialize in missle weaponry? Or becomes the party's strategic mastermind? Or concentrates his Skills into things that WILL allow him a bonus for hitting and/or damage.  I do like the Dex controlling to hit across the board, but in the interest of "balancing" out each ability with the rest, I think we will have to leave it missile attacks only. Yeh I think multiple shields will be for a later tier/set of the game. And for now, as for having a shield being a waste of time, I think any/all PCs everywhere who ever "missed" or perhaps, more importantly, were missed by their opponent by rolling "1" less than they needed would disagree. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Hmmm. I dunno. Again, we're getting really crunchy/mathy here. I don't mind the idea that characters improve/refine their abilities (somehow) as they gain levels...but I'm not sure about this.That's what I'm thinking. And given that a "Monk" won't be introduced until the next tier, I really have no problem with leaving out "unarmed attacks". Or make a general comment that unarmed combat (i.e. a bar brawl, wrestling match, etc.) just does a, say, d4 (?) of temporary damage.Maybe some other one-line "rule" for knocking people unconscious, non-lethal "subdual" damage, etc.Yes. We are. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> So I'm not going to be doing all of that for the beginning player. A chart for "optional inclusion" in the "Expert/Advanced/Champion" set will suffice for me on Weapon/Damage type v. Armor type. Well, no anymore...if we're taking Ability score bonuses out of the picture. Fighter starts with AC 4. Put him in plate, +10. Starting AC of 14.Assuming +1 enchantment on each of those and +1 for the shield, yeah, he'd be almost maxed out for "defense"...AC 17. Not bad. Yes, that seems to be consensus. I'll take out any mention of an AC limit...though realistically, to borrow your +7 example and making it +8 (assuming the extreme in melee example: someone with 18 Str., +4, and a +4 weapon=+8 bonus to hit). SO the unspoken "max" for AC would be 27 (a roll of 19 + 8, since a roll of 20 always hits.) Yes.Ummm. Lessee...assuming the extreme: Fighter AC 4, Plate +10  with a +4 (to establish the absolute highest possible within this Beginning set) enchantment, +1 for a Shield with another +4 enchantment, and a ring of protection +4...for the sake of "maxing out", let's throw on a cloak of protection +4 also...soooo absolute final highest possible AC 31. (I stand corrected from my assertion up-post that the highest AC would be 27...though, I guess that is the highest possible roll. Hm. Conundrum.)SO, to use your example of an attacker with +7...no they would never be able to hit this fella...unless they rolled a natural 20. 5% chance on every throw of the die.I hope that is not the case...and I don't necessarily think that is true...Yes, someoen might max out in one thing or area...that doesn't mean the character has nowhere left to grow. That's up to the player. If all they are looking for is how to get the absolute highest best numbers...then chances are this would not be a system/game for them.I believe, my inital statting out of the weapons list has crossbows at d8, long and short bows each did d6 (yes, whether you carry a long or short bow is really only a "flavor" thing for your PC...and allows dwarves and halflings to have effective archers.). The d4 missile weapon was a Sling. Yes. Again, seems to be consensus. So the roll will be d20 (or d10 or whatever d you prefer). Highest side (PCs or DM) goes first and you just go back and forth from there. What order the PCs go in is really up to them/or the DM and what they're trying to do.  What do other people think about this? HP= Class max base + full Strength Abilitiy score...then +Str. Ability bonus if any?No, they can't. And yes, they will be easy to hit. Hence the need to travel with fighters and clerics and thieves...and, frankly, the magic=user who gets in the front line....well, he deserves to get hit/killed.Well, that's part of the reason I'm letting all 1st level characters start out with max hit points. Something I've done in "houserule" for years and years. But people are still fragile.I had no problem with the MU's low AC and low HP. Play smart. If your players were "afraid" to play an MU because their numbers weren't going to be "good enough"...then it's just as well they didn't play one.True. But my question is, then, why are you fighting something with a +7 to hit at first level? Run away!Why not? That's exactly what it should be. He (the player) chose to focus on their armor class/defense. He has sacrificed damage, etc...by his choice. This would be the proverbial bed that one makes...lay in it. If you (the player) don't like that, then start putting your attentions into other areas...and/or you will play with a "broader eye" with your next character.Good point/detailing that I would have completely "assumed"/overlooked.Ya got me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> I'm not interested in that kind of game. I want to move things back to the game of imagination...not the game of numbers. A game of options (that can feed/spark the imagination) without a deluge of choices that drown the player...leaving the PC a mish-mosh of "stats" and "+'s ontop of +'s" that make/give them "the best at xyz".Again, player choice. Good for him. Hope he has some way to keep people attacking him. Standing in front of the other squishy party members would probably suffice for that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />--SD</blockquote>

Verification