Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="evilbob" data-source="post: 6330104" data-attributes="member: 9789">I hear you; I understand these arguments.&nbsp; In my opinion, &quot;players like rolling dice&quot; is just not nearly as important as &quot;rules should be simple&quot; and &quot;resolving play should take the least amount of time possible.&quot;&nbsp; If they really wanted players to roll more dice, then saves against spells should be reversed:&nbsp; players should roll attacks vs. monsters' static defenses, instead of the other way around.&nbsp; That doesn't seem to be their primary goal.As for making it possible to exceed max damage, it also means you can crit and get a total of 2.&nbsp; That's such a negative outcome that I would happily trade a guaranteed good success for the chance at an even better success to avoid the bad success.&nbsp; A crit should - in my opinion - always be rewarded.&nbsp; Even though &quot;max damage&quot; is a fraction smaller on average than &quot;roll twice,&quot; randomness tends to work against players (as opposed to non-random results).&nbsp; Static crits are more rewarding.As for the cover arguments, I still think that's something that belongs more in a tactical module.&nbsp; If you're looking for realism, there are too many counter-examples to list.&nbsp; <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I guess it comes down to priorities, and what I am interpreting as the core goals of 5.0.&nbsp; &quot;Speed of play&quot; and &quot;easy to remember&quot; seem to be the main principles and are reflected everywhere else; it just seems curious that these two rules break that system and are more clunky for seemingly little payoff.&nbsp; That's why they stand out so much to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="evilbob, post: 6330104, member: 9789"] I hear you; I understand these arguments. In my opinion, "players like rolling dice" is just not nearly as important as "rules should be simple" and "resolving play should take the least amount of time possible." If they really wanted players to roll more dice, then saves against spells should be reversed: players should roll attacks vs. monsters' static defenses, instead of the other way around. That doesn't seem to be their primary goal. As for making it possible to exceed max damage, it also means you can crit and get a total of 2. That's such a negative outcome that I would happily trade a guaranteed good success for the chance at an even better success to avoid the bad success. A crit should - in my opinion - always be rewarded. Even though "max damage" is a fraction smaller on average than "roll twice," randomness tends to work against players (as opposed to non-random results). Static crits are more rewarding. As for the cover arguments, I still think that's something that belongs more in a tactical module. If you're looking for realism, there are too many counter-examples to list. :) I guess it comes down to priorities, and what I am interpreting as the core goals of 5.0. "Speed of play" and "easy to remember" seem to be the main principles and are reflected everywhere else; it just seems curious that these two rules break that system and are more clunky for seemingly little payoff. That's why they stand out so much to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification