D&D 3.x - Is It Too Easy To Hit Things?

[William drake]

I agree

At a certain level, the enemy, no matter what the player is, is not that hard to hit. One must remember that the player is adding a D20 to whatever his attack is, not counting whatother modifers that are already stacked *spells, feats, w/e* So, once a player is able to nat hit with there base attack bouns +6, only needs to roll and land on 10 to hit most things in the game, this unless is set up so that everything they encouter is at there level, and if thats so, then the worlds population: monster or otherwise, would have eaten or slayed everything before the player got a chance to draw first breath.

I've been into more realistic battles, where wounds count, and not matter what, an arrow can be deadly. Now, I know, its a bit rougher, but it makes the game more dramatic, and keeps the players playing smart. With it, the barbarian, who is tough to be sure, cant just walk into an army and know for almost a fact that he should be able to survive.

Once players have their bases to high, the D20 almost becomes meaningless. When it comes ot the point that you could just flip a coin to see if you hit or not, the dice are worthless. Gods dont need to roll, they just hit with certain levels of their divine rank, but players, are mortal. The dice add the chance element of the game. It says "hey, that farmer may be weak, but if he gets you with that pitchfork, your dead." WIth that in mind, players taker feats, and skills into great thought. Without it, it doesnt matter, death is never really a fear.

However, if your playing a game where its to be more Myth like, like Achilies, or Hercules. Where in the story the players are like one in 10000, then the normal D&D rules are fine.

If however, your setting up the game for the players to be badasses, but real, then you got to take things into account.

Stolen from the Spy Craft rules

(Feats: make them every other level...this way, players may build their characters..and it plays into the overall building of their character with these new rules.)

first- Hp should be Vitality. This means, anything thing that requires energy: fighting, running, lifting, swimming, blocking...and so on, requires vitality loss. Not much, but enough so that player is tired over extended periods of time. Duh, what are boxers like after 12 rounds...they arnt up and ready to go running are they...no they want to sleep. And, with constant vitality loss, fights go quicker. and make more sense.
There are feats that allow the players to lose less vitality *since they are they heros* but only so much. Classes like Monk, and Ranger lose less vitality naturaly since their lives are usually harsher than anyother. You should make your own rules for this.

second- Con, is now your true Hp, or GUTS. This means, what is your con, is all the damage you can take. Now, think about that. That D4dagger, critted into your shoulder could now almost kill you if your a basic character...and now, with this rule, Armor is the only thing that soaks it. If you got on fullplate, your just soaked it all. IF not, well, sucks for you.
SO, now even though the monk, and the ranger can run much longer than the rouge, and the barbarian can lift more, or carry the bigger weapons, almost everyone now is at around the same level to take wounds. *this is unless you take the feats that up your Con, or you put all of your points into con.* Players now make a choice to decide how their person should be instead of the steroy type.

And remember, that bleeding takes place after the wound is first inflicted. So, you were stabed, and take 1D8 damage, but your also lossing somewhre around 1con a round and atleast half of the orginal damge in vitality while your still fighting.

With Con rules, Crits are now cinamatic. That soldier might be wearing fulplate, and morepowerful than you, but you swing, and crit, and repeat that crit making it real, and deal
1D8+3 to his head *since his people dont wear helments in their armor* he's dead with all that damage to the brain. Or atleast down, considering what youd be feeling like if that happened to your character with 12Con. WIth agreat roll, youd be one away from dead, youd be dying...and next round, if not atleast being cared too..youd die.
For this, think of the Troy movie. That first badass that Achiles faught, was biger, and stronger..but Achiles hit him once in the neck and the fight was over. Achiles skill...is what made him dangerous..not his ability to just keep taking spears to the gut.
(also with the armor, rule-it does nothing to AC. Has anyone ever seen the history chanel, Knights got hit all the time, it made them slower. The only thing it did is stop the weapon from drawing blood.) Also, while wearing armor, if it doesnt get through, its not vitality damage. However, you got to shrug off the jaring effect of being rattled in the suite, or trying to take off the crumpled in helmet. Now, for those players who dont wear armor, being without it gives you the nat AC bouns...makes sense, your not in armor, its harder to hit you...but if you get hit, well, sucks for you. IT is now a choice.
*the only armor that ups your AC, is a shield...since that is what is was made to do: block blows, deflect them.

Also, all armor, and shields should be given a hardness raiting: so, after enough time of being beaten on, their broken or needing just basic repair.

third-set vitality as a standard. Every one is mortal, human or otherwise, and only through game play and using feats can you up your hp and con. It is never your abiltiy to take damage that makes your heroic, or powerful, but your skills and talents, your ability to not get hit, to doge, or never bee seen. Therefore, all players are given 1D10 and may roll that for their first level plus their con modifier. Every level there after is set:
fighters, rangers, barbarians, monks:1D8
Rouge,cleric, druid, bard:1D6
Wizard, sorc:1D4+1 *this is becase I've alterd magic* makes them more powerful, so lesser hp is a minor loss. Make sense, your a wizard, not a body builder, or farmer, or fighter...its your mind you train.

forth-bonus for basic levels must be dropped. IF you dont, the players will be running into things that seem almost out of place in the world that the story is set in. Every foe that the players runn into cant be set up for just the heros, it has to be so that the beast lives in the enviroment, and that people are able to coexist. IF the beasts, or army, or hord of bandits is just to rough, then whoever they were affecting should have been killed off long before you got there.
So, drop back the advancements back.
class,level,AB,fort,ref,will
Fighter,1,2,1,1,1
2,3,2,2,1
3,4,2,2,1
4,5,3,3,2
5,6,3,3,3
Ranger,1,1,2,1,0
2,2,3,1,0
3,3,3,1,1
4,4,4,1,1
5,5,4,2,2
cleric,1,0,0,0,1
2,1,1,1,2
3,1,2,1,2
4,2,3,2,3
5,3,4,2,4
rouge,1,0,0,2,0
2,1,0,3,0
3,2,1,3,1
4,3,1,4,1
5,4,2,5,2
wizard,1,0,0,0,2
2,0,0,0,3
3,1,0,1,4
4,2,1,2,5
5,3,2,3,6
I didnt did a barbarian, druid, or bard, but you can mix and match how you like: and change what you think is better, but this is just one way I did it a long time back.

also, in this system, reaching 6 for the Ab doens't give the player a second attack. This makes the game faster, unless he gets the feats required. This make him dangerous much more dangerous since less pepole will have them, and this makes creatures with more than one natural attack: extra arms, tail, or w/e, far more dangerous without needing alot of spuffing up. *if you play still with the extra attack at 6, then the rest still keeps him knocked down abit from what he used to be.*

fith- Magic is more dangerous. IT is no longer spell level, plus modifer for the effect DC. Instead, its spell level, pulls a D20. NOw, this means that magic is much more dangerous, and that its effects are not certain. Before, at a any level once your know the enemies DC, or can guess what you think it is, you can determin how powerful that spell is and what it would take to beat it. Now, you dont know. ANd that wizard whos just learned that fireballspell....he can either barely light a candle, or he can set a whole house, the barn, all the people and the animals on fire.

Also, I gave all Wizards, Spell resistance. It makes sense, you can cast, you should beable to defend from others. It would be either a taught or innate thing that you just get like a Spell like ability once you learn that you can cast magic. However, the SR is based off of a D20 roll plus the casters level. It lasts for the abount of rounds of the casters level pull the modifer, and requires a Dc18 or higher to do while in combat. But, if done before combat, then it just takes a standard action to set up.
*Clerics and druids may or maynot have spell resistance in the story depending on if their power trully comes from their god, or like wizards it is from the world, their blood or w/e*

Also, since spell casters know magic, much like monks, your always considered armed when fighting those who are barefisted. So, no attacks of oppertunity from them.

I did this because magic always seems to end up playing a backseat. It losses its power, you can dodge it, save it, or just take it and nothing. Well, then what is magic really worth.



Here is the one thing I stress. Make Healing Magic limited. Up the levels where it first comes into play. Players who can just shrug off the loss of an army dont really play the game as if they were real people, they play it like a video game. They only care about that extra man. And in game terms, as long as they know, can find, or have that cleric who can put them back together, they really worry about dying or damage.

Make healing the real power that separates Clerics from all other casters.

These are just some thoughts...
email me at Epicktales@hotmail.com if you want to know them all, or are intrested in using them in your game.

 

[AE020704]

Just a quick note for you, William:

While alot of your ideas are excellent, you appear to have misunderstood the basic premise of AC. It isn't how hard you are to hit (although, this is factored into it with the DEX bonus), it's how hard you are to WOUND. Your TOUCH AC is how hard you are to hit.

Example: a PC's full AC is 24, and his touch AC is 13. If his attacker rolls 12 or less, it's a miss. If they roll 13 - 24, the attack goes CLANG against his armour, doing no damage. Only if he rolls 25 or over does he hit AND do damage.

It's actually considerably less abstract than most of the D&D combat system.

So, you could rule that any attacks that roll between the Touch AC and the Full AC (in the example, 13 - 24) hit the target AND do damage, but, maybe, they are subject to DR based on the armour's AC (maybe ½ AC). So, for instance, a character wearing mundane Full Plate (AC +8) could be subject to DR 4/-. That way, we're accounting for the jarring of taking a solid whack on your armour.

Hmm...I think I might twink my own idea, there

EDIT: There's now a poll in House Rules re. this idea.

 

[S'mon]

I think in 3e it's too easy for melee-brute monsters to hit PCs; but not vice versa. Generally my experience is that 3e Fighter types are underpowered relative to the monsters compared to previous editions. Pre AD&D, Fighter to-hit advanced 2/3 rather than 1/1, and I think this may have been better, but 3e renormed creature ACs so they're fairly hard to hit.

 

[shilsen]

I was thinking about core D&D mechanics the other day and in particular the Attack versus Armor Class system. The advancement in the attack modifier seems to outstrip advancement in AC quite handily, particularly when a certain level is reached. If not for the buffer of the hit point system, this would almost "break" the game.

You've already answered your question. Attack bonuses should outstrip AC as creatures go up in level, due to the increase in hit pts. If they didn't, encounters would be incredibly long, and spellcasters (who can bypass hit pts when affecting targets) would be drastically more powerful than combat types at higher levels.

 

[mmadsen]

I was thinking about core D&D mechanics the other day and in particular the Attack versus Armor Class system. The advancement in the attack modifier seems to outstrip advancement in AC quite handily, particularly when a certain level is reached. If not for the buffer of the hit point system, this would almost "break" the game.

As you've noted, D&D strikes a peculiar balance between to-hit and damage, a balance which changes from level to level. Further, the balance relies on magical bonuses, which exist at their current levels specifically to maintain that balance.

However, does this aspect of the game need to be balanced? Is it too easy to hit things? And if attack modifier/AC was balanced out how would the game as a whole change?

Do armor class and hit points need to be rebalanced? No, because plenty of people are playing and enjoying the game the way it is written. Could armor class and hit points be rebalanced to improve the game? I think so -- but past efforts to move away from D&D's famously escalating hit points have not had the design goal of making a better D&D but of making something very, very different.

 

[mmadsen]

If hitting isn't necessarily hitting -- which, under the current system, it evidently isn't -- we might ask, Why are we rolling for both to-hit and damage anyway? Why don't we just have an Attack Point value we subtract from the other guy's Hit Point value each round?

Obviously we don't want an accounting war, and we do want some variability. There's a continuum here.

If we look at typical monsters along the power spectrum, we see that the damage they deal out increases to match the high Hit Points of high-level characters. This should surprise no one. CR-1/4 Goblins deal out 1d8-1; CR-1 Gnolls deal out 1d8+2; CR-2 Ogres deal out 2d6+7; CR-7 Hill Giants deal out 2d6+10; CR-10 Fire Giants deal out 2d8+15.

At every level, the opposition does enough damage to hurt the heroes and kill them in, say, three or four blows -- whether those are 7-point blows against a low-level Fighter or 24-point blows against a 10th-level Fighter.

Once we accept that everyone likes combat the way it is currently, where it takes three or four blows to finish someone, we can scale attack bonuses and damage versus defense bonuses (AC) and Hit Points a few different ways.

Right now, a 10th-level Fighter (79 hp) facing a Fire Giant can take about four shots (averaging 24 hp). Facing another 10th-level Fighter armed with a mundane bastard sword, he can take eight blows (1d10+5, averaging 10.5); versus a +1 sword he can take seven (1d10+6, averaging 11.5). Against a horde of 1st-level Warriors with spears, he can take countless hits -- 18 supposedly good shots (averaging 4.5).

If we halved the Fighter's Hit Points, he'd still be able to take two good shots from a 12-foot giant wielding a 12-foot sword -- or four good sword strokes from his equal, or nine spear thrusts from spear-carriers (who have a 1-in-20 chance of even hitting him). If we then make him twice as hard to hit, he's just as powerful as before, without all the hand-waving of hits that aren't hits, non-injuries that need healing, etc.

That's hardly the "wait for the crit" scenario painted as the only alternative to high-hp heroes. The brave Fighter hopes to slay the Fire Giant unscathed, but if he takes a hit, it really hurts. (Sounds right.) If he pairs off against his equal, he expects to take three or four good sword strokes before it's over, and he'll be sorely wounded -- but those blows won't all land in the first or second round. And he's still able to take an ungodly amount of punishment from the spear-carriers -- expecting 180 of their attacks before nine of them land and actually bring him down.

Or we could give everyone one Hit Point (or a single d4 Hit Die) and just ramp up their AC. That seems to be the Straw Golem everyone loves knocking down.

[I've commented on all this before.]

 

[frankthedm]

I think in 3e it's too easy for melee-brute monsters to hit PCs; but not vice versa.

Those melee brute monsters are supposed to be hitting every round. Monster hits PC fiercely, cleric heals PC. Tank cuts into monster with his magically enhanced weapon and magically enhanced STR and might even hit with the second attack, caster blasts monster, rogue moves to flak or turns invisible and attempts to hit with sneak attack. Monster again does mega damage again, cleric heals the victim and the rest of the party keep up the teamwork.

 

[Victim]

Vastly increasing AC while decreasing HP such that average time to death remains the same has a number of problems. First of all, not everything uses a to hit roll, so shifting the burder of defense gives a massive boost to attacks that don't go against AC (or only some sections of it). AC, HP, damage, and attack are not only linked to each other, but also to spell effects and other unconventional attacks. Second, in corner case situations, the additional AC has no impact. It's highly likely that the low level warriors already needed a 20 to hit the 10th level fighter, so he now effectively takes twice as much damage. In other words, the 10th level fighter is now obviously not as powerful as before. Finally, it would increase randomness.

Moreover, considering damage bonuses and the like, you don't need to remove too many HP before you might as well have 1 HP (against similarly leveled foes). You claim that the situation isn't "wait for the crit" but consider: the 10th level fighter now has 40-50 HP. A crit from the fire giant (24 damage) is now decisive. Similarly, fighters using higher damage, two handed weapons would have similarly nasty effects on a crit or the equally lucky double hit round.

 

[Aeric]

Also note that HP play an important role. If you make it harder to hit things, you should also reduce HP totals. Part of why monsters have such huge hitpoints is because they have low ACs.

So the decision is really this: Low ACs and high HP - or - High Acs and low HP.

I agree completely. This is something I've been thinking about recently, with regards to arcane casters and armor. Wizards and sorcerors are denied (or at least strongly discouraged from wearing) any kind of armor; presumably this is to keep them balanced with the other classes once they get the high-damage spells such as fireball. Sure, a caster can dish it out, but he can't take it. One or two solid hits can take him down. The way it is now, not only can a wizard not take a hit, it's also incredibly easy to hit him. IME, AC progression for casters is several levels behind armored characters.

I understand and agree with the reasoning behind the lower hit die--arcane casters simply do not receive the training other characters do to dodge or parry attacks, plus they are not terribly physical characters. However, to compound that vulnerability by making it extremely difficult to get a high armor class makes the arcane caster a very unattractive class in games where there is a lot of combat. The advent of fighter/mage core classes such as the War Wizard and Duskblade, classes which also start to get away from the armor restriction on casters, seem to support this theory.

I think in my next campaign, I am going to say that armor only offers an Arcane Spell Failure penalty if the caster is not proficient in the armor. I may or may not make all armor proficiencies class skills for everyone (I've done a bit of SCA fighting and learning how to move in armor is not as tough as D&D makes it out to be), but at the very least I will not penalize those poor wizards who blow several of their rare and precious feats just to get a fighting chance at life during the lower levels.

 

[mmadsen]

First of all, not everything uses a to hit roll, so shifting the burder of defense gives a massive boost to attacks that don't go against AC (or only some sections of it). AC, HP, damage, and attack are not only linked to each other, but also to spell effects and other unconventional attacks.

Certainly, if we're going to rebalance to-hit and damage values, we need to rebalance anything that relies on AC and/or hit points.

D&D is a hodge-podge of rules, and certain spells and magic items exist -- or are as "cheap" as they are -- to keep the game in balance. Obviously true strike, for instance, can't be a first-level spell in a system where hitting is hard but hurting is easy.

Second, in corner case situations, the additional AC has no impact. It's highly likely that the low level warriors already needed a 20 to hit the 10th level fighter, so he now effectively takes twice as much damage. In other words, the 10th level fighter is now obviously not as powerful as before.

As I said before, even after halving a 79-hp fighter's hit points, "he's still able to take an ungodly amount of punishment from the spear-carriers -- expecting 180 of their attacks before nine of them land and actually bring him down."