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

[mmadsen]

Is it even possible to increase the simulation and decrease the complexity or has 3.x already reached the best possible compromise?

I think we can indeed "increase the simulation" and decrease the complexity by moving toward a model where high-level characters have better defenses, where damage is not represented by ablative hit points but by a damage save, and where plot protection is represented by action points.

 

[Land Outcast]

I think we can indeed "increase the simulation" and decrease the complexity by moving toward a model where high-level characters have better defenses, where damage is not represented by ablative hit points but by a damage save, and where plot protection is represented by action points.

That system could well be one of contested rolls (defense vs. offense), with the damage save DC being determined by the difference between the Defense roll and the Offense roll. Magic damage would be based on a Casting Roll vs. Resistance Roll, with the damage save DC again being determined by the difference between the two rolls.

 

[Victim]

One of the things I like about d20 Modern - a class bonus to Defense plus MDT means lots of dodging and parrying like in a movie. Still too many hit points, but less than in DnD.

I'd like to see that change in 4E.

It also means combat is largely an excercise in rolling really high. Since most attacks will miss the static AC of a target, switching to opposed rolls has a better chance of success. It's nice to see Disarm and the like get some play. It's not so nice to see them used continually.

We were pretty desperate when facing foes packing high natural armor and class defenses.

 

[Rothe]

....snip....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....snip again ....

I like a fair number of those ideas. In particular I like the quoted portion.

 

[mmadsen]

I think we can indeed "increase the simulation" and decrease the complexity by moving toward a model where high-level characters have better defenses, where damage is not represented by ablative hit points but by a damage save, and where plot protection is represented by action points.

Realistically most attacks against a similarly skilled opponent should miss -- because real-life fighters like to defend themselves and hide behind things -- and any one hit might do just about anything, from negligible damage to instant death.

Sometimes the Delta Force guy takes a single shot to the throat and goes down; sometimes the random Joe takes a dozen shots to the chest and runs to the hospital under his own power.

That kind of randomness is important for verisimilitude, and it's very easy to replicate mechanically, but it doesn't lend itself to following one protagonist who's destined for greatness. For that you need to add action points, so our hero is never the guy who takes that one shot through the throat -- or he's the guy who takes that shot and doesn't notice, because that happens too.

 

[Rothe]

...

Consider Rolemaster (and indeed, Star Wars d20), which had Hit Points, but criticals would render that system irrelevant in many, if not most, combats.

Those systems tend to overemphasise the critical hit probability, which is not hard to do with a linear combat mechanic, i.e., a natural 20 always giving a 5% chance to critical, and hard to undo without secondary rolls, which can slow things down.

If you make the probability normally low, and scale it with the difference in skill level between opponents, it can be made to work much better. If scaled with skill level difference, the mighty warrior might be choping through lowly orcs that would slow a lesser fighter down. But if facing an army of orcs, with only a 1% chance to critical each, odds are it won't be a forgone conclusion he lives.

Likewise if you up the critical chance based on situation, surrounded by guard who have you hemmed in with spears and pointing crossbows at you, player may survive but maybe not if a few criticals happen. There's still room for heroic action, but the player's won't necessarily just tally up HP and know they will survive.

Criticals can add another dimension to combat via its different mechanical approach. A "backstab" now doesn't need oodles of multiples of damage to reflect deadliness, instead a vastly increased critical chance can work as well.

Finally, criticals don't need to mean instance death in a single blow, especially for PCs and tough monsters. Although lower than HP, and progressing far, far, slower than HP, the amount of critical damage one can sustain can be set to more than one average blow, but certainly less than 8 sword blows.

Well that's my critical thinking on the subject.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I'd say way too easy. I just got back from a 22nd level game where I put all 20 points of base attack bonus into power attack several times and still hit more often than I missed. I think I missed 4 times out of about 12 doing that.

 

[Aus_Snow]

No.

 

[mmadsen]

HP, apart from being a buffer, serve a very important factor in letting the players know how the combat is going. When someone gets low on hit points, then they know they are at risk. Interestingly, "hero points", that you can use to preserve yourself, serve a similar purpose.

Spear-carriers (or red-shirts) can serve the same purpose -- but low-level followers are pointless in modern D&D.

 

[mmadsen]

D&D is not about gun fights, and it's not about realistic combat, but I thought this, from The SOP9 Report - An Analysis Of NYPD Police Combat, might add to the discussion of how often attacks should hit:

Hit Potential In Gun Fights

The police officer's potential for hitting his adversary during armed confrontation has increased over the years and stands at slightly over 25% of the rounds fired. An assailant's skill was 11% in 1979.

In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 38%
3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5%
7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%

In 1992 the overall police hit potential was 17%. Where distances could be determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were:

Less than 3 yards ..... 28%
3 yards to 7 yards .... 11%
7 yards to 15 yards . 4.2%​