blogger on 5e: no-roll-to-hit-rationale

[Cadfan]

I think its funny that people are treating this like its some crazy new idea.

Basically any system that has a unified attack mechanic instead if an attack/damage binary is already operating under this principle. For example, I recently played in a superhero game where attacking worked like this: you roll 2d10, then tell the DM the result and your skill number for your attack. He tells you how much damage you did based on a chart.

That's it.

The only difference between that and what this guy is suggesting is that in this guy's example, all attacks would have a minimum damage. In the superhero game I played enemies had a threshold number which had to be beaten in order to do damage. I think that sort of thing is going to be necessary in most games that uses a unified mechanic. Why? It helps facilitate the interaction of low powered attacks with highly defended targets. I suppose a workaround could be created, but I'd like to see it done well.

 

[Cadfan]

Also, its strange that he lists four times where players are not involved in a game of 4e. There of them the players are not involved because they didn't get to roll dice. The fourth is an attack that missed. By his earlier reasoning, and the earlier ways he's described what does and does not count as being involved, attacking and missing is being involved.

 

[Vegepygmy]

So, what are your reactions to this post?

My reaction is: he's probably right.

And most likely, I wouldn't want to play that game (for pretty much the same reasons I don't really enjoy 4E).

 

[BryonD]

My reaction: Really cool image

 

[jmucchiello]

I would think the flaw with this analysis is the reduction in "Math". I can't see how you've reduced the amount of math when the damage roll now has to take into account skill level.

I have never seen the "new guy" feel useless in the fight because he missed a few attacks. I can't understand how the thrill of hitting or missing in itself is not fun. Why does everything you attempt have to be effective?

That's all I'll say. I need to stop now or risk using phrase like "these young whippersnappers" or "back in my day".

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Whether or not you hit may not be the problem. I see the problem as being one of interest in the move itself. In a visual medium we can forgive misses so long as the miss-ee looks cool doing it.................or looks stupid. D&D and its relatives don't have mechanics to guide your imagination through the swing, so you have to come up with your own mental image. Some people just may not be the type who excells at that: for them they want to eliminate the undescriptive bits. It's understandable, but I don't think redesigning D&D is what they need: they need their own system.

 

[Nikosandros]

And are they really such fun, honestly ? While I appreciate the mental challenge now and then, I would not fight to play these.

Well, yes. You might not like them, but those are very popular games and many people play them for fun. BTW, Diplomacy is another completely non-random game.

Now, this could turn into a narrative game with predetermined result, somewhat like the AMBER Diceless RPG, but I fail to see how fun this is.

Have you ever played Amber? It's a very enjoyable and fun game.

 

[Cadfan]

I also have to say, after reading his "tactical thinking" section, that I'm really, really, REALLY surprised to see a rpg player rewriting the stereotypical snooty eurogamer screed against random game elements. RPG players and snooty eurogamers who don't understand that controlling random elements constitutes legitimate strategic gameplay are two groups that generally don't mix. The former is usually even unaware of the latter's existence.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

If you're not rolling dice, you're not playing D&D. The game they are suggesting in that article would be a tremendously boring one, and it would go way, way, too far in, excuse the drama, killing D&D once and for all.

Also, his reasoning is, to put it politely, whack. "Missing isn't fun, so now you never miss!" What? Look, first off, stop treating me like a retard. It gets irksome. Second, missing can be TONS of fun. There you are against the big baddie, and you have to kill him FAST. The person in your party known for pumping out the best damage (the striker in 4e, I suppose) has his turn, oh snap, he's gonna put a huge dent into killing this thing before it kills us...! HE MISSES?! The table stands as people curse and moan and, in some cases, laugh. Or how about this one: you're the only one alive, the rest of your team is unconcious and bleeding out, and there's one enemy left. You're low on life. He charges you, this could be the end, a TPK...HE SWINGS (the DM is really taking his time here!)...AND HE MISSES! The table cheers! We're still good!

Games aren't memorable when everything is done on the average. You don't leave a table going "Hey, remember that time we slowly ground the enemy down and nothing exciting happened?" Natural 1's are just as - if not more - exciting then natural 20's.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I also have to say, after reading his "tactical thinking" section, that I'm really, really, REALLY surprised to see a rpg player rewriting the stereotypical snooty eurogamer screed against random game elements. RPG players and snooty eurogamers who don't understand that controlling random elements constitutes legitimate strategic gameplay are two groups that generally don't mix. The former is usually even unaware of the latter's existence.

See, it puts me into mind of the "tournament players" (again putting it politely) of, and I'm being serious, Super Smash Brothers. The common meme regarding them is "No items, Fox only, Final Destination." Why? Because they mandate that no items are allowed to be used, and that only three or four stages - out of the twenty-thirty - are allowed. Hell, they've outright declared the newest one unplayable because it's too random.