Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 3974984" data-attributes="member: 5143">In the same way that being critted by a greatsword being wielded by that half-orc barbarian with no way to defend against it was exciting, yes.Obviously, the power has to be in someone's hands.&nbsp; The power to determine if an ability works has been in the attacker for weapons and in the defender for spells.&nbsp; People accept it because that's the way it's always worked and they are used to it.&nbsp; However, there is no inherent reason why one is better than the other.The only reason I can think of to favor the new method over the old one is that it changes area of effect spells to one roll instead of sometimes 20+ rolls.&nbsp; And it creates consistency, which makes it easier to understand for new players(when you do something, roll a d20 to see if it works, no matter what it is).&nbsp; When someone is doing something to you, hope your defense is high enough to defend against it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 3974984, member: 5143"] In the same way that being critted by a greatsword being wielded by that half-orc barbarian with no way to defend against it was exciting, yes. Obviously, the power has to be in someone's hands. The power to determine if an ability works has been in the attacker for weapons and in the defender for spells. People accept it because that's the way it's always worked and they are used to it. However, there is no inherent reason why one is better than the other. The only reason I can think of to favor the new method over the old one is that it changes area of effect spells to one roll instead of sometimes 20+ rolls. And it creates consistency, which makes it easier to understand for new players(when you do something, roll a d20 to see if it works, no matter what it is). When someone is doing something to you, hope your defense is high enough to defend against it. [/QUOTE]

Verification